Letter: Student questions Narragansett noise ordinance

10/16/07 - To the Cigar,Narragansett has made it clear that its leaders consider students here at University of Rhode Island a public nuisance. The ordinance it drafted and passed over the summer, which targets us specifically is, after all, a public nuisance ordinance.

We are told that this ordinance reflects the standards and will of the community, to which we are mere visitors, if not outright pests. If I were to guess, from looking at this ordinance and the behaviors it targets, that the single most important and valuable thing to this community is a good night's sleep, made possible by utter, deathly, neighborhood-wide silence. But, why stop at bedtime disturbances?

Since Narragansett has shown itself to be in the mood to crack down on us little monsters, I figured perhaps it is about time they took the lead in taking care of other sources of public nuisance. I've got a few ideas on where to start.

Let's start easy. A few days ago, I was eating in a restaurant in Narragansett with my girlfriend, when a pair of mothers came in to be seated, along with their toddlers. Now, I have nothing against children, but these two were nasty little hellions.

Running in the aisle, I was sure at any moment that one of the poor waitresses would be taken out at the knees, along with someone's dinner, by their antics. The mothers got them to sit finally, and their spawn was not pleased. By the time I was finished with my mozzarella sticks, I had such a headache from the children screaming and crying that I had lost all appetite.

When another patron confronted the pair of mothers, all they got for their trouble was a disdainful dismissive sneer. Unruly toddlers and their mothers are certainly a public nuisance, as I'm sure many would agree. Why doesn't the town take the bull by the horns here, and stand up for the peace of restaurant and store patrons? A quiet meal is at least as crucial as a quiet night to our health and well-being.

I was going grocery shopping last weekend, and it was a busy afternoon. When I got out of the store, I walked to my car, only to find my doors boxed in on the driver's side by some behemoth bright-red SUV with Rhode Island plates, which looked like it had come within a inch of taking off my rear bumper as it pulled in.

Sure enough, about two minutes later out comes the owner: a nice, little old lady who, seemingly oblivious to the plight she had caused, pulled out at full throttle, barely missing the car parked behind us, and peeled out of the parking lot onto the road.

That same day, another elderly person, this time a man, tried to merge his station wagon into the left hand lane in front of me at all of 15 mph, riding for a good 30 seconds in both lanes while making what must have been for him a difficult lane-change. Lots of people have had similar experiences with elderly drivers.

Many of them can even charitably be called mere public nuisances, if not more accurately an actual danger to the public welfare. Seeing as how the town sees fit to target young party-goers, I'm sure it can muster parallel logic to neutralize the threat of old drivers.

Speaking of drivers, I was at a small party a little while ago that was broken up by the Narragansett Police. Several dozen of the party house attendees were intoxicated (most, it should be noted, of age to drink) and told the officers that they did not feel safe to drive home. The officers, unconcerned, told them that if they did not leave, they would be arrested.

Not wanting to have an arrest rap and having been pressured by the police, many opted to drive home intoxicated. So far as I know, they all made it home safely, but that is small consolation considering that so many pedestrian and car accidents are a direct result of alcohol.

This is an old and often repeated story, and many students have complained that they were forced to drive unsafely by the police who couldn't care less that their threats were causing an extremely dangerous situation. The police's behavior at the very least constitutes a public nuisance; God forbid that someone get injured or killed by a driver expelled from a Narragansett party, and it becomes accessory to vehicular homicide.

While a quiet night's sleep may be important, it is not nearly as important as keeping the streets clear of drunk drivers, and certainly encouraging and even forcing such behavior should be criminalized.

Alas, I'm not holding my breath on any of these. Mothers, the elderly, and police officers, unlike students, are well protected by the pandering of the politicians that reside at town hall. They rely on self-concerned families to provide them with votes, and the bored elderly to provide them with the complaints that serve as fig-leaves for their student targeted regulations, and of course the overzealous police officers to enforce their precious nightly peace.

Without much reflection, they create, pass, and press enforcement of nuisance ordinances targeted at a population with no power and little recourse, a scapegoat in the best biblical tradition. It allows them to ignore real problems in Narragansett, like one in six residents living under the poverty line, or an increasing homeless problem, or the scourge of absentee landlords and leeches driving property costs up and making year-round living less and less affordable with each passing year.

In truth, I don't really support targeting the mothers or the elderly of Narragansett. It is about as silly to discriminate in order to guarantee a pleasant meal or marginally safer roads as it is to secure a good night's sleep; only truly immature people react to mere irritants by resorting to force, which is what an ordinance truly is.

Even the police are only trying to enforce as best they can an ill-conceived rule, and should not be blamed for the problems it causes. This satire is only to attempt to make clear to everyone who the only true public nuisance is in Narragansett. Why, it's the Narragansett Town Council, of course.



Lucian Gregory