Media reinforces stereotypes in Forest Hills noise dispute

by Jeanine Botta, MPH, Co-founder, The Quiet Coalition

Photo credit: Ed, licensed under CC BY 2.0 DEED

As the 2025 concert series at Forest Hills Stadium approached, the conflict between the venue and homeowners on Dartmouth Street whose backyards border the stadium property intensified. In March, the Forest Hills Gardens Corporation, which advocates for the homeowners, lost a bid to prevent the concert series from going forward. The group refused to grant the New York Police Department access to private streets that surround the stadium, which would have prevented the NYPD from issuing sound amplification permits. New York City leadership ended the impasse by working out a deal involving private security. NYPD approved the arrangement and the permits on conditions that the stadium comply with city noise codes and security requirements.

When this occurred, the stadium published social media posts on X leveling insults at the Dartmouth Street residents. Most news outlets simply published the posts without putting the information in context. Articles in Billboard, Gothamist, Time Out, Newsday, Fox 5 New York, Spectrum News NY1 and local papers quote a social media post calling the residents a “vocal NIMBY minority” and some publications give the last word to the venue and series organizers, as CBS News does with this article and accompanying video.

As someone who grew up in Forest Hills, has family there and visits regularly, I read this critical commentary and wonder if readers with no knowledge of Forest Hills believe everything they read. Most media downplay the level of noise the Dartmouth Street residents are expected to accommodate. Some journalists seem not to comprehend the harmful effects of noise on health and quality of life. Portrayed as affluent, privileged and bothered by music that most people enjoy, the homeowners are described as “annoyed,” “disgruntled” and “just a bunch of grumpy people.”

Media coverage also included speculation of potential negative impacts had the concert series been prevented from going forward, further blaming the homeowners. In the CBS News article, Queens Borough President Donovan Richards stated that “thousands of union jobs are attached to these concerts” and in a letter posted on QNS, Richards stated that the concerts provide a “huge lifeline” and serve as an “economic driver” to Forest Hills, bringing revenue to local establishments; the Gothamist article mentioned that the concerts are an “economic lifeline” to the area.

While the concerts certainly contribute tax revenue to the local economy, Forest Hills has been a thriving restaurant and shopping destination for decades. As for the possible job loss, portraying freelance production crews as potential victims of the local homeowners was unrealistic, since freelancers regularly work multiple jobs that are not guaranteed.

A New York Times article adds some balance to the narrative. It is undisputed that neighboring residents accepted the series when there were fewer concerts during the season, and when sound levels were lower. The Times article includes a quote by the series organizer as he justifies nearly tripling the number of seasonal concerts “to make financial sense.” The article also describes in detail the impacts of the sound levels on nearby homes, which include rattling windows, lights going off, concerts scheduled on religious holidays and school nights, loud concerts lasting until midnight and concertgoers leaving trash in yards.

In spite of some balanced reporting and inclusion of essential facts, The Times depicts Forest Hills Gardens residents as affluent and privileged, living in an “enclave” as the article’s title suggests. While many parts of Forest Hills Gardens fit that description, the area bordering the stadium faces the Long Island Railroad, and is located close to a busy shopping district two blocks away. Car owners have to live in the Gardens to park there legally, but anyone can walk along its streets and sidewalks.

Reader comments published in online forums differ, with some sympathetic to residents and others hostile towards them. With critical posts, the residents’ economic status seems inextricable. Their testimony about the effects of the noise are presented as suspect because they are assumed to be motivated by privilege and selfishness. With many public opinions, as with most of the media depictions, there is no neutral ground, no knowledge of the health effects of noise and no consideration that the noise can create suffering among those living in nearby homes.

Among major media outlets, none asked what the concert venue and organizer were thinking when they decided to increase the sound volume and the frequency of the concerts. Those advocating on behalf of the stadium’s neighbors believe the motivation was profit. In spite of evidence that this is true, the stadium and concert organizers depict themselves as victims of privileged "NIMBY” neighbors, glossing over the fact that these are neighbors suffering serious harms; recent media reporting has reinforced this idea.