How are you feeling about your city?
By Roberta Millstein
Recently, the City released the results of a periodic survey it does to take the pulse of Davis's residents. The results are online here.
The survey was conducted April 12 – 19, 2022 using a a multi-modal methodology: telephone, text- and email-to-web. There were 500 interviews with an estimated margin of error ±4.37 percentage points.
The staff report highlights some "key takeaways":
- more than two-thirds of residents are optimistic about the direction of the City
- more than 75% are satisfied with City services
- affordable housing, homelessness and public safety are the top three areas of concern for residents
- social media platforms and communications from the City are gaining popularity as a source of local news
Those are indeed interesting takeaways, although as always with the term "affordable housing," one wonders if people intend the legal meaning, or if they are unhappy with the affordability of housing more generally, or both.
Below are two panels of the survey that I found interesting. In the first panel, only 23% of citizens are dissatisfied with city services but 39% are dissatisfied with the City Council. So it seems that the dissatisfaction with the City Council is over and above the dissatisfaction with the provision of city services. As for the second panel, as a longtime subscriber to the Davis Enterprise I am glad to see that it remains our top source for news. I hope that people support it with subscriptions because there really is no other comparable source in Davis.
I'm curious to hear people's thoughts and reflections about the survey, so please leave comments if you'd like to weigh in!
Al's Corner is a place to comment on local issues and articles and/or comments from other local forums that you may or may not have been banned from. For the few Rule-ez at Al's Corner, see "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is". Burn Baby Burn!
Al's Corner is a place to comment on local issues and articles/comments from other local forums that you may or may not have been banned from. For the few Rule-ez at Al's Corner, see "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is".
Davisite 
I have aural nerve damage in one ear and so have had to, out of necessity, learn how sound affects the human body. Loud sounds can cause me splitting headaches emanating from the inside of the ear, severe ringing in the ears, internal ear pressure, disorientation, burning, aural misinterpretations, etc. Sound frequency, duration, distance, peak-volume and distortion all factor into the severity of an 'event' as I have come to know them.
Though dependent on particular circumstances, in general shorter bursts of loud sounds are more damaging than longer duration of softer sounds. That is why going with some sort of 'averaging' system would be a tragic mistake. This would ignore the very real damage done by peak sounds. My world-renowned ear doctor from Stanford Ear Clinic would back me up on this. He has coached me on how to live with my condition, which is not treatable.
My ear doctor explains that there is a 'threshold' level at which the noise becomes damaging to hearing (in my case, the threshold is much lower than those with a healthy ear). The PEAK noise is almost always the problem. Therefore, changing the city noise ordinance to consider some AVERAGE measurement as the standard is not only unwise, it is INSANE.
To give an example of how unwise this is, an example everyone can understand – consider train horns. A train horn — at 100' in front of the horn — ranges from 96 to 110 db. Even at the low end this is painfully loud, and on the high end can cause ear damage in just a few seconds. But, if you averaged the railroad noise around the tracks over a period of hours, it would show very low AVERAGE noise as over time there are few trains. The PEAK noise is when the damage is done; AVERAGING OVER TIME would FAIL to CATCH the DAMAGING peak sounds.
While I am more bothered by sound than those with healthy hearing, ear disease is rampant and hugely under-diagnosed in this country. There are many people with my condition and many other hearing diseases who are intolerant of various sound conditions. This is not just about an annoyance, it is at times debilitating.
Another thing to consider is that those close to a noise source suffer from the exposure repeatedly and over time. Those adjacent to noise sources are the people who must be considered paramount and above all else. Let's say a nightclub with sub-woofers goes in next door to someone's house. But ON AVERAGE less than 1% of the people in town even hear the noise. The standard must be on how the noise effects those adjacent, not on the fact that 99% of Davis voters never hear it. Another abominable use of 'average' exposure.
I urge the commission, the City, and the Council to retain current noise-ordinance formulas and standards, and reject any attempt to change the noise ordinance to be more allowing of harmful peak noise exposures.
Sincerely,
Alan C. Miller, District 3