Residents making noise over proposed changes to bylaw

The background noise of life goes largely unnoticed these days – save for those rare moments when the power goes out and we realize just what quiet really is – but the rules exist for a host of other noises that intrude on our lives, the result of living in close proximity to other human beings.

Barking dogs and blaring stereos are standard neighbourhood issues, compounded at times by the more persistent drones of industrial and commercial operations, from the ubiquitous transport trucks to gravel pit operations, the latter a growing concern in this neck of the woods.

That’s something with which the townships are always grappling. Right now, Woolwich officials are looking at revisions that ostensibly aim to make enforcement easier, though it’s never as simple as that. In this case, St. Jacobs residents see in proposed changes to the noise bylaw threats to the nature of their peaceful village. With shifts in the decades-long order of business there – Mercedes Corp., which owned and/or ran many of the operations – focused on daytime, family-oriented tourism. Since the sale of the company assets, there’s a less cohesive strategy.

The already changing tourism mix took a big hit during the pandemic, forcing some of the hospitality businesses to make adjustments in order to keep the lights on. As a result, there was an increase in noise complaints, the result of more outdoor patios, live music and evening hours.

The latest revisions to the bylaw would seem to entrench some of those changes, to the chagrin of more than a few residents.

It’s a concern shared by council, which this week put off a decision due to a lack of public consultation. There’s also the realization that changes to the noise bylaw are potentially akin to changes in the nature of the village, a new direction without much in the way of a plan or public input – it’s essentially some businesses looking for different options.

The worry stems from the recognition that officials seem loath to levy fines – even the inconsequential ones laid out in toothless regulations – when there are ongoing disturbances.

In that climate, residents are right to be skeptical government officials will be there to help them. In cases where the municipality imposes a (potential) problem on a neighbourhood – perhaps the likes of a gravel pit or even a kennel – there must be provisions to remedy the decision.

For municipalities, that differs from often meddlesome bylaws covering parking and property standards, for instance.

Few people would take issue with the municipality taking action in the case, for instance, of an incessantly barking dog. Everyone within earshot would welcome the intervention. The same goes for other noise-related complaints – loud parties, stereos routinely cranked to 10, homeowners often eager to use power tools early in the day or late at night, to name a few. These instances are universally disruptive, and are precisely why enforcement is necessary: some people just aren’t considerate of their neighbours.

Where there has been some pushback from the public is on the prospect of overzealous enforcement against the common sounds of living, including the kind of outdoor festivities that people enjoy in the summer. Nobody wants a visit from the ‘fun police’ bent on quashing the joy out of living, already a threat in our over-regulated nanny state.

Think, for instance, of the always problematic municipal ticketing schemes, particularly bad with parking. Everyone it seems has a story about overzealous enforcement. That’s especially true in larger cities, where parking is enforced largely as a cash grab to, among other things, pay for expensive enforcement regimes. To be sure, busy cities do require some kind of order, otherwise people would park inappropriately with abandon, and there would be little turnover in available parking spots. But horror stories abound, as do altercations between municipal employees and the people they’re supposed to serve.