[wan23]

We supposedly live in a democracy, but the ability to affect what laws exist is not distributed equally. Sometimes there are two groups with opposing views of what the law should be, and the smaller group loses out. Oftentimes those people gather together in a place and have the local law enforcement disregard the law in their area. For example, pot is legal in Colorado even though it's illegal in the United States as a whole. Similarly, the residents of this neighborhood don't want the noise ordinance to be enforced, and they have been just fine with the way things have been going for decades. The newcomers can certainly appeal to the city that the law is being broken, but in doing so they are exercising political power to undermine the will of their neighbors, who spent time and energy to build a community they would be happy to live in. Having the law on their side doesn't make it a nice thing to do.

[serial_dev]

> the residents of this neighborhood don't want the noise ordinance to be enforced, and they have been just fine with the way things have been going for decades

Or maybe the silent majority of the old residents actually agree with the new people, except they already got tired of trying to enforce those rules, being ignored? That's just as likely in my opinion.

[raisedbyninjas]

So many people, the majority even, have spent an extended period pleading with authorities on this issue with no media attention and now merely several residents of one apartment building make the same pleas. These don't seem equally likely. Or should we be interpreting your view through the lens of the "silent majority" euphemism?

[oliwarner]

> the residents of this neighborhood don't want the noise ordinance to be enforced

I think that sort of local override is something that needs to be tested on frequent intervals. Communities change. They get older, they have kids, whatever, situations change. It's not enough to say that "this is the way we've done things since 1582". It's the people today that matter.