I do not believe in retreat, but the least that should be expected is that all enclosed spaces be soundproofed at the promoter's, or if a public necessity, the government's, expense. Innocent victims of "legal" noises must be indemnified for any and all costs. This principle will speed up the process of discovering and applying noise control to transportation and construction.
Just as the law now requires landlords to provide a minimum of thermal protection, so it must require that tenants receive needed acoustic protection. Enjoyment of property must also include the right to make noise. This means that dwellings must be built to contain sound. Instead of a "quiet" room as some suggest, why not a "noisy" room, where one can make noise to one's heart's content? The design would be the same as for the "quiet" room, but the whole concept would be a new dimension in civilized living.
The "quiet enjoyment" clause should be interpreted to mean that all living space shall be noise-rated. An apartment without adequate provisions for noise insulation would be rated second class, and its rent would not be as high as that of a first class apartment.
Building owners or operators whose tenants are exposed to a long-term disturbing noise after a lease is signed would be held responsible for maintaining that "quiet enjoyment" clause. They would be required to install soundproofed windows if necessary, and air conditioning if it became necessary to keep windows shut. If they failed to maintain a tranquil apartment they would be required to reduce the rent during the period of noise intrusion. If a tenant is forced to move, he should be reimbursed for the cost of moving, including the cost of looking for a new apartment.
In other words, a landlord should have an economic stake in preventing new noise sources from polluting the community.
The landlord, in turn, would be reimbursed by the private or government agency responsible for the noise. This reimbursement could be in the form of a tax reduction, or a fixed sum of money for each month of the noise intrusion.
The principle that the polluter must pay needs to become part and parcel of public policy. Already it has backing ranging from the prestigious President's Science Advisory Committee to Life Magazine. Life editorialized that the businessman should not expect someone else to clean up or live with the refuse he creates. Noise is a waste product, and the polluter should be responsible for maintaining the acoustic quality of a given environment, or at the very least soundproofing the structure he is invading.