A Honolulu City Council measure to enhance existing laws regulating loud, amplified noise on Oahu turned into a brief discussion this week over the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

In February, Council Chair Tommy Waters introduced Bill 5 as a way to bolster noise control in public spaces. His measure seeks “to preserve the tranquility of residents and visitors on the island of Oahu against noise disturbances by regulating loud sounds emanating from machines or devices on public property.”

To that end, Bill 5 is a supplement to Section 41-6.1, a city law that prohibits noise, making it “unlawful for any person to play, use, operate, or permit to be played, used, or operated, any machine or device for producing or reproducing sound, such as a radio, tape recorder, cassette player, audio or video player, portable speakers, microphone, or musical instrument.”

That existing law prohibits such machines or devices to be played loudly at “any public property, including any public street, highway, building, sidewalk, park, or thoroughfare, or on any motor vehicle on a public street, highway, or public space.”

During the Council’s Committee on Housing, Sustainability and Health meeting on Wednesday, Waters explained that the new measure — an update to a similar measure he’d brought, Bill 43, but which failed to pass in 2021 — was focused on amplified noise in Waikiki.

“Really, the aim of this was to curb the street performers who are amplifying the music,” said Waters, whose East Honolulu Council district includes Waikiki. “I have no problem with people singing, dancing, doing magic, breakdancing and all of the other stuff that goes on, but at the same time, there’s about 25,000 people who live in Waikiki, and they’re just concerned that this amplified sounds is extremely, extremely disturbing.”

Waters added that Bill 5 does not consider noise by decibels — a unit used to measure the intensity of sound — but by merely hearing loud noise it can lead to a complaint.

At the meeting, Louis Erteschik, the Waikiki Neighborhood Board’s vice chair and a resident of the area since 1990, said amplified noise has been an issue for years.

“And don’t get me wrong, I actually like the street performers; I think they add a lot of color to Waikiki,” said Erteschik, “but I can recall one night walking into Waikiki and thinking to myself, ‘Oh, is there a parade going on?’ And then, as I got closer, I realized that no, it wasn’t a parade, it was just the amplified music, and it kind of reverberates off the high-rise buildings. … So it does get pretty loud, there’s no questions about that.”

He added neighbors who come before the neighborhood board to complain about loud noise in the area “have a very legitimate concern.”

Meantime, the Honolulu Police Department also weighed in on Bill 5.

“I think the bill would be helpful,” HPD Maj. James Slayter said. “It would be a useful tool for the Police Department.”

Stationed at HPD’s District 6, which encompasses Waikiki, Slayter related that since his time working as a young beat cop in that area, the common complaints police were called to were about noise.

“And it’s not just the tourists; it is, as chair says, the residents, businesses, people who have their employment there, so it’s a common concern,” he said. “And typically, a lot of the things we can cite for in the current section is what we would consider (the) old school days’ boombox — the stereos, the loud noise.”

Still, police citations over noise-related complaints appear to be few and far between.

Slayter noted that islandwide in 2023, HPD fielded over 15,000 calls for service over noise — incidents that only yielded 100 citations.

“So that’s a very small amount that resulted in citations,” he said. “Of those 100 citations, 77 were in the Waikiki area. So a great deal of the actual enforcement is taking place there.”

But others on the Council were concerned over implementing Bill 5. For her part, Val Okimoto questioned the practicality of HPD’s enforcement of noise complaints.

“I know that in 2021 the department was not in favor of (Bill 43) because of the feasibility to enforce it,” she said. “How feasible will it be to enforce this one measure?”

In response, Slayter said the 2021 measure, as originally written, appeared to have “constitutional” issues, noting Bill 5 is improved.

“So I know that working extensively with the Prosecutor’s Office, they helped to kind of craft and create language that not only would be enforceable, but it is constitutional, something that would be applied,” he added.

Later, Slayter said most noise-complaint calls to HPD are easily resolved.

“It just comes down to finding the middle ground between the person calling and the person who is actually making the noise,” he said. “Typically, if you talk to both parties, you can find middle ground, and we’re just mediators at that point.”

But when a noise complaint moves toward an actual citation — which can include documenting individual incidents with police body-worn cameras — the generated noise, by city law, must be 30 feet away from the complaining party, he said.

“We can identify that that’s the source … so we’re able to cite it,” Slayter added. “Because we’re not going to cite if we can’t prosecute it.”

Council member Tyler Dos Santos-Tam was skeptical of Bill 5 too, asserting the measure, “as written, is very, very broad.”

“I just worry that we’d end up penalizing people who are just trying to have a good time at the beach or a park or wherever,” he added.

Others from the public, like Ben Sadoski of Unite Here Local 5, which represents unionized hotel workers, opposed the measure due to freedom-of-speech concerns.

“Bill 5 will make protests more difficult, and we feel there’s a danger there that could erode democracy on Oahu, which is a real danger for our communities,” Sadoski said. “So we would ask you to please defer Bill 5 today, and let’s look at more constructive alternatives that could work for everyone.”

To that, Waters acknowledged he’d met with Sadoski earlier in the week to offer Unite Here Local 5 the opportunity to speak with its union attorneys “to see if there’s any language that we could include in the bill to address some of the concerns” the union has with the measure.

“Were you able to speak with your attorneys?” asked Waters.

Sadoski replied that his union was still considering the measure because “we don’t feel like we fully understand all of the implications of the bill yet.”

Waters said he understood the union’s concerns, including the ability to hold a “public demonstration, whether you’re striking or not,” and “ensure that your union members are protected in their ability to get out there and protest.”

Ultimately, Committee Chair Matt Weyer requested Bill 5 — which passed a first reading at the Council’s Feb. 28 meeting — be deferred to a date yet to be determined.

Weyer noted that the deferral could give Waters time to present an updated draft of the noise control measure to the committee.