The same thing could be said of you. The type that moves from the suburbs and expects to have the benefits of both. Being able to be as loud as they want because no one can hear them in their single family home.
When you're in the city you have neighbors. Some are there decades and the walls seperating you can be paper thing as far as sound travels. Cities can be loud during the day, but at night the businesses are closed and the residents are still there.
Whether you are subletter, leasee, or owner keep in mind your neighbors can shut you down so be mindful of them as well.
Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this. But from the comments on NYT I see some people support it because they don't want their building treated like a hotel. If airbnb what this bill taken down they better do something fast because, although the hotel industry wrote it, it is gaining support amongst residents.
> Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this.
Isn't the point of all legislation to restrict people's free will in one way or another? (Just a quibble; I realize this statement is not central to your comment.)
Well there are some freedoms that have to be denied for the greater good; disallowing strangling your obnoxious neighbor, flinging shit onto the street, dumping in rivers, or pedophilia. It's part and parcel of living in a "free" society. I give up some freedoms so that everyone and I can get along.
Yes, I agree -- my point was merely that in any case, it wouldn't make sense to argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away freedoms, since that is necessarily what any bill (with a few trivial exceptions) must do. (Of course you can argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away some freedom in particular, given, for example, that such freedom has been enshrined in a founding document, &c., &c.)
I was rude to earl in my original post, and I apologize for that. I have no way to be sure what kind of neighbor he'd make, and I shouldn't draw conclusions from one post.
I grew up mostly in the suburbs or in smaller cities (Columbus, Lexington), and I've lived my entire adult life in cities (New York first, Philadelphia now.) In my experience, which is limited to those two cities, I've found that the base level of noise is higher in the cities regardless of time. Trash trucks, ambulances, police cars, delivery trucks, drunks walking home, cabs cruising for fares, and tons of other noisy events occur at all times of day and with a greater frequency than I experienced in the suburbs.
I overreacted to earl's post. I pictured him as the type of person who can't handle any late night noise, regardless of the day of week or the holiday associated. I pictured the kind of guy who won't sign the block party application, or who pins notes to your door or car.
I lived by people like the one I describe, and I can't stand them. Maybe I'm unique--one of my first apartments was within a 1.5 block radius of a very active fire station, four bars, a liquor store, and a 24 hour gas station. You get used to noise pretty quick, or give up sleeping in environments like that.
But, politically, I do have a point: I don't see why earl's right to be free from potentially noisy, short term neighbors should lead to legislation that will cripple an industry that hasn't had the time to find its legs. We're killing innovation by some to avoid possible annoyance of others.
That doesn't seem like a fair trade, or a likely one. I doubt anyone paying to spend a few nights in earl's neighborhood is really there to throw a kegger and urinate in the hallway.
Comments
The same thing could be said of you. The type that moves from the suburbs and expects to have the benefits of both. Being able to be as loud as they want because no one can hear them in their single family home.
When you're in the city you have neighbors. Some are there decades and the walls seperating you can be paper thing as far as sound travels. Cities can be loud during the day, but at night the businesses are closed and the residents are still there.
Whether you are subletter, leasee, or owner keep in mind your neighbors can shut you down so be mindful of them as well.
Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this. But from the comments on NYT I see some people support it because they don't want their building treated like a hotel. If airbnb what this bill taken down they better do something fast because, although the hotel industry wrote it, it is gaining support amongst residents.
> Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this.
Isn't the point of all legislation to restrict people's free will in one way or another? (Just a quibble; I realize this statement is not central to your comment.)
Well there are some freedoms that have to be denied for the greater good; disallowing strangling your obnoxious neighbor, flinging shit onto the street, dumping in rivers, or pedophilia. It's part and parcel of living in a "free" society. I give up some freedoms so that everyone and I can get along.
Yes, I agree -- my point was merely that in any case, it wouldn't make sense to argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away freedoms, since that is necessarily what any bill (with a few trivial exceptions) must do. (Of course you can argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away some freedom in particular, given, for example, that such freedom has been enshrined in a founding document, &c., &c.)
I was rude to earl in my original post, and I apologize for that. I have no way to be sure what kind of neighbor he'd make, and I shouldn't draw conclusions from one post.
I grew up mostly in the suburbs or in smaller cities (Columbus, Lexington), and I've lived my entire adult life in cities (New York first, Philadelphia now.) In my experience, which is limited to those two cities, I've found that the base level of noise is higher in the cities regardless of time. Trash trucks, ambulances, police cars, delivery trucks, drunks walking home, cabs cruising for fares, and tons of other noisy events occur at all times of day and with a greater frequency than I experienced in the suburbs.
I overreacted to earl's post. I pictured him as the type of person who can't handle any late night noise, regardless of the day of week or the holiday associated. I pictured the kind of guy who won't sign the block party application, or who pins notes to your door or car.
I lived by people like the one I describe, and I can't stand them. Maybe I'm unique--one of my first apartments was within a 1.5 block radius of a very active fire station, four bars, a liquor store, and a 24 hour gas station. You get used to noise pretty quick, or give up sleeping in environments like that.
But, politically, I do have a point: I don't see why earl's right to be free from potentially noisy, short term neighbors should lead to legislation that will cripple an industry that hasn't had the time to find its legs. We're killing innovation by some to avoid possible annoyance of others.
That doesn't seem like a fair trade, or a likely one. I doubt anyone paying to spend a few nights in earl's neighborhood is really there to throw a kegger and urinate in the hallway.