To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Alex Lagina has a few thoughts about the noise ordinance on the agenda of the Township Board meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 14, 7 p.m. at the Township Hall. The board will discuss Noise Ordinance No. 40, Amendment 2, with possible action to take place. View the meeting agenda and packet here. -jb
At this Tuesday’s Township Board meeting, the Board will consider an amendment to the Peninsula Township Noise Ordinance which has the potential to dramatically alter what you can and can’t do on your property on the Old Mission Peninsula.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
In case you think I’m overstating the severity of these changes: among other things, the proposed ordinance would effectively make talking on your property after 10 p.m. a violation.
The draft being considered has numerous problems, but here is one of the worst: it makes “vocal noises” and “the operation of … any electronic or mechanical sound-producing device, including any musical instrument” between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. that are “plainly audible” on any property other than your own a prima facie violation of the ordinance. In plain English, that means: if you can’t prove that you didn’t violate the ordinance, you’re guilty.
That inversion of the standard of proof is bad enough, but it gets much, much worse. The ordinance defines “plainly audible” as being “any sound that can be detected by a person using his or her unaided hearing faculties.” That is effectively a 0 dB standard for establishing a violation – and that violation can be as simple as a spoken word.
By way of example, a quiet library would be roughly 30,000 times louder than the standard Peninsula Township is considering. That’s not an exaggeration. This is perhaps the most absurd overreach by the Township in a long and storied history of overreaching.
Do you enjoy morning walks with a friend? Under the new rules, you’d better not do any talking, because if you do, every property you pass could create a separate violation. Do you have a crying baby at home? If your baby cries after 10 p.m. and anyone on a different property can so much as perceive it, you’d better be equipped to prove that wasn’t a violation.
The same goes for playing a musical instrument. If you have wind chimes, you’ll probably also have to take those down every night at 10 p.m. These are just a few examples; the reality is that virtually every activity people find enjoyable generates at least some sound, and virtually all of those would be violations under the new ordinance unless you can prove your innocence.
And that leads to another important question. How is a resident supposed to prove that they didn’t violate the ordinance? In the latest draft, the objective standards, using a unit of measure for sound called decibels, have actually been removed. Not only are residents responsible for proving (for example) that calling the dog in at 10:15 p.m. wasn’t a noise violation, they also now have been deprived of the only objective standard that could help them do so.
Instead, apparently, they have to prove that their laughing children returning home on Halloween night (another example) wouldn’t “unreasonably annoy a person of normal sensitivities.” This is precisely the reason Mr. Sanger (Township Enforcement Officer -jb) called the old ordinance unenforceable – it’s very, very difficult to prove whether a reasonable person of normal sensitivities would or would not be annoyed by a sound. Only now, the township is trying to shift that burden of proof to the citizens. You’re automatically guilty, and good luck proving otherwise.
There will likely be some people – perhaps the Township themselves – saying that they will not enforce the ordinance this way. That may be the case, but if it is: why does the ordinance need to be written this way in the first place? Why do we need such an onerously worded ordinance if it’s not going to be enforced the way it is written? The answer is obvious: It doesn’t need to be written this way.
In full disclosure, I work for a business that is involved with the WOMP lawsuit against the township. I imagine that’s enough for some people to question my motives for writing this letter. But my wife and I are in the process of building our forever home here. That means we would have to live with the restrictions and be subject to the eventual costs of an illegal ordinance as much as anyone else.
I grew up on the Old Mission Peninsula. I used to walk to Underwood Farm Market as a child to buy my favorite treat at the time, Big League Chew bubblegum (I also expect criticism for my taste in candy, and that’s entirely justified). My neighbor (one year older than me) and I used to sit around a campfire behind our homes, sometimes past 10 p.m. And, probably at times, the other neighbors could hear us talking or laughing. Do we need to make that illegal?
Personally, having spent close to the first 18 years of my life in Peninsula Township, I think the existing noise ordinance is fine. But if it needs to be updated, it should be objective, reasonable, and fair. What is before the Board now is anything but that. I urge our leaders to scrap this unreasonable draft, and come up with something that is objective, fair, and respectful of the fact that in order to live a rich life, we need to tolerate occasional noise from someone else doing the same.
– Alex Lagina
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Ridiculous and a waste of the township funds.
Worse still is the thought of our enforcement officer running around eavesdropping on conversations. Think I am exaggerating. He recently left his home at night when he heard noise coming from one of the wineries. Imagine if you will you are having guests over to your house and you are on your deck arguing politics. Your neighbor calls the township to complain you are too loud because he doesn’t like your politics. So the zoning enforcement officer puts on his vest and hightails it over to your house and next thing you know you are cited for violating the ordinance.
Surely there are better things for our township officials to address. We have light ordinances, now a noise ordinance what’s next? Maybe a color scheme ordinance. You know you can only paint your house U of M colors.
And he probably got paid overtime for the trip.🤷♀️🤔😬
Are you always this paranoid about everything?
Overreacting has been the hallmark of our leadership It’s time for clearer thinking!
Time for a change…
Last election was that time. Unfortunately, the majority didn’t vote that way
It is useful to have a ordinance. This should be simplified and it is needed to have a backstop for behavior that gets out of hand. Without this we can’t expect enforcement not only from our enforcement officer but any additional support from our local police patrol. While most of us are good neighbors and respect each other, there are situations that arise in any community that won’t fit that description and that is why we have rules. I don’t expect we will have to lean on these rules often but when we need them we can’t retroactively ask for them. I have a very good friend with a cabin in northern Michigan with a disrespectful neighbor that is not only bothersome, but disruptive and causes people to not use their property. Insane, but allowed because that township has no noise ordinance and the county sheriff can’t force the offender to stop. Nice conversations go so far, then we need something to protect us from the occasional and hopefully rare village disruptor.
And WOMP says PTP is fear mongering!
Unfortunately, you’re discredited by your last name and association with WOMP. You know exactly why that standard was put in place. Your neighbors in Underwood don’t want to hear the ruckus coming from the vinyard if WOMP gets its demands met.