Unplugged at the Grove Shut Down Due to Noise Complaint

I was at a similar small venue (0.00 / 0)

talking to the owner. He pointed his own decibel meter at the passing traffic, and it exceeded the levels allowed by the noise ordinance. Might be a fun experiment on Barton Springs Road.

So how about a compromise--if we can successfully ban traffic first, then we can worry about curtailing reasonable levels of live music.

Now on Twitter: KathTX

---

by: Katherine Haenschen @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 10:43:46 AM CDT

Seriously (0.00 / 0)

I love Shady Grove, and I love Unplugged at the Grove. I mean, I get there early and sit close -- its an awesome chance to see some of Austin's best artists. Had this happened when I was there, I would have done a streaming video report from the place.

I know we need to respect neighbors, etc. But 8 or 8:30pm, breaking "small auditorium" noise levels -- COME ON, PEOPLE!

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 10:57:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm gonna go out on a limb (0.00 / 0)

and say that the 2nd response above (YeahIsaidit) is satire.

Not terribly good satire, but a joke nonetheless.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:21:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope (0.00 / 0)

that you are correct.
Sheesh. That was some comment.

---

by: ikoikoaustin @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 15:43:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unlikely (0.00 / 0)

The task force behind the ordinance was heavily pushed by long-time residents of the Zilker neighborhood; the new condos don't even HAVE residents yet.

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.c...

Jeff Jack, other long-time Zilker leaders in there. Go read it.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:12:44 AM CDT

Ah (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the heads up.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:57:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is what you get when you beg for a Nanny State. (0.00 / 0)

We've groomed and elected public officials and people, for that matter, to expect that the city has a right/duty/obligation to make the town as comfortable and non-confrontational as possible, resulting in a wussification of Austin.

If there was a true noise concern then it would have been more amicable and efficient for that neighbor or group of neighbors to politely write a letter and hand-deliver it, maybe even sit down with management of Shady Grove. If they don't get there way then they can make their own noise to drown-out Unplugged at the Grove.  But no, we can't have differing factions of the public talk to each other without city council involvement, we must call 9-11 everytime there's a dispute that needs to be resolved no matter how small.

Everyone needs to reassess their philosophical POV of what the role of government should be in this town. You can't demand McMansion restrictions, or other limits on property use, but then exclude noise or overreaching capacity restrictions. Control is control when you're granting authority to a governing body, especially in this city, they don't see it any other way, never have never will.

---

by: nowayjose @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:13:06 AM CDT

For the record (0.00 / 0)

I don't want control of McMansions, except to make sure they are environmentally safe for the area where they are built.

And I think protecting watersheds for the next 50 years and keeping music below 75db are two drastically different measures, so I'd be wary of false equivalence.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:58:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

McMansions and environment (0.00 / 0)

Ironic you say that, because the original justification for the ordinance was a 'drainage emergency', yet the ordinance doesn't actually address impervious cover at all; and, in fact, the primary consequence of the ordinance in practice has been to discourage second floors and encourage full use of the impervious cover entitlement in a ground floor instead.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 14:17:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's crazy (0.00 / 0)

Seriously, Jose, what you propose is so far our of whack as to how we act as a society.  To follow your analogy, do you really think it is efficient for one party that is offended by noise to, as a remedy, make thier own noise to drown out the other?  Do you really think our lives would improve with no government restrictions -- you bring up McMansion, so let's look at land use.  Should I really be able to operate a swine feed lot on my property next to a hospital, a single family home or a day care?  Clearly we need some reasonable rules by which to live in a dense urban environment.  Now, one can argue what is reasonable and that is the essence of the democratic form of government, but to say that government has no role is folly.

---

by: The Lorax @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 13:16:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes and No (0.00 / 0)

do you really think it is efficient for one party that is offended by noise to, as a remedy, make thier own noise to drown out the other?

Yes. Why not? Do you really have to involve a blind third party (the code enforcement) to solve a dispute? It costs taxpayers who aren't even involved in the dispute or appreciative about said neighborhood or venue to pay the city workers. It's called dispute resolution and it works 100% better than demonizing neighborhood associations or excessive noise violators.

Do you really think our lives would improve with no government restrictions?

Yes I do. Enforce strict property rights and most every problem solves itself or is clearly identified as an independent problem not dependent on a government solution. It's never the lack of government that's the problem, it's the bad influences that are inherent in government.

Should I really be able to operate a swine feed lot on my property next to a hospital, a single family home or a day care?

Maybe. If you can pull off a self-contained swine feed lot that doesn't produce run-off or runaway swine or airborne diseases then what in the world is wrong with having a swine feed lot in the middle of the city. The problem is that's nearly impossible, so once again private property rights lead to good.

I understand my philosophy is akin to a "fantasy world" but I just want to let you know that when you depend on an entity (government, family, boss) for certain things they will undoubtedly exercise your dependence in ways that aren't fair, right or by the rules.  

---

by: nowayjose @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 14:24:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blind Third Party (0.00 / 0)

Government isn't a 'blind third party' -- its made up of all of us, and when it deviates from our objectives, it is corrected and/or overthrown.

I think we tried your little fantasy once -- when we lived in caves and ate what we killed.  We evolved, realized that working together toward common goals was a better way.  

---

by: The Lorax @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 15:41:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

huh (0.00 / 0)

regulations on run-off, runaway swine and airborne diseases - who would enforce that?  Maybe a blind third party.  Or we could go with your option, and build a bigger swine pen, with more run-off, more runaway swine, and more airborne diseases.  That'll fix things.

That sounds like a perfect utopia and great dispute resolution.  Or we could all get in a helicopter and shoot the offending swine.

---

by: Joe @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 18:02:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I must argue with you over this claim: (0.00 / 0)

When I go camping at state parks (which I also did when I was back in Texas), then quiet hours don't start until 10pm. Before then (and normally after), you'll have lots of families running around, pick-up trucks playing country music -- and in the middle of nowhere.

When I go to the state parks -- McKinney Falls, Lockney, Palo Duro Canyon, Caprock Canyons, Copper Breaks -- the noise I hear is people talking, laughing, kids at play.

TP&WD is really good about making sure you don't get people gunning the engine or blaring the radio. Camping's supposed to be about what's out there -- wildlife, peace and quiet, and enjoyment.

Now, down the canyon at the Texas play ... it does get loud.
But I for one think it's worthwhile.

---

by: BlackSheep1 @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:59:37 AM CDT

Well (0.00 / 0)

Garner, Colorado Bend, Guadalupe...all have had loud trucks playing music.

And I don't mind too much. Granted, I loved it when I went to Garner the days after Memorial Day, when NOBODY was there and it was perfectly peaceful even at 4pm in the main area of getting in the water.

But I've definitely had some experiences of loud music going on late. I'm normally so tired from the day full of hiking, though, that I don't mind.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 23:06:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Anyone know (0.00 / 0)

what the cops measured the decibel level at?

---

by: Mateo @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 12:07:12 PM CDT

Actually . . . (0.00 / 0)

The noise limit is not 75dbs, it's now only 70dbs for a restaurant such as Shady Grove.  It goes up to 85dbs for a cocktail lounge, and that's only if you get a special permit from the City to operate as an Outdoor Music Venue.  Getting the permit means subjecting yourself to a serious berating by the south shore neighborhood groups.

---

by: The Lorax @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 13:03:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If they don't like that... (0.00 / 0)

...then they will have the cops on speed dial for ACL.

---

by: McKinney @ Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 13:49:39 PM CDT

Is this ordinance measured at... (0.00 / 0)

complainant or at the source? Honestly, I don't understand how someone could hear, inside a well constructed home, a noise from outside at 75 dB. A normal conversation is 60-70 dB.

---

by: McBlogger @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 12:32:50 PM CDT

typically (0.00 / 0)

Noise ordinance limits are usually measured at the property line

Here is Austin's ordinance:

http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/...

From the code:

(G) ... as measured at the boundary line of the permanent business ...

By the way, those nonnoise.org folks must be fun at parties, geez.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 15:33:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trees used to buffer, are now gone (0.00 / 0)

I think the condos being built are the cause of the problem, but mostly because the buffer they used to provide is gone, so now the music seems much louder to neighbors who used to be fine with that level.

And yeah, I think the level at 8 pm does not need to be so low.  

---

by: TxTiger @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 22:31:08 PM CDT

Interesting new angle (0.00 / 0)

That's a new way to blame the condo-dwelling Californians I haven't heard yet.

It's nonsense, though. Jeff Jack and company were complaining about these very same events back in the mid-1990s when I first joined the ANCTALK mailing list.

---

by: m1ek @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 09:09:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know... (0.00 / 0)

If I can hear music in my house at a level that conflicts with what I'm listening to (a conversation, the TV) then I don't care what time of day it occurs.

Here again, is the measurement taken at the source of the complainant. Until that's defined in the code, then is it really enforceable?

---

by: McBlogger @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 13:01:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Laura Morrison was, indeed, behind the whole thing (0.00 / 0)

From a post I just made here, quotes from:

Citizine Mag "Keep Austin Quiet"

Gary Etie says that "Neighborhood Groups, Council Member Morrison, certain City of Austin attorneys, et al, brought over an existing 70 dB limit that was found in the Zoning section of the Code, Chapter 25-2, and brought that language over to the Outdoor Music Venue Permit Amendment that was passed just prior to SXSW, while everybody was too busy to do anything to stop them. An Outdoor Music Venue Permit is a separate 'Noise and Sound' permit, issued under the Noise and Sound Ordinance, and must be obtained in addition to the Building Permit that establishes Use as a Restaurant or Cocktail Lounge."

and AustinCityPermits.com blog:

In this video, City Council member Laura Morrison, who was instrumental in passing the Amendment that was specifically used against Shady Grove, points out that the problem was that "Shady Grove's Permit had expired". What Ms Morrison fails to point out is that the March 23rd expiration date was part of the Amendments that she ramrodded through on March 12th 2009, on the consent agenda (!), as an Emergency item (!), right before SxSW, when anyone involved in the music business was going to be too busy to rally opposition. I don't think the problem is going to go away, until Ms. Morrison either gets it, and stops carrying the ball for the voter block she wants to retain, or is removed from the process, through recall.. I think Ms. Morrison is that good, at manipulation of the planning process, and it's that serious, in determining the future of music, in Austin.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 11:12:47 AM CDT