City Attorney Mac McCarley tells me the city staff is pulling the plug on a chunk of its proposal to change the city's noise ordinance. A new version will be offered Monday at the 3 p.m. public hearing that, McCarley says, aims for a balance that won't hurt performers and bars that aren't causing problems for neighbors.
The ordinance change has made a lot of musicians, bar owners and nightlife denizens angry, and McCarley said, they've been heard. (Read some of the Observer's coverage here -- Mark Washburn - "New noise rule is music to our ears" ; "Pub owners decry new noise limits" ; "Debate over outdoor music in Charlotte")
The proposed change to the ordinance would have barred "sound amplification equipment out of doors or directed out of doors" for live music or "other forms of entertainment" at a business if the amplifiers are less than 400 feet from residences. It would also bar amplified sound outdoors (note the outdoors, please. It doesn't apply to indoor music) at a business that's audible on residentially zoned property.
When I talked to McCarley about noon Friday, he said he and his staff were still working through exactly what they'd propose to the City Council but that it would be aimed at businesses that cause problems and try to protect those that don't.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
City pulls plug on proposed loud music measure
Friday, January 29, 2010
Seeking "stakeholders"
If you've been on a "stakeholder committee" for the city of Charlotte (or Mecklenburg County, for that matter) and would be willing to undergo a short interview about your experience, please e-mail me today at mnewsom@charlotteobserver.com I'm writing my Saturday op-ed column about the stakeholder experience. (An aside, I got plenty of reaction to the uptown retail column of last week, but with no access to e-mail for most of the week I couldn't do a follow-up column. Maybe next week?)
And yes, our e-mail at the Observer is finally back in full this morning. I noticed that without e-mail I did a lot more walking around our office – is e-mail part of what's making Americans obese? And I noticed that once it was restored in a sort of circa 1993 version, 85 percent of what was in there was Viagra spam, Pfizer spam, "Russian girls" spam, press releases from GOP congressional PR folk and some over-the-transom op-eds offered by PR firms. Ugh.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Planners DO try to reduce paper
This just in: Planner Tom Drake, hearing about Stephen Overcash's lament about the 26 copies of each rezoning plan, tells me that the city Planning Department now lets you submit only 12 copies plus a CD. But you have to do that each time you submit a new plan for review.
That's only half the paper, which is something, I suppose. ...
Ahem, Charlotte: REDUCE, reuse, recycle?
Got an interesting e-mail from local architect Stephen Overcash of Overcash-Demmitt Architects, responding to my Saturday op-ed on Charlotte and recycling. He points out that there are other ways in which, in his opinion, the city's operations could be far "greener." Take, for instance, the dozens of very large paper plans you have to submit multiple times for every rezoning.
His note:
Hi, Mary:I enjoyed your article last weekend about the City of Charlotte not really being very green and I agree. I am an architect and am appalled at all the waste in the governmental system. There was a discussion over a year ago if the City should hire a Green Guru to help make recommendations, but the Mayor stated that he thought it wouldn't be prudent to incur that expense in the midst of a downturn in the economy. First of all, a good Guru will save the taxpayer his salary many times over in reduced costs. Second, I think with all the professionals that are unemployed, it would be a good time to "get a bargain."
I agree that we need better receptacles for recycling, but out of the three: reduce, reuse and recycle....recycling is a good, but distant third choice. The City of Charlotte should be striving to reduce.....
One example of my frustration: Every time I apply for a rezoning, I am told to submit 26 full-size sheets (sometimes the submittal is 2-3 sheets). Supposedly these are distributed around the various agencies that review them, but we only get comments from about 8 agencies. When I have repeatedly asked the Planning Department (and Debra Campbell directly), I am given some version of an answer that "that's the way it is," "that's the way it's always been done," etc.
When I asked her where the additional 20 sets go, she informed me that many departments, such as DOT, have several reviewers and they all need their own set. Planning is not amenable to a couple of sets to share and a PDF to review on the screen ... or better yet, just an electronic file where I don't have to drive the hard sets down. Once we receive comments, they request another 26 sets, for the second review. Once we are approved, they request a final 15 sets. Where is all this paper going? Why can't the City come into the 20th Century and only request an electronic file that would save storage space, additional files, air conditioning, on and on? (I pray that all the old sets of drawings are at least being recycled behind the scenes, but have been afraid to ask.)
I appreciate your articles trying to keep a little pressure on the Government.
Disgusted in Charlotte,
Stephen Overcash
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Recycling, redux
If you didn't see my Saturday column on recycling in Charlotte, take a look here. And in a related matter, in a previous posting, I promised follow-up information on the new recycling bins, and whether we could recycle the old red ones.