The Mosquito Bite We All Can't Resist Scratching
There's a whole lot of media here in Washington, D.C., and we all fill our little niches. As a result, there's rarely any one thing that we universally agree on. Politics, sports, even the behavior of our fellow reporters -- there's always a dissenting voice at some point about, well, everything.
Except the mosquito thing at the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station. We all either hate it or think its totally ineffective, and hence, worthless. Who are you to disagree with the mighty blogomediosphere?
Prince of Petworth dubbed it an "Anti-teen Noise-weapon." At Greater Greater Washington, Eric Fidler wrote that such "devices are wrong and most likely illegal as well," adding that the "ethical problem with the device is clear: it purposely aims to annoy and deny equal use of public accommodations to law-abiding people solely on account of their age." On the Post's All Opinions are Local page, BeyondDC's Dan Malouff called the installation of the device "a despicable thing to do," and said that "[u]ntil the mosquito comes down, I won't be spending any more of my money at Gallery Place." TBD's pedestrian issues reporter Dave Jamieson said that "everybody I saw was somewhat annoyed with it, including older people -- heard it just fine...plenty of kids told me they didn't care." Even the Washington Post's impartial reportage on the device featured more quotes from people who think that a police officer stationed at the entrance would do a lot more than the annoying beeps ever could.
As far as the actual effectiveness of the device, I'm only 26, so I'm probably not the best person to be trying out the scale of audibility -- but the frequency's that are up for testing on the device's manufacturer's website appear to work as promised. Not that I found the "most annoying" frequency that I could hear any more annoying than the normal swarm of noise pollution around the 7th and H intersection.
There's been a lot of chatter about whether or not the device violates the District's Human Rights Act or not. Of course, as my former co-editor Kriston Capps points out, we can all trace such debates back to the District's lack of an anti-loitering law. Such legislation has been one of Councilmember Jim Graham's great quests -- he's proposed such a law in 2005, 2007, 2009 and again this year. But each time, the bill has failed -- despite significant support from police -- mostly because the Council wasn't ready to start mucking around with anything regarding civil liberties. Graham withdrew the most recent iteration of the legislation before the Council went on summer recess this year.
With such an anti-loitering law on the book, more police would be required to patrol the area -- those citations aren't going to write themselves. And with more police, the need for this device would appear to be eliminated.
So what say you DCist readers? Is the mosquito offensive and potentially illegal, as we've all proclaimed it to be? Or do you break with consensus and think that the device is an appropriate supplement to current police patrols in the absence of anti-loitering laws? Let us know in the comments.