Palo Alto turns down volume at Lytton Plaza Around Town, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Nov 20, 2012 at 12:01 am
Lytton Plaza, downtown Palo Alto's traditional hub for free speech and impromptu music, will see its volume drop on the weekdays after the City Council voted Monday to restrict amplified sound at the popular gathering spot.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, November 19, 2012, 11:26 PM
Posted by R Kurtz, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 12:01 am
I'm glad they put some restrictions on the sound, but they should have gone a little further and took away any amplified sound. Don't get me wrong here folks, I play guitar and piano and love all music, but the one guy who plays electric blues out there always has that amplifier cranked up while on slide guitar. It's the same old songs over and over and not to mention he plays for tips (by the way, does he pay tax for that income?). In any event, let them play but take away the amps and percussion.
Posted by Pillows, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 3:27 pm
@Mark Weiss: What in the world are you talking about? Throw pillows?
Please explain how limitations on the amount of time allowed for amplified music has anything to do with the Bill of Rights. People can still speak or play unamplified music at other times, as I read the story.
Or I guess I could have said "reid carew" to be that much punnier...
but seriously, I have been watching this thing, writing on it and going to meetings for 15 months, and watching Lytton Plaza Grab overall for four years and it fits the pattern of leadership listening to anything and everything no matter how ridiculous from certain Big Money types -- like McNellis, above -- and completely ignoring just about everybody else, me included, and especially the people who don't look like them, don't act like them, don't donate to their campaigns nor shop at trendy mall-on-Main chain stores, who actually despite what is said in the article BENEFIT from there being a lively scene at Lytton -- would they rather be miles and miles from the noise of the city; the only thing in evidence is that certain people --dubbed "undesirables" and "sketchy people", their words, on record -- are being scapegoated by the power structure who have contrived this convoluted attempt to micro-manage the plaza, in effect, they are trying to privatize a public asset: what's next, they are going to sell the rights to broadcast thru those cute little muzak boxes, and keep the money? Will they put up a fence like Gramercy Park?
People are telling me that Palo Alto is putting itself out of bounds and just as likely is ripe for a lawsuit from these people whose rights we are de-prioritizing, that the 9th Circuit Court is very First Amendment friendly, and numerous cases side with those that say you should not ban the amplifiers as a way to control the plaza: the noise ordinance as written is doing perfectly fine. (there's also some nonsense from staff report that the noise ordinance is hard to enforce so that a new ordinance is needed -- actually the cops don't want to have to deal with this although a few are only so happy to do what the rich bosses tell them to do, though unofficially. At the stake holders meeting in January, my observation was that Sgt. Benitez didn't want to be there and could not leave fast enough, as in, why all this wasting of his time on a non-issue? The issue of whether Downtown PAD warps our democracy is worth looking further into; in other music as rights cases they were the instigators.
meanwhile, I suggested to PAD that they make the best of it and underwrite a better music program that draws shoppers to downtown and Lytton rather than putting so much negative energy and moral judo towards harassing the poor, the musicians and we regulah folkses...
eat that peach, brah.
(mark weiss, concert promoter, former journalist, got 4,316 residentialist votes for council)
Posted by Amps as speech?, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 7:34 pm
For example, I just ran into, here at Coupa, Zack, who plays electric bass in a band that performs at Lytton, when he is not by daylight a mild-mannered but rather hip software guy, at a venerable startup, downtown. Zack would not be able to play any more, without a permit, during business hours, at Lytton Plaza. The nature of his instrument --his talent, and assuming for the sake of argument he choses to play this, to a level of mastery and would not, as I suggested to him just now, merely switch to a guitar and unplug -- is electric and it plugs into an electric amp, and he performs with a band, and not solo. He can of course control the volume of his output, to stay within the noise ordinances, as measured in dBs, reasonably and does not, in most people's opinion constitute a raucous or ruckus merely by existing, but more importantly he fits in and augments and meters the beat, so to speak, of a group of like individuals, a band. Our ordinance misunderstands the nature of plugged in versus unplugged, electric vs. acoustic, rock versus folk, being a sideman versus a solo player, or what not and seeks to cram it all together into a (arguably) governable lump, for dubious purposes, I would argue. Zack's choice of instrument and its accompanying amplifier is part and parcel of his message per se, and not mere TMP time place or manner. See also: Dylan at Newport. Ergo: amplifier is speech, and our law in unconstitutional.
-mbw reprinted from "Plastic Alto" -- the link I provided four hours ago
Posted by Press play, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Is developer John McNellis seriously arguing that the succession of losing tenants at Emerson and University is due to Dave Hydie's version of "My Baby Done Left Me" being inferior to that of Big Bill Crudup or is it possible that the rent approaching $100,000 per month triple net is so outrageous that no business no matter how cute and cuddly the "handmade" silk throw pillows ($34, or $16 for just the insert) for sale could make it there, even if Dylan himself appeared one of these days, to busk, plugged in or not?
The First Amendment gives your tenant "pause"? I would press "eject", for my dollar.
Posted by Dennis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Palo Alto has decibel limits for various hours. Maybe the city should start enforcing the code, including for homes near noisy neighbors. Also, disrupting someone's business isn't acceptable, whether is is a downtown office or a home business.
Posted by pillow talk, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2012 at 10:47 pm
I signed each of those posts so yes "transparent" and quite deliberate...
mbw (mark b. weiss)
I also texted six members of council and talked to the city attorney, in person.
I am looking for a constitutional law expert to read these cases and figure out if there is indeed something that Molly Stump is being paid to overlook and or that eight council members are missing something that I think I am seeing.
As I said, I have been tracking this pretty closely for more than a year.
One of the other stakeholders is happy with the outcome -- the rec commission did water down and even more odious first attempt at new ordinance --
Another way to frame the overall question:
the rights of how many regular citizens is government going to squash to help a small group of wealthy property owners optimize their profits? I disagree with McNellis statement that commercial tenants come before citizens, especially in First Amendment matters.
Maybe it is a fair compromise to draw the line at amplifiers during business hours but I am fairly staunch about rights of expression; I want to look more closely at the actual precedents and see if the rest of us 50,000 residents beg to differ with what 8 representatives say or think.
and you are a hypocrite Mr. Pillow to suggest there is something devious about me posting under various names -- I am actually mocking the practice.
Posted by Mark Weiss , a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2012 at 11:27 pm
The record is devoid of any explanation of why the alternative of enforcing the City's noise ordinance -- an alternative that is on the books, is designed to address the problem of excessive noise, and has been enforced against (A&O) in the past -- would not have achieved the City's objective as effectively as the amplification ban, while placing a substantially lesser burden on speech.
That's me, Weiss, quoting from Casey but I think it is equally true here: why didn't McNellis et al merely ask police to enforce existing noise ordinance but instead asked staff, stakeholders, commissioners and council to add on this layer of law that I claim is beyond the pale? How much more citizens' rights is leadership going to ask to squash to try to help the already-powerful special interests before enough of us catch on, speak out, and get the pendulum swinging back towards Democracy?
This is about the narrow-tailoring requirement in these cases.