4 ms·
I would have probably paid a considerable amount (and not just for buying but as part of my search). Part of the problem though is with the exception of people
by nullc 6y ago
I would have probably paid a considerable amount (and not just for buying but as part of my search).
Part of the problem though is with the exception of people who are weirdly sensitive[1] or keep unusual hours, most people just don't know that sound would be an issue for them until they're in a situation where sound is an issue for them.
The end result of this is a significant amount of cost on the public arising out of disputes, including distorting pressure on zoning.
Munis do astronomical amounts of data collection already, e.g. to maintain culverts, curbs, and storm drains they have street-view like data collection performed. They already do targeted sound studies (e.g. for roadways and public facilities). Some urban areas have gunshot detection and localization networks.
It might well be possible to make a case that a sound study could lower costs to the public by lowering code enforcement costs and reducing zoning conflicts (esp. if the marginal cost of adding it on top of other data collection programs was minimal).
[1] I wouldn't say that I am particularly sensitive, but being in a quiet location was part of my justification for the purchase that I was trading off against other considerations-- so I would have been unhappy if it didn't turn out to be what I expected. ... I'm happy with the result, and having lived here a few years I think I significantly underestimated how nice it would be.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoIF most people don't know they are sensitive before they buy, how would the information help inform their decision? Also, im not sure how this information would help avoid any of the disputes you mention? If the noise is still there, and people are still unhappy about it, the dispute will exist.