Kids are Too Noisy

[dust1n]

There is a difference between a school yard and a restaurant. A school is going to be noisy, just like a park will. The school exist solely for the benefit of the children. It also aids in a child's education if they are allowed play breaks. A restaurant exist to provide a tranquil environment, serve food, and provide an enjoyable visit for guests.

The school exists solely for the benefit of the community, not just the children.

I'm just failing to understand why a person in a restaurant can't get up and leave in the presence of noisy children, but they are expected to accept it or move away from noisy children that disrupt their tranquil environment on their own property.

 

[dust1n]

Having noisy kids running around isn't appropriate in a restaurant, but is appropriate on a playground. That's not really so hard to understand, is it?

Not at all... so why should sound proofed fences and staggered outdoor breaks be hard to?

I mean, sure they knew they were moving to a school -- when going to an eatery one might expect noise from children. Don't go to the restaurant, then.

 

[Rakhel]

There are restaurants where this is not an issue,(I'm not just talking about Chuck E Cheese) and restaurants where this is an issue.
I knew one Chinese restaurant where kids running around wasn't a problem because the owner's own 4 yr old was the one doing the running. That and they had Cartoons playing on one of the four TVs in the place.

But then you have the one with the fish pond and the water fountain and the HUGE jade Buddha in the corner. I would never let my kids run in this one. I couldn't afford anything that was accidentally bumped into.

 

[Kathryn]

The school exists solely for the benefit of the community, not just the children.

I'm just failing to understand why a person in a restaurant can't get up and leave in the presence of noisy children, but they are expected to accept it or move away from noisy children that disrupt their tranquil environment on their own property.

The school's basic function is to be a place where children learn and grow - and play is an important part of learning and growth. Anyone who buys a home near a school does so with knowledge of the school's presence, it's function, and it's "customers." If you buy a home near a school, you should expect the presence of many, many children and their parents - and all that entails. You should not expect the pre existing school to change it's basic purpose when it was there first and you bought an adjacent home willingly.

Some restaurants are built specifically with children as patrons in mind - fast food restaurants with playgrounds, Chucky Cheese and other restaurants like that. If you go to such a place, you should expect lots of kids and lots of noise - those are the patrons that the restaurant is catering to.

Other restaurants are geared toward other patrons. But even "family friendly" restaurants are built with the goal of providing a pleasant dining experience for ALL patrons. A screaming, disruptive, crying child is not happy - and neither is anyone in the immediate vicinity. Parents have the responsibility of being good, thoughtful citizens and sometimes this means that they should remove noisy, disruptive children from the presence of others, so that others can enjoy an environment they're paying for, without someone else's screams intruding on them.

Simply put - it's the right thing to do. And when people are so rude or obtuse about what is RIGHT to do, sometimes others must step in to correct the situation, unfortunately.

 

[dust1n]

The school's basic function is to be a place where children learn and grow - and play is an important part of learning and growth. Anyone who buys a home near a school does so with knowledge of the school's presence, it's function, and it's "customers." If you buy a home near a school, you should expect the presence of many, many children and their parents - and all that entails. You should not expect the pre existing school to change it's basic purpose when it was there first and you bought an adjacent home willingly.

Some restaurants are built specifically with children as patrons in mind - fast food restaurants with playgrounds, Chucky Cheese and other restaurants like that. If you go to such a place, you should expect lots of kids and lots of noise - those are the patrons that the restaurant is catering to.

Other restaurants are geared toward other patrons. But even "family friendly" restaurants are built with the goal of providing a pleasant dining experience for ALL patrons. A screaming, disruptive, crying child is not happy - and neither is anyone in the immediate vicinity. Parents have the responsibility of being good, thoughtful citizens and sometimes this means that they should remove noisy, disruptive children from the presence of others, so that others can enjoy an environment they're paying for, without someone else's screams intruding on them.

Simply put - it's the right thing to do. And when people are so rude or obtuse about what is RIGHT to do, sometimes others must step in to correct the situation, unfortunately.

The school is not exempt from the same noise constrictions as the houses around it are. This is also another expectation a property owner has when purchasing property near a pre-existing school. The school has taken steps to reduce the noise level via fences and staggered breaks, and I support that decision, as they must abide by the noise constrictions that are already in place when the property owner purchased the property. Either that, or the citizens need to amend the law appropriately.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm just failing to understand why a person in a restaurant can't get up and leave in the presence of noisy children, but they are expected to accept it or move away from noisy children that disrupt their tranquil environment on their own property.

If you don't realize that living near a school is going to occasionally be rather noisy, then you probably shouldn't have signed for the loan. Children need to be active. It's good for their physical and mental health. Wanting a school zone to be quiet is like expecting to be able to enjoy a quiet, calm, relaxing dinner at Chuck E. Cheese's during their busy hours.

 

[dust1n]

If you don't realize that living near a school is going to occasionally be rather noisy, then you probably shouldn't have signed for the loan. Children need to be active. It's good for their physical and mental health. Wanting a school zone to be quiet is like expecting to be able to enjoy a quiet, calm, relaxing dinner at Chuck E. Cheese's during their busy hours.

And if your law stated that a noise ordnance was in place to soften the noise above a certain number of decibels, then you should have never supposed that a school would exempt from the community's own laws.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And if your law stated that a noise ordnance was in place to soften the noise above a certain number of decibels, then you should have never supposed that a school would exempt from the community's own laws.

Actually I would expect a noise ordinance to not apply for a school. Not only are the kids who are going to be playing, it's during the middle of the day. And besides, most noise ordinances are either louder than a school zone, or aren't enforced until the evening.

 

[dust1n]

Actually I would expect a noise ordinance to not apply for a school. Not only are the kids who are going to be playing, it's during the middle of the day. And besides, most noise ordinances are either louder than a school zone, or aren't enforced until the evening.

That doesn't appear to be the case in this neighborhood.

 

[DallasApple]

Children are forced to go to school by law...

Part of childhood is running and playing>..

So..if under threat of imprisoment children must go to school they must run and play..

Screw the neibhors

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Explain to me the consistency is noisy children affecting restaurant patrons and removing or silencing them, but noisy children affecting neighborhoods, it's the ones complaining about the kids who need to be removed or silence.

If you can't see the logical consistency, no explanation on my part is going to help you see it - particularly, since you're obviously not interested in understanding any other perspectives on the issue.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I say give the kids some jackhammers and chainsaws, and let them demolish the fence entirely. Then let's see how long the neighbors stay in their homes!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What do you think about this? I agree with how one parent put it: "It's ridiculous. Why move next to a school. The school has been there a long time."

Kids are too noisy. That's why as we get older our hearing starts to go.

 

[Smoke]

I'm just failing to understand why a person in a restaurant can't get up and leave in the presence of noisy children, but they are expected to accept it or move away from noisy children that disrupt their tranquil environment on their own property.

That's really very sad. I wish I knew how to help you.

 

[dust1n]

That's really very sad. I wish I knew how to help you.

I'm comfortable with admitting that I don't know. No need to regard it as sad.

Again, if someone purchases property next to a school and the area is subject to a noise limit (which does not necessarily mean having to stop any breaks at all) then they have the right to complain against the school in that manner. What else would one expect?

 

[Kathryn]

Dust1n, I'm sorry to make this personal, but frankly I am stymied by your lack of judgment on this. You were all up in arms about people being ticked off at unruly kids in a restaurant, and yet you are intolerant of children playing OUTSIDE on a playground.

It's just weird.

 

[dust1n]

Dust1n, I'm sorry to make this personal, but frankly I am stymied by your lack of judgment on this. You were all up in arms about people being ticked off at unruly kids in a restaurant, and yet you are intolerant of children playing OUTSIDE on a playground.

It's just weird.

That's because, personally, I think those adults who are complaining about schools and their children being too loud are only looking out for their own self-serving interests, similarly to a restaurant owner... but if the argument for a restaurant owner is that an owner has the right to throw anyone out of their establishment for noise control, than the property owners adjacent to the school have the right to complain about noise from a school that is clearly breaking the noise ordinance (if they weren't, then nothing would have happened - unless UK has some strange legal system.)

 

[Smoke]

That's because, personally, I think those adults who are complaining about schools and their children being too loud are only looking out for their own self-serving interests, similarly to a restaurant owner... but if the argument for a restaurant owner is that an owner has the right to throw anyone out of their establishment for noise control, than the property owners adjacent to the school have the right to complain about noise from a school that is clearly breaking the noise ordinance (if they weren't, then nothing would have happened - unless UK has some strange legal system.)

Judging from the article, there doesn't appear to be a violation of a noise ordinance:

A spokeswoman for North Yorkshire County Council said it was aware of complaints made by some of the school's neighbours to the environmental health department at Selby District regarding "excessive noise".

"We are not satisfied that a statutory noise nuisance exists from what amounts to normal use of the school and playground areas," she added.

"Nevertheless we are taking these complaints seriously and wish to maintain good relationships with local residents."​

 

[dust1n]

Judging from the article, there doesn't appear to be a violation of a noise ordinance:

A spokeswoman for North Yorkshire County Council said it was aware of complaints made by some of the school's neighbours to the environmental health department at Selby District regarding "excessive noise".

"We are not satisfied that a statutory noise nuisance exists from what amounts to normal use of the school and playground areas," she added.

"Nevertheless we are taking these complaints seriously and wish to maintain good relationships with local residents."​

And if the law ordinances over there are the same as here (varying depending on the decibel amount), then they will have to objectively measure the noise.


"The ban on ball games and revised break times was put in place after some neighbours contacted environmental health officials.

At the time the school said the decision was "regrettable" but necessary to prevent the chance of a noise abatement notice being served.


Selby District Council is carrying out an assessment of noise levels over the next month.


Mrs Douglas said the school would review its position again once the results of that assessment were revealed on 8 October."

BBC News - Selby noise row school lifts ban on ball games

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, if someone purchases property next to a school and the area is subject to a noise limit (which does not necessarily mean having to stop any breaks at all) then they have the right to complain against the school in that manner. What else would one expect?

It's like people who sue because they burnt themselves on hot coffee. Of course it is going to be hot, and you hot liquids tend to burn. You move next to a school, you are aware that kids are noisy (and again if you don't realize a school will be noisy you probably aren't legally of a sound mind to sign a contract), so it's something that comes along with territory.