Regarding that proposed ordinance, it seems to me that no tennis will be allowed after 10pm. I can hear tennis balls bouncing off rackets from distances much greater than 50ft. Since everyone hears at different levels, I think enforcement of this ordinance wouldn't hold up in a Court. Under "definitions," this is about as clear as mud: "Noise shall mean any sounds or vibrations which annoy or disturb humans or cause or tend to cause adverse psychological effects on humans, and which may be harmful or injurious to the health or welfare of a reasonable person with normal sensibilities or unreasonably interfere with the normal conduct of life, use of property, or outdoor recreation." I'm totally confused, especially by the last part. Is this trying to say that outdoor recreation is exempt, or that I should be able to enjoy outdoor recreation without noise, or something else all together? Does this mean that I can legally play tennis after 10pm if someone can hear the stings hitting the ball from a distance greater than 50ft? Again, all of the Court rulings which I've read regarding similar ordinances, rule in favor of the person(s) whom made the noise, because there is no precise measurement of noise recorded, thereby making the detection very unique per instance, depending on the officer's hearing who is responding to the complaint. The County can save some more money if they just googled the other cases. Also, are the officers going to get a survey of the subject property and use a tape measure to find the 50ft or more definition? Without a survey, how are they to know the property's boundary? I have no clue about the "enclosed" house part of the proposed ordinance? Does this mean if one window is open, the Oridinance would not be enforced? What is the intent of this section? It is still my non-legal opinion that the anonymity of the person reporting the incident is unConstituional. I think the language of the Founding Documents is fairly clear for all to understand. One last note regarding the following exemption from the Ordinance: "The unamplified human voice." If this is true that the unamplified human voice is exempt, how is that fair? It seems to me that noise is noise, and it should make no difference in the types of noise, if the Ordinance is to be applied equally to all people. That in itself sounds unConstitutional to me. (what do I know? I'm not an attorney.) I think more people need to learn their protected rights, granted to us by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.