About the "Group formed to oppose Falmouth noise bylaw"

A constituent emailed me with a question about this meeting. What follows is my reply, based on my observations of the meeting...


This is my second attempt at a reply, my first having been eaten by the ether when my email session decided to timeout without warning, dooming 30 minutes of writing to oblivion. Frustrated, I've now spent even longer trying to remember what I wrote.

As to your question, "As a friend, Falmouth taxpayer, QRA member and Selectman - in that order - is it appropriate that taxpayers subsidized a meeting (Gus Canty Center) of a group dedicated to the repeal of a bylaw?"

First, thank you for referring to me as a "friend". Although I am honored to have been chosen by Falmouth's residents to serve as one of their selectmen, the title of "friend" means far more to me.

At least some of the attendees/organizers were Falmouth residents, and they are entitled to request and use public spaces. I had not heard that the press was specifically excluded; I didn't see any reporters, but that doesn't mean none were there.

Obviously, I went. The meeting seemed well attended, with upwards of 40-50 present. There were two individuals I recognized, but I don't know if they saw or recognized me. However, I did arrive late and was confined to the standing room only section at the back. Of those who could see me, none seemed to recognize me as a selectman. Certainly, no one called me out.

Speaking was largely done by three individuals, but as I was late, I missed the names. One was with the Falmouth classic car club. Noting that he had spoken with Chief Riello about his concerns, he stressed courtesy and avoiding hard acceleration. He also stated several times that the car club and the MMA are in the same boat and "need to stick together."

The primary speaker (I think he identified himself as the head of the MMA) also stressed courtesy, and throttling back around, and avoiding confrontations with, the police. He reminded everyone that many of the scenic routes were in residential neighborhoods, and stated several times that, "If you've got straight pipes, you're on your own."

Unfortunately, he also repeated a number of misconceptions:
1) There are only 20 people in the Quiet Roads Association;
2) The QRA "snuck this in";
3) Motorcycles are banned from those roads with the noise enforcement signs;
4) The bylaw targets motorcycles;
5) This is all about money, i.e., Falmouth needs more revenue, so we are using noise as an excuse to write more tickets.

The third major speaker identified himself as the MMA's legislative head. He focused on how to avoid getting ticketed, and how to beat a ticket if you got one. The MMA is providing free legal aid to those who get noise-related tickets, and he noted that those who challenged the tickets in Sterling had their cases dismissed. Those cases were based on Ch 90, Sec 16, upon which Falmouth's bylaw is based. Also noted was the Boston bylaw (based on the EPA sticker), which has survived court challenges.

There was talk about how much it would cost to enforce the Falmouth bylaw, and the fact that with recent budget cuts, and officers on disability and on military deployment, it was not likely to be strongly enforced. They were pretty much echoing the statements Chief Riello made on town meeting floor.

Others spoke, but most seemed to perpetuate ill will. One man talked of how a state police officer near Waltham detained and harassed him and several others for 30 minutes, but didn't charge them. Also mentioned was the volume of town meeting itself, which someone measured at 90+ dB. Frankly, that seems incredible.

Clearly there is a need for a dialog, and I considered saying something, but this wasn't the time or the place. It was a charged atmosphere, sponsored by an organization (the MMA) which is clearly hostile to noise abatement. The format did not lend itself to clarifying issues or challenging misconceptions - especially when some of those misconceptions appear to be strongly held. On the other hand, a more public forum managed by a more neutral party would be a good idea. Indeed, I wouldn't mind debating the primary speaker on FCTV.

A common theme was the lack of a clear standard, i.e., it is believed that the "harsh, unreasonable or objectionable" language is too vague and can't be enforced. Time will tell, but it would seem that town meeting representative Ron Smolowitz was correct when he suggested that Falmouth could become a magnet for legal challenges.

That said; perhaps Falmouth should draw up a bylaw that has specific limits and methods for measurement.