PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: May 31, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N4
BYLINE: Eric Wahlgren
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that the Burbank Airport in Burbank, California is fighting to expand the size of its terminal. The article goes on to detail the level of crowding that takes place in the current terminal, and the growth that's predicted. Lawsuits filed by residents and the city of Burbank over noise, pollution, and traffic are preventing the terminal expansion from going forward, the article says. The latest of the at least seven lawsuits was filed Friday.
The article reports that the two sides have already spent more than $4.5 million on attorneys and public relations firms. Jane Garvey, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, has said she will send a federal mediator to negotiate a settlement. But, the article says, passengers likely will have to wait awhile to see any relief.
The article explains that the terminal was built in 1930, and was remodeled over the years to handle 1.5 million passengers a year. In the early 1990s, the number of passengers at the airport grew, peaking at about 5 million annual passengers in 1995 before leveling off at last year's 4.7 million travelers. The surge occurred when low-fare airlines, especially Southwest Airlines, started offering flights out of the airport. Currently, airport officials project that passenger numbers will continue to increase, with 10 million travelers forecast for the year 2010. That growth, along with safety considerations raised by the Federal Aviation Administration, is the driving force behind the airport's wish to build a new, larger terminal.
According to the article, the airport is especially crowded on Friday evenings, when business travelers head home just when vacationers are leaving town for the weekend. The article says on one recent Friday at about 5:30 p.m., motorists spent 15 minutes inching to the top of the airport's four-level parking garage, only to discover it was full. Inside the airport, dozens of passengers sat on the floor because there were no seats left in the holding areas. On other days, however, the airport can be relatively uncrowded, the article notes. Darryl Lytle, a passenger boarding a midweek flight to Phoenix, said, "This is a breeze compared to LAX [Los Angeles International Airport]. That's why I fly here. I would have to count on an extra hour or hour and a half just to fly out of LAX." But airport officials say there are still too many times when there are too many people in the terminal. Victor Gill, a spokesperson for the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, said, "We just have very, very busy peak flows. It's not going to get any better." Mark Hardyment, manager of airport operations, said, "Everybody shares the same complaint, and that is the lack of space." The article reports that there is no separate departure and arrival level for cars dropping off and picking up passengers, which creates impossible bottlenecks during crowded times. There are only a few restrooms, so there are often lines. And, the article says, the airport's main baggage claim area has only two carousels.
The terminal that airport officials want to build would accommodate 5.4 million passengers per year, would have 19 gates instead of the current 14 gates, and would be built about 2,000 feet north of the existing terminal to address safety concerns. The terminal would be 454,000 square feet, making it 267 percent as large as the current terminal. The $250 million project also would increase parking by 1,700 spaces to 6,700 spots. And the size of the baggage retrieval area is expected to triple to 60,000 square feet. The terminal project also would include loading bridges to planes, so passengers wouldn't have to walk outside to board planes. Airport officials have admitted that jet noise would increase if the expansion project goes forward, as more people use the airport.
The article goes on to explain that Burbank city officials have tried to block the expansion since 1995, arguing the airport has no plan to protect residents from increasing noise, traffic, and pollution. Still, the article says, even the city admits the current terminal has to go. Peter Kirsch, an attorney for Burbank, said, "We don't really contest that this terminal is too small and that a new terminal is needed. But there is a big difference between a replacement terminal and a larger terminal. If there is going to be growth at the airport, the airport has to do something about the noise problem."
According to the article, the proposed new terminal would accommodate 5.4 million passengers a year, even though airport officials are predicting nearly twice that number by 2010. Gill of the Airport Authority said Burbank's political climate didn't allow the airport to design a bigger terminal. Gill said, "The new terminal will indeed solve the current problems we have at the so-called peak hours because it will be designed for those loads. Over the longer run, it is very possible that we will be facing some of the same old problems all over again because we are unable to build the political consensus to take on a bigger project."
Passengers surveyed informally at the airport on the issue of expansion were split, the article says. Some supported the project, citing convenience and safety, and others opposed it because of the impacts on nearby residents. But, the article reports, despite these mixed views, almost all passengers didn't want to see the airport turn into another Los Angeles International. Rajan Srikanth, a passenger who often flies into Burbank Airport, said, "I would hate for this airport to grow up. If they do expand, I hope it retains some of this small-airport feel."
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: May 31, 1998
SECTION: Section 14Nj; Page 21; Column 1; New Jersey Weekly Desk
DATELINE: Newark, New Jersey area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ellen Traegar, resident and president of the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise
The New York Times printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Ellen Traegar, a Rockaway, New Jersey resident and president of the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise, regarding noise from the Newark Airport:
In "Aerial Combat Breaks Out in an Edgy Border War" (On Politics, May 17), James Dao seemed unaware that the New Jersey test procedure of rerouting planes out of Newark Airport, postponed briefly in December, is currently wreaking havoc over densely populated counties in the state. It is another example of inept planning by the Federal Aviation Commission.
New Jersey has lived with the effects of serious aircraft noise since the implementation of the Expanded East Coast Plan 11 years ago. Since then, the F.A.A. has played the game of musical communities, moving noise from one town to another. It is time for the agency to propose and support citizen-friendly routing.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: May 31, 1998
SECTION: Opinion, Pg. 1E
BYLINE: Paul Reid
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Reid, resident and columnist
The Palm Beach Post printed an editorial that argues the awards recently given to seven airlines by the Palm Beach (Florida) International Airport for quiet fleets are laughable. The columnist notes that the Palm Beach County Department of Airports held an award luncheon at the Four Seasons Resort to give the airlines the "Quiet Fleet Award" for meeting "stringent noise standards" while taking off and landing at the airport.
The editorial writer says when he heard this news, he couldn't stifle a laugh "that would have been audible if not for an award-winning quiet airplane flying overhead." He says he thought "stringent noise standards" was a misprint at first: "strident" more aptly describes the jet noise around the airport. But no, he says, county commissioners actually gave awards (solid gold earplugs? he asks) to airlines for their commitment to noise reduction.
The editorial goes on to say that five of the seven airlines now fly more flights into and out of the airport than they did two years ago. The writer asks: "Does that mean the award is for less noise more often or slightly quieter noise more often?"
The editorial explains that "quiet" jets are called Stage 3 aircraft, and noisy jets are Stage 2 jets. The writer says this is "like saying a Muhammad Ali jab is easier on the chin than an Evander Holyfield punch." Stage 2 jets, the writer notes, are fined $2,600 for taking off and $260 for landing between 10 p.m. and 7a.m. Stage 3 jets are fined only $20 for taking off or landing between those hours. The editorial says that during a recent 30-day period, 41 departing jets woke an estimated 4,000 residents to the east of the airport between the hours of midnight and dawn. A county spokesperson said this was less than two per night. Yes, the writer says, but it's the first one that counts.
The columnist goes on to admit that he lives under the flight path. He admits he may have been stupid for buying a house there, but he says he's not as stupid as county commissioners think. He knows the difference between noise and quiet, and jets are not quiet. He says he will acknowledge his stupidity for buying a house near the runway only if county commissioners acknowledge their stupidity for building an airport in town, instead of near town. The writer says he knows the Army had an airbase at the airport site back when it was an isolated site, before homes surrounded the site. But he says, so what? There was once a garbage dump in town too, but the town moved it when it got in the way.
The editorial writer goes on to discuss how we can salvage the situation now that the airport's here. He says the first thing the county should do is get its noise reduction program off the ground fast. The airport plans to soundproof up to 2,400 homes under the flight path, but so far they've finished only 15 homes. Fifty-eight more homes are scheduled for this summer, and around 60 next year, the columnist says. With an average cost of $20,000 per home, the project cost appears to be $48 million, and at the rate of 60 homes per year, it will take till 2038 to finish the job, the writer says. At that rate, the program is mostly noise, according to the writer. He says maybe someday the county will get around to soundproofing his house, but by then he'll be deaf and won't care. Meanwhile, he says, he's learning sign language to say good morning to his neighbor, his son is picking up incoming planes with his metal detector, his 87-year-old mother thinks they're under attack, and his dog barks at every outgoing jet. He says, "These are precious moments, Kodak moments. Stage 3 moments." The editorial concludes that Stage 3 residents, who live and work and go to school under a steady airborne noise invasion, deserve an award. How about lunch at the Four Seasons? he asks.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: June 1, 1998
SECTION: Domestic News
DATELINE: West Haven, Connecticut
The Associated Press reports that the mayor of West Haven, Connecticut has ordered a flashing sign that warned people to keep quiet at the beach to be turned off because it was too noisy. The sign was connected to a generator to power it.
According to the article, the sign was turned on for the first time Friday, and only ran a few hours. It stood about 10 feet off the ground and warned motorists driving into the city from Milford to keep quiet on the beach. The noise made by the sign was loud enough to defeat the sign's purpose, according to Mayor H. Richard Borer. He said, "It wasn't that loud, but it was a generator. It makes noise." The mayor added that the sign may be connected to an electrical outlet to solve the problem.
PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: June 1, 1998
SECTION: Opinion; The Public Square; Pg. A14
BYLINE: Ed McGowan
DATELINE: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ed McGowan, former vice-president, Inglewood Community Association
The Calgary Herald printed an editorial by Ed McGowan, the former vice-president of the Inglewood Community Association, regarding the proposed expansion of the Calgary Airport in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The writer argues that the Calgary Airport Authority does not live up to its mission statement to provide airport services in conjunction with "community well-being." The editorial says the proposed expansion will increase aircraft noise in communities that are already under severe stress from the noise.
The editorial points out that on the back of the business card of the manager of environmental services at the Calgary Airport Authority, a mission statement says: "The Calgary Airport Authority, in partnership with others, will provide excellent airport services and facilities and promote economic development and community well-being." The writer says that the statement about community well-being has no relevance in the plans going forward to expand the airport.
The editorial reports the current main north-south runway is in a direct line with the communities of Mayland Heights and Inglewood, and most of the noise complaints come from these two areas. The airport expansion calls for a second north-south runway east of Barlow Trail. The writer says that as a resident of Inglewood, he can guarantee that if the runway is built, life will become hell for people between Dover Glen to Radisson Heights, and a lesser hell for people from Erinwoods to Whitehorn.
The editorial says that the Inglewood community has suggested that visual take-off and landing aircraft flying over Inglewood and Mayland Heights should fly over the Deerfoot Trail and adjacent non-residential lands. The airport authority said this would be feasible, and a pilot on the committee said the route would be easy and safe for pilots. But, the editorial says, the airport authority told citizens to take their suggestion to Transport Canada, and ask the agency to issue operational directives.
The editorial asserts that the Calgary Airport Authority is the operational authority of the airport. If Transport Canada must issue operational directives, then the airport authority should act on behalf of the communities and address Transport Canada itself. The writer says that the airport authority will have much more influence with Transport Canada than a small community committee.
The writer goes on to argue that the City Council also has been neglectful of the noise problem. City Councilors have no problem with building noise walls for road noise, the editorial says, but when it comes to the airport, they legislate away the rights of property owners to seek litigation for physical damage to their homes due to aircraft noise and vibration. But, the writer argues, if there is physical damage to a building, there is a similar risk to the health of the people living in the buildings. Stress leads to many human illnesses, and constant, unavoidable noise is one of the primary sources of stress. The City Councilors have abandoned the very people who elected them, the editorial says.
The writer goes on to invite people living in the communities that will be affected by a second north-south runway to visit Inglewood, particularly during a time of day that people normally enjoy being at home. The writer suggests that visitors sit in one of Inglewood's parks or on a patio and experience the noise -- this is what the other communities are going to get, he says. The editorial argues that residents of noisy neighborhoods are subsidizing the aircraft-transportation industry, tourism, and other related businesses with their quality of life, property, and health.
The writer urges readers to force the issue of airport expansion, so that a balance between "community well-being" and commercial interests are achieved. People should make their voices heard at the civic elections coming up, the editorial says. The time to act is before the expansion has occurred, the writer explains, because afterward it will be virtually impossible to change.
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: June 1, 1998
SECTION: Today; Pg. 4C; Dear Abby
BYLINE: Abigail Van Buren
DATELINE: U.S.
The Dallas Morning News printed a "Dear Abby" column, in which Abby advises a reader to not fight the noise of ice cream trucks, because the trucks are an American institution.
Abby's column was in response to a reader from Seattle, who said the city is famous for its beautiful environment, lovely gardens, and quiet neighborhoods. But in the summer, all the ice cream trucks come out with their loudspeakers playing obnoxious music over and over at high volume. The reader says he/she used to look forward to being outside on peaceful summer days, but now he/she only wants to hide inside. Noise pollution is on the increase in our world, the reader says, and it's no wonder that people are more stressed out than ever. The reader asks Abby what she thinks.
Abby replies that the reader shouldn't fight an American institution that's akin to Mom and apple pie. She says that many adults probably do find ice cream trucks annoying, but they are always appealing to children. They even remind some adults of their childhood. Abby advises readers to cover their ears and observe the delighted children when the ice cream trucks come. The happy occasion may even infect the adults, Abby concludes.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: June 1, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Metro Desk
BYLINE: John Canalis
DATELINE: Costa Mesa, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lee Ann Douglas, resident
The Los Angeles Times reports that in Costa Mesa, California, residents have pushed city officials to implement noise restrictions on a particularly noisy church. The building, which is used by Christ Our Redeemer African Methodist Episcopal Church as (COR-AME) well as the United Pentecostal Church, must keep its doors closed, minimize amplification, and avoid congregating in the parking lot. The Pentecostal Church will comply, but the other church has said it will continue its services as they have been conducted.
According to the article, the pastor for the COR-AME church says that religious praise should be relaxed, not constrained, and his congregation already feels less relaxed. He doesn't plan to follow any of the regulations, and says "Freedom of religion and freedom of expression -- these things were tampered with when the decision was made." The pastor compares neighbors of the church to neighbors of Los Angeles International Airport, saying they should expect noise. But while airplanes must be noisy to operate, the pastor fails to mention that plenty of churches get by without being noisy, or if they are noisy at least keep their doors shut.
But, the article says, neighbors don't want to be woken up every Sunday to car doors slamming, worshipers talking, and amplified preaching. They say "They can worship somewhere else if they don't like what the city ... has to say."
The article explains that planners only permitted the church for one congregation -- the Seventh-Day Adventists -- and the two churches mentioned above are simply leasing the property for services. Planners say that is not necessarily allowed, although they would overlook it if the congregations agreed to work on solving the noise issues. The planning commissioner said "I feel that if people want to sing, if that's what they want to do, and at the top of their lungs, then 'Hallelujah!,' that's perfectly fine to me, but I do believe that every man's home is his castle, and you have to be respectful of other people."
The article notes that the Mayor has notified the COR-AME church in writing that future complaints will be investigated. This could be important, considering the permit will be revisited again in November to determine if the churches are cooperating.
The article notes that the Pentecostal church feels the rules are unfair, but is trying to comply somewhat by using fewer speakers, keeping doors shut, and asking members to be quieter. Nevertheless, police have been called even when they were trying to be quiet; the music was turned down at that point.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: June 1, 1998
SECTION: A Section, Pg. 8
DATELINE: Palm Beach, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joel Daves, West Palm Beach City Commissioner; Vivian Brooks and Robert Hanna, failed candidates, West Palm Beach City Commission; Frank Benevento and Heinz Gundlach, Palm Beach residents and leaders of residents' lawsuit
The Palm Beach Post printed a summary of what some of the key players are saying about jet noise and expansion at the Palm Beach (Florida) International Airport. The summary includes opinions of local politicians, lawyers, airport administrators, and residents.
Burt Aaronson, Chair, Palm Beach County Commission
The article says that as the spokesperson for the county commission, Aaronson is solidly in favor of airport expansion. He said he prides himself on working toward bringing differing factions together. "We're all concerned about all people," he said earlier this year, "...(but) we're never going to be everything to everybody."
Bruce Pelley, Director, county's Department of Airports
According to the article, Pelley has run the airport since 1986 and has little patience with neighbors who complain about noise. Pelley rejected a traditional public hearing earlier this year and instead held a "more subdued" presentation. He said of an earlier, acrimonious public hearing on the I-95 interchange: "Been there, done that."
Gordon Selfridge, chief deputy county attorney who handles the airport
The article explains that Selfridge has negotiated airport deals since 1985 and works behind-the-scenes with Pelley to trouble-shoot. In January, when the most recent group of residents threatened to sue over noise, he said, "There is nothing we can do for these folks. We can't move the airport. We can't move the flight paths. We can't pay them money."
Nancy Graham, Mayor, West Palm Beach
According to the article, Graham fought and lost to keep an I-95 airport exit out of her city. Until this year, she supported residents who opposed airport expansion. But, the article says, when her position started to threaten downtown development, she began supporting the expansion.
Don Carr, lawyer representing West Palm Beach on noise issues
The article reports that Carr has advised West Palm Beach not to sue the county. He said the city would be better off trying to negotiate a larger planning role for itself.
Jeff Koons, West Palm Beach City Commissioner, District 5
The article explains that Koons is commissioner of the city's southern-most district, which includes the former Hillcrest neighborhood. Koons knows how complicated airport issues are, but at times has been inconsistent about where he stands, the article says.
Alfred Zucaro, West Palm Beach City Commissioner, District 4
According to the article, Zucaro's district includes neighborhoods northwest of the airport. He has traveled overseas at taxpayers' expense trying to bring foreign business to Palm Beach County, but he also has criticized the runway extension that will bring more long-haul flights.
Joel Daves, West Palm Beach City Commissioner, District 3
The article says Daves has been consistent in his criticism of the airport. He said, "The airport is the enemy. I've been here for a long time and have seen the destruction that the airport has wrought here."
Vivian Brooks and Robert Hanna, failed candidates, West Palm Beach City Commission
The article reports that Brooks and Hanna are anti-noise activists who lost against Koons and Daves, but managed to bring the runway issue to the fore during the city's March election. "I really think that this city has been very negligent in dealing with this monster at our back door," Brooks said. "We're not planning for what's going to happen."
Frank Benevento, Palm Beach resident, former RJR Nabisco financial adviser
According to the article, Benevento is one of the leaders of the Palm Beach residents' lawsuit. He calls the suit "child's play" compared with a six-year suit he waged against RJR Nabisco. He said, "They want to throw away millions of dollars fighting us in court and then on top of it, they're going down a path leading to them paying tens of millions in damages and our lawyers fees. ... So you know what? Don't cooperate. Make my day."
Heinz Gundlach, Palm Beach resident, headed San Diego-based FedMart
The article reports that Gundlach is the other leader of the Palm Beach residents' lawsuit. He spent several years on an airport advisory committee before quitting in disgust. "All these meetings, they're just to satisfy the law. They don't give a damn what we're saying," he said. "This whole process has broken down. The only recourse is suing them."
Donald Trump, Palm Beach resident, real estate developer, owner of Mar-a-Lago
Trump brought a $75 million suit against the county in 1996 for jet noise, but agreed to drop it after commissioners said they would lease him land for a golf course near the airport. The article says that Trump's deal inspired other potential plaintiffs.
Hugo Unruh, Palm Beach County super-lobbyist
Unruh is an advocate for countless business interests, the article says, and strongly supports airport expansion. He said, "It never ceases to amaze me how small numbers of individuals can have such a negative effect on the economy of an entire county."
E. Lloyd Ecclestone Jr., real estate developer, founded Ecclestone Organization
Ecclestone worked as a volunteer on details for the new terminal before it opened, the article notes. Now, he wants to have a larger role in the airport's future. He wrote to County Commissioner Karen Marcus, "I would be happy to work with you to help diffuse all of this negativism toward the airport so the runway lengthening can go forward as quickly as possible."
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: June 6, 1998
SECTION: Editorial Page, Pg. 3C
DATELINE: Lackawanna, New York
The Buffalo News printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Dana Kaczmarek, a Lackawanna, New York resident. Kaczmarek notes that officials have decided to remove the toll barrier in Williamsville, and asks that the noise barriers at Williamsville be moved to the Lackawanna toll barrier:
Congratulations, Amherst! The town's leaders have come through for their residents. They are getting $6.1 million to move the Williamsville toll barrier.
Unfortunately, we folks in Lackawanna are still being ignored, even though we have been fighting longer and harder to have the Lackawanna toll barrier moved. Since Williamsville won't be needing those noise barriers anymore, perhaps residents can do us a favor and ask the Thruway Authority if we could at least have those. If the authority would just drop off a mile's worth of noise barriers in front of the half-mile sign that stands between Milestrip and the Lackawanna toll booth going east, we'll put the things up ourselves and it won't cost them a penny. We'd be much obliged.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: June 6, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 5; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that right in the middle of the ongoing debate over expansion at Burbank, California's Burbank Airport, a Pasadena representative from the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority suggested the introduction of international flights at the airport. He wants a feasibility study to be done before a design is approved for the proposed 19-gate terminal.
According to the article, the proposal has been considered by Pasadena's city council, but the airport authority as a whole has not discussed it. The proposal does not want to add inter-continental flights, but it instead suggests forays into Mexico and Canada since flights to Seattle and Fort Worth, Texas already come so close. The authority member who proposed the idea wants it considered soon because special immigration and customs facilities would have to be planned into any international terminal.
Meanwhile, the article notes that Burbank officials are livid at the idea, saying that "The authority was formed for the purpose of preserving this as a small commuter, regional airport. Now the people in charge of it want to turn it into a monstrosity. They want to dump the additional noise pollution and curfew violations on Burbank for their own economic benefit, and to hell with the citizens of Burbank." Expansion opponents worry that international flights would make Burbank Airport more like the snarled Los Angeles International Airport.
The article explains that Burbank wants a curfew and a limit on flight numbers to mitigate noise and pollution. The Airport Authority wants expansion to follow increasing demand. Court battles began in 1996, and continue today. A February court decision said Burbank couldn't block the terminal's construction, but Burbank continues to assert in court that the airport authority is not following zoning requirements.
Meanwhile, the article reports that the idea's sponsor says that noise wouldn't necessarily increase with flights to Mexico, and the North American Free Trade Agreement has increased the market for Mexican import of American goods.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: June 6, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Susan Byrnes
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: James Rymsza, member, Sound Rights; Jan Drago, City Councilor
The Seattle Times reports that city officials in Seattle, Washington are set to approve a project that would allow float-planes to take off and land 72 times a day near Pier 54 on Elliott Bay, after reviewing the proposed project for more than a year. If permitted, the project would allow Kenmore Air to operate 20-minute scenic trips from a 25-foot float off the pier. Meanwhile, some residents who live in the downtown are opposing the project, saying it will bring more noise. If the project is approved, the article notes, it likely will be appealed and will face a more lengthy review.
The article reports that the Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) has not made a final decision on the project, but Cliff Portman, a manager at the department who oversees land-use issues, said the city has little option but to approve the project. He said, "We can't be arbitrary. We want a working waterfront. It may be noisy, but given the whole mix of things that happen on the waterfront, it's hard to pull out this particular use from the others and say, 'This goes beyond the line.'"
Tim Brooks, a spokesperson for Kenmore Air, said Elliott Bay is the best place for the float-planes because downtown is already noisy, and planes wouldn't be taking off over residential neighborhoods. He said, "We have a fairly high demand for this kind of activity, and we have declined to do it at Lake Union because we have wanted to not impact the local community there. We believe it's in everyone's best interest to do it on Elliott Bay." Brooks said if approved, the company would provide about 36 flights a day during the summer. The planes would taxi about 2,000 feet off the pier before taking off for flights around the Puget Sound. They would land closer to the proposed float off the pier that houses Ivar's and Ye Old Curiosity Shop.
Meanwhile, the article says, the city council has received a flurry of complaints about the proposed project. Some people say the planes would be an unwelcome, noisy nuisance, especially for the increasing number of downtown residents. James Rymsza, a member of a group called Sound Rights that works on noise issues, said, "My gut reaction tells me that it's going to be noisier. The City Council and the business community have been promoting the residential use of downtown. This seems to run contrary to the notion of inviting people to live there." City Councilor Jan Drago, who lives in the downtown, also is concerned about the noise and safety issues, but says the city council has no jurisdiction over the decision. Drago added that if the city approves the project, the only way to stop it is through an appeal to the state Shorelines Hearing Board, which can be filed by anyone.
The article goes on to explain that the role of the Department of Construction and Land Use is to decide whether the planes would interfere with normal use of the waterfront and whether the project would harm the shoreline environment. The city already has undertaken noise tests on the float-planes. Portman of the DCLU said, "We're trying to get a sense of what noise is like from different distances, from different receptors. It's been a careful decision." The article reports that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard already have ruled that there would be no adverse impacts on navigation or the "aquatic environment," but the project also will need approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. A planner at the FAA said the scenic flights likely would not get in the way of air traffic at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport or Boeing Field. According to Portman of the DCLU, a decision will be issued later this month.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: June 6, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 5; Zone: Nw
BYLINE: Rogers Worthington
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, a Chicago group formed by the city's mayor, has decided to seek a written commitment from the air cargo carriers at O'Hare International Airport to phase out older, noisier aircraft engines before the year 2000. (By 2000, all jets must comply with quieter, Stage 3 noise standards set by federal regulations.) The article says that the decision was the result of a "cargo summit" meeting held May 28 between the commission and representatives of 10 air cargo carriers.
According to the article, air cargo flights account for most of the overnight flights, and half the flights between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., and 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., said Monique Bond, an airport spokesperson. Airport officials also said that four of the 20 air cargo carriers at O'Hare already have upgraded their fleets to Stage 3 technology. United Parcel Service, Kohler Air, Singapore Airlines, and Polar Air have completely upgraded their fleets, and Federal Express has upgraded 75% of its fleet.
The article goes on to report that the Commission held its monthly meeting Friday. Mary Rose Loney, the Chicago Aviation Commissioner, reported that the airport now requires 24-hours' notice before air carriers can test an aircraft's engines by revving them up. In addition, about 78 percent of all ground run-up tests now are being done in the airport's ground run-up enclosure, a three-sided structure with sound-absorbing walls, Loney said. Airport officials also told the commission that noise complaints to O'Hare's hotline were at 1,800 in April, compared with 2,800 in March. Mark Fowler, the Commission Director, said the group plans to mail a survey to the residents who complained to the hotline in February. The commission also broadened the mission of the noise analyst hired to verify the data generated by the city's noise monitors at Friday's meeting.
PUBLICATION: Bangor Daily News
DATE: June 5, 1998
BYLINE: Sharon Mack
DATELINE: Pittsfield, Maine
The Bangor Daily News reports that the Town Council in Pittsfield, Maine held a public hearing on a proposed noise ordinance Tuesday that would ban noisy behavior between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. Residents who supported and opposed the ordinance turned out for the meeting, the article says. Those who opposed the ordinance were worried that it would prohibit high school events and other community activities. In response to residents' concerns, a group of residents, police officers, and town officials reworked the proposed ordinance Wednesday night to allow community and school events to occur. The council will consider the matter again at their June 16 meeting. Meanwhile, the article says, police officers say even if an ordinance is passed, they have no way to enforce it.
According to the article, most of the residents who supported the ordinance live near the public library, where groups of teens and young adults often gather late at night. The residents who opposed the article agreed that something needs to be done to control noisy activities, but said the proposed ordinance would prohibit junior high dances, high school football games, concerts in the park, and the annual Egg Festival.
The ordinance was changed to allow sanctioned school and community events and any event that already requires a town permit, such as the Egg Festival and park concerts.
The article goes on to say that according to Police Chief Steve Emery, additional police patrols would be needed to enforce the ordinance if it's approved, and there is no additional money for such patrols. He said, "The only thing that will stop this is manpower. I budgeted last year for extra patrol on Main Street, but the council cut it out." Emery added that a local charitable organization has even donated a bicycle for nighttime bike patrols, but "I have nobody to put on it." There is only a single officer on duty most of the time, Emery said. "I can't take an officer off sex crimes investigations and burglary investigations for foot patrol," he said. But, he added, residents should call police when they have a noise or disorderly conduct complaint.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: June 5, 1998
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-03
BYLINE: Keith Coffman
DATELINE: Aurora, Colorado
The Denver Post reports that officials at Colorado's Buckley Air National Guard released results on Thursday of a noise and safety study that looked at impacts on Aurora and Arapahoe County, the communities most affected by the base's aircraft operations. The study, known as the Department of Defense's Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, was intended to provide non-binding guidelines for local governments as they develop land-use plans in areas surrounding the military installation. The article notes that although residents living near the base have complained about the noise, the city of Aurora has continued to approve residential developments near the base.
According to the article, Aurora Mayor Paul Tauer said he supports the continued operation of the base, but dislikes the way the study was conducted. As part of the study, a contour map was developed showing different noise levels around the base. Tauer said he didn't necessarily disagree with the results of the study, but he was upset the city wasn't allowed input on the study. He said he wanted city officials and residents to have the raw data from the study so they could come to their own conclusions.
The article goes on to say that the Department of Defense requires that the contour maps of military bases be updated periodically in response to technological advances and changes in areas surrounding the bases. Buckley undertook a study in 1976, and updated it in 1985. Another study was scheduled for 1994, but was delayed because of the pending opening of Denver International Airport that changed flight patterns in the area. Lieutenant Colonel Buck Buckingham, Buckley's chief safety officer, agreed that the study was long overdue, but said the National Guard's conversion of the 140th Fighter Wing from A-7 jets to the louder F-16s contributed to the delay. Buckingham added that base officials have tried to mitigate the noise by restricting flights to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and altering flight patterns. In addition, last fall the base constructed an $800,000 "hush house" used for jet engine testing.
Meanwhile, Mayor Tauer said the city wasn't able to hold up development projects while waiting for the study. He said, "In 1992, we had F-16s on base and are just now getting the [study]. We had land purchased and zoned that we can't go back and undo."
PUBLICATION: Japan Economic Newswire
DATE: June 5, 1998
DATELINE: Naha, Japan
The Japan Economic Newswire reports that residents who filed suit against the Japanese government for noise from the U.S. Kadena air base in Japan will not appeal a high court ruling that ordered the government to compensate the residents for noise pollution from military aircraft. The ruling was issued by the Naha branch of the Fukuoka High Court on May 22, and it ordered the government to compensate 867 people of the 906 who requested compensation, but rejected arguments to halt night flights at the base.
According to the article, the court ordered the government to pay a total of 1.37 billion yen to the residents. The decision boosted the total compensation ordered by the Naha District Court in 1994 for about 800 million yen for 768 residents. The court also ruled that banning night flights at the base falls under the jurisdiction of the Japanese government.
The article explains that lawyers representing the residents said residents decided not to appeal the ruling because the court raised the total compensation, and because the Supreme Court is unlikely to impose a night flight ban.
The court decision came after two other decisions by the Supreme Court in 1993 over noise pollution at the U.S. Yokota air base in Metropolitan Tokyo and the U.S. Atsugi naval air station in Kanagawa Prefecture. The article notes that in those decisions, the Supreme Court ordered the government to compensate residents for noise pollution, but rejected requests to ban night flights.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: June 5, 1998
SECTION: Editorials & Forum; Pg. 10B
DATELINE: Cleveland, Ohio
The Plain Dealer printed an editorial that argues the mayors in the Cleveland, Ohio area, along with congressional representatives, should feel they've served their constituents well in their successful campaigns to win concessions from two major railroads seeking to alter the pattern of freight traffic through Northeast Ohio. The editorial says that Representative Dennis Kucinich and Cleveland Mayor Michael White were especially successful in getting CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern to commit tens of millions of dollars to mitigate the impact on residents living near the tracks.
The editorial said although the residents' objective was legitimate, Cleveland's "stop the trains" campaign sometimes exaggerated impacts related to chemical spills, falling property values, and other consequences. The city didn't acknowledge the important role freight trains play in the area's transportation system and economy, according to the editorial. Nor did the city acknowledge the possibility that the two railroad systems would operate more efficiently because they would be competing. In spite of this, the editorial says, when White and Kucinich focused on justifiable concerns about noise and possible hindrances to emergency vehicles, and on the need for the railroads to help mitigate the remedial measures, they provided the leadership that allowed officials in the affected communities to stand together and reach a settlement.
The editorial explains that early on, the railroad companies may have assumed they could run as many trains as they wanted without considering the impact on nearby communities. But, the editorial says, as the organized opposition gathered steam, railroad company officials started to offer mitigation measures that were later strengthened until they satisfied the critics.
The editorial says that especially noteworthy aspects of the deal are two underpasses to be built for road traffic in Berea, where most CSX and Norfolk Southern trains will converge; installation of gates at unprotected crossings in Lakewood; and a limit on operations through the West Shore suburbs. In addition, the editorial reports, some trains will be diverted from Cleveland neighborhoods, CSX will accept speed restrictions along part of the Short Line, and there will be more elaborate soundproofing measures than CSX had proposed.
The editorial concludes that those who believed they were powerless when the railroad plans were unveiled have had their stake in the deal recognized.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: June 5, 1998
SECTION: National; Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Tom Diemer and Kevin Harter
DATELINE: Cleveland, Ohio
The Plain Dealer reports that Cleveland (Ohio) Mayor Michael White and officials from CSX Transportation agreed yesterday in a last-minute deal to a plan that would help mitigate noise if a proposed railroad merger goes forward. CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railroads have proposed purchasing and dividing the Conrail lines through Cleveland, and the federal Surface Transportation Board currently is considering the deal. But many local officials initially opposed the plans, and Mayor White was set to register his objections to the merger yesterday before he reached an agreement with railroad officials. CSX officials agreed to pay $13.1 million to help offset the noise and potential environmental and safety hazards anticipated in Cleveland due to the increased train traffic, and to divert some trains away from East Side neighborhoods. The federal agency is expected to rule on the merger on Monday.
The article explains that if CSX and Norfolk Southern are successful in acquiring Conrail and running trains on the old Conrail routes, Cleveland will be at the crossroads where the two lines converge. After railroad officials and local officials fought for nine months, the impetus for a settlement picked up last week after the Surface Transportation Board staff urged the agency to reject Mayor White's plan to protect the city's neighborhoods. In the meantime, Norfolk Southern reached an agreement with Mayor White and several suburban mayors, and CSX reached an agreement with the suburbs. On Tuesday, White and CSX Chair John Snow met to begin negotiations, which culminated in White flying to Washington to continue and finish discussions yesterday.
Both parties were happy with the agreement, the article reports. Mayor White said, "I looked John Snow in the eyes and I said to him that it is time now for us to sign the papers. We intend to be good partners. You will be a corporate citizen in our community." White added, "We first had to reach an understanding that this negotiation was never a pure train negotiation -- that it was a negotiation about trains and people and neighborhoods. Both of these issues had to be addressed fairly in order for us to reach a common ground." Snow said the agreement was a "win-win for both of us." He said, "We each had fairly strongly held views on some core matters... [We] needed to get to know each other and trust each other."
According to the article, CSX officials agreed to the following items:
Spending $13.1 million for sound and safety improvements such as noise barriers and sound insulation. More than $10 million of the money will go into a community impact fund to be administered by the city.
Guaranteeing that Cleveland residents will get 40 percent of the estimated 124 jobs to be created when the railroad develops a $10 million intermodal center at the old Collinwood Yards.
Rerouting 12 trains from the Short Line, a 22-mile stretch of track now operated by Conrail, to a lake shore line. As yet, there are no details on how this will be done.
The article notes that CSX wants to take over the Short Line and run 40 to 44 trains on it daily. The line runs from Collinwood to Berea, bisecting the Forest Hills, Little Italy, University Circle, Fairfax, Kinsman, Union, Broadway, and Buckeye neighborhoods. Between Collinwood and the Harvard Ave. tunnel, railroad officials agreed to keep train speeds at 30 mph. Mayor White said of the agreement, "We knew no city in American history had gotten train caps," and the city did not expect the federal board to require CSX to greatly reduce trains on the Short Line.
Meanwhile, the article says, some politicians, including New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Ohio Representatives Paul Gillmor of Old Fort, Ralph Regula of Navarre, and Sherrod Brown of Lorain, still oppose the railroad merger, saying there would be major problems in some communities. Brown said residents in North Ridgeville, which is split in half by railroad tracks, believe trains will clog their streets, stall school buses, and delay ambulances.
But in Cleveland, the combined agreements with CSX and Norfolk Southern mean the railroads will spend about $89 million for improvements and mitigation measures, according to city officials. CSX will spend $51.3 million: $28.1 million for improvements along the Short Line; $10.7 million for a community impact fund; $10.1 million for Collinwood Yards improvements; and $2.4 million for landscaping and fencing. Norfolk Southern will spend $38.5 million: $27 million to rebuild an eight-mile section of track that will divert traffic from western lakeshore communities; $10 million for a community impact fund; and $1.5 million for crossings in Collinwood.
PUBLICATION: Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, MA)
DATE: June 5, 1998
SECTION: Local News; Pg. B4
BYLINE: Mark Ellis
DATELINE: West Boylston, Massachusetts
The Telegram & Gazette reports that residents living near a Wal-Mart on Route 12 in West Boylston, Massachusetts have long complained about noise from the store. The dispute may be nearing resolution, the article says, but if it does not end soon, town officials are ready to take the company to court for not complying with noise regulations. Town officials say representatives from the store have made promises in the past and have not lived up to them.
According to the article, residents have been complaining about the store's hours of operation and the absence of a noise buffer since 1995. Wayne LeBlanc, chair of the town select board, said a row of large trees between Wal-Mart's parking lot and private homes was damaged in a storm in winter 1997, and the trees were never replaced. In addition, neighbors have complained about noisy activities at the store at night, including unloading trucks and parking lot sweeping. According to John Wilson, the town's building inspector, such operations are forbidden under town bylaws between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. Wilson said, "Wal-Mart tried to promote itself as a community neighbor, but we still do have this issue with residents." He added, "This has been going on for a long time. Wal-Mart has made a lot of promises; it goes OK for a while, then it starts up again."
Wilson said he sent a letter to Wal-Mart on May 19 that warned of legal action if the problems are not remedied. Wilson stated in the letter, "It is now obvious that you have no intention to comply with the repeated requests to bring about a cooperative closure to these complaints. Therefore, this letter shall serve as notice that I have begun to seek legal avenues to bring about compliance with these bylaws."
Meanwhile, the article reports, Wal-Mart's store manager, Christopher Lang, said trees are being shipped and are scheduled to be planted Tuesday, restoring the buffer. He said nighttime activities have been modified to keep the noise down, but some operations, such as stocking shelves, must be done at night.
PUBLICATION: Aberdeen Press and Journal
DATE: June 4, 1998
SECTION: Business: Companies, Pg.3
DATELINE: Ballater, Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Alasdair Munroe, resident
The Aberdeen Press and Journal reports that a hotel owner in Ballater, Scotland threatened neighbors with loud music after the neighbors objected to plans to extend the hours of operation of the hotel. The Aberdeenshire (South) licensing board yesterday approved the hotel owner's application for extended hours for six months, on the understanding that the owner seeks advice from Aberdeenshire Council's environmental health department on noise control.
The article says that Helen McNeil, who runs the Alexandra Hotel with her husband David, wanted to extend the hotel's hours of operation to midnight on weekdays, and from 12 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Sundays. But neighbor Alasdair Munroe objected to McNeil's application in a letter, saying there was excessive noise from the hotel on karaoke evenings and during other functions. Munroe said in a letter to the licensing board that Helen McNeil came to his house on May 26. Munroe said McNeil "knocked on my door and in the hearing of my wife, Helena, and of Pastor Buhren, said the following: 'I didn't like your letter at all ... you've really wound me up now. I have been very pleasant to you and spoken to you, but we'll make trouble for you from now on and have loud music every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night.'" According to the article, McNeil's agent, Alan Bisset, told the licensing board, "Mrs. McNeil admits that she was very upset after receiving the letter and in the heat of the moment went round to Mr. Munroe's house."
PUBLICATION: AFX News
DATE: June 4, 1998
SECTION: Company News; Statistics; Company News; Regulatory Actions
DATELINE: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
AFX News reports that officials at the Schiphol Aiport in Amsterdam, Netherlands said they will raise the charges for daytime and nighttime landings and take-offs by the noisier Chapter 3 planes starting on August 1. The airport's actions come after the transport ministry approved the plans. The charges are intended to motivate airlines to fly quieter planes and to reduce night flights, according to airport officials.
The article reports that the airport will give a 2.5 percent discount on the basic tariff to the quietest Chapter 3 planes, and will add 7.5 percent to the basic tariff for the noisiest Chapter 3 planes. In addition, all Chapter 3 planes will see higher charges on planes landing or taking off between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
In addition to the new Chapter 3 tariffs, airport officials also have increased the landing charges for all planes by 2.5 percent from June 1, and have raised charges for departing and transferring passengers. Starting November 1, there will be another increase in passenger duties, due to the airport's investment in passenger facilities, Schiphol officials said.
PUBLICATION: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
DATE: June 4, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. B-8
BYLINE: Joe Grata
DATELINE: Edgewood and Swissvale, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Edward Schmidt, Edgewood city councilor; Charles Martoni, Swissvale city council president
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that officials in Edgewood and Swissvale, Pennsylvania, as well as officials in some other Pittsburgh suburbs, plan to step up their opposition to a planned extension of the Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway. Officials said they oppose the bus-only roadway extension because of the additional air pollution, noise pollution, additional traffic, and unsightly noise walls it would create.
According to the article, the Port Authority (PAT) wants to build a 2.3-mile extension of the busway through Edgewood and Swissvale to the Rankin line in a $63-million plan. Last month, members of PAT's board of directors told town officials that they were proceeding with plans to extend the existing seven-mile busway from downtown to Wilkinsburg, in order to speed service and attract more riders by bypassing local streets and Parkway East congestion. The PAT board had earlier agreed to build a modified "linear park" adjacent to the busway extension, but they recently rejected local officials' latest request to develop a light-rail system through the corridor instead of the busway.
The article goes on to explain that Edward Schmidt, an Edgewood city councilor said yesterday, "We're not here to threaten PAT with litigation. But it seems to me PAT should be working with us." Schmidt, along with Swissvale city council president Charles Martoni, said "eight or nine" suburban municipalities and the Turtle Creek Valley Council of Governments now opposed the busway extension. According to Martoni, Edgewood and Swissvale will set up meetings with other communities to discuss their course of action, since private and public meetings had not caused PAT to change its position. Martoni said there will be "major opposition ... regional opposition" to the busway extension.
Officials from the suburbs said the busway extension will cause more air and noise pollution from 300 buses a day, additional traffic on local streets, and noise walls they said would be intrusive and unsightly. The article reports the officials went on to say they had proposed a $38-million linear park that incorporated biking/walking paths, overlooks, a small amphitheater, and had located parts of the busway underground so it could be covered and landscaped. But, they said, PAT's plans for a linear park are little more than "a 6-foot-wide sidewalk."
Schmidt of the Edgewood council went on to say that town officials also wanted PAT to make a "serious study" of the time, money, and work it would take to convert the present busway into light rail and then extend it through their communities to the Mon Valley. According to the article, PAT officials say previously that such a light rail would cost between $300 million and $500 million, and would take years to build. But Martoni and Schmidt said the eastern suburbs deserve a light rail system. Martoni said, "We have an opportunity to do things right" with light rail. "A busway is of no benefit to our constituents."
Meanwhile, Judi McNeil, a spokesperson for PAT, said yesterday, "The PAT board has voted to proceed with the busway, and that's what we're doing. A lot of other people have been asking for this project for years. It is important for the region, and it has benefits beyond Edgewood and Swissvale." PAT officials want construction on the busway to begin in 2000 and open about 2002. McNeil added that building the busway didn't preclude converting it to light rail in the future.
PUBLICATION: The Sentinel
DATE: June 4, 1998
SECTION: Roads: A50, Pg.22
BYLINE: Richard Mather
DATELINE: Stoke-on-Trent, England
The Sentinel reports the Highways Agency in the United Kingdom will spend more than 400,000 pounds on noise insulation to protect residents along a section of the new A50 highway in Stoke-on-Trent, England. The article notes that 164 residents have applied for noise mitigation measures, and the government will spend about 2,500 pounds per home for the insulation measures.
According to the article, residents along the highway must apply for the noise insulation. In order to qualify, residents on the property must experience traffic noise at or above a specified level that is directly attributable to the new road. In addition, residents must live within 300 meters of the road.
The article reports that Highways Agency officials believe most people who are eligible have already applied for the noise insulation. But today the agency invited applications from other people living along the road between Blythe Bridge and Queensway. Phil Stanton, the Highways Agency project manager, said, "Most people who are eligible have been contacted and will already have taken advantage of this offer, but there still may be some who feel they qualify. We would ask them to write to us setting out the facts and we will be happy to look at their circumstances. The noise regulations allow us to offer qualifying residents secondary glazing, supplementary ventilation and, where appropriate, venetian blinds and double or insulated doors. Alternatively, a contributory grant may be offered towards the cost of noise insulation measures."
The article notes that applications must be made before November 28 this year. More information is available from the Highways Agency, Project Services, Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL.
PUBLICATION: The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA)
DATE: June 3, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 16A
BYLINE: Stacey Plaisance
DATELINE: Hammond, Louisiana
The Advocate reports that the city council in Hammond, Louisiana discussed Tuesday what actions are being taken to monitor and control noise from bars and nightclubs on Nashville Avenue. The article notes that the council adopted a noise control ordinance affecting the area about eight months ago, but the ordinance has only recently started to be enforced. Meanwhile, Mayor Louis Tallo visited Nashville Avenue last Thursday night to monitor the noise level.
According to the article, police received copies of the ordinance last week, and bar owners were warned of the noise ordinance, said City Councilor Jerry Correjolles. He added, "The bars didn't know there was an ordinance out on the noise, but they know now," he said. Correjolles also said of the mayor's visit to Nashville Avenue, "I want to compliment Louis for going out there, and I want to urge the citizens that if there is a noise problem, to please call the Police Department."
PUBLICATION: Gannett News Service
DATE: June 3, 1998
SECTION: Pg. Arc
BYLINE: Erin Kelly
DATELINE: U.S.
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kevin Collins, environmentalist, National Parks and Conservation Association; Bill Reffalt, environmentalist, The Wilderness Society
The Gannett News Service reports that noise in U.S. national parks has created an intense debate between hikers, conservationists, personal watercraft manufacturers, tour plane operators, and the federal government. This summer, the article says, Congress and the Clinton administration are considering actions to lower human-made noise in national parks. In addition, the National Park Service intends to adopt strict rules regulating the use of personal watercraft, or Jet Skis. And, the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to vote this summer on a bill by its chair, John McCain (R-Arizona), to restrict tour planes and helicopters above national parks. At the same time, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service are working on a new regulation that would require each national park to adopt a management plan to detail how many sightseeing flights should be allowed and what routes they should take.
The article reports that many believe visitors to national parks should be able to hear the sounds of nature as part of their vacation experience. Bill Reffalt of The Wilderness Society said, "You should be able to hear the canyon wren, the water trickling, the wind passing through the pine needles, the Big Horn sheep scrambling up the side of the hill. If you can't, you deserve your money back." Kevin Collins, an environmentalist with the National Parks and Conservation Association, said a trip he took to Cape Lookout National Seashore in North Carolina was ruined by the noise of Jet Skis. He said, "It shattered the whole image of peace and tranquillity I had been seeking. To me, it was like being exposed to all the urban noise and congestion pressures that I had gone to the park to escape. It made me feel angry and tense."
Meanwhile, the article says, those in the Jet Ski and flight tour industries say that there are many ways to enjoy a national park. Steve Bassett, president of the U.S. Air Tour Association, said, "National parks are not just for the privileged few, or for back-country hikers or people seeking solitude. The parks are for everybody. Everybody deserves to have access to national parks, including children, senior citizens and disabled people who may not be able to hike the Grand Canyon but still want to experience it. Everybody deserves to try to get what they want out of national parks."
In spite of their differences, the article reports, conservationists and air tour operators said they have been making progress in the last few weeks in trying to reach a compromise to regulate flights over the parks. A "working group" of environmentalists and tour operators was brought together by the FAA, the Park Service, and Senator McCain to find a compromise, and although there are still major differences to overcome, both sides said they are getting closer to an agreement. Bassett of the air tour association said his group wants assurances that the FAA, not the Park Service, will write the flight rules. But, he added, "It became very clear to us a few years ago, when President Clinton stood at the rim of the Grand Canyon on Earth Day and said there would be restrictions on air tours, that if we didn't become part of the process, we would be run out of business."
Meanwhile, according to Destry Jarvis, assistant director of the National Park Service, the agency intends to continue to allow Jet Skis in human-made, flatwater lakes. But, he said, the personal watercraft may be banned or restricted in natural lakes and wilderness areas. The Park Service will issue detailed regulations later this summer or early fall, Jarvis added.
The National Parks and Conservation Association, however, has threatened to sue the Park Service if it does not ban Jet Skis in national parks, the article reports. According to Collins of the association, Jet Skis pollute the water and air, and make a louder and more irritating noise than motor boats. Collins said, "Jet Skis look like great fun, and there's no doubt that people enjoy them. But there's a place for everything. The Daytona 500 is great fun, but you wouldn't allow a car race to take place through a national park."
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: June 3, 1998
SECTION: Part Ii; Page A31
BYLINE: Ching-Ching Ni
DATELINE: Huntington, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joe Kayal, resident; Harvey Gardner, director, Huntington Hearing and Speech Center
Newsday reports that the town board in Huntington, New York unanimously passed an ordinance yesterday that bans leaf blowers that generate noise levels higher than 70 decibels by the year 2000. By 2003, leaf blowers are required not to be louder than 65 decibels, under the ordinance. The new ordinance is intended to work in conjunction with the current bylaw that bans leaf blowers during certain hours.
According to the article, City Councilor Steve Israel said the new ordinance came out of a year's research and work with residents, auditory experts, and members of the landscaping industry. Joe Kayal, a resident who helped draft the legislation, said, "As a resident, I discovered I couldn't communicate with my family when I'm on the phone because people were using leaf blowers two houses away and my windows were closed. This law gives every homeowner the authority to take reasonable action to live a decent and quiet life." Harvey Gardner, director of the Huntington Hearing and Speech Center, said, "It's been proven that noise has a psychological as well as a physiological effect on people. I'm delighted that in a couple of years we're going to have a much quieter community."
The article notes that the new ordinance will apply to both residential and commercial landscapers. Violators of the bylaw will be fined $200. Councilor Israel said the town will set up a committee to monitor the availability of new leaf blower technology before enforcing the 2003 mandate. The current bylaw bans leaf blowers before 8 a.m. and after 7 p.m. on weekdays, and before 9 a.m. and after 5 p.m. on weekends and holidays.
According to the article, Pat Voges, who represents about 1,500 members of the Nassau / Suffolk Landscape Gardeners Association, participated in the work leading up to the new bylaw. Voges said he prefers the new bylaw to an outright ban, which the village of Great Neck Estates has during the summer. He said, "We feel it's a great compromise. We've got to replace the blowers in about every three years anyway. The next one you buy, you buy at a lower decibel. Simple as that." Meanwhile, the town of North Hempstead also is talking to Voges' group about the same issue, and Voges hopes the group can get the same bylaw enacted there.
The article explains that the average noise level of most leaf blowers is between 70 and 90 decibels, according to George Olson of Echo, a manufacturer of lower-decibel leaf blowers. Currently, the article notes, leaf blowers with 70-decibel levels cost about $400, and 65-decibel leaf blowers aren't readily available to the public.
PUBLICATION: The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
DATE: June 3, 1998
SECTION: B, Pg. 5
BYLINE: Susan Hill Smith
DATELINE: Charleston, South Carolina area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Robert Guild, attorney; National Audubon Society
The Post and Courier reports that an administrative judge in South Carolina Tuesday ruled that he doesn't have jurisdiction to address issues raised by a group opposing the construction of a racetrack near Francis Beidler Forest outside Charleston, South Carolina. The group wanted to air their concerns about racetrack noise before the judge, especially in light of recent news that the forest might be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. But the judge ruled that he can't consider the issues unless the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control returns the case to him for a new hearing. That board is expected to consider the matter this summer.
The article reports that the racetrack has been proposed by the company Interstate Speedway and is located near Interstate 26 and S.C. Highway 27, about two miles from the closest part of the Francis Beidler Forest, which is owned by the National Audubon Society. The Society, along with other neighbors, are plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the racetrack developers.
Robert Guild, the attorney for the neighbors, said he is still confident they will have a chance to show that the noise would disturb the ancient forest. He said, "We're in no hurry for the speedway to be given the green light, so to speak, but we would have been eager to have our day in court before this judge." Meanwhile, Chris Holmes, the attorney for Interstate Speedway, said, "The judge essentially agreed with us, though he left the door open for them to raise the issue before the DHEC board."
The article explains that the judge said the plaintiffs had proved there was a new issue in the case, but "it remains unclear to this court whether any newly discovered evidence exists to support a finding that noise will impact the Forest." The South Carolina Department of Archives and History concluded that noise from the racetrack would not hurt the forest, the article notes. But racetrack opponents said they disagree with the noise standards used by Coastal Resource and the Department of Archives and History, and want a chance to present information from their own noise experts.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: June 3, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Jackie Spinner
DATELINE: Prince George's County, Maryland
The Washington Post reports that the County Council in Prince George's County, Maryland voted 8 to 1 yesterday to approve plans for National Harbor, a massive entertainment and retail development, as long as the developer first addresses noise and traffic concerns. The decision came after the County Council created special rules for the project last summer to speed up its approval process, including a provision that stipulated the developer did not have to submit a detailed site plan for the project. The $1 billion project still must be approved by the National Capital Planning Commission, the article notes, which is conducting an environmental study of the project and is not expected to vote on the issue until late 1998 or early 1999.
According to the article, plans call for National Harbor to eventually include six theme areas, including one modeled after a seaside resort and another after a mountain lodge that would feature hotels perched on a 150-foot hill that overlooks a 12-acre forest. A fee would be charged for the largest theme area in the complex, which would give access to virtual reality arcades, stage shows, and science exhibits, according to development plans. Developer Milton Peterson said he expects to attract 12 million visitors per year to the project. National Harbor is expected to be built in stages over more than a decade, Peterson said.
The article explains that last summer, the County Council created special rules to speed up the approval process for National Harbor, similar to the rules in which the council allowed the Washington Redskins to skip several county review phases to build the Jack Kent Cooke Stadium in Landover. The council did not require developer Peterson to submit a detailed site plan for National Harbor. This means that the council won't have the chance to review changes Peterson might make to the general concept for National Harbor other than the specific conditions set yesterday.
Walter Maloney (D-Beltsville), the sole councilor who voted against the project, said, "This is a woefully deficient conceptual site plan. This is the last chance the council is going to get to see this plan ... and we're writing a blank check.... This is very, very bad, and it's sickening." Maloney added that site plans should not be approved without more study and without written guarantees from the developer that National Harbor will not have such features as outdoor thrill rides, fast-food restaurants, pawn shops, and adult bookstores. Maloney, as well as councilor Isaac Gourdine (D-Fort Washington) voted against the special zoning exemptions last year. Gourdine, who voted to approve the project yesterday, said, "I probably more than anyone else want this to happen ... but I think what we have here is not enough detail. If we were to approve this conceptual site plan, we will be [doing so] with a lot of questions."
But, the article reports, other council members supported the decision. County Councilor Dorothy Bailey (D-Temple Hills) said, "This will be one of the finest project developments on the East Coast. I'm really willing and ready for the world to see the goodness in Prince George's County." Councilor M.H. Jim Estepp (D-Upper Marlboro) said Prince George's cannot afford "to continue running off the Milt Petersons of the world." He added, "If there is anything we're sweeping under the rug, it's that we're in a fight for our economic life in this county." Councilor Thomas Hendershot (D-New Carrollton) said, "We need the jobs. We need the economic activity that generates. Enough said." The developer has said the project will employ 11,000 people and generate more than $20 million a year in local and state revenue.
The article reports that the council adopted the recommendations of the planning board, which urged the council to approve the project pending the results of additional studies and other planning work. The planning board recommended that a noise study be conducted for the six-level parking garage located near a residential area, and that the developer provide more detailed plans about the garage. The council also voted that the developer must provide detailed site plans for any outdoor amusement attractions and for the so-called Beltway Parcel, an area designed to mimic the mix of offices, shops, hotels, and restaurants in places such as Reston Town Center.
The article also explains that the National Harbor site has been slated for massive development since the early 1980s. At that time, the County Council unanimously approved a project called Bay of the Americas, a $550 million, 440-acre residential, recreational, and commercial development, but the project was never built. A later project called PortAmerica also was never built, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: Entertainment; Pg. B10
BYLINE: The Canadian Press
DATELINE: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Von Eschen, stage manager, Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan
The Calgary Herald reports that members of the Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan theater company in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan want the city police to enforce a bylaw that prohibits Jet Skis from using the portion of the South Saskatchewan River near the company's performance tents on the river banks.
According to the article, Mark Von Eschen, the theater company's stage manager, said, "It is equivalent to going to a movie theatre and you are sitting enjoying a movie and some idiot behind you talks through the whole movie. It is such an obtrusive noise that everyone sort of turns and looks over their shoulder to see what the noise is. It just really breaks the mood for a minute."
The article reports that Von Eschen said there is a bylaw banning Jet Skis from the area near where the company performs, but police don't enforce it. He said, "We don't want people to get tickets and we don't want people to have their water craft taken away from them. The point we are trying to make is to educate the people that are riding those devices that it is irritating."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Natasha Korecki
DATELINE: Lake Zurich, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that village board members in Lake Zurich, Illinois voted 5 to 1 Monday to deny a request for a Wal-Mart expansion. Some board members said Wal-Mart hadn't been a good corporate citizen, while others said the proposed expansion would locate truck traffic and noise closer to residences.
The article reports that Wal-Mart wanted to add 4,600 square feet to its store at 820 South Rand Road in the Deerpath retail center. The addition would have provided a larger seasonal shop and garden center.
But residents in the Lucerne subdivision, directly behind Wal-Mart, fought for weeks to oppose the expansion. They argued that too much retail space already exists in the area, and that they already had to deal with a recent expansion at Sears, located near the Wal-Mart site. In addition, residents said Wal-Mart had not been a "good corporate neighbor" because of noise and garbage problems.
Meanwhile, the article says, Wal-Mart representatives sought to allay board members' concerns by saying they had addressed the problems raised by residents. The company had cut the wires to the outdoor public announcement system, worked to decrease truck traffic and noise, and held a meeting to discuss the problems, they said. John Sfire, a Wal-Mart employee in charge of maintaining the property, said the proposed expansion would improve the development with the additional landscaping. Sfire also said that retailers sometimes shut down when expansion plans are denied.
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 15A
BYLINE: Todd Bensman
DATELINE: Irving, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Walter Leonard, attorney; Joe Wilkinson, resident
The Dallas Morning News reports that a judge last week dismissed three noise-related lawsuits by residents in Irving, Texas against the Dallas / Fort Worth International Airport. The decision has prompted airport officials to seek dismissals of more than 200 similar claims. Meanwhile, a lawyer for some of the residents said he is considering whether to appeal or seek a new trial.
The article explains that residents in Irving began to file lawsuits in 1994, when the airport started a federally required program to identify and reimburse them for the effects of noise expected from a proposed runway on the airport's east side. Under the program, the airport bought out homes within certain noise contour boundaries around the proposed runway, and reimbursed residents farther out for devaluation of homes. Dozens of residents said they weren't paid enough, and other complained that they were left out of the program, the article says.
But last week, State District Judge David Gobney granted a motion filed by the airport to throw out three cases, offering no explanation of his ruling. On Monday, attorneys for the airport said they planned to use the ruling as the basis for seeking similar dismissals of the other 200 or so cases.
Meanwhile, Walter Leonard, an attorney for some of the Irving plaintiffs, said he was considering the next step on the three cases that were dismissed. He said, "At this point we're simply preparing to go ahead with the appeal, and we feel there are some serious questions with the blanket ruling that was made."
Joe Wilkinson, a party to one of the three dismissed cases whose home fell just outside the noise contour boundaries, said he expected to win on appeal, the article reports. He said, "This Godzilla is trying to walk on us out here, and we're going to keep fighting them till there's no fight left in us. We're very optimistic about what's about to happen. They know they've got problems." Wilkinson added that the noise from the runway located 2,000 feet from his house has made his life miserable. "The noise level is like a freight train going through my attic," he said.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec)
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A3
BYLINE: Ingrid Peritz
DATELINE: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Marie-Noelle Lasserre, board member, Old Montreal residents' association; Andrew Eddy, president, Old Montreal residents' association
The Gazette reports that city officials in Montreal, Quebec are studying a proposal to turn St. Paul Street in Old Montreal into a car-free zone on weekends. The idea has been proposed by several merchants on the street, who are fed up with traffic jams and want more tourists on the narrow street. But some residents on the street oppose the idea, saying it will turn the street into a zone of noisy late-night restaurants. The article notes that a city committee has been formed to study the proposal.
According to the article, Vincent Di Candido, president of the Old Montreal merchants' association, said, "We want to remove the inconvenience of traffic and give the street to the people." He added that as the Old Port becomes increasingly popular, many visitors head straight there and skip St. Paul Street, using the street as a route to search for a parking spot. "It is becoming intolerable," Di Candido said. "Cars drive around non-stop, irritating tourists and pedestrians. The sidewalks are too narrow." Di Candido also said that 82 percent of merchants along St. Paul like the pedestrian mall idea, according to a survey. He has proposed a trial run this summer by closing the section of St. Paul between St. Laurent Blvd. and Place Jacques Cartier.
Meanwhile, the article reports, some residents believe a pedestrian mall would increase noise and inconveniences on the street. New restaurants would drive away the boutiques and the residents, they fear. Marie-Noelle Lasserre, a board member of the Old Montreal residents' association, said, "We don't want to aggravate the neighborhood's problems by closing the street and making it noisy and dirty. It will become a restaurant ghetto, like on Prince Arthur St." Andrew Eddy, president of the residents' group, said many residents have become used to the traffic noise in Old Montreal, but party-makers on terraces are different. He said, "You're creating an invitation to a party zone. And that party zone is where I live and where I sleep."
The article explains that according to Gilles Morel, coordinator for a city of Montreal committee on Old Montreal, city officials are interested in the pedestrian zone, but won't proceed unless everyone backs the idea. He said if restaurants move on to the street, the city could regulate them by requiring them to close at midnight, for example. Morel also noted that pedestrian zones are popular across Europe.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 8; Metro Desk
BYLINE: John Canalis
DATELINE: Costa Mesa, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lee Ann Douglas, resident
The Los Angeles Times reports that to determine how loud church services at the Christ Our Redeemer AME Church were, the vice president from Orange County's Interfaith Council stood outside for much of the service last Sunday. Residents said that the congregation was being quieter than usual because they knew that people were listening, but the council representative concluded that closing the doors seemed to contain the sound.
The article reports that the council representative noted that "the Interfaith Council is concerned with any restriction on the worship of any particular faith. But at the same time, we're concerned about religious organizations doing everything they can to provide a relationship with neighbors that is positive and constructive."
The article notes that the visit was prompted because a new conditional use permit that applies to several churches in the area requires closed doors, minimal amplification, and no congregating in parking lots. The Pentecostal church is complying under protest, and the AME Christ our Redeemer Church is not complying because they say it "interferes with church traditions." Despite the quieter service, neighbors did call the police.
PUBLICATION: The Northern Echo
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 1
BYLINE: Nigel Burton
DATELINE: United Kingdom
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bob Pickersgill, spokesperson, Action Against the Air Terminal
The Northern Echo reports that residents in Britain's Northeast are fighting an airport development that would establish the country's second largest cargo handling center after Heathrow airport. A report created for the Darlington council has found that residents near the development will suffer more noise, pollution, and traffic congestion if the project goes forward. The report will be presented as evidence when a public inquiry into the project proposed by Moorfield Estates begins at the airport today, the article says.
According to the article, residents in the area say the project will create a huge increase in traffic congestion, because thousands of trucks will be needed to move nearly 750,000 tons of cargo a year. In addition, air and noise pollution will be caused by the additional flights. The report states that thousands of extra aircraft landing and taking off would create emissions equal to an extra 230 tons of nitrogen dioxide and 51,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year. Environmentalists already say that parts of the Northeast already have some of the worst air quality in the country. The report also argues that developers have not taken into account the impact of noise on elderly residents living at Trees Park Village, Europe's largest private care home. Bob Pickersgill, a spokesperson for the Action Against the Air Terminal group, said, "No one is against expansion or progress but this scheme makes no sense to us."
The article explains that the project is budgeted at 340 million pounds, and would create 5,000 new jobs. Consultants working for Moorfield Estates have said the project would not pose a significant risk of extra pollution. Gordon Smith, a spokesperson for Moorfield Estates, said the protesters are "a very small minority in Middleton St. George who are deliberately disregarding the significant contributions the development will make to the local infrastructure, the international status of the region, the local economy, and jobs."
PUBLICATION: Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL)
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Matt Grimison
DATELINE: Indian River County, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Roseland Property Owners Association; Lynn Stieglitz, vice president, Friends of St. Sebastian River
The Press Journal reports that planning staff members in Indian River County, Florida have recommended that the County Commission not pass a ban on airboats on the Sebastian River during its meeting today. Planning staffers said there is not enough evidence of negative impacts to ban airboats, but they did recommend consideration of banning all boats more than 25 feet in the narrow stretches of the river. The issue came before the commission after dozens of residents who live on or near the river in Roseland complained about noise from a commercial airboat tour operation. Meanwhile, officials in Brevard County are watching the vote closely, because they also have been asked to regulate airboats on their part of the river.
According to the article, residents who have complained about the airboats have focused their energies on a commercial airboat tour operation called Airboat Obsession. Residents said the company's two 33-foot boats disturb the peaceful area along the river, harass wildlife, and flout speed regulations. But Bob Taylor, who owns the company, said the planning staff's recommendations prove what he's been saying all along -- that his boats aren't breaking any rules or harming any animals. He said, "I'm pleased to see that there's some common sense on this thing. There's been a lot of false rhetoric." Taylor added that if the commission passes a size-based regulation in narrow areas of the river, it wouldn't affect his operation because his tours don't go to the narrow areas.
The article explains that environmental groups and members of the Roseland Property Owners Association are fighting the airboats. Opponents said they were disappointed with the recommendations. Lynn Stieglitz, vice president of Friends of St. Sebastian River, said, "We were pretty much frustrated and downcast about it. It seems to me that this man who runs tours is only one man, and there are many, many hundreds of people who are very much against tours being run on the St. Sebastian River." Stieglitz added that opponents are hoping that commissioners will take a stronger position than the planning staff's recommendations.
Roland DeBlois, the county's Chief Environmental Planner, said complaints about the airboats are well-documented, but planners couldn't find enough empirical evidence to recommend banning the airboats. DeBlois said the county can restrict uses of the river, but rules must be the minimum necessary to achieve specific public purposes, which makes a broad ban problematic. The article notes that one of residents' biggest complaints about the airboats have been their noise, but planners said the noise must be more than 90 decibels to violate the law, and that level has not been documented with the tour boats. In addition, planners said, there is no evidence that the airboats are harmful to wildlife or that they threaten the endangered manatees that live on the river. Airboats are a safety problem to canoers and kayakers on the river, planners found, but no more so than any other boat of that size. One of the tour boat operators was cited for speeding in the river, which is designated as a slow-speed area, planners found.
Meanwhile, County Commissioner Fran Adams said the commissioners may discuss regulating engine size rather than boat size. Adams said, "There's no question [regulating boat size] would have an effect, but we still have the wake problem and we still have the noise problem that has to be addressed. My personal feeling is that we really need to look at this in terms of a horsepower issue."
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Raghuram Vadarevu
DATELINE: Barrington, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that the Town Council in Barrington, Rhode Island voted 4 to 1 to approve a request from Brewer's Cove Haven Marina last night to re-zone Rodeo Drive from residential to waterfront business. The decision allows the marina to expand its business onto a 14,600-square-foot plot between Rodeo Drive and Bullock's Cove and south of marina's main property, the article notes. Residents living near the marina objected to the change, saying it could change the residential character of the neighborhood. The Town Council went against the advice of the Planning Board, which last week said that the marina's expansion was not consistent with town's Comprehensive Plan and may set a precedent for changing zoning on single plots.
According to the article, the council approved the zoning change with the following four conditions in order to address residents' concerns about noise and future expansion:
A fence must be constructed along the southern and eastern side of lot 51 sectioning off the marina's property from Rodeo Drive residents.
Trees and bushes at least six feet tall must be planted along the fence to reduce noise.
Security lighting must be installed that is low in intensity and that faces the marina's property.
Lot 51 must not be used after 9 p.m. for business or commercial purposes.
The article says that during the public meeting last night, residents said that the owner of the marina has been a "good neighbor" but they worry that the same might not be true in the future if there is new management. Resident Philip O'Dowd said, "I am concerned of what happens in 10 years when (Keyworth) gets transferred to a marina in Kansas. Someone may be less loyal and may put (the property) to other uses ... and disrupt the residential area."
PUBLICATION: Aviation Week and Space Technology
DATE: June 1, 1998
SECTION: Airline Outlook; Vol. 148, No. 22; Pg. 15
BYLINE: Edited by Frances Fiorino
DATELINE: Israel
Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA) is concerned about legislation proposed in the Israeli Knesset that calls for criminal prosecution of pilots who violate noise abatement procedures. The bill was sent back for review after concerns were raised by IFALPA and the Israeli Air Line Pilots Association.
According to the article, the industry groups said the legislation doesn't recognize that noise limits must be exceeded sometimes because of weather or unplanned maneuvers. IFALPA members say that pilots are increasingly expected to fly under non-optimum operating conditions because of noise restrictions or other environmental reasons.
PUBLICATION: Aberdeen Press and Journal
DATE: June 6, 1998
SECTION: Business: Companies, Pg.3
DATELINE: Aberdeen, Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Queen's Cross/Harlaw community council; David Laing, clerk of the Deacon's Court, Alford Place Church; Dean Skinner, resident
The Aberdeen Press and Journal reports residents in Aberdeen, Scotland are protesting a bid to convert the Q Brasserie on Alford Place from a restaurant into a nightclub. Residents say there already are many nightclubs in the area, and another one would only increase the levels of late-night noise and disturbances. But, the article says, Peter Cockhead, the city's planning and strategic development director, has recommended that the change be allowed. The planning (development control) committee will consider the application next Thursday.
According to the article, the Q Brasserie is located above The College bar on Alford Place. Both establishments occupy the former Christ's College, which opened in 1995 after a renovation that cost 730,000 pounds. The latest plan was proposed by P.B. Developments on December 31 of last year.
The article reports that there were seven letters of objection to the proposal, all concerning the potential loss of amenity in the area. In one letter, the Queen's Cross / Harlaw community council wrote: "We understand this would mean later closing times, which would result in early morning noise and disturbance for residents. We would ask the planning committee to consider residents' loss of amenities first, rather than yet more venues for late-night revelers." David Laing, clerk of the Deacon's Court at nearby Alford Place Church, also urged councilors to reject the plan. Laing said, "This part of central Aberdeen is already particularly well-served by licensed and entertainment establishments, and there is no evidence of any requirement for further provision." Dean Skinner, a resident of Union Street, said his apartment looks directly into Q Brasserie. He said, "Would you -- or whoever it is the final decision rests with -- like a disco on your doorstep?"
But, the article says, Cockhead of the city said that a study had been undertaken to gauge the levels of noise that would come from the proposed club. The study found that noise could be contained "to an acceptable degree" by using soundproofing measures.
PUBLICATION: Austin American-Statesman
DATE: June 6, 1998
SECTION: Metro/State; Pg. B5
DATELINE: Austin, Texas
The Austin American-Statesman reports that officials with the City of Austin, Texas have settled a lawsuit with the East Sixth Street Community Association and 10 nightclubs that had sued to overturn the city's noise ordinance. The article explains that the noise ordinance will stay in effect, but police will adopt new methods and use new equipment to measure the noise coming from nightclubs.
The article reports that the court ordered the city and plaintiffs to mediate their disagreements last year. Under the settlement, Austin police will give officers more training in measuring noise, use a noise meter that averages fluctuations in noise levels, and take noise readings at least six feet outside nightclub doors for one to three minutes. The city also agreed that police will issue a warning to a nightclub for excessive noise before ticketing the club if the violation continues. Finally, the city agreed to contact and solicit input from the community association before changing the noise ordinance in the future.
PUBLICATION: The Cincinnati Enquirer
DATE: June 6, 1998
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B06
BYLINE: Allen Howard
DATELINE: Cincinnati, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Terry and Francis Burns, Carole Browne, Debbie Zurieck, residents; Carthage Civic League; Roxanne Qualls, Cincinnati Mayor
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that residents in Cincinnati, Ohio are complaining about the noise, dust, and other problems at the Carthage Mills warehouse complex near their homes. In response to the problem, Cincinnati Mayor Roxanne Qualls has introduced a motion that would change the zoning in the area to residential uses only, which would force Carthage Mills to move.
According to the article, the 14-acre warehouse complex was built more than a century ago, and is surrounded by homes. The warehouse is surrounded by 66th Street on the south, Van Kirk and North Bend on the north, Fairpark on the east, and the CSX Railroad line on the west. Goods used to be delivered to the complex by railroad, but now are delivered by trucks. Residents say that the streets are too narrow for the huge trucks. The trucks use not only the roads immediately surrounding the warehouse, but also the smaller side streets, such as 65th, 68th, 69th, 70th, and 75th. This extends the problems to residents on many streets, residents say.
Residents Terry and Francis Burns said their lawn is damaged each time a truck makes a wide turn into the warehouse. Francis Burns said, "This kind of business should not be in a residential neighborhood." Resident Carole Browne said, "I am usually awakened about 4 a.m. when the truckers begin firing up their engines. One night, a truck engine ran all night and my family could hear it even with the windows closed." Another resident, Debbie Zurieck, said, "We started trying to get something done 10 years ago. We ran into all kinds of excuses. The city said the zoning permitted that kind of use of the property when it was built years ago. Whatever they do now may be a violation under current zoning regulations; but it can be grandfathered in under the previous zoning regulations, we were told." Members of the Carthage Civic League also have taken on the issue, the article notes.
The article explains that if the motion proposed by Cincinnati Mayor Roxanne Qualls to change the area's zoning to residential uses succeeds, the mayor has proposed that the city Department of Neighborhood Services consider developing the site for housing. Qualls's motion also calls on the city to enforce existing laws to mitigate the dust problem, to prohibit trucks from driving on residential sidewalks and lawns, and to address the noise problem. Qualls said, "If the existing noise ordinances do not cover idling trucks in close proximity to residences during sleeping hours, amend the ordinances so they do. This type of business is totally incompatible with this neighborhood."
Meanwhile, the article reports, warehouse owner Siebert Mohr said he is trying to solve as many of the problems as possible. He said, "I have told them I am working on the parking lot to solve the dust problem. I am certainly going to see to it that the place is kept clean; and where there are trucks idling late at night, I will work that out. I think we have to realize that they live close to trucks, and that is not pleasant for anybody." Mohr added that he could live with relocating his warehouse if the site is rezoned.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: June 5, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Kevin Barrett
DATELINE: Winfield, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that trustees in Winfield, Illinois considered a draft noise ordinance Thursday that would levy fines for "excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise." According to village officials, the ordinance was drawn up in response to people complaining about noisy pets.
According to the article, the draft ordinance covers noise in five categories: horns and signaling devices; loud speakers and amplifiers; yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, and singing; animal, dog and bird noises; and noise near schools, courts, churches, and hospitals. The draft ordinance prohibits noise that "annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others." The article notes that exceptions are made in the ordinance for railroads, road maintenance, public safety construction projects, lawn equipment, and community celebrations. Violators would be warned at their first offense, but if they don't comply, they could be fined up to $500. The article explains that the draft ordinance is similar to ordinances now in effect in DeKalb, Niles, and Northbrook.
Trustees still have not determined how they would decide whether noise is a public nuisance, the article says. Some municipalities leave it up to police officers to decide. Others use portable noise meters, while still others use a "walk-away test," where noise is considered excessive if it drowns out conversation between two people standing 25 or more feet apart.
The article reports that the trustees sent the draft ordinance back to village staff members for refinements. Trustees wanted to know whether a separate standard could be set for animals that were considered annoying but wouldn't be loud enough to register on a noise meter. They also suggested that the village contact the Winfield Park District about the effect any ordinance might have on park activities.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: June 3, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Robert Sanchez
DATELINE: Lombard, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Barbara DeSantis, Diana Brodick, residents
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that village officials in Lombard, Illinois recently approved a plan for three new softball fields at Madison Meadow park. But now, residents living near the park are saying they weren't told about the project, and are objecting that it would bring more traffic, noise, and trash to their neighborhood. A meeting is scheduled for June 9 between residents and parks district officials.
According to the article, Parks Director Mike Fugiel said the parks district wants to replace the two unlit ball fields near Fairfield Avenue with three softball fields, two of which would have lights. Fugiel said that the park district has five lighted ball fields, but four are used by the boy's baseball league, and one is used by the 1,300-member adult softball league, leaving the girls league without a lit field. He said, "If the boys get to play under lights, the girls should too." Park officials also said the latest games would end around 10:15 p.m.
But residents say that although they support plans to meet the needs of children, the park district didn't tell them about their plan. Resident Barbara DeSantis said only a few people were informed about the project. Now, she said, many people are opposed to the plan and she is circulating a petition. DeSantis said residents already must put up with heavy traffic, loud noise, trash, and people urinating on their bushes. "They are just taking more of a chance of bringing problems," she said. Another resident, Diana Brodick, said activity at the park's two existing ball fields currently goes on much later than 10:15 p.m. She said, "I love the park. But what good is it living next to a park if it's loud and active late at night?"
PUBLICATION: Nottingham Evening Post
DATE: June 2, 1998
SECTION: District Page, Pg.13
BYLINE: Chris Oxley
DATELINE: Broxtowe and Nottingham, England
The Nottingham Evening Post reports that teenage motorcyclists have been annoying residents in Nuthall streets and other areas around the city that are near Broxtowe Country Park in England. The article says police are stepping up patrols in the park to stop the youngsters who are riding there illegally.
The article said that the cyclists started using the city council land around three years ago, but were stopped by police patrols. The problem flared up again eight months ago.
The Broxtowe and Nottingham City Councils and other organizations presented the Nottingham traffic police with money in March to purchase two new bikes to patrol the city's parks and open spaces. One motorbike is now in operation, with another on its way, the article said.
Adrian Persaud, of Broxtowe police station was quoted in the article saying, "The patrol has been successful in Broxtowe Park already -last week we stopped three motorcyclists riding illegally. And the patrols will be even more effective when the second bike arrives."
Philip Owen, a Nuthall parish councilor reported that residents in Harcourt Crescent, Gloucester Avenue and Assarts Road were most affected most by the noise. Owen is noted in the article saying that police have had hundreds of complaints about the problem from residents.
PUBLICATION: Air Cargo World
DATE: June 1998
SECTION: No. 6, Vol. 88; Pg. 4; Issn: 0745-5100
DATELINE: Europe
Air Cargo World reports the European Commission plans to ban "hush-kitted" planes in the near future.
According to the article, experts expect the European Commission to ban "hush-kitted" stage 3 planes from Europe's skies. Gunnar Emausson, a technical officer with the European Civil Aviation Commission, says the plan is to allow only aircraft whose engines were built to the quietest stage 3 specifications and ban those that use hush-kits. "It is approved, but it will be some time before it gets through all of the hurdles in the (European) Union. I would say a year or so," said Emausson. "There seems to be virtual unanimity." This plan is even more ambitious than the general Europe phase-out of the noisier aircraft by 2002. If the rule is approved, the EC would stop issuing certificates to hush-kitted planes next April and the aircraft would be barred from Europe's airports a year later.
The article states the ban is a potentially sharp blow to cargo operators. Carriers such as DHL Worldwide Express, which operates 28 hush-kitted 727s on the continent, say they need more time. "It is discriminatory," said Guy Collette, DHL's corporate affairs director. "If we have to accept this, then the date of April 2000 should be changed to 2002 to comply with (International Civil Aviation Organization) provisions."
Previous week: May 24, 1998
Next week: June 7, 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