From the article: "“Low-income people tend to own cars that are in disrepair and ride motorcycles adding to the noise of a ‘lights out at 8 p.m. community,’” Marylyn Rinaldi, a neighboring condominium owner, wrote in 2011 in a letter to the City Council that was later cited in a lawsuit over the project." Nimbyism at its finest.
It may be, but there is a behavioral difference in different economic environments —though even within lower income communities many people who are forced to live there “put up with” these quality of life issues because they don’t have the ability to afford to live in communities that observe these standards. Not all that different from people complaining about the loudness of living next to college student rentals on Friday’s and weekends.
Truth be told I had a loud muffler back when I could barely afford my share of a three way apt rental. Nowadays I would find it hard to tolerate the noise I caused back then. But that was a diff neighborhood and it was accepted.
Declaring that low-income people won't obey noise ordinances is extremely classist in my view. Yes, tell residents before they move in that the area has strict noise ordinances, and then hand out tickets for violators. But don't block affordable housing simply because it "might happen".
I'd like to agree -and in principle I do, just not in practice. In my case, I didn't have a loud muffler because I liked it. It was rusted through and I could not afford the repair. It had to wait. Ordinance or not didn't influence my choice. That's different from the guy who opens the throttle on his wannabe Harley as he accelerates from every stop sign on the street at 10 and 11PM... He does it just because... he's an...
Still, you must concede that the parade of "rusty muffler" arguments are a silly compared to a legitimate housing crisis. Not everything our neighbors/family/friends do makes us happy. And hey, they might have a rusty muffler, but maybe they're less snobbish and more friendly. So while it's totally reasonable to be worried about traffic and school crowding, I feel people should at least try a bit harder to shrug their shoulders about the little things and give it a chance.
I can see a system where you build where land is affordable, you bring transit there and you have buckets of units. Units for families, units for college kids, units for singles and you stratify the units so that like people end up with like people. Those who like quiet get quiet neighbors, those who like noise get noisy neighbors. Mix climbers with climbers and losers with other losers. You don't need groups that drag down others dragging down people who have a chance and you want climbers helping others.
This won't work in the US for various reasons, but it may work in other places where they can move people accordingly.
People disapprove of everything that involves "segregation" of different sub-cultures, even when that segregation is mutually beneficial. The American ideal is a spatially-uniform melting pot.
I’m not so sure people in Eastern Europe or parts of Africa and Asia would have an issue with this kind of stratification, but you may be right, it might go against cultural norms.
Just a thought, but several of my motorbike-owning friends tell me the noise generated from the bike reminds those in larger vehicles of their presence.
It's more the sneering, condescending tone of the comment that I thought was jaw-dropping. Sure, noise ordinances are reasonable. But labeling poor people as loud - and thus undesirable - is not okay. I can't believe I even had to explain this to be honest.
what percent of "low-income people" own motorcycles? what would the occupants of 10 apartments have to do such that a small city would no longer be said to be able to have "quiet nights" that could not be enforced against by any method other than excluding the apartments completely?
ooh, I'm gonna go with "a lot". Because motorcycles are a lot cheaper to buy, own, and maintain that cars. And a lot of them don't even require licenses in the US (49cc and smaller, if I'm not mistaken).
motorcycle owners are wealthier on average (this is really easy to google). I don't see really any motorcycles or scooters at all in poor neighborhoods. They generally have beater cars or no vehicle at all.
A cheap used car provides a lot more utility than an equivalently priced used motorcycle so that's what most people tend to buy if they can only have one vehicle.
Cars do have more utility than motorcycles, but where I live (college town in American midwest) there are many poor people who drive small, cheap motorcycles. Speculation on why:
<50cc scooters are subject to different -- usually lower -- registration, insurance, inspection, and licensing requirements than cars.
State-minimum insurance for my cheap (KBB ~$1000) used (+200K miles) car would be about $700/year. Similarly minimal insurance for a 2010 Honda Ruckus would be $100/year. (I just checked Geico.)
Small motorcycles consume a lot less gasoline than cars, especially old, cheap ones being driven in-city.
Spare parts for scooters can be purchased and shipped cheaply, and assembled in a minimum of space with cheap hand tools.
Scooters don't require a full parking space to store. They can be stashed against signs, at bike racks, next to doors, in tiny alleys, or any other free spot. Living with other people? You don't need to worry about blocking the driveway, or being blocked yourself. Work downtown? You can get away without buying a pass at a parking garage.
The number of places in the US where the situation you mentioned is reasonable and public transit is not also good enough to go car-less is very small. Carrying groceries on a moped is doable but a pain. Commuting on one in the winter isn't exactly fun either. Carrying kids on a scooter is a great way to meet every cop in every place you drive through. I wish mopeds were more practical but there's a bunch of little reasons that add up to them not working as well as a cheap car.... which is why pretty much nobody around me except a bunch of single people under the age of about 25 rides them.
Everything you have said is generally true. My point is that there are scooters driven where I live, that most of them are driven by low-income people who are in the presumably-uncomfortable position of a scooter being their best option, and that noise regulations would be an indirect regressive tax against them.
