Time for a Reset

Let’s start with a simple statement of fact: A local law doesn’t need to have been steeped in racism during development to be unfairly impactful in practice.

East Hampton Village offered a perfect example with its enactment of three new laws with a simple, and popular, goal: to limit noise. The village created a registry, which lawn maintenance companies, landscapers and contractors must pay to be a part of each year to work in the village. A series of new restrictions on when noisy activities can take place were enacted, with a fine schedule.

There isn’t a whiff of racism in the goal of reducing the nuisance of neighborhood noise. But, as it happens, this set of laws has impacted the Latino community hardest. They make up a large number of the targeted workforces. But it’s also because the language barrier likely has limited the effectiveness of outreach by the village in explaining the new laws.

Simply put: East Hampton officials are not racist. But this law, it turns out, kind of is.

But let’s drop that characterization as, if nothing else, a distraction: The key point is that the effectiveness of a new law is being impacted by limits on how well it has been shared with the community that’s impacted by it. So there are two things that need to be discussed.

First, did the village do its best to spread the word? Arguably, it did — certainly, it met the letter of the law, and then some. But the crush of Spanish-speaking offenders at East Hampton Town Justice Court suggests it still wasn’t enough. OLA’s Minerva Perez had the numbers to back up the notion that the new laws were overwhelmingly resulting in fines for Spanish-speaking workers and business owners. Again, not the goal, but it was the result, and that can’t be ignored.

Perhaps there should have been a greater effort to reach Spanish-speaking residents and businesses — and it’s not too late to address that. The village started out by providing written warnings, which is a perfect chance to provide details about the new rules, in Spanish. One solution could be to reinstate a slightly less punitive approach for the next month or so to give everyone time to learn the rules before levying fines on workers who can ill afford to pay them. (While doing work for wealthy property owners — who, it must be noted, get off scot-free in the entire equation.) It also might be better to punish employers, rather than the workers themselves, if you want the practice to stop.

So the next question: Are these laws unfair, in practice or in prosecution? Ultimately, they do not seem unreasonable. Noise ordinances are always tricky to adopt, but they can, and do, work. As unpopular as they are with the companies who must consider them when taking on projects, they are overwhelmingly applauded by neighbors who bear the brunt of loud machinery, whether it’s for demolition, construction or maintenance.

It’s time for a reset. The village will benefit, in the long term, from a policy that is well understood and easy to follow. For 30 to 60 days, the idea of written warnings, accompanied with the presentation of a flyer clearly outlining the new policy and potential fines, in English and Spanish, should be the law of the land.