HERE IS THE PETITION FILE IN .PDF FORMAT:
http://rockpage.net/users/jrenner/SignaturePetition.pdf
I will post sections of the new rule as they are constructed. The 2nd post is the justification for the change, the 3rd is the proposed rule and the 4th is legal support of the proposed rule. I will edit these posts to reflect changes and additions.
Please feel free to critique or add to this in any way. I promise I won't be defensive, but you should have legal precedence to back it up.
Once we have a new rule we agree with (and I think we're close to that), somebody can start writing up a petition and start getting signatures. The justification doesn't need to be on the signature pages.
I really think the "licensees" are the ones to address the LCB. Everybody should start talking to bar owners and see if they will support this. There may be an attitude of "be careful what you ask for, you may get it".
Proposed Amendment to PA Code Title 40 S5.32(a) Noise Rule
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Proposed Amendment to PA Code Title 40 S5.32(a) Noise Rule
Last edited by lonewolf on Monday Nov 22, 2004, edited 5 times in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
The reason for petitioning this change is that the rule in question is legally vague:
According to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW k82(4) 92k82(4) Formerly 92k82 and
CRIMINAL LAW k13.1(1)110k13.1(1):
"Vague laws offend several important values: first, vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning; second, vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application; and third, where a vague statute abuts on sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms, it operates to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 1, 14."
First, the phrase "can be heard outside of the licensed premises" does not provide fair warning, since it does not specify what standard of hearing is used. A licensee with poor hearing ability may judge their premises to be in compliance with the rule, while an enforcing officer with excellent hearing ability may find the premises in violation. [FN1]
Second, the same phrase impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to the enforcing officer and the subsequent judicial for resolution on a subjective basis, since they have full discretion as to what constitutes a violation. With this broad power of discretion, there are attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. [FN2]
Third, the same phrase will inhibit the exercise of basic First Amendment freedoms, since the phrase's uncertain meanings will lead licensees to 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone'…'than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked'. Once found in violation, a licensee may refrain from providing entertainment altogether. This is unlawful 'prior restraint'.[FN3]
FN1. E.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 287, 82 S.Ct. 275, 280, 7 L.Ed.2d 285 (1961);United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 811, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954); Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 230--232, 71 S.Ct. 703, 707--708, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951); Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939); Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89, 41 S.Ct. 298, 300, 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921); International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 223--224, 34 S.Ct. 853, 855--856, 58 L.Ed. 1284 (1914).
FN2. E.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 1688, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 120, 89 S.Ct. 946, 951, 22 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (Black, J., concurring); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 684--685, 88 S.Ct. 1298, 1303--1304, 20 L.Ed.2d 225 (1968); Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 200, 86 S.Ct. 1407, 1410, 16 L.Ed.2d 469 (1966); Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90--91, 86 S.Ct. 211, 213--214, 15 L.Ed.2d 176 (1965); Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 71 S.Ct. 312, 95 L.Ed. 280 (s951); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 559--560, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 1149, 92 L.Ed. 1574 (1948);Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97--98, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741--742, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 261--264, 57 S.Ct. 732, 740--742, 81 L.Ed. 1066 (1937).
FN3. Where First Amendment interests are affected, a precise statute 'evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be . . . proscribed,' Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 236, 83 S.Ct. 680, 684, 9 L.Ed.2d 697 (1963), assures us that the legislature has focused on the First Amendment interests and determined that other governmental policies compel regulation. See Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup.Ct.Rev. 1, 32; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 200, 202, 82 S.Ct. 248, 271--272, 7 L.Ed.2d 207 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).
According to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW k82(4) 92k82(4) Formerly 92k82 and
CRIMINAL LAW k13.1(1)110k13.1(1):
"Vague laws offend several important values: first, vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning; second, vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application; and third, where a vague statute abuts on sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms, it operates to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 1, 14."
First, the phrase "can be heard outside of the licensed premises" does not provide fair warning, since it does not specify what standard of hearing is used. A licensee with poor hearing ability may judge their premises to be in compliance with the rule, while an enforcing officer with excellent hearing ability may find the premises in violation. [FN1]
Second, the same phrase impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to the enforcing officer and the subsequent judicial for resolution on a subjective basis, since they have full discretion as to what constitutes a violation. With this broad power of discretion, there are attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. [FN2]
Third, the same phrase will inhibit the exercise of basic First Amendment freedoms, since the phrase's uncertain meanings will lead licensees to 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone'…'than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked'. Once found in violation, a licensee may refrain from providing entertainment altogether. This is unlawful 'prior restraint'.[FN3]
FN1. E.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 287, 82 S.Ct. 275, 280, 7 L.Ed.2d 285 (1961);United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 811, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954); Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 230--232, 71 S.Ct. 703, 707--708, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951); Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939); Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89, 41 S.Ct. 298, 300, 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921); International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 223--224, 34 S.Ct. 853, 855--856, 58 L.Ed. 1284 (1914).
FN2. E.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 1688, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 120, 89 S.Ct. 946, 951, 22 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (Black, J., concurring); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 684--685, 88 S.Ct. 1298, 1303--1304, 20 L.Ed.2d 225 (1968); Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 200, 86 S.Ct. 1407, 1410, 16 L.Ed.2d 469 (1966); Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90--91, 86 S.Ct. 211, 213--214, 15 L.Ed.2d 176 (1965); Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 71 S.Ct. 312, 95 L.Ed. 280 (s951); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 559--560, 68 S.Ct. 1148, 1149, 92 L.Ed. 1574 (1948);Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97--98, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741--742, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 261--264, 57 S.Ct. 732, 740--742, 81 L.Ed. 1066 (1937).
FN3. Where First Amendment interests are affected, a precise statute 'evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be . . . proscribed,' Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 236, 83 S.Ct. 680, 684, 9 L.Ed.2d 697 (1963), assures us that the legislature has focused on the First Amendment interests and determined that other governmental policies compel regulation. See Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup.Ct.Rev. 1, 32; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 200, 202, 82 S.Ct. 248, 271--272, 7 L.Ed.2d 207 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).
Last edited by lonewolf on Friday Aug 06, 2004, edited 20 times in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Proposed Change:
Replace:
A licensee may not use or permit to be used inside or outside of the licensed premises a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof, can be heard on the outside of the licensed premises.
With:
A licensee may not use or permit to be used within the real property boundary of the licensed premises, a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof produces a sound pressure level which exceeds 62 decibels(A) for a duration of two minutes when measured from another real property at or beyond the real property boundary of the licensed premises.
Measurements are taken in sound pressure level units called decibels with a frequency weighting type A, using a conventional sound level meter which meets or exceeds the requirements for an ANSI Type S1A or Type S2A Sound Level Meter as specified by the American National Standards Institute specification, ANSI S1.43, or the latest approved revision thereof.
Replace:
A licensee may not use or permit to be used inside or outside of the licensed premises a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof, can be heard on the outside of the licensed premises.
With:
A licensee may not use or permit to be used within the real property boundary of the licensed premises, a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof produces a sound pressure level which exceeds 62 decibels(A) for a duration of two minutes when measured from another real property at or beyond the real property boundary of the licensed premises.
Measurements are taken in sound pressure level units called decibels with a frequency weighting type A, using a conventional sound level meter which meets or exceeds the requirements for an ANSI Type S1A or Type S2A Sound Level Meter as specified by the American National Standards Institute specification, ANSI S1.43, or the latest approved revision thereof.
Last edited by lonewolf on Wednesday Jul 28, 2004, edited 11 times in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Legal Support of Proposed Change:
The adoptation of an accepted standard of sound pressure level measurement limits would eliminate the vagueness of the present noise rule and provide Liquor Control Enforcement officers with a definite, repeatable and accurate method of enforcing a noise rule. Such a precise rule with measurable limits would stand the test of a higher court appeal.
Since by definition, a licensee is a private business or organization, the licensee's premises is a de facto business zone.
In drafting this proposal, the Borough of State College Noise Ordinance was used in reference, specifically, Section 9b which specifies the db(A) level limit for the Business District:
(9) No person(s) shall create or permit to be created noise which exceeds the following noise when measured at or beyond the property line of the noise source:
(a) All Districts – 58 dB(A), except,
(b) the Central Business District – 62 dB(A).
The adoptation of an accepted standard of sound pressure level measurement limits would eliminate the vagueness of the present noise rule and provide Liquor Control Enforcement officers with a definite, repeatable and accurate method of enforcing a noise rule. Such a precise rule with measurable limits would stand the test of a higher court appeal.
Since by definition, a licensee is a private business or organization, the licensee's premises is a de facto business zone.
In drafting this proposal, the Borough of State College Noise Ordinance was used in reference, specifically, Section 9b which specifies the db(A) level limit for the Business District:
(9) No person(s) shall create or permit to be created noise which exceeds the following noise when measured at or beyond the property line of the noise source:
(a) All Districts – 58 dB(A), except,
(b) the Central Business District – 62 dB(A).
Last edited by lonewolf on Saturday Jul 24, 2004, edited 3 times in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
The Signature Petition page:
We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania do hereby request that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board replace the rule listed in the Pennsylvania Code, Title 40, Subchapter C, Amusement and Entertainment, § 5.32. Restrictions/exceptions, (a) from:
"A licensee may not use or permit to be used inside or outside of the licensed premises a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof, can be heard on the outside of the licensed premises."
With:
"A licensee may not use or permit to be used within the real property boundary of the licensed premises, a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof produces a sound pressure level which exceeds 62 decibels(A) for a duration of two minutes when measured from another real property at or beyond the real property boundary of the licensed premises.
Measurements are taken in sound pressure level units called decibels with a frequency weighting type A, using a conventional sound level meter which meets or exceeds the requirements for an ANSI Type S1A or Type S2A Sound Level Meter as specified by the American National Standards Institute specification, ANSI S1.43, or the latest approved revision thereof."
We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania do hereby request that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board replace the rule listed in the Pennsylvania Code, Title 40, Subchapter C, Amusement and Entertainment, § 5.32. Restrictions/exceptions, (a) from:
"A licensee may not use or permit to be used inside or outside of the licensed premises a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof, can be heard on the outside of the licensed premises."
With:
"A licensee may not use or permit to be used within the real property boundary of the licensed premises, a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof produces a sound pressure level which exceeds 62 decibels(A) for a duration of two minutes when measured from another real property at or beyond the real property boundary of the licensed premises.
Measurements are taken in sound pressure level units called decibels with a frequency weighting type A, using a conventional sound level meter which meets or exceeds the requirements for an ANSI Type S1A or Type S2A Sound Level Meter as specified by the American National Standards Institute specification, ANSI S1.43, or the latest approved revision thereof."
Last edited by lonewolf on Monday Aug 02, 2004, edited 3 times in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Looks to me like ya got it, I'm not a lawyer or a sound expert but that seems reasonable to me. Here's a thought, if the licensees propose this, won't there be poitical repercussions? but If we musicians propose it ON BEHALF of the lisensees with their consent and assistance, won't it give the bar owners some political cover?
The last thing I would want to see is the LCB reject the petition and then go sound hunting and shut down everybody while we appeal to the Governor.
2 more things first, this MUST BE ON PAPER, a online petition won't cut it and it needs to come from registerd voters and from All over the state, but the internet can help us with that, we've played clubs all over PA and so have most of you
and 2nd, we're gonna need some political muscle as to help push this through a State Senator or a couple of State reps would be helpful, I know the LCB doesn't answer to the legislature but A few phone calls in the right ears can only help, it would be best if it's someone who owes us musicians his job but since that's unlikely in this area, at least in this election cycle, we'll have to take what we can get.
If we're gonna hit the LCB we need to hit them hard and with a big enough stick to put them down for a while.
Then we can work on the legalities of mechandise and some of the other things that are screwy about trying to gig in PA.
The last thing I would want to see is the LCB reject the petition and then go sound hunting and shut down everybody while we appeal to the Governor.
2 more things first, this MUST BE ON PAPER, a online petition won't cut it and it needs to come from registerd voters and from All over the state, but the internet can help us with that, we've played clubs all over PA and so have most of you
and 2nd, we're gonna need some political muscle as to help push this through a State Senator or a couple of State reps would be helpful, I know the LCB doesn't answer to the legislature but A few phone calls in the right ears can only help, it would be best if it's someone who owes us musicians his job but since that's unlikely in this area, at least in this election cycle, we'll have to take what we can get.
If we're gonna hit the LCB we need to hit them hard and with a big enough stick to put them down for a while.
Then we can work on the legalities of mechandise and some of the other things that are screwy about trying to gig in PA.
Blooz to Youz
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Since we are the ones with the volume control, it might make a better case if an organization of musicians petitioned the LCB. Its reasonable to request measurable rules to control our sound. It would also provide cover for the owners.Here's a thought, if the licensees propose this, won't there be poitical repercussions? but If we musicians propose it ON BEHALF of the lisensees with their consent and assistance, won't it give the bar owners some political cover?
1. We need a musicians' organization complete with address and phone number.
2. It would require some change for the petition.
Once we come to a concensus, and the wording is how we want it, we can make an official copy of the entire petition, including all of the above sections, to be entrusted to the organization. Aside from that, we need to have a petition signature sheet that anybody can download (pdf), get signatures and send back to the organization. That's the last item above, called "the petition".2 more things first, this MUST BE ON PAPER, a online petition won't cut it and it needs to come from registerd voters and from All over the state, but the internet can help us with that, we've played clubs all over PA and so have most of you
The next step is to start or identify a musicians' organization complete with address and phone number that will sponsor this effort.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
I'd like to hear from a lawyer who specializes in this kind of thing, but I think the wording as posted here is fine.
As to organizations. . .I have not been too impressed with my contacts with the AFM (that could be just me, too) but they are the only organization with the kind of Data base we need that would include the whole state. My worry is that they will insist on membership in order to get involved and I don't see that happening, $133 (that includes initiaion fees and 1st year's dues) is a little much, (and that's the Johnstown local 41, the cheapest I could find) and frankly, I have yet to find a clear benefit other than they might have what we want, right now.
We could, using the internt and word of mouth, create one. . . .
PIMO (pronounced Pee-moe)
Pennsylvania Independant Musicians Organization
there are 3 requirements for membership
1. You support this petition
2. You play an instrument or sing.
3. you declare yourself a member.
Our goal is to make Pennsylvania a more live music friendly place.
just an idea.
I dunno, anybody an AFM member? can we call these guys, talk to them?
again I think you coverd all the bases here as far as the writing goes I think it's time to pdf this thing get a signing.
As to organizations. . .I have not been too impressed with my contacts with the AFM (that could be just me, too) but they are the only organization with the kind of Data base we need that would include the whole state. My worry is that they will insist on membership in order to get involved and I don't see that happening, $133 (that includes initiaion fees and 1st year's dues) is a little much, (and that's the Johnstown local 41, the cheapest I could find) and frankly, I have yet to find a clear benefit other than they might have what we want, right now.
We could, using the internt and word of mouth, create one. . . .
PIMO (pronounced Pee-moe)
Pennsylvania Independant Musicians Organization
there are 3 requirements for membership
1. You support this petition
2. You play an instrument or sing.
3. you declare yourself a member.
Our goal is to make Pennsylvania a more live music friendly place.
just an idea.
I dunno, anybody an AFM member? can we call these guys, talk to them?
again I think you coverd all the bases here as far as the writing goes I think it's time to pdf this thing get a signing.
Blooz to Youz
First, lonewolf- big props on work so far. Think you've about 97.8% nailed most of this stuff.
A few points. The use of the word 'outside' with speakers is a big red flag. I know, I know, it's sensible. BUT, is it a hill everyone agrees to die on? Some folks see the nice ambient speaker at the outside cafe or on an outside porch but opponents first though will be 'LOUDspeaker' and, if you run through every venue you can think of-- just imagine the big parking lot and dim lit joint-- there will be terror in opponents (and some legislators) eyes. This all has been done in Harrisburg and I could FYI you on this or any of the following.
Next, proposed reg looks great. But might help to have either time or occurance referenced. If excess noise can be one-time of recordable duration then--- that's how they catch truckers with jake brakes. Even a 5 second stop sign/light can be an offense. Might think of "exceeds level for duration of xxx seconds, with a least xxx occurances within xxx minutes" I might suggest 5 seconds with three occurances within 10 or 15 minutes. This saftey eliminates the passing truck, squelching sound system, or idiot with an air can or firecrackers becoming a music violation.
Again, big props (and for Vinny too) for considering the reg before Legislative route. I doubt one is faster than the other, but it's a kind of ask before demand idea. And along those lines, maybe it would be fruitfull to just flat out ask the PCLB " Hey, we are considering petitioning to make these changes- what do you need to make this effort easy and meaningfull" If the agency can be co-opted/consulted, it's likely all to the good. Hey, their bottom line is enforcement, and in a lot of ways they don't care what they enforce (in many ways, the more complicated the better, makes 'em the gurus) as long as they get to enforce it.
Along those lines, two final things. One, the standing issue. Licencees almost certainly have it. I, not unlike Vinny, am not so sure an indepent group could ask for a reg change before the PCLB. But they would surely know or at least have an opinion. Also, for petitions. There is no universal or statutory definition of petitions (that I know of). The Election Code has requirements, and some statutes have their own specifics. Again, I'd guess the PCLB has its own ideas of what it will accept. The minimum, generally, that I've come across requires the pages to be number, after page one, and have a front or cover page that says, along these lines...." I have collected these signatures from these persons who signed in my presense" This page gets signed and notorized (sp). Internet petitions or leave-at the counter petitions generally are given no weight. And, at a minimum, the signers need their name and home adress.
Sorry I'm late weighing in on this- real life is a burn
A few points. The use of the word 'outside' with speakers is a big red flag. I know, I know, it's sensible. BUT, is it a hill everyone agrees to die on? Some folks see the nice ambient speaker at the outside cafe or on an outside porch but opponents first though will be 'LOUDspeaker' and, if you run through every venue you can think of-- just imagine the big parking lot and dim lit joint-- there will be terror in opponents (and some legislators) eyes. This all has been done in Harrisburg and I could FYI you on this or any of the following.
Next, proposed reg looks great. But might help to have either time or occurance referenced. If excess noise can be one-time of recordable duration then--- that's how they catch truckers with jake brakes. Even a 5 second stop sign/light can be an offense. Might think of "exceeds level for duration of xxx seconds, with a least xxx occurances within xxx minutes" I might suggest 5 seconds with three occurances within 10 or 15 minutes. This saftey eliminates the passing truck, squelching sound system, or idiot with an air can or firecrackers becoming a music violation.
Again, big props (and for Vinny too) for considering the reg before Legislative route. I doubt one is faster than the other, but it's a kind of ask before demand idea. And along those lines, maybe it would be fruitfull to just flat out ask the PCLB " Hey, we are considering petitioning to make these changes- what do you need to make this effort easy and meaningfull" If the agency can be co-opted/consulted, it's likely all to the good. Hey, their bottom line is enforcement, and in a lot of ways they don't care what they enforce (in many ways, the more complicated the better, makes 'em the gurus) as long as they get to enforce it.
Along those lines, two final things. One, the standing issue. Licencees almost certainly have it. I, not unlike Vinny, am not so sure an indepent group could ask for a reg change before the PCLB. But they would surely know or at least have an opinion. Also, for petitions. There is no universal or statutory definition of petitions (that I know of). The Election Code has requirements, and some statutes have their own specifics. Again, I'd guess the PCLB has its own ideas of what it will accept. The minimum, generally, that I've come across requires the pages to be number, after page one, and have a front or cover page that says, along these lines...." I have collected these signatures from these persons who signed in my presense" This page gets signed and notorized (sp). Internet petitions or leave-at the counter petitions generally are given no weight. And, at a minimum, the signers need their name and home adress.
Sorry I'm late weighing in on this- real life is a burn
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
On the "outside" issue. That's a good point. My 1st inclination was to not change the 1st phrase at all, since that is not what was at issue. There are actually newer guidelines that replace "loudspeaker". In looking at it, it doesn't need to use the word "inside" either.JohnTrain wrote:First, lonewolf- big props on work so far. Think you've about 97.8% nailed most of this stuff.
A few points. The use of the word 'outside' with speakers is a big red flag. I know, I know, it's sensible. BUT, is it a hill everyone agrees to die on? Some folks see the nice ambient speaker at the outside cafe or on an outside porch but opponents first though will be 'LOUDspeaker' and, if you run through every venue you can think of-- just imagine the big parking lot and dim lit joint-- there will be terror in opponents (and some legislators) eyes. This all has been done in Harrisburg and I could FYI you on this or any of the following.
Next, proposed reg looks great. But might help to have either time or occurance referenced. If excess noise can be one-time of recordable duration then--- that's how they catch truckers with jake brakes. Even a 5 second stop sign/light can be an offense. Might think of "exceeds level for duration of xxx seconds, with a least xxx occurances within xxx minutes" I might suggest 5 seconds with three occurances within 10 or 15 minutes. This saftey eliminates the passing truck, squelching sound system, or idiot with an air can or firecrackers becoming a music violation.
Again, big props (and for Vinny too) for considering the reg before Legislative route. I doubt one is faster than the other, but it's a kind of ask before demand idea. And along those lines, maybe it would be fruitfull to just flat out ask the PCLB " Hey, we are considering petitioning to make these changes- what do you need to make this effort easy and meaningfull" If the agency can be co-opted/consulted, it's likely all to the good. Hey, their bottom line is enforcement, and in a lot of ways they don't care what they enforce (in many ways, the more complicated the better, makes 'em the gurus) as long as they get to enforce it.
Along those lines, two final things. One, the standing issue. Licencees almost certainly have it. I, not unlike Vinny, am not so sure an indepent group could ask for a reg change before the PCLB. But they would surely know or at least have an opinion. Also, for petitions. There is no universal or statutory definition of petitions (that I know of). The Election Code has requirements, and some statutes have their own specifics. Again, I'd guess the PCLB has its own ideas of what it will accept. The minimum, generally, that I've come across requires the pages to be number, after page one, and have a front or cover page that says, along these lines...." I have collected these signatures from these persons who signed in my presense" This page gets signed and notorized (sp). Internet petitions or leave-at the counter petitions generally are given no weight. And, at a minimum, the signers need their name and home adress.
Sorry I'm late weighing in on this- real life is a burn
What about: "A licensee may not use or permit to be used within the licensed property boundary, a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment,..."
On the timing issue: There is actually a "slow reading method" specification in ANSI to take care of that. I'll take a closer look to see if that needs specified or if the ANSI statement takes care of it as is.
I'm a little puzzled about who should present it to the PLCB as well. It doesn't specify any qualification requirements in the petition guidelines:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/001/c ... 35.18.html
My inclination has been toward the licensees, since the reg was written for them. On the other hand, it may be difficult and time consuming to get the bar owners on board...the argument for a musicians organization. We may need legal advise on this issue.
As far as petitions, my intent is to make a pdf file similar to your description, with lines for signature, name and address. The idea is to get people to download the file, print it out and go get signatures...and notarize them, if need be. Setting up an on-line petition was never my intent...I doubt if we could ever legitimize something like that.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
I agree that we should have a lawyer look over this...before we start getting signatures. There is no hurry to get this out, and we sure don't want to get 100,000 signatures and find out they are moot.FatVin wrote:I'd like to hear from a lawyer who specializes in this kind of thing, but I think the wording as posted here is fine.
As to organizations. . .
We could, using the internt and word of mouth, create one. . . .
PIMO (pronounced Pee-moe)
I dunno, anybody an AFM member? can we call these guys, talk to them?
again I think you coverd all the bases here as far as the writing goes I think it's time to pdf this thing get a signing.
PIMO looks good if there is no existing organization out there. I don't know of any.
Does anybody know of a statewide music or musicians organization that would be interested in supporting this effort?
The AFM should have a stake in this issue, so it wouldn't hurt to approach them and see if they want to support our position. Our dearly departed Loy Appleman was the only AFM rep that I knew, and I haven't been a member since about 1977.
If there are any AFM reps or members interested in this, please make a post or a PM
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
I made a few changes to the 1st paragraph regarding the property definition and the duration of a measurement.
Two minutes should be long enough for any single external noise to pass and I seriously doubt the LCB will want the enforcing officers to stand around in an alley for any longer period of time.
Hey everybody, check out the changes and then please comment, etc.
Two minutes should be long enough for any single external noise to pass and I seriously doubt the LCB will want the enforcing officers to stand around in an alley for any longer period of time.
Hey everybody, check out the changes and then please comment, etc.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Well, the legal part looks like its ready to be proofread by an attorney. I would like to officially pass the ball to the group to get a quorum on the organizational aspects of this project.
If everybody likes the petition as written, I'll make up a generic signature gathering .pdf file and see if Ron will post it on Rockpage. People can then download it, print it out, get signatures and send it back to the official address. Once the whole document is put together, I'll make a .pdf of that too, as a reference.
If everybody likes the petition as written, I'll make up a generic signature gathering .pdf file and see if Ron will post it on Rockpage. People can then download it, print it out, get signatures and send it back to the official address. Once the whole document is put together, I'll make a .pdf of that too, as a reference.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
LW et al:
Once again, great work.
The more I think of the property boundary issue, though, it could present a problem.
Fer instance, a joint with a large property that bounds a manufacturing plant or interstate. Any sound recorded there would be 'other' than music generated.
Since the whole point is to 'protect' persons/homes from 'noise' generated by an establishment, it might be better to have a fixed point from the source- regardless of if it is on or off the premises.
I think alot of this is thought through with the actual implementation of sound ordinances and by folks who do this, so it's not a fatal flaw with the proposal which overall is exceptional.
And I agree. Time is not 'of the essence', it would be more important to have a cohesive plan of action and proceed knowing it's gonna be two steps foreward, one and three quarters steps backwards. Change is very infrequently radical in the Commonwealth
Once again, great work.
The more I think of the property boundary issue, though, it could present a problem.
Fer instance, a joint with a large property that bounds a manufacturing plant or interstate. Any sound recorded there would be 'other' than music generated.
Since the whole point is to 'protect' persons/homes from 'noise' generated by an establishment, it might be better to have a fixed point from the source- regardless of if it is on or off the premises.
I think alot of this is thought through with the actual implementation of sound ordinances and by folks who do this, so it's not a fatal flaw with the proposal which overall is exceptional.
And I agree. Time is not 'of the essence', it would be more important to have a cohesive plan of action and proceed knowing it's gonna be two steps foreward, one and three quarters steps backwards. Change is very infrequently radical in the Commonwealth
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
I had gone thru a lot of thought about those situations and this is my logic and why I don't think change is needed:
1. Distances won't work because it will encroach on another private property owner with just about every corner bar in any neighborhood. 50' in many directions and you are in the neighbor's KITCHEN! I strongly feel that if a bar is that close to a residential property line (and housing), they should either soundproof the bar or they don't belong in the entertainment business.
One thing everybody should understand is that 25 years ago, with few exceptions, live bands didn't play corner bars in residential zones. The venues were generally larger and were located in designated commercial/business zones or outside of town. There was a reason for this.......
2. "Real Property" excludes all public thoroughfares, so the interstates and streets are out of the picture (I thought that was a pretty neat trick and will save many in-town bars, which is our main goal!).
3. The sound pressure level must be produced by a loudspeaker on the licensed property. Noise generated by the industrial zone would not apply. Also, the industrial zone has as much right to its privacy as any resident.
1. Distances won't work because it will encroach on another private property owner with just about every corner bar in any neighborhood. 50' in many directions and you are in the neighbor's KITCHEN! I strongly feel that if a bar is that close to a residential property line (and housing), they should either soundproof the bar or they don't belong in the entertainment business.
One thing everybody should understand is that 25 years ago, with few exceptions, live bands didn't play corner bars in residential zones. The venues were generally larger and were located in designated commercial/business zones or outside of town. There was a reason for this.......
2. "Real Property" excludes all public thoroughfares, so the interstates and streets are out of the picture (I thought that was a pretty neat trick and will save many in-town bars, which is our main goal!).
3. The sound pressure level must be produced by a loudspeaker on the licensed property. Noise generated by the industrial zone would not apply. Also, the industrial zone has as much right to its privacy as any resident.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
bassist_25
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6815
- Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
- Location: Indiana
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
As Ron announced, the .pdf of the signature petition is posted for downloading as a "sticky" under "THE LAW":
http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3889
http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3889
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Would it be of any benefit to have the names and addresses of any supporters keyed into a database? I'm just thinking that the original signature sheets could be presented for authenticity but any copies of the proposal and sigs. could be contained in the database for reporting purposes. We could also utilize the information to contact these folks for any support needed in the future.
It would take me some time but I'd be willing to work on this if we agree that there is some value to it.
It would take me some time but I'd be willing to work on this if we agree that there is some value to it.
