PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: July 23, 1998
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A-21
BYLINE: Susan Greene
DATELINE: Denver, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Representative Joel Hefley (R-Colorado Springs)
The Denver Post reports that the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation voted Wednesday to approve a $47 billion transportation spending bill for 1998-1999 that would allow the Denver (Colorado) International Airport to compete for funding to build a sixth runway. The article notes that the bill is scheduled to be voted on by the full House and Senate in coming weeks.
According to the article, the airport originally was designed for six runways, but only five were built because of rising costs. The airport is owned and operated by the city of Denver, and officials there say a sixth runway is needed to ease air traffic and possibly lure more international flights. The project cost was originally estimated at $60 million, but now is estimated at nearly $100 million.
The article explains that the city has two lobbying firms pushing Congress to lift its ban for the airport to compete for runway money. For the first time since 1994, the article says, the bill doesn't prohibit airport officials from bidding on Federal Aviation Administration money for the new runway. Representative Diana DeGette (D-Denver) said, "It looks to me like as much of a done deal as we're going to get in this Congress. This is a very important hurdle we've overcome."
Meanwhile, the article says, Representative Joel Hefley (R-Colorado Springs) said he will work toward blocking the funding authorization because the increased air traffic at the airport would make jet noise problems worse for nearby residents. Hefley's district includes residents south of the airport who have complained about noise. Leigh LaMora, Hefley's press secretary, said, "This fight isn't over. You'd be surprised what can happen in a week -- lots of pulling rabbits out of hats."
The article notes that other Congress members have objected to the funding plan because millions of federal tax dollars already were used to build the airport and because the airport was delayed in opening. Representative Frank Wolf (R-Virginia), chair of the transportation subcommittee, was one of the most influential opponents. But according to Representative DeGette, Wolf no longer objects to the plan.
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: July 23, 1998
SECTION: News; Page A33
BYLINE: Chau Lam
DATELINE: Long Beach, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Irene Ficke, John White, Matt Dwyer, residents and activists
Newsday reports that the City Council in Long Beach, New York tabled a proposal to rescind the ban on gas-powered leaf-blowers Tuesday, after an outpouring of opposition to the idea. Residents called for the ban to be enforced, while gardeners complained that they need leaf-blowers.
According to the article, people who opposed rescinding the ban outnumbered supporters of the proposal by more than 2 to 1. Irene Ficke, a resident and community activist, asked City Councilors not only to not rescind the ban on gas-powered leaf-blowers, but also to pass a ban on electric-powered leaf-blowers. Ficke also asked the council to have the ban enforced. The article notes that although the ban has been on the books since 1995, it has never been enforced, and city employees used leaf-blowers regularly. Councilor Joel Crystal said "not one citation has ever been written" for violation of the ban in the city. John White, another community activist, said he has seen gardeners blowing dirt from one place to another. White also said that "if enough communities continue to ban the leaf-blowers, industry will come up with something better." Activist Matt Dwyer and others said that most gardeners using leaf-blowers wear masks and eye and ear protection, but the people around them don't get that kind of protection.
The article explains that those who supported lifting the ban were gardeners or leaf-blower sellers. Yigal Edinger, a gardener, said the people who complain about leaf-blower noise are those who stay at home all day and have nothing better to do than worry about leaf-blower noise. He said leaf-blowers are indispensable tools for gardeners, and without the blowers, "prices to the homeowner would double or triple." George Olson, a distributor of Echo leaf-blowers, said the blowers are becoming quieter, and his company stresses the proper use of the equipment.
PUBLICATION: South China Morning Post
DATE: July 23, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 17
BYLINE: C.K. Lau
DATELINE: Hong Kong, China
The South China Morning Post printed an editorial in which the writer argues that residents complaining about jet noise coming from the flight paths of the new Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong don't have a case against the government. But, the editorial says, the government should have informed residents about the flight path routes, or at least provided a channel through which they could easily find out the information.
The editorial says that the biggest stories about airport noise during the past several years were about noise from the Kai Tak airport. In 1993, when officials put forward a plan to increase the airport's number of flights and change flight paths, residents in Kowloon City and Heng Fa Chuen protested angrily. But officials told residents that when the new airport was finished in Chek Lap Kok, the problem would be solved.
But, the editorial says, now that Kai Tak has closed, residents in Sha Tin, Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung, and Tsing Yi are complaining about the noise from Chek Lap Kok. These residents are demanding that officials change the flight paths so that their peace and quiet can be restored to their neighborhoods.
The editorial argues, however, that residents are unlikely to succeed in their efforts, because the jet noise isn't really that unbearable. The editorial explains that a comprehensive environmental impact assessment was conducted in 1991-92 to determine how the new flight paths would affect people. According to Simon Li Tin-chui, the Acting Chief Planning Officer of the Civil Aviation Department, the environmental study adopted a more stringent noise standard than that applied to Kai Tak. Neighborhoods under Kai Tak's flight paths couldn't have a Noise Exposure Forecast value of more than 30, but the maximum value for Chek Lap Kok flight paths is 25. The editorial notes that this is the standard applied in many environmentally conscious, developed countries. In addition, the Provisional Airport Authority in 1994 said that 350,000 people were affected by noise from the flight paths to Kai Tak, while only 100 people would be affected in a similar manner by Chek Lap Kok. The editorial says that these 100 residents live mainly in Sha Lo Wan, and were warned of and compensated for the noise nuisance. In addition, the editorial notes, the Advisory Committee on the Environment was consulted on the findings of the environmental report in late 1991, and didn't raise any concerns. Thus, the editorial concludes, technically residents don't seem to have a case against the government.
The editorial goes on to say that the real issue is that people have a right to be informed about future development plans. This didn't happen with the new airport. The public was never told about the new flight path routes, and no district boards were consulted, the editorial says.
As a result, the editorial argues, residents in the Kau To Shan suburb in Sha Tin, who probably bought upscale homes so they could have some peace and quiet, believe that any aircraft noise is totally unacceptable. And, public housing tenants in Tsing Yi's Cheung Hang estate are right to feel angry that they were never told the planes would be flying close overhead.
The editorial explains that Hong Kong's coastline and landscape is continually being reshaped by reclamation and the construction of new roads and buildings. A common issue has been that residents often are not told about development changes. As a result, the editorial says, it is not uncommon to pay big money for a sea view which is about to disappear. Now, the editorial argues, aircraft noise turns out to be another planned but unpublicized change that officials undertook without informing residents. The editorial points out that usually, information about development is available in the outline of zoning plans which are gazetted. If people are determined, they can find out what development is going to occur by visiting the offices of the Planning Department and Lands Department. But the flight paths, according to a spokesperson for the Civil Aviation Department, don't need to be gazetted, meaning residents couldn't find out about them even if they wanted to. The editorial says in many developed countries, real estate agents are compelled by law or professional standards to inform prospective buyers of how a neighborhood will change, to the best of their knowledge. But in Hong Kong, the editorial says, most real estate agents are more likely to hide negative information about a property from a prospective buyer.
But, the editorial argues, Hong Kong doesn't necessarily need laws requiring real estate agents to provide that information. Prospective buyers should take it upon themselves to find out if they are getting a good buy. However, any responsible government should at least have a mechanism in place to facilitate inquiries about flight paths, new roads, and reclamation in a comprehensive, easy to understand and convenient manner. In addition, the government should remind people that they should search out such information before buying. If the government took these actions, the editorial says, people wouldn't have any case against the government.
PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 5, The Dinger
BYLINE: Rick Bell
DATELINE: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Calgary Sun printed an editorial that ridicules the noise rules governing the upcoming Calgary Folk Music Festival on Prince's Island in Calgary, Alberta. The columnist says the folk festival is singled out by residents in upscale neighborhoods, who have made local officials impose unnecessarily stringent regulations.
According to the editorial, across the river from Prince's Island, in Kensington, any sound "beyond the gliding of in-line skates and the pitter-patter of exotic dog breeds brings shrieks of dismay." The columnist says that in Eau Claire, people "put on their designer jammies and head to bed before sunset."
The editorial goes on to say that at last year's folk festival, the Doobie Brothers' music registered 77 decibels, still far below the 85 decibel limit. But that still was too loud for some people. Local officials received only about six complaints, but this year they still reduced the permitted noise level to 65 decibels until 10 o'clock tomorrow and Sunday, and till 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. To get even that, the editorial says, the festival organizers had to apply for a noise exemption. The editorial explains that a crowded restaurant is 70 decibels, a noisy office is 60, and a library is 40.
As a result of the regulations, the editorial says, a city bylaw officer will be patrolling Kensington, Eau Claire, and Crescent Heights with a sound meter in hand. The folk festival this year hired an acoustical technician to adjust speakers, and keep the ambient sound down. The columnist says sarcastically that at least the cheers of the crowd can exceed 65 decibels.
PUBLICATION: The Detroit News
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: On Detroit; Pg. Pg. S4
BYLINE: Kevin Fobbs
DATELINE: Detroit, Michigan
The Detroit News printed a question-and-answer column in which a resident in Detroit, Michigan complains about the noisy activities of a new family in the neighborhood. The columnist advises the resident to talk to the family about their concerns, and to not expect that everyone will fit in with the view of a quiet neighborhood.
According to the column, the resident says most of the people in the neighborhood are very respectful of each other's privacy and the need for quiet. But the new neighbors are loud, rowdy, and disrespectful, the resident says. The family's teen-age kids play midnight basketball until late at night and sometimes race up and down the street with loud music blaring. The resident says the family doesn't seem to fit into the neighborhood's quiet atmosphere, and asks for help in getting that message across.
In response to the problem, the columnist says the resident wants the teens to fit nicely into a definition of what a quiet street should be. The columnist tells the resident to remember that young people, old people, and middle-aged people have to live together in the neighborhood. The best way to coexist peacefully, the columnist says, is to communicate concerns in a non-threatening manner. Invite the new family over, the column recommends, and start to get to know each other and build respect. You may even start to like the kids, the columnist tells the resident.
PUBLICATION: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. B-1
BYLINE: Timothy McNulty
DATELINE: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dan Onorato, City Councilor
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that the City Council in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania will consider an ordinance Wednesday that would lower the lawful noise level for car stereos from 85 decibels to 68 decibels, the level used in New York City. The proposal would allow police to impound cars after a second citation.
According to the article, the proposal was introduced yesterday by City Councilor Dan Onorato. Violators of the proposed ordinance would be fined $300. After a second offense, violators would be fined again and have their cars impounded until they pay the fine and the towing costs. Onorato also wants the city to purchase 15 more sound meters for the police, in order to increase enforcement of the ordinance. However, the article says, the new ordinance also would allow police to issue citations even without a sound meter, if the car stereo can be heard from 75 feet away. The ordinance would not cover outdoor concerts, parades, or festivals, the article notes.
The article explains that according to Onorato, he wrote the proposed ordinance after hearing numerous complaints from residents about loud stereos. He said that lowering the decibel level and threatening to take away cars will guard the "quality of life" in the city. Onorato went on to say that the ordinance would protect the rights of residents who are offended by the noise. He said, "Somewhere along the line in this country, we got a definition of freedom to express yourself that doesn't have any responsibility with it. Well, it does. When you get to the point where you're blasting music and disturbing the peace and disturbing the enjoyment of a neighbor sitting on the front porch, then you no longer have that free right to do whatever you want. This is a balancing act that's been going on since the beginning of this country."
The article says that according to Witold Walczak, director of the Pittsburgh office of the American Civil Liberties Union, the proposed ordinance wouldn't infringe on the right of free expression as long as police issued citations regardless of the content of the music. In other words, police would have to cite anybody playing music over 68 decibels. But Walczak questioned how drivers would know what the decibel level of their music was, and said the punishment of impounding cars may be too severe. He said, "It's difficult for people who play their music loud or listen to Pirates games loud to know what 68 decibels is. Given that imprecision, it seems highly unfair to take away their vehicles. The punishment does not seem to fit the crime."
Meanwhile, Warren Sullivan, owner of the stereo shop Ace Electronics, said the 68-decibel level was too low. To prove his point, Sullivan stood outside his shop by Arlington Avenue and pointed a sound meter at a passing Port Authority bus. It registered 85 decibels, the article says. Sullivan yelled, "Jeez, they're going to be tagging everybody on the street." He added that interfering with car stereos would be like interfering with nature. Apparently, the article says, nature makes young men install $1,200 worth of stereo equipment in the cars. "It's to attract girls!" Sullivan yelled.
PUBLICATION: Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL)
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A13
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Press Journal reports that the code enforcement board in Boca Raton, Florida voted 3-2 Monday that a resident has to get rid of a concrete slab in a vacant lot used as a makeshift basketball court because she couldn't produce a permit for the slab, which was poured in 1965. The issue arose when a resident who lives near the vacant lot complained about the noise from the basketball games.
According to the article, resident Irwin Oppenheim, whose house borders the vacant lot, complained to city officials in December about the noise. He said his "emotionally disabled" son lives with him and is bothered by the kids playing basketball.
The article reports that the board gave Chickie Wentworth, the owner of the vacant lot, until August 1999 to get rid of the slab. If it's not gone by that date, she'll be fined $1 a day instead of $250 a day.
Neighbors turned up at the meeting to defend the basketball court, the article says. Carol Ann Raciocot, a resident who grew up near the vacant lot, said, "Boca wasn't as stuffy [in 1965] as it is today. I think it's ridiculous. We've been playing there for years, and the kids aren't going to go away."
Oppenheim, meanwhile, was unhappy with the board's ruling. He said, "It doesn't solve anything for my son and I. We'll probably have to suffer through another year of high-decibel noise and harassment and whatever they are going to throw at us."
PUBLICATION: The Richmond Times Dispatch
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: Henrico Plus, Pg. L-1
BYLINE: Wes Allison
DATELINE: Richmond, Virginia area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Susan and John Vonderlehr, residents; Andrea Stiles, attorney for the residents
The Richmond Times Dispatch reports that residents near Richmond, Virginia, in western Henrico County, are considering suing an upscale retirement community behind their homes over noise from the retirement home's cooling tower. The article says the homeowners' association recently hired a lawyer, and is considering asking officials to cite the retirement home under the county's noise ordinance.
According to the article, residents of Dover Hunt Place have complained for almost two years about the persistent noise from the cooling tower at The Hermitage at Cedarfield. Resident Susan Vonderlehr said, "We cannot open our windows. We've been patient. We've gone through almost three years of letter-writing and responses." Vonderlehr said the noise is like an idling tractor-trailer truck, and is constant during the spring, summer, and fall it's virtually constant. Andrea Stiles, an attorney for the residents and a resident of Dover Hunt Place, sent a letter to Cedarfield representatives saying that the noise from the cooling tower violates the county noise ordinance. That ordinance prohibits noise "of such character, intensity and duration as to be detrimental to the life or health of any person, or to unreasonably disturb or annoy the quiet, comfort or repose of any person." Stiles said, "When your children complain about the noise, when you can't have peace and quiet outside your home, when you can hear it when your windows are shut," something must be done. She added, "Nobody wants to take this to court, but the situation is truly intolerable. The people who are directly affected cannot stand it."
The article explains that The Hermitage at Cedarfield opened in September 1996 and is the largest and newest of six retirement communities owned by the Virginia United Methodist Homes, an affiliate of the United Methodist Church. The community has 85 cottages, 311 apartments, 42 assisted-living apartments, 60 nursing home beds, and a small unit for Alzheimer's patients. About 515 residents live there, and occupancy is around 93 percent, the article notes.
According to the article, some residents started their opposition to the cooling tower in 1995, the community opened. After seeing the site plans, the requested that the tower be moved farther from their homes. That wasn't done, but an extra $22,500 was spent on extra mufflers. Still, according to Vonderlehr, "the first day it was on, my husband and I were like, 'What is that noise?' It was a low-level, loud roar."
Since the retirement community opened, letters and exchanges have followed. Residents said representatives from the community have worked with them to solve other complaints. According to Executive Director Christopher Henderson, the retirement community has spend $2,700 for a stand of Norway spruce that serves as a sound and sight buffer to the cooling tower; $4,000 to reduce noise from the kitchen exhaust; and $3,000 to move some noisy refrigeration units. An acoustical engineering study conducted on the cooling tower found that the noise could be reduced by refitting its fan motors, but Henderson said the community can't afford the $50,000 cost right now. He said, "We've spent a substantial amount of time and money in doing what we can. We understand that four or five years ago, this was a 90-acre, pristine farm. We're never going to be able to compete with that rolling hills and pasture." Henderson added that even though residents at The Hermitage pay entrance fees of between $84,000 and $300,000, and between $1,400 and $4,000 per month, the community is not rolling in dough. The project was expensive to build, and it's expensive to operate, Henderson said. He added, "We are a brand-new retirement community, we're in the process of filling up, we have a very, very tight budget. If I had $50,000 to put into this, you and I would not be talking right now." The community eventually hopes to find enough money to make the modifications to the cooling tower, he said.
PUBLICATION: The Richmond Times Dispatch
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: Area/State, Pg. B-7
BYLINE: Lucas Wall
DATELINE: Richmond, Virginia area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sue and John Hall, residents
The Richmond Times Dispatch reports that about 80 residents of the Richmond, Virginia area attended a meeting yesterday about a proposed project to widen the Interstate 64 corridor between Richmond and Hampton. Concerns about increased noise dominated the meeting, the article says. The Virginia Department of Transportation (DOT), along with their consultants, are almost finished with their two-year study of the corridor, and are proposing six alternatives.
The article reports that some of the options in the study are adding regular and High Occupancy Vehicle lanes to Interstate 64 and high-speed rail service. This fall, the Commonwealth Transportation Board is expected to approve an alternative, and preliminary design will begin on the most urgent phases, according to H.F. Minish of DOT's location and design office. He added that noise and environmental impacts will be carefully studied during that phase.
The article explains that some residents who attended yesterday's meeting said they agree changes should be made to the Interstate, but said they were concerned about the impacts. Sue Hall, who lives in a neighborhood along the Interstate in Henrico County, said, "I do see the need for [additional] lanes, but it sure would be nice if we were assured of having protection from the noise." Hall's husband, John, said, "We came out to hear what they're going to do about the noise level. I don't think any of the studies in here addresses that." Another resident, Connie Lewis, said she was concerned that the project will hurt the property value of her home. She said she didn't want to expand her home, as she had planned, if the road project happens. Several people expressed interest in the high-speed rail option, the article notes.
The article also says that two more public meetings are scheduled today and tomorrow to present the study's alternatives.
PUBLICATION: The San Diego Union-Tribune
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: Local Pg. B-1:4,5; B-3:1,6
BYLINE: Ray Huard
DATELINE: San Diego, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Tamsen, resident
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that the City Council in San Diego, California unanimously approved a plan yesterday to mitigate some of the impact of the construction of state Route 56 through Carmel Valley. The plan requires a buffer zone between the freeway and surrounding land, extensive landscaping, limited lighting, and limited grading. In addition, the plan outlines steps that must be taken to protect wildlife and offset environmental damage caused by the freeway. But some residents living near the project asked for more restrictions, including an agreement that the freeway would never be widened beyond six lanes.
According to the article, last month the City Council chose a northern route as the path for the long-awaited five-mile missing link between portions of Route 56 completed earlier. The chosen route avoided some environmentally sensitive canyons, but is located closer to the Rancho Glens Estates neighborhood and some planned developments than residents wanted.
The article explains that at yesterday's meeting, Mark Tamsen, a resident of Rancho Glens Estates, asked the city to agree to a number of items outlined in a list. Tamsen wants the city to guarantee that the freeway would never be widened beyond six lanes, that portions of the freeway and overpasses be kept to the lowest possible height, that fully grown trees be planted along the freeway where it would face Rancho Glens, and that the noise walls built be attractive. Tamsen said, "We want to be able to open our windows at night. We want to be able to cook a hamburger in our back yard." The article also notes that the plans call for the highway to have four lanes, with room to expand to six lanes.
Meanwhile, Frank Belock, the city engineering and capital projects director, said the noise walls originally were designed to be 18 feet high, but would be redesigned to be about eight feet high so the freeway would not create a walled-in feeling. City councilor Harry Mathis said that the council hopes to build an attractive, landscaped thoroughfare, not a concrete ribbon. He said, "Let's face it, we can't build a freeway in this area without having some impacts." But, he added, "the notion of having a parkway ambiance for this freeway will be preserved." Councilor Barbara Warden said it is important to accommodate residents who live near the route. She said, "I don't want the people to wake up one day and say, 'Oh my goodness, look what happened out here.' It is in all of our best interests to mitigate the visual and noise impacts."
PUBLICATION: The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA)
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: Main News, Pg. A1
BYLINE: Kathy Mulady, with contributions by Craig Welch
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Karen Barniol, leader, Citizens for Neighborhood Preservation; Jane McGowan, activist
The Spokesman-Review reports that commissioners in Spokane County, Washington Tuesday unanimously denied a request by Wal-Mart to rezone residential property for a regional shopping center on the north side of Seattle. Residents who had opposed the rezoning because of the size, lights, noise, traffic, and possible 24-hour operation of the store were thrilled with the decision. The article notes that Wal-Mart has not yet announced whether it will appeal the decision to the Superior Court.
According to the article, the Wal-Mart was proposed for a 40-acre site on the west side of the Newport Highway, just north of Hawthorne Road. The site is bordered by homes in the Camelot, Carriage Hills, and College Place subdivisions. The store would have covered about 257,000 square feet. The land has been owned by the Dave Nelson family for 40 years, and was the site of a landscaping and nursery business until June 1996.
The article explains that Wal-Mart officials first presented their project to Mike Dempsey, the County Hearing Examiner, in January. Dempsey denied the rezoning request, and two weeks ago, Wal-Mart appealed his decision to the commissioners. Wal-Mart officials argued that conditions have changed so much in the area that a rezoning is appropriate. For instance, they said, other commercial development, including NorthPointe Plaza, Fred Meyer, and Wandermere Mall, are already in that area. But the hearing examiner and county commissioners disagreed. Commissioner Phil Harris said, "It's not unusual to have different zoning on one side of the street from the other. There has to be a boundary somewhere." But, Harris added, "We have to accept that as the population grows, commercial [development] is going to spread. It's got to go somewhere." Harris also said that the hearing examiner's original decision was correct based on the county's comprehensive plan, policies, and laws.
Residents, meanwhile, had been working to oppose the shopping center for two years, the article says. Karen Barniol, head of Citizens for Neighborhood Preservation, said, "I'm thrilled. I was hoping to hear a little discussion about why this was unanimous. I think that's important. This decision will have ramifications for other neighborhoods." Residents insisted they aren't opposed to Wal-Mart in another location, or to the Nelsons developing the property. Barniol said she hoped residents could meet with the Nelsons to discuss what would be compatible with the neighborhood, but Dave Nelson said he wasn't interested.
The article reports that Jack McCullough, a Wal-Mart attorney, said Wal-Mart hasn't decided what to do next, but there are a range of options. He said, "We are disappointed and surprised by the decision of the commissioners. We started this process two-and-a-half years ago. We worked through the details with the city, state and regional council, and really thought we had addressed everything. We thought we had a superior project." The article notes that Wal-Mart officials had agreed to make road improvements, add landscaping, and use lighting that would secure the parking lot but not encroach on neighboring back yards. In addition, there would have been no access from the shopping center to the residential areas.
PUBLICATION: The Union Leader (Manchester, NH)
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: Section A Pg. 5
DATELINE: Merrimack, New Hampshire
The Union Leader reports that a public hearing was held last night at the planning board meeting in Merrimack, New Hampshire on a proposal for a Home Depot store on Route 101A. About 25 residents who live near the proposed store attended the meeting and raised concerns about noise, traffic and the store's proposed location on well-head property.
The article reports that Home Depot officials have proposed building a 133,958-square-foot store on part of a 52-acre parcel of land zoned for general commercial use. The land is next to the Talarico car dealership and across Route 101A from the new PC Connection facilities. The article notes that there already are Home Depot stores in Nashua and Manchester. Greg Michael, an attorney for Home Depot, said the town's master plan suggests that businesses such as Home Depot are appropriate for the site, and added that the store "is a good use of the property with low environmental impact." The article notes that the plan for the store includes a consumer entrance and exit on the east end of the property. Michael said store officials already had made an agreement with Talarico to share the curb cut for the entrance. An entrance for trucks would be created at the west end of the property, he added. About 21 trucks would make deliveries each day, Michael said, and most deliveries are by trucks owned by the company, so that deliveries can be made during times that would have the least traffic impact. The store hours would be from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays, the article notes.
According to the article, about 25 residents attended the hearing to oppose the project. Resident Bob Luhrs said that traffic accidents on the road are increasing. Another resident said traffic already is nearing levels at the Pheasant Lane Mall area of Daniel Webster Highway. Other residents said they were concerned about noise, especially noise from loudspeakers at the store that might be able to be heard from their homes. Some residents said they wanted to make sure that runoff from the site wouldn't pollute their wells.
Michael responded that Home Depot is conducting traffic surveys and will submit plans to address all of residents' concerns. The article notes that the state already is planning to widen Route 101A due to increased traffic.
PUBLICATION: Albuquerque Journal
DATE: July 21, 1998
SECTION: Metropolitan; Pg. C2
BYLINE: Sherri Chunn
DATELINE: Albuquerque, New Mexico
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Barbara Lebeck, president, Huning Castle Neighborhood Association
The Albuquerque Journal reports that a recent study in Albuquerque, New Mexico found that three area television stations have news helicopters that operate above the city's noise laws. The article notes that the city monitored the stations helicopter ports in March and April in response to residents' complaints about the noise, fumes, and potential danger of the helicopters taking off and landing near their homes. City officials have offered to set up meetings between the news stations and the residents. Some residents said they are unhappy with the city's response.
According to the article, the city allows heliports on television station property, but if the helicopters raise the areas' noise levels above 50 decibels, or 10 decibels over normal noise levels, the city can fine each heliport operator up to $900 per violation. The article says that the city's study found that in some cases, helicopter noise around the stations was as high as 94 decibels. The study looked at the heliports of KOAT Channel 7, KOB Channel 4, and KRQE Channel 13. Channel 7 has had a news helicopter for 18 years, and the other channels have had helicopters off and on for about the same length of time. Channel 7's helicopter is housed on its Carlisle NE property, while Channel 13's is on the roof of its downtown office. Channel 4 keeps its helicopter in the Tingley Beach/Albuquerque County Club area.
According to the city, the study found that the helicopters didn't bother most of the residents contacted. A city memorandum said, "A number of residents contacted stated that the noise was not a problem and that they enjoyed the excitement of the helicopter(s) in their neighborhood." The heliports at all the stations drew some complaints as well, the article notes.
Officials from the three stations said they try to be good neighbors and avoid flying over residential areas as much as possible. Brad Remington, news director for Channel 4, said, "We want to work with the neighbors. We tried very hard to keep the noise down." Remington added that the station's helicopter flies about 10 times a month.
Meanwhile, Richard Mitzelfelt, manager of the Environmental Health Department's Consumer Protection Division, said the city doesn't intend to fine any of the news stations. But, he said the city is hoping an agreement can be reached between the stations and the residents. Greg Wheeler, the assistant city attorney, said, "The city has elected to try to get the TV stations and neighborhoods to mediate this matter; if we take it to District Court, it would drag it out for a couple of years."
Some residents of the Albuquerque Country Club neighborhood said they're not pleased with the city's response to the problem. Barbara Lebeck, president of the Huning Castle Neighborhood Association, said, "Why have a noise ordinance if it's not going to be enforced?"
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: July 21, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 4B
DATELINE: Hamburg, New York
The Buffalo News reports that the Village Board in Hamburg, New York will hold a public hearing on August 17 to discuss a proposed noise oridnance.
PUBLICATION: Capital Times (Madison, WI)
DATE: July 21, 1998
SECTION: Today's Business, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Mike Ivey
DATELINE: Madison, Wisconsin
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Hausbeck, staff member, Madison Health Department
The Capital Times reports that the Plan Commission in Madison, Wisconsin held a public meeting Monday to discuss proposed changes in the city's noise ordinance. A group of local manufacturers and business owners turned out at the meeting, objecting to the proposed changes. The commission sent the issue back to a committee for more study.
According to the article, a city study group has been working to update the noise ordinance for the past two years in response to residents' complaints about noise at the Madison Kipp manufacturing plant off Atwood Avenue. The ordinance hasn't been updated since the 1950s, the article says. John Hausbeck, a study team member and a staffer at the Madison Health Department, said, "The ordinance we've got right now is antiquated. It allows noise levels of 70 or 75 decibels in residential areas and that is ridiculous."
The proposed changes to the ordinance call for reductions in permissible noise levels that would go into effect immediately, as well as tougher standards by 2001. The proposed changes also set different standards for areas in different zones. For example, in residential areas, the current ordinance allows 75 decibels, but the proposed ordinance allows only 65 decibels. That's a reduction of more than one-half, the article notes, because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale.
The article says that business owners turned out to complain about the proposed changes. Steve Donahue of Research Products, which operates a manufacturing plant downtown, said, "The ripple effect is going to cause companies to leave the city and head out to the cornfields." Don Fulkerson of Litho Productions said, "This will cost us $100,000 right off the top and we simply can't afford to do that." Phil Nelson, a safety manager with Madison Gas and Electric Company, said the proposed changes were so restrictive that songbirds would be too loud. Nelson said he to a noise reading of a wren on top of his house, and found it would be too loud in 2001 under the ordinance. Nelson also said the proposed changes would cost his company $4.2 million, and would make back-up electric generators illegal, which many large industrial companies depend on in the summer. Michael Christopher, an attorney for the gas and electric company, said there isn't a need for a tougher noise ordinance. Officials said the city has only received 20 to 25 noise complaints over the past three years, the article reports.
The article notes that the proposed changes didn't have many supporters other than the members of the study team. Caryl Terrell, the Plan Commission Chair, said the study team should come up with some reasons for tightening the ordinance. She said, "There is no case being made here for what I think is a worthwhile effort."
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
DATE: July 21, 1998
SECTION: Local/Region, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Katie Wang
DATELINE: Emmaus, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Vera Miller, resident
The Morning Call reports that about 25 residents turned out for the borough council meeting in Emmaus, Pennsylvania Monday to demand that restrictions be placed on where Conrail trains can idle their engines. The article explains that boundaries were set in previous years regarding where trains can idle, but residents say the rules are not being enforced. Two weeks ago, residents asked council members to consider an ordinance banning the noise and pollution from the trains. Meanwhile, the article says, Conrail officials say an ordinance isn't necessary and they will start enforcing the boundaries.
According to the article, residents have kept logs since May on the times that trains idle on the tracks near their homes on West Jubilee Street. They say they're fed up with the noisy engines and overwhelming fumes that drift through their neighborhood at all hours of the day and night when the trains are idling. Residents said train engineers idle their trains in that area so they can run to fast food restaurants in the area. Resident Vera Miller said, "Why is the engine left empty during the middle of the night? We're just sick and tired of this." Residents said they don't object to trains passing through their neighborhood, but they don't want them to park there at night. Miller's log showed that idling trains stopped for three-hour stretches, sometimes three times a day.
The article explains that about four years ago, state Representative Don Snyder (R-Lehigh) helped set boundaries outside the neighborhood where trains were supposed to stop. Trains were supposed to stop west of a "Mile 29" sign and east of Seventh Street. But, the article says, personnel changes and communication problems since then have resulted in the agreement not being enforced.
Meanwhile, George Kuiper, Conrail's new superintendent for the Allentown terminal, promised to address the problem and reinforce the instructions to park outside the neighborhood. He said, "We want to be friendly to our neighbors. You should see a definite improvement in the future." Kuiper added that because there is often congestion in the Allentown rail yard, trains get backed up into Emmaus.
PUBLICATION: South China Morning Post
DATE: July 21, 1998
SECTION: Letters To The Editor; Pg. 16
DATELINE: Hong Kong, China
The South China Morning Post printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Andrew Lee, a Kowloon City, Hong Kong resident, regarding noise from the new Hong Kong airport:
I am writing to express my opinion on the noise issue at the new airport. As a long-time resident of Kowloon City, I believe those affected by aircraft noise now "ain't heard nothing yet." Only if they had lived in Kowloon City would they have known what real aircraft noise sounded like. And only if they had lived in Kowloon City would they have known how quiet some aircraft were. Speaking from my experience with Kai Tak, I'm sure the really noisy aircraft have become the exception rather than the norm.
It is understandable that the newly affected residents will have a difficult time adjusting to the noise. But it appears that some people are merely trying to make a big fuss out of a not-so-big issue. Perhaps, what they really want are soundbites and publicity.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: July 21, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. A1
BYLINE: Philip Dine and Mark Schlinkmann
DATELINE: St. Louis, Missouri area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: People Building Community; Rose Kasper, St. Charles City Councilor; Bob Flocke, spokesperson, Air Line Pilots Association; Representative Jim Talent (R-Chesterfield)
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that officials with the Federal Aviation Administration met with Leonard Griggs, the director of Lambert Field near St. Louis, Missouri, on Monday to discuss plans for Lambert's proposed expansion. However, the article says, the federal agency gave no indication on whether it intends to approve the controversial expansion plan. Meanwhile, some opponents of Lambert's expansion predicted that the FAA would soon reject the plan. A meeting between FAA Administrator Jane Garvey and a delegation of local officials on the same topic is slated for Thursday in Washington.
According to the article, Griggs met with a deputy FAA director Monday to discuss the city's request for a $200 million grant to help pay for the airport expansion. After the meeting, Griggs said in a prepared statement that airport officials remained confident that the FAA will approve the expansion plan. Representative Jerry Costello (D-Belleville), a supporter of the expansion plan, played down rumors that a decision against the plan was imminent. He said after talking with FAA officials, "I do not expect a decision to be made by the FAA in the coming days," and it is unlikely to occur for weeks. Costello added that officials "were puzzled as to where the protesters may have gotten their information" about the FAA rejecting the expansion plan.
The article explains that members of People Building Community predicted the FAA would reject the plan at a rally on Sunday, saying their information came from sources in the FAA. Rose Kasper, a St. Charles City Councilor, said Monday that the group stood by its statement.
The article explains that officials and residents in St. Charles and other communities are opposed to the expansion plan because they believe jet noise will increase over their homes. St. Louis officials, Lambert officials, and so far, FAA officials have agreed the concern is unwarranted. The article notes that an environmental impact statement issued by the FAA in December supported the project.
After Monday's meeting with the FAA, city officials said the FAA official told them no decision had yet been made on whether to do a "real-time simulation" study that some local officials and residents have been seeking. Such a study would simulate the actual operating conditions that would exist if the expansion plan goes forward. Bob Moeller, the St. Charles Mayor, said Monday that a source told his office that the FAA soon would agree to perform the simulation.
Another meeting will occur on Thursday regarding the $200 million grant, the article says. FAA Administrator Jane Garvey will meet with Clarence Harmon, the St. Louis Mayor, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-St. Louis County), Richard C.D. Fleming, president of the St. Louis Regional Commerce & Growth Association, and John Bachmann, a brokerage executive. Jeff Rainford, a spokesperson for a pro-expansion group that works with the Regional Commerce & Growth Association, said the meeting was set up several weeks ago, and that local officials would ask the FAA to avoid any "unnecessary delays" in the approval process. Rainford also said the opponents pushing for a simulation study might simply be trying to drag out the approval process for as long as possible. He said, "If the FAA decides to do this for technical reasons, it's up to them. If they have to do it for political reasons to appease opponents of the project, then we'll be upset." Lambert officials oppose the simulation study, Rainford said, because the issues already were addressed in the environmental impact statement.
But officials in St. Charles disagree with that statement, the article says. Moeller, the St. Charles Mayor, said, "It's a flawed plan. If that study's done legitimately, they can't build it."
The article explains that St. Louis officials first announced plans to expand the airport into Bridgeton ten years ago. In 1994, the initial expansion plan was thrown out after the FAA found out that the same consultant prepared both the expansion plan study and a noise impact study. The city then started considering other expansion alternatives, and decided to pursue its W-1W plan in 1995. The FAA's environmental impact statement was issued last December, and airport officials had hoped that the FAA would then issue its final "record of decision" by March. But, the article says, that hasn't occurred.
In recent months, airport officials have said the FAA approval might be delayed by Trans World Airlines' push for quicker construction of a new TWA terminal, in addition to the debate over the simulation study.
Meanwhile, Bob Flocke, spokesperson for the Air Line Pilots Association which opposes the W-1W plan, said he believes the FAA will make a decision very soon. But, he added, the group doesn't know which way the FAA will go. A spokesperson for Representative Jim Talent (R-Chesterfield), who opposes the plan, said the Congressman had heard rumors, but didn't know which way the decision would go.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: July 21, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Diego Bunuel
DATELINE: Weston, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Elizabeth and Ben Castaline, residents
The Sun-Sentinel reports that city commissioners in Weston, Florida voted unanimously Monday to approve a noise ordinance that will give Broward County Sheriff's Office deputies the power to issue citations for people making "loud or raucous noise."
The article explains that under the new ordinance, officers will be able to issue citations without a decibel meter. Using a decibel meter for citations is mandatory under Broward County law, which used to regulate Weston. John Flint, the Weston City Manager, said, "Under the county ordinances, only a person trained with decibel meters could enforce the noise code. But to be realistic, most infractions occur in the evening, and we can't have someone with a decibel meter making sure it's a violation of the code."
The article reports that the new ordinance will apply to construction equipment, radios, TVs, horns, noisy appliances, and other items. In addition, restaurants won't be allowed to play loud music between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., except in a soundproof room.
Meanwhile, some residents were happy with the new ordinance. Elizabeth and Ben Castaline said their neighbor's dogs keep them awake at night. Elizabeth Castaline said, "The storage room in which the dogs are kept is right against our bedroom. They bark all the time, and I have no peace of mind."
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: July 20, 1998
SECTION: Valley And State; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Jennifer Barrett
DATELINE: El Mirage, Arizona
The Arizona Republic reports that city officials in El Mirage, Arizona hope to approve more than 3,000 new homes during the next several months for locations directly below the flight path of the Luke Air Force Base. In response to the plan, the Airport Military Preservation Committee, a group of state lawmakers and military and community representatives, voted last week to ask the state Attorney General's Office to examine whether El Mirage would be violating an Arizona statute if the subdivisions are built.
According to the article, the Pentagon cited encroachment as a factor in its 1991 decision to shut down the Williams Air Force Base in the East Valley, and since then, officials at Luke have been worried about residential encroachment around the base. In 1995, the state Legislature passed laws requiring development near the base to be compatible with military airport operations, but members of the military preservation committee said the rules haven't been enforced. The issue came up again last week, after a Virginia-based military lobbying group released a report saying encroachment was one of the biggest issues facing the state's military installations. J.B. Davis, a retired General, a consultant for the Spectrum Group, and a former member of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, said, "Encroachment is probably the biggest threat to your bases. You have a very severe problem. Somebody has to step forward. If encroachment continues and reduces the ability to do the mission there, then I think portions will be moved and finally Luke will be closed."
The article explains that members of the base committee said they are especially concerned about developments in El Mirage and Surprise, where houses have been going up at a fast rate. Residents near the base will complain about noise, base supporters fear, forcing the base to cut back on training flights. Planes already are routed to avoid residential areas, but base officials said the development in the west Valley leaves them with few remaining options for flight routes. F. Whitten Peters, the Secretary of the Air Force, visited Luke on Wednesday and said, "Any training base that has jet aircraft on it is going to be a very busy, very noisy place, and my sense is that the communities have accepted that up until now. I had not realized until I came out here the significance of the encroachment issues here."
The article reports that in Surprise, a new home went up every 3 1/2 hours last year. El Mirage, the second poorest community in the state, is hoping to capture tax revenues in a similar way. The planned subdivisions could potentially triple the town's population of about 5,800. According to Maggie Reese, the mayor of El Mirage, she doesn't want to jeopardize Luke's future, but she also doesn't want to prohibit growth in her community. She said almost one-half of the town's residents live in rental housing, and residents have waiting more than 30 years for new homes to replace the old ones that often lack heating and air conditioning. Reese said without new homes, residents would start to leave. "We cannot afford to stay this way forever," she said.
The article says officials in Surprise and El Mirage said they have attempted to keep residential development away from the air base, and to locate industrial development in the areas below Luke's flight paths, but they haven't always been successful. According to Dick McComb, the Surprise City Manager, it's not the city's business to prevent landowners from developing property only because Luke is worried that it might interfere with their flights. He said, "If the state wants to restrict use of land, they should empower themselves to do it."
Base officials insist that it's the towns' responsibility to follow the state guidelines for development. But some city officials said if the military is really worried about encroachment around Luke, it should buy the land itself. The article notes that purchasing land is an increasingly expensive solution. Air Force Secretary Peters said the military might consider purchasing some of the land below the flight paths to create a buffer zone for the base. One possible purchase could be Auxiliary Field 3, at Bell and Litchfield roads, a parcel of land that Luke sold as surplus property after World War II. But officials in Surprise also have talked about building a City Hall, library, and recreation complex at the same site. State Representative Jean McGrath, who heads the Military Airport Preservation Committee, said the state probably will contribute money to buy land, the article reports. She said, "It's really a state problem, and the state has to solve it. It was really the Air Force's and the Army's problem, but I get the feeling they're not going to pony up any money to solve it."
The article notes that the base employs more than 7,800 people and contributed more than a half-billion dollars in 1996 to the state's economy, according to base studies. The base also provides medical services and other services to almost 23,000 retired military personnel in the area. Last year, more than 1,000 pilots trained at the base, which averaged 600 takeoffs and landings a day. So far this year, base officials have received 89 noise complaints, compared to 113 in all of 1997.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: July 20, 1998
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-02
BYLINE: Cindy Brovsky
DATELINE: Aurora, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Kerezsi, Don Mueller, residents; Mickey Miklos, owner, Watch Repair MMM; Scott Matheu, worker, Matheu's Watch Repair
The Denver Post reports that police in Aurora, Colorado have stepped up enforcement of the city's noise ordinance that passed in 1995, responding to residents' complaints. The article says residents were warned with an insert in their water bills this month to keep the noise down.
According to the article, police have issued 285 citations for noise violations this year through Tuesday, compared to 239 at the same time last year. Overall, police wrote 638 tickets last year for noise violations. Mark Hellenschmidt, a police spokesperson, said, "We have picked up the pace this year. We try to be as responsive as possible to resident complaints because this really is a quality-of-life issue." The ordinance bans music from a car stereo or other amplifier that is "plainly audible" from 25 feet away. Penalties vary, but violators can be fined up to $999 and face up to a year in jail, the article says.
The article reports that resident Paul Kerezsi, who lives on East Sixth Avenue, would like to sit on his patio in the evening, but the noise from loud car stereos makes it impossible. He said, "All that I want is a little peace and quiet. We don't even bring out the picnic table anymore because of the noise. In my own home, I shouldn't have to be disrupted by the obnoxious noise." Another resident, Don Mueller, works in the evenings and would like more peace and quiet to sleep during the day. He said, "I grew up in the 1940s and '50s when music was something pleasant to listen to. This is not music but just a bunch of noise."
Meanwhile, Mickey Miklos, who owns Watch Repair MMM on East Colfax Avenue, said noise from car stereos has decreased slightly since the ordinance passed. He said, "Sometimes, the noise is so bad that the windows in my business shake. It is hard to hear my customers. I think these people are just selfish. It can't be good for their ears, either." Scott Matheu, who works at Matheu's Watch Repair near East Sixth Avenue and Havana Street, said noise from vehicles at nearby car washes is a problem. He said, "All that you hear is 'boom, boom, boom!' I can appreciate loud music but this is just loud noise." Matheu added that he has called police to complain, but by the time an officer shows up, the violator is gone.
The article notes that East Colfax and East Sixth Avenues are problem areas for loud music, but other similar areas include Havana Street and East Alameda Avenue, police said. Most other communities in the Denver metro area also have noise ordinances, the article says. Police in Edgewater usually warn violators before writing citations, and that usually resolves the problem, according to a spokesperson for police. In Parker, there haven't been many reports of loud music this summer, and most noise complaints in Broomfield don't involve car stereos. Sergeant Jerry Lavach of the Broomfield Police Department said, "Our calls usually are loud music from single-family homes or apartments. We don't get many calls about loud stereos in vehicles."
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA)
DATE: July 20, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 07
BYLINE: Elizabeth Crowley
DATELINE: Quincy, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Francis Bulman, Sarah Rolfe, residents
The Patriot Ledger reports that residents on Wollaston Beach in Quincy, Massachusetts are complaining about noise from motorcycle drivers in the area. The article says that both Wollaston and Nantasket Beaches are patrolled by state troopers instead of local police, making enforcement of noise laws more difficult.
According to the article, Francis Bulman said he has trouble sleeping in the summer because of the motorcycle noise. He said, "I've lived here 38 years and as far back as I can remember we've had the motorcycles racing up and down, with the throttle wide open." Another resident, Sarah Rolfe, said, "Even in the middle of the day you hear them. Some of them sit over there at 11 at night and rev their engines to see who's the loudest. It's really rude."
The article explains that there is a law limiting motorcycle engine noise to 82 decibels when operating at 45 mph or less, and 86 decibels when operating at more than 45 mph, but motorcyclists said they rarely get stopped for noise. It's illegal to make a vehicle's exhaust system louder, the article notes, but many motorcyclists strip their exhaust systems of baffles to make it louder. State Police Captain Tom Stewart said officers don't have the equipment to measure noise levels properly. In 1996, the article says, Registry of Motor Vehicles bought five federally approved noise meters to give officers a method of confirming noise levels. Local agencies can buy uncertified noise meters for about $45, and then use the Registry's approved meter in case of court challenges, according to George Projin, who oversees the state vehicle inspection program. But so far, no one has done so, the article says.
Michelle Sutherland, an officer who works out of the South Boston barracks that covers Wollaston Beach, said police receive more complaints about loud car radios and teenagers than about motorcycles. She said motorcycle drivers usually don't cause problems other than noise, unlike teens.
The bikers, meanwhile, said they need loud bikes to wake up bad car drivers. Frank Dan of North Weymouth said, "It's a safety thing. There are a lot of crazy drivers who aren't paying attention."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 19, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Editorial Writers Desk
DATELINE: Irvine, California area
The Los Angeles Times printed an editorial that says the Federal Aviation Administration should be more involved in determining feasibility of the El Toro Airport in Orange County, California. Currently, debates over takeoffs to the East and North are not grounded in the way that they would be if the FAA -- whose prime responsibility is assuring safety and efficiency of airport operations -- would give a firm opinion on the safety of the proposed runways usage.
According to the editorial, the two sides in the runway argument are the country's biggest airline pilots union and the county. The airline pilots say that the county's plan to use north-south and east-west runways is too dangerous because of terrain, short runway length, and inadequate runway spacing; they say two new runways should be built instead to be longer, more widely spaced, and therefore safer. County officials want to send 70% of departures east, and send the rest north, on runways as long as the existing ones; they say that runways that the pilots propose would create noise for too many communities and would cost too much.
The editorial notes that the debate would likely be over if residents and officials knew exactly what flight paths would be in place, and what constitutes a safe runway in the past experience of the FAA.
The editorial explains that the FAA is standing back because it wants to see the local master plan and re-use plan before it makes any judgments. Since local officials are generally designing flight paths to avoid noise problems, the FAA will likely disagree, although no one will know until after the local energies have been expended in a master plan already.
The editorial concludes that the FAA could be helpful by providing general opinions pertaining to "terrain, runway configuration, and prevailing winds." They wouldn't have to support any particular plan, and would give politicians a non-partisan view of the challenges and safety issues.
The editorial admits that the FAA has provided some guidance, such as questioning air traffic conflicts for northerly takeoffs, but it could be a stronger guiding force if it chose to be. This could happen even without supporting any particular plan. It originally said it would be a "cooperating agency" but it needs to go further,
The editorial concludes that the FAA's job should be relatively easy because the former military base that operated there operated for years and generated many data on the problems at hand.
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: July 19, 1998
SECTION: LI Life; Page G23
BYLINE: John Giuffo
DATELINE: Shelter Island, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sharon Kast, town board member
Newsday reports that the Town Board in Shelter Island, New York unanimously approved a strict noise ordinance on June 19. The article notes that the town was split on the issue, with two opposing petitions collecting almost an equal number of signatures.
The article explains that many Shelter Island residents feel their island is a haven from the loud, fast pace of life in the city and suburbs. The island is reachable only by two ferries, one from Greenport and the other from North Haven.
According to the article, Sharon Kast, a town board member, said, "Basically, Shelter Island is rural in character and it is quiet. It is not in my opinion a tourist community. It is more for second homeowners, and people come out here for the summer to enjoy a peaceful, quiet way of life. When the outdoor music starts to interrupt the peace and quiet that the people came to Shelter Island for in the first place, it's time for the town board to act." Kast added that noise problems have been getting worse during the past four years.
But some year-round residents say their livelihoods depend on tourists and a lively atmosphere. Linda Eklund, who owns the Chequit and The Ram's Head Inn with her husband James, said, "The people who live here year-round know that there is a certain time of year that they need to do certain things. Then there is the second homeowner and the retiree who don't want anything to affect their Nirvana."
The article explains that the new noise ordinance bans "unreasonable noise" over 50 decibels, as measured at the property line from which the noise is emanating. Fines for violators range from $250 or seven days in jail for the first offense, to $3,000 or 15 days in jail for a third offense. Kast said members of the town board listened to different noise levels at different distances before creating the ordinance. She said, "We came to a consensus that 50 was reasonable. It didn't disturb someone from sitting on their patio and enjoying the breeze or just enjoying each other." But Linda Eklund, whose Chequit restaurant features live jazz and rock bands on summer Saturday nights, said, "Fifty decibels is a difficult number to comply with." Eklund added that most of the noise at her restaurant comes from the crowds leaving the restaurant after an evening of partying. Richard Mould, a physics professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, agreed that fifty decibels is a severe limitation, comparing it to "office-classroom type noise."
According to the article, Shelter Island's noise ordinance is the strictest in Suffolk County. In Riverhead, noise is limited to 95 decibels, the equivalent to a noisy factory. Southampton and many other county towns defines a noise violation as different volumes, depending on the time of day and the area in which the noise is being made. In most of Southampton's commercial districts, where many of the town's restaurants and bars are located, noise is limited to under 70 decibels, comparable to average street noise. In East Hampton, the decibel limit is also 70 decibels. Glenn Waddington, a Shelter Island town board member, said, "Reading other town codes, I realized that ours was lower. But most of the music is played inside an establishment. I guess the burden would be on them to keep their doors closed, or soundproof it."
Meanwhile, Woody Kennedy, a manager at the Shelter Island Yacht Club, said no complaints have been made against his business, even though two weddings with live outdoor music have been held there this season. Kennedy said, "If it does offend people, they're not calling and telling me." Eklund said she believes the new ordinance will encourage people to call the police about a problem instead of calling the offending neighbor. She said, "I think what it's going to do is put neighbor against neighbor. We have become a community of zero tolerance, and the town, with this ordinance, has fueled the fire for that." But town board member Waddington said, "The noise was turning neighbor against neighbor, probably more than the ordinance did."
The article notes that police have been trained to use noise meters, but so far, no complaints have been lodged.
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: July 19, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A12
BYLINE: Nathan Vardi
DATELINE: Gloucester, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Debbie George, resident and president of the Sawmill Creek Housing Co-operative
The Ottawa Citizen reports that residents in the Blossom Park area of Gloucester, Ontario are planning a week-long protest against Dicom Express, a courier warehouse located near their homes, over noise that comes from the facility's trucks. Meanwhile, the city of Gloucester last week decided to take the courier company to court for violating the city's noise law. But officials with Dicom Express said the suit will be thrown out, as an earlier suit by the city was, because the company is located in an industrial zone.
The article explains that trucks at the warehouse are loaded and unloaded late into the night during six nights a week. The facility is located only 20 feet away from some homes. Debbie George, president of the Sawmill Creek Housing Co-operative, an affordable housing unit of about 30 residences, said, "It is really bad, our windows shake in our homes and we do not get sleep. There are 18-wheelers that drive in at 1 in the morning and idle beside the fence which is 20 feet away from the front door. Then they start backing it up to the big doors, we counted the other night, 158 beeps." George said about 100 people living Queensdale Avenue and Kingsdale Avenue are losing sleep every night. She added that the problem has worsened because the company has grown. When the company started operating the warehouse eight years ago, it was mostly using vans. But now, the article says, the vans have been replaced by huge trailers that pull into the facility late at night. The article reports that residents have decided to launch a week-long protest with picket signs in front of the company every morning at 5:30 for an hour.
The article explains that city officials initially tried to step in and mediate the matter, but last week decided to take the courier company to court for the second time in three years for violating city bylaws. Last time, the charge was thrown out of court because the warehouse is in an industrial zone. Dicom Express officials say the current challenge, set for a hearing on August 6, also will be dismissed.
Meanwhile, Charles-Henri Brunet, Dicom Express property manager, said, "The zoning was poorly planned to build residential right next to an already existing industrial area. The problem is you have two incompatible functions that are 20 feet apart. The trucking facility was there before, so our angle is that we are a courier operation with big and small trucks, and by the nature of the business we operate at night." Brunet said he sympathizes with residents, but added that the company has done everything it can to decrease the noise short of shutting down completely or erecting a noise wall. He believes the city should build a noise wall because it improperly zoned the area in the first place. He said, "I think the city should do what is right and put up a sound fence that will stop the direct noise. There is serious cost involved and why should we be penalized for something we are not at fault for?" Brunet added that the company is thinking about moving to a new location to avoid the negative publicity and to be a better corporate citizen. But, he said, the area still will be zoned as an industrial warehouse that is best suited for trucking operations. The landlord will rent the warehouse again and the problem will continue.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: July 25, 1998
SECTION: Forum Pg.10a
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
The Courier-Journal printed the following letters-to-the-editor from residents in Louisville, Kentucky, regarding noise from the airport:
To the editor:
After reading the latest rhetoric from the Regional Airport Authority, the letter from General Manager Robert S. Michael, I feel the need to respond. I have resided in the "less densely populated area south" of the airport for 19 years. Prior to the openings of the new runways I could sleep with my windows open, have a conversation in my home, enjoy my yard, and enjoy a peaceful, quiet home life. It has now been over two years since this has been the case.
Prior to this, airplanes flying overhead were merely vapor trails in the sky. They now disturb sleep, place telephone calls on hold, rattle windows, and interrupt conversation. Upon completion of the first new runway, I brought this to the attention of numerous airport officials. I found them to be masters of double talk, and everyone I spoke to apparently read from the same script. ...
Michael makes reference to the area noise mitigation program prepared five years ago and states that it will be updated in the fall. As with everything else that the airport does that affects the residents of this community, their "plan" is to get to it later. Later in this case is apparently in the fall. Michael stated that all planes will have quieter engines by "the end of 1999." Again, later.
I also enjoy the way the Airport Authority falls back on FAA guidelines as to what are "compatible noise levels." My question is, who are these people who are so presumptuous as to determine for me what is acceptable and unacceptable? If I created noise a fraction of what we are subjected to, my neighbors would have legal recourse.
The Airport Authority makes overtures about wanting to be good neighbors, yet it fought to prevent representatives from affected neighborhoods from having any voice in these matters which affect us. I fully realize that there are those living in areas that are subjected to more noise than I am, and I truly feel for them.
Since we are at the mercy of this monster, the only reason I have for writing this letter is to let the Regional Airport Authority and Robert Michael know that their purported concern over the situation they have created is no longer believable -- mainly due to their arrogance.
Alan Biederman, Louisville resident
To the editor:
I wish to take issue with a July 5 letter. The writers' contention that Mayor Jerry Abramson is responsible for the fiasco of noise pollution at "Standiford Field" is incorrect. The Mayor had very little to do with the recent exploitation.
Harvey Sloane and Mitch McConnell were the culprits, under the cover of secrecy, to have brought this onto Jefferson County and not the rural areas where only tobacco stalks and cows would have been plagued. To make Mayor Abramson's life worse, Sloane and McConnell's henchman, Joe Corradino, is still on the job selling Highland Park, Prestonia, Minor Lane Heights, etc., down the river to the likes of UPS.
For the sake of accuracy in C-J reporting, which is often lacking as of late, please correct this information.
Mike McCarty, Louisville resident
PUBLICATION: The Daily Yomiuri
DATE: July 25, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 2
DATELINE: Tokyo, Japan
The Daily Yomiuri reports that Japan's Environmental Disputes Coordination Commission announced Friday that it would urge Odakyu Railway Company to pay 9.56 million yen in noise pollution damages to 34 people living near the company's tracks in Tokyo. But, the article says, the Commission rejected claims by 266 other people. The decision is seen as a victory for the rail company, the article notes. Some of the plaintiffs said they would appeal the decision to the Tokyo District Court.
According to the article, the Commission, which reports to the Prime Minister's Office, awarded the 34 plaintiffs between 144,000 yen and 318,000 yen each. The 34 residents live between Shinjuku Ward and Komae and experience noise and vibrations that often exceed 70 decibels.
The article explains that the rail company announced plans to elevate a section of its line between Umegaoka and Kitami and add another track in 1992, and the plaintiffs then filed their suit, saying the projects would worsen the noise problem. The projects are not yet complete, but about 800 trains currently pass through the area every day between 5 a.m. and 1 a.m. In their lawsuit, residents said they suffered from sleep deprivation and their family conversations, phone conversations, and TV viewing were continually interrupted. The plaintiffs asked for compensation of 500 yen per day from the date of their complaint until the problem was resolved, and 500,000 yen each in punitive damages. But, the article says, the Commission recommended that the rail company pay 3,000 yen per month from the date of the complaint only to residents who were subjected to average daily noise levels of at least 70 decibels. The Commission recommended that residents who experience noise levels of more than 85 decibels should be paid 6,000 yen per month.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec)
DATE: July 25, 1998
SECTION: Books And The Visual Arts; Pg. H6
BYLINE: Peter Sijpkes
DATELINE: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
The Gazette printed an editorial that argues to reduce noise and air pollution effectively, we need to price energy sensibly, pass common-sense environmental laws, and foster an aesthetic of peace and quiet. The editorial writer discusses some examples of noise problems and solutions in the Montreal, Quebec area.
The editorial writer says that one solution to the unwelcome sounds and smells that come after we open our windows in the summer is to permanently seal up buildings, heating and cooling them mechanically year-round. But, the writer says, this is an unfortunate solution. Outdoor noises are simply replaced with the white noise of ventilation systems, and outdoor smells are replaced by deodorizers mixed with incoming filtered air. Cars also are more sealed up than ever, the column says. The problem with escaping from the outdoor noises and smells, the writer argues, is that the impact on the quality of the urban environment is forgotten. Air conditioners create more noise, and every air-conditioned car creates more noise and air pollution.
Meanwhile, the writer says, cars have made it possible for people to escape the urban noise by moving to the suburbs. But that only results in an empty city core and polluted transportation corridors between the city and the suburbs. The editorial says that according to Buckminster Fuller, we all live in "Spaceship Earth" -- we can't exit the ship, and we have no choice but to get along and share and conserve the ship's limited resources.
The editorial goes on to say that the increasing levels of noise and air pollution on our Spaceship Earth need to be brought under control. There are three types of approaches to solving the problem: voluntary, legislative, and financial. A combination of all three would be the best solution, the writer argues.
A financial solution would be to price fuel appropriately, the editorial says. The largest share of environmental pollution is caused by internal-combustion engines, so properly pricing the fuel that drives the pollution is a mandatory first step. We should price energy so that it reflects the total environmental costs of using it, as we are beginning to do with tobacco. Then, we should use the revenue to support alternatives that produce little pollution.
After energy is priced properly, the editorial says, other solutions will be easier. Voluntary efforts would include choosing the quieter mode of action when given a choice. For example, we can use hand saws instead of chain saws to cut a tree branch, or ride a bike to the store instead of drive. In addition, we should ensure through legislation that our equipment is as quiet and pollution-free as possible. The writer says we could improve things right away if we simply enforced the laws already on the books. For example, an article in The Gazette on June 27 reported that 7,576 heavy trucks were randomly pulled over across the country in June, and about one-quarter weren't fit to drive. If that many trucks were unfit mechanically, the driver says, many were probably defective in their noise and air emissions. We should be testing the exhaust of vehicles in addition to properly pricing gasoline.
The editorial says another way to improve the urban environment is to concentrate residential and recreational areas away from noise and air pollution. But, the writer says, once a community is in place, the only recourse is by-laws that help shield residents from pollution. The editorial notes that usually, the more wealthy the neighborhood, the more restrictions apply to it. Still, there are many restrictions with respect to traffic in the Montreal area, the writer says. For example, Old Montreal is off-limits to motorcycles, the Westmount lookout admits no buses, and Montreal just announced that it is banning most trucks from Monkland Ave. and Sherbrooke St. in Notre Dame de Grace. In addition, Westmount blocked de Maisonneuve Blvd. (a major east-west artery) to extend Westmount Park, while the Town of Mount Royal is segregated from Montreal along l'Acadie Blvd. by an almost impenetrable urban boundary. In Montreal West, there are many streets that allow only local traffic, and the Town of East Angus reminds truckers not to use their noisy air brakes when descending into the town. But, the writer warns, we must remember that unless these measures lead to an overall decrease in pollution, the problems merely move somewhere else.
The final strategy to improve noise pollution is to disallow a culture that appreciates noise. A recent article in The Gazette on June 27 called "Noisy But Nice" reported that, "In an era when car-makers struggle to have their models, including high-performance stuff, make as little noise as possible, it's refreshing to hear some engineers have decided to leave a little burble in place." The writer ridicules this statement. Another quote from the same article read, "There's a nice snarl out the tailpipe ... almost as good as the kind of noise you'd get from one of those expensive after-market exhaust systems." The writer said if you talk to people who are subjected around the clock to thousands of these "expensive after-market systems," you will get a different opinion.
The editorial concludes that after energy is priced sensibly, environmental laws are passed, and quiet is preferred to noise, we'll be able to open our windows in the spring instead of head out to buy an air conditioner.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 25, 1998
SECTION: Part A; Page 20; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Amy Pyle
DATELINE: Sacramento, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joan and Peter Graves, activists; Assembly member Mike Sweeney (D-Hayward), chair, Local Government Committee
The Los Angeles Times reports that a state law -- that prohibits local bans on leaf-blowers -- which was originally proposed to counter Los Angeles' gas-fueled leaf-blower ban passed last January seems likely to pass. The bill failed last year, but now even those who oppose the bill say that it may pass due to Republican support. The Local Government Committee just passed it by 7-3, and the Assembly will vote soon.
The article reports that the bill was reintroduced using a sneaky technique called "gut-and-amend" that replaces the contents of an abandoned bill with something else. Sometimes, this method can be used to expedite needed legislation by allowing introduction of a bill after the yearly deadline for submission. In this case, Senator Polanco has circumvented Senate Appropriations Committee approval -- which is usually required along with committee approval in the House, and which blocked the original bill in the first place -- because the bill that he 'gutted' did not require appropriations approval. The Senator says he doesn't feel slimy, because the legislature had plenty of time to solicit public comment last year during the original process.
Meanwhile, the article quotes one resident saying she didn't even know "that was even possible or legal." Some politicians said "It was amended without public notice or explanation. It's an evasion of what I was taught creates good law." But Polanco replied, "Every [Assembly] member who has felt passionately about a given subject has done it."
The article notes that the bill would eliminate all local leafblower bans, unless voters had specifically approved it: something that only happened in Santa Barbara. That means that nineteen bans statewide, some of which have existed as long as 23 years, will be invalidated. As an example, Indian Wells allows leafblowers on golf courses during Fall. The chair of the Local Government Committee believes "questions about whether leaf blowers should be used and under what circumstances ... should be decided by people elected at the local level." Apparently, he was not in the majority on his committee.
The article notes that Polanco says the bans are not fair to gardeners, who are being commanded to give up their tools: something bigger, more organized industries would never stand for.
The article notes that residents fear Polanco was successfully lobbied by leaf-blower maker Echo Inc. of Japan to institute a decibel limit -- 65-decibels at 50 feet -- that only Echo can meet. Polanco claims he met with the company but hardly remembers what the lobbyist even looked like.
The article notes that Echo helped organize a group of Latino gardeners in the area that are now unionized. They say that they back decibel limits instead of bans because bans are unenforceable. As evidence, they note a recent lawsuit that they brought against Los Angeles that vindicated a gardener who used a methanol-fueled blower, and was exempt from the ban because the fuel was not gasoline. When Echo was accused of trying to create a monopoly, a representative said :Every manufacturer of leaf blowers had the opportunity to do what we've done" to quiet their blowers.
PUBLICATION: Asahi News Service
DATE: July 24, 1998
DATELINE: Tokyo, Japan
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Teruko Miyagawa, resident; Yasuyuki Kinoshita, spokesperson for the residents
The Asahi News Service reports that Japan's Environmental Disputes Coordination Commission has said the Odakyu Electric Railway Company should compensate 34 Tokyo residents who experience noise levels of 70 decibels or more from nearby rail tracks. But the Commission said the rail company doesn't have to compensate many more residents who have complained about the noise and asked for a ruling from the Commission. According to Yasuyuki Kinoshita, a spokesperson for the residents, the residents will take the case to court to stop the company's plan to elevate the rail line.
The article explains that a group of 325 residents living in western Tokyo filed a complaint against the Odakyu Electric Railway in May 1992, saying they couldn't tolerate the noise and vibrations of the company's trains. In April, the article says, the Commission asked Odakyu to pay 30 million yen to 77 residents who live in an area where noise levels are greater than 68 decibels, and to make improvements to the railway that would keep the noise level below 65 decibels. The article says that 78 of the 325 residents agreed to this arbitration, but the other residents demanded that the Commission make an official ruling. In response, the Commission ruled that Odakyu should pay a total of 9.56 million yen ($68,300) to compensate 34 residents. Meanwhile, the article says, residents have been fighting Odakyu's plans to elevate rail tracks, which would double the capacity of the trains. Residents say the trains should travel underground to reduce the noise and vibrations.
The article reports that Teruko Miyagawa, a resident who live in Tokyo's Setagaya Ward, said she was disappointed with the ruling. She added that the Environment Agency's guidelines are much stronger than the 70-decibel limit given in the Commission's ruling. The Environment Agency guidelines, issued in 1995, stipulate that noise from new railways must not exceed 60 decibels during the daytime and 55 decibels at night. There are no regulations governing existing train tracks, the article notes.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: July 24, 1998
SECTION: Local (News), Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Nancy Youssef
DATELINE: Ellicott City, Maryland
The Baltimore Sun reports that the Howard County Zoning Board in Ellicott City, Maryland considered a request yesterday about re-zoning a parcel of land across from the Long Gate Shopping Center on Montgomery Road from residential to commercial uses. Triangle Development Corporation wants to build a five store strip mall on the site, the article says. While nine residents objected to the re-zoning, saying the area is becoming too commercial, two residents living on the site support the re-zoning because, they said, the area has become intolerable due to noise, traffic, bright lights, and restaurant odors. The board is expected to make a decision Wednesday, the article says.
The article reports that there are six homes on the proposed development site, but the only remaining residents are Mary Grace Howard and Ralph Bathgate. They say that their living situation has become unbearable since the Long Gate Shopping Center was completed in 1995. Tom Meachum, an attorney for Triangle Development, said, "I think -- to some degree -- the board didn't know about the effect a shopping center of this size would have on these properties. These are the only residents across from Long Gate."
But, the article explains, other residents from nearby Wheatfield and other neighborhoods said the area should remain residential because the area already is becoming too commercial. Residents Betty Chambers and Alan Pomerantz said the time has come to stop additional commercial development.
According to the article, in order for county property to be re-zoned, the board must conclude that there was a legal mistake in the original zoning or that the neighborhood's character has changed. Residents in Wheatfield said the developer hadn't proven either point, and noted that the board decided recently not to re-zone a neighboring site on Montgomery Road from residential to commercial.
But Meachum, the attorney for the developer, said the board didn't consider the impact that the Long Gate Shopping Center would have on the residents. He said the board only considered the appearance of the shopping center, not the increased light, noise, odor, and traffic, and not considering those things was a mistake. He added, "This is not a situation where you have to guess what the board took into account. Just look at the transcript. It is clear that the assumptions have proved to be wrong over time."
Meanwhile, residents who oppose the development said the residents who live on the site could mitigate the noise by building a fence or planting trees. Others said Bathgate and Howard could sell their homes or develop others on the property. But Bathgate and Reverend Bruce Romoser, pastor at the neighboring Bethel Baptist Church, said the five-lane road is too dangerous because there are no shoulders, and no one would want to live there.
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: July 24, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 5C
DATELINE: Jamestown, New York
The Buffalo News reports that police in Jamestown, New York have started to crack down on loud car stereos recently, after a new noise ordinance was passed by the City Council earlier this year. The article goes on to describe a citation that was issued by a police officer for a loud car stereo on Wednesday.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 24, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 4; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Tracy Wilson
DATELINE: Ventura, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that Ventura, California City Council will hold a public hearing on August 26 to address a proposed redevelopment district. The project would improve the quality of many older, run-down buildings in an attempt to lure private investment in the area. An environmental report was drafted to consider the project, and five potential problems were outlined. They were traffic, school crowding, air pollution during construction, noise, and historic preservation. The problems can be planned for, however.
According to the article, redevelopment zones can use tax money usually used for other municipal projects in an attempt to fix up run-down areas. The city of Ventura has already used $4-million to create a parking garage and $6.5 million to make a movie theater in other redevelopment districts.
The article says that "The new proposed redevelopment zone would be located in midtown."
The article goes on to say that the new district could raise up to $12-million, which could be used to fix building facades, improve parking and roads, and encourage new investment and residential development. The report did not expect any environmental problems with biological or water resources. The district would have the same revitalization intentions as pending work on Buenaventura Mall.
The article notes that potential environmental problems could be countered by adding new parking, and by filtering pollution and blocking noise from construction equipment.
The article notes that some representatives from nearby Oxnard worry that the environmental problems were minimized in the report.
PUBLICATION: The Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: July 24, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Tony De Paul
DATELINE: Warwick, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that about 165 residents attended a "gripe session" in Warwick, Rhode Island last night and aired their feelings about noise and development at the T.F. Green Airport. The session was held by City Councilor Gerry Gibbons. Also attending the meeting were Lincoln Chafee, Warwick's Mayor, George Zainyeh, the Democratic candidate for mayor, and Elaine Roberts, executive director of the state Airport Corporation.
According to the article, some residents were worried that airport officials might want to buy out their homes, while others worried that the airport wouldn't buy their homes. Some residents living inside the official noise contours complained about having to wait for years to get their homes soundproofed by the airport, while others were angry that they lived outside the noise contours and would never get soundproofed. And one woman, living in a house already soundproofed by the airport, said, "It is not the answer, believe me. If you want to live in a bubble, fine. I don't. I think the answer is acquisition."
Roberts of the Airport Corporation responded to the soundproofing concerns by saying that it would cost taxpayers too much money to buy out all the homes in which homeowners wanted a buyout. She said, "Soundproofing is not a perfect solution, but it is better than nothing." Roberts also tried to allay fears that additional international flights could worsen noise problems or require longer runways. She said if international flights are added, the planes will be the same type of aircraft that are used for domestic flights.
Meanwhile, the article says, Councilor Gibbons and candidate Zainyeh asked Mayor Chafee and the crowd to press for a city-wide referendum in November on Chafee's plan to rezone the land in front of the air terminal for hotels, a train station, shopping, and conference centers. Gibbons said residents should pressure other City Councilors for a referendum. He said impact studies should be done on the proposal, and the process should slow down. Chafee refused to agree to a referendum on the issue, the article says. He also said that airport-related development and high-speed rail traffic is inevitable, and that current zoning invites undesirable types of development near the train tracks and airport. He said, "It's our job to have some kind of blueprint for the growth that's going to happen around the airport. It's coming. This land is too valuable for us to not do something proactive."
PUBLICATION: The Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
DATE: July 24, 1998
SECTION: Local; Ed. F; Pg. 36A
BYLINE: Marlys Duran
DATELINE: Thornton, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Leslie Schluter, activist; National Organization to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment (NOISE)
The Rocky Mountain News reports that the National Organization to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment (NOISE), based in Washington, is holding its annual conference through Saturday in Thornton, Colorado. The article notes that members of the group are mostly elected officials, but community groups and airport officials also belong to the organization.
According to the article, airport noise has been a problem in the Denver metro area for years. Residents in Jefferson and Arapahoe counties have fought to keep scheduled passenger service out of their airports, and residents in Adams County have sued Denver over noise from the Denver International Airport. Residents in Parker and Franktown have fought to shift flight patterns at Denver International to reduce noise.
The article explains that one noise activist who attended the conference, Leslie Schluter, lives north of the Centennial Airport in Arapahoe County. She learned at the conference that the Federal Aviation Administration has an ombudsman in Washington to field aircraft-noise complaints. But she withheld judgment on whether the ombudsman would be helpful in her fight against noise, saying the FAA has been a disappointment.
The article notes that at one conference session, Greenwood Village Councilor Clark Upton criticized the FAA for challenging the Centennial Airport board's recent decision to ban scheduled charter flights at the airport. But William Albee, the ombudsman, said the FAA must meet the public's demand for an efficient transportation system, and that's why the agency doesn't want to restrict the system.
Conference attendees were less critical of another federal agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which has tried to reduce noise impacts from jets. NASA engineer Bill Willshire said the agency is conducting research in advanced subsonic technology, which could result in much quieter airliners with futuristic designs.
PUBLICATION: The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News (Stuart, FL)
DATE: July 24, 1998
SECTION: Entertainment; Pg. C11
BYLINE: Kristen Mack
DATELINE: U.S.
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News reports that movies have been getting louder in recent years, and the issue is getting attention from theater owners, stereo industry representatives, and audiologists. The National Association of Theater Owners, for example, has formed a task force of theater executives and sound engineers to determine how loud is too loud for movies.
The article explains that an informal survey of theaters in the Memphis area showed that all movies are fairly loud. Action movies such as Armageddon registered the highest sound levels, but the drama The Horse Whisperer was not far behind.
According to Mike Thompson, vice president of operations for Malco Theatres, which owns 12 theaters in the Memphis area, the company tries to show movies the way film companies want them, and that's loud. But he said this doesn't please all of the viewers. He said, "It's a Catch-22; you can't please all of the viewers. If I turn it down to a level that's good for little old ladies and men, then I'll have my 30-year-olds all over me. But if I put it at a level that's good for the 30-year-olds, then my older customers will be uncomfortable." He added, "We know what kind of people go to each theater. So our sound levels vary depending on where you go. Majestic is our premium house; the dynamics there are a lot stronger." Thompson said movies with loud sound effects can produce 108 or 110 decibels. He said, "[Moviegoers] want to hear it in real sound. That's been the whole crux of the motion pictures in last 15 years. It's to give you the feeling that you're there." Thompson also said that the previews are regularly much louder than the movies. If film operators turn down the sound for the previews, it's usually too soft during the movie. Sound effects and dialogue are recorded on the same track, so it's not possible to turn down one without the other. According to Ioan Allen, vice president of Dolby Laboratories, film directors often make their sound effects louder than normal in case film operators turn down the sound during previews and don't turn it back up for the movie. Allen also said that the Trailer Audio Standards Association is investigating the sound levels of previews, and once that problem is corrected, movies will be recorded at more appropriate levels.
The article explains that according to Thompson, there are major differences between the capabilities of an analog sound system (or surround stereo) and a digital sound system. Thompson said, "In a digital studio, a helicopter can enter on the left side of the screen and feel like it's exiting out of the right back corner. It allows the sound to separate between speakers and the dynamic range is better." Digital theaters must have systems capable of emitting a minimum of 105 decibels on each of the five front speakers, 100 decibels on the side surround speakers, and 112 decibels on the sub-woofers, Thompson said. A Dolby digital sound system costs between $30,000-$70,000, according to Thompson. Jim White, the manager of Southaven Cinema in Memphis, said the theater recently installed its first Dolby digital system, and some viewers didn't like it. He said some viewers of Godzilla left the theater because the movie was too loud, and asked if they could watch the movie in the theater with surround stereo instead.
The article reports that Dr. Robert Sweetow, director of audiology at the University of California-San Francisco, researched the sound levels at summer movies last year. He found that the sound levels varied depending on the theater, the movie, the acoustics and sound system, and the operator of the sound system. According to Loretta Coltharp of Professional Audiological Services, movies above 100 decibels are dangerously loud, and will bother small children or people with sensitive ears. Sweetow, however, said loud movies won't damage most people's hearing unless they already have a hearing condition. He added that there should be better advertising and education of the differences between sound systems. "When you're exposing someone to potential hazards, you owe it to them," he said.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: July 23, 1998
SECTION: Local (News), Pg. 9B
BYLINE: Nancy Youssef
DATELINE: Elkridge, Maryland
The Baltimore Sun reports that the Maryland Aviation Administration changed the noise zone boundary, an area in which homes cannot be built, for the Baltimore-Washington International Airport in March. That move has angered developer Earl Armiger, who already had started plans for a 31-home development in Elkridge that now falls within the noise zone. Armiger has appealed to the Board of Airport Zoning Appeals, asking for permission to build in the noise zone. The board is scheduled to hear the case on October 16.
The article reports that Armiger, president of Orchard Development, bought the 10-acre property off Dorsey Road in 1996 when it was outside the noise zone. Armiger said he wasn't aware that state officials had changed the noise zone boundary until he started his building plans, and he stands to lose more than $200,000 on pre-development site studies. He said, "We were well outside the noise zone. I was assured by Howard County that we were safe and that [the zone] was, in fact, shrinking." Now, he said, "we basically have to go back and redo the engineering work. We've got a situation where the state has become a determinant for local zoning." The article explains that the new noise zone cuts into the proposed development by 200 feet. Armiger wanted to build 11 of the 31 homes in that area, and he insisted that prospective homebuyers still would purchase the homes, even in the expanded noise zone.
But, the article says, aviation administration officials are worried that people will sue the state if the jet noise is too loud. If noise levels can reach 65 decibels, an area is included in the zone, the article reports. State officials review the noise zone every five years. Wayne Bryant, director for the administration's aviation, noise, and abatement department, said, "We consider things like the types of aircraft, times of flight, how much noise [the plane makes] and its destination. Each aircraft leaves a different noise footprint." Sharon Terry, the administration's spokesperson, said that the zone has been shrinking, but could be enlarged in certain areas if flight patterns change or if more or larger planes fly over an area.
That's apparently what happened with the recent change in the zone, the article says, although officials won't comment on Armiger's case. State officials notified the county planning and zoning offices of the changes in the zone, the article reports, but county officials didn't notice the impact it would have on Armiger's plan. Armiger discovered the problem himself while reviewing maps in the county office. Joseph Rutter, head of planning and zoning for the county, said, "Unless you overlaid one [map] over another, you couldn't tell. But I'm making excuses. We should have caught it." Rutter said he understands the state's concern, but if Armiger had built the project six months ago, it would have been allowed. The article notes that state and local officials agree that when the noise zone is redrawn in 2003, the area in Armiger's development likely will no longer fall in the zone.
PUBLICATION: Flight International
DATE: July 22, 1998
SECTION: Air Transport; News; Pg. 12
BYLINE: Max KJ
DATELINE: North America, Europe, Africa
Flight International reports that AvAero Aircraft Noise Reduction and the Nordam Group, two companies that specialize in installing Boeing 737 hushkits, have collected orders and options for more than 500 hushkits, used to quiet jet engines. The article notes that both companies have reported a new flurry of activity in the hushkit market as deadlines for meeting the Stage 3 noise regulations approach.
According to the article, AvAero, which is based in Florida, has received a new order from First Air of Canada. AvAero officials say the company has achieved a clean sweep of supplying hushkits to the 737-200 airline operators in Canada. The company has 58 orders and options in Canada, the article says. According to Ron Suihkonen, AvAero's sales director, the company has orders for about 170 hushkits, including the new First Air orders.
Meanwhile, the article reports, the Nordam Group, based in Oklahoma, has confirmed orders for another 56 hushkits. Most of the new hushkits will be installed on jets owned by the Irish operator Ryanair. In addition, the company will supply hushkits in its new order to America West, European Aviation, French carriers Euralair and Air Mediterranee, and the African carrier Royal Air Maroc. In addition, Nordam officials said negotiations with a "state-run carrier" are being concluded for an additional 11 hushkits. That carrier is believed to be Olympic Airways of Greece, the article says.
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA)
DATE: July 21, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 01
BYLINE: Gary Susswein
DATELINE: Quincy, Massachusetts area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Holly Merry, Diana Difrancesco, residents
The Patriot Ledger reports that residents who live near the Old Colony rail line in the Quincy, Massachusetts area are critical of a recent decision by the MBTA, the transit authority, to patrol commuter rail lines with helicopters. MBTA officials and state police are undertaking the action to clear the track of trespassers and bands of partying teens, the article says.
The article reports that officials will use two turbine-powered police helicopters to patrol the 11 commuter lines in the area. The helicopters will use surveillance equipment when needed, will patrol at different times of the day, and will direct officers on the ground toward problem spots. Sergeant Mike Barry of the State Police Air Wing Unit said helicopter pilots would be able to cover a large area in a short period and would be able to make observations with the naked eye. But Barry would not say at what altitude the helicopters would fly, though he said surveillance runs often range from 1,000 to 3,000 feet above ground. Thomas O'Loughlin, police chief for the MBTA, said the helicopters will hover high enough so that trespassers can't hear them, and then descend to light up the area as cruisers arrive. Local police, who are welcoming the initiative, already have asked that several areas be targeted, including some areas in Weymouth, Rockland, Halifax, and Kingston. The article notes that the initiative comes after a 15-year-old girl was struck and killed by an Old Colony train in Abington last month as she tried to cross the tracks.
The article explains that MBTA officials and police say the helicopters won't cause a noise problem. According to Sergeant Barry, "Ninety-nine percent of the time, they won't even know we're there. The noise signature we make will be nothing compared to the noise signature made by the train itself." And O'Loughlin of the MBTA said, "It will probably make about the noise that 20 young people with Budweiser make every night."
But residents aren't convinced the helicopters won't bring more noise to their already noisy lives. Holly Merry, who lives next to the track in Halifax and constantly hears train whistles, said, "That's all I need; more noise. I'm not crazy about that idea. We have enough noise at night." Other residents question whether helicopters hundreds of feet in the air can really keep children and adults from walking along the train tracks.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: July 20, 1998
SECTION: North Post, Pg. 4
BYLINE: Kathie Sutin
DATELINE: Pasadena Hills, Missouri
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that residents in Pasadena Hills, Missouri have called Mayor Scott Livingston during evening hours to complain about barking dogs. Livingston said last week that there's little he can do personally about the problem. In other news, the Pasadena Hills Board of Alderman last week heard a report about new noise monitoring stations to be installed at Lambert Field.
According to the article, Mayor Livingston said at the Board of Aldermen's meeting last week that barking dogs are "a real problem, but we can't do anything illegal to solve it. There are some things we can do, but we can't take decisive action like going in and raiding the place because there are barking dogs. The point is we're trying to resolve the matter without getting into legal litigation." Livingston added that the town is doing what it could to deal with that and other problems.
The article explains that the Board also heard a report from Philip Gray-Le Coz, the city's representative on the Lambert Field Coordinating Committee, who said that new noise-monitoring stations will be installed in October in towns near the airport. The noise monitors can identify each aircraft and the noise level it produces, in order to determine whether an airline has a pattern of excessive noise.
PUBLICATION: Wisconsin State Journal
DATE: July 19, 1998
SECTION: Local/Wisconsin, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Phil McDade
DATELINE: Dunn, Wisconsin
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tara Ickey, resident
The Wisconsin State Journal reports that residents are angry about the noise from a motorcycle course in Dunn, Wisconsin. Earlier this month, Dane County Judge Richard Callaway heard arguments in the dispute, and could rule on it Tuesday when the hearing resumes. County officials have argued that the course's owners have violated zoning laws that prohibit a motorcycle course on land zoned for farming, and failed to get a proper erosion control permit to move dirt to build the course. Many residents who object to the motorcycle course are afraid of the course's owners, who have done jail time and had additional brushes with the law. Meanwhile, the town of Dunn board will hold a public hearing Tuesday on a proposed ordinance to limit "disorderly conduct with a motor vehicle" that appears to be aimed at controlling the motorcycle course.
According to the article, the motorcycle course is north of Highway B between Fitchburg and Oregon, and has been up-and-running since April. The article notes that the former owners of the property, Marcia and J. Robin Fillion of Oregon, sold the property in January to Daniel D'Antoni of Stoughton and Norman Aiken of DeForest. D'Antoni and Aiken don't have access to the property from a road, the article says, but get to the land through an agreement with the Fillions.
The article explains that neighbors of the motorcycle course hope the judge shuts down the course. Tara Ickey, whose 40-acre property abuts the motorcycle track and who is one of the few people willing to air concerns publicly, said, "It's really annoying with the noise. I don't think they realize how annoying it is for everybody out here." Residents in the Oregon Heights subdivision just west of the track also have complained about noise, dust, and the loss of wild animals driven away by the motorcycles.
The article goes on to say that many residents who are angry with the track don't want to give their names because they're afraid of the track's owners. One woman whose home abuts the motorcycle course property said, "These guys . . . they're scary." Another resident said one of the course's owners, D'Antoni, admitted his jail record to him, and he was worried about the type of people who the owners might invite to the property. He said, "If these people all have records, they can't be nice people. What kind of friends do they have?"
According to the article, the course's owners have had several brushes with the law. Daniel D'Antoni, 38, served five years in federal prison for his role in plotting the murder of a witness in a federal drug case. His brother, Todd D'Antoni, is serving a 40-year prison term for his role in providing cocaine to a 15-year-old East High School student in 1987 who died. Daniel D'Antoni was convicted that year for plotting to kill a 14-year-old witness who testified against his brother. Both D'Antoni and co-owner Norman Aiken were cited by the state Department of Natural Resources last year for riding motorcycles on state land that is being converted into a wetlands. They each were fined $116.90. In addition, J. Robin Fillion, the former owner of the land and a longtime friend of D'Antoni, placed a restraining order against D'Antoni in 1996 after the Dane County Sheriff's Office reported that D'Antoni threw Fillion's 80-year-old father-in-law against a wall and a bedpost, according to court records.
But D'Antoni, who now is married, has two children, and owns a small housing construction company, said he's turned his life around since getting out of prison five years ago. He admitted, "I've got a record. I've learned. I served my time. What's my past got to do with what we're doing now?" He added that law enforcement officials have never been called to the motorcycle course property. And, he said, he's given his cellular telephone number to nearby residents and urged them to call if noise from the course is a problem. He said, "I go out of my way to be courteous to these people. What it is, they don't like motorcycles and they don't like us because they think we're a motorcycle gang." D'Antoni said he's willing to get an erosion permit and to limit friends from coming to the property to ride motorcycles. But, he added, "These people want to tell us what we can and can't do on our property. The bottom line is, that's our land and we're not going anywhere." He went on to dismiss noise complaints from residents in Oregon Heights, saying noise from the track doesn't carry to that area.
Co-owner Norman Aiken also had some trouble with the law several years ago. In 1986, he committed criminal damage to property; in 1989, he was found guilty of trespassing; and in 1990, he was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance, according to Dane County court records. But Aiken said his past record has no relevance to the motorcycle course. He said, "That was a long time ago. We all make mistakes. I don't see why they have to have any concern about what we're doing back there. That's really strange to bring that stupid stuff up. That just doesn't mean anything."
Meanwhile, the article says, the town of Dunn board will hold a public hearing Tuesday on a proposed ordinance to limit "disorderly conduct with a motor vehicle." The proposed ordinance prohibits deliberately spinning wheels, doing "wheelies," and operating a vehicle that causes annoying or disturbing dust, noise, smoke, odor or gas.
Previous week: July 12, 1998
Next week: July 26, 1998
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index