PUBLICATION: The Dayton Daily News
DATE: July 2, 1997
SECTION: Neighbors, Pg. Z5-4
DATELINE: Huber Heights, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jan Vargo, City Councillor
The Dayton Daily News reports that the Huber Heights (Ohio) City Council passed an amendment to the city's noise ordinance last week that restricts noise from car stereos, effective immediately.
According to the article, the noise ordinance amendment stipulates that sound amplification devices cannot be "plainly audible" within 25 feet or more from a vehicle. The council believed the amendment will help police enforce the noise ordinance with respect to car stereos. Police had said that it was difficult to enforce noise limits on car stereos because the ordinance had defined a violation as any noise in excess of 80 decibels. City Councillor Jan Vargo said, "Summer's here, the windows are down, and this gives our police a perfect opportunity to enforce the new ordinance."
PUBLICATION: The Evening Post
DATE: July 1, 1997
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 11
BYLINE: Suzanne Green
DATELINE: Wellington, New Zealand
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Maxine Harris, chair, Residents Airport Noise Action Group (RANAG); Wellington Federation of Progressive Associations
The Evening Post reports that the Residents Airport Noise Action Group (RANAG), a group of residents in the eastern suburbs of Wellington, New Zealand, may have to abandon a fight over airport noise control because they cannot afford to go to the Environment Court for an appeal. The court hearing is estimated to cost the group $20,000, and is expected to last most of August.
According to the article, RANAG chair Maxine Harris said that under the Resource Management Act, the only way a group can appeal decisions in the Wellington City Council district plan is by going to court. Before the Act passed, groups could ask the city council to amend bylaws, which required advertising and submissions, but no court hearing. When the Resource Management Act was at its select committee stage, there was talk of extending the Legal Services Act so that organizations with a genuine community interest would qualify for financial help, the article says. But this never happened, so groups like RANAG now face financial problems when they contest an environmental issue. Harris said, the Act has been "a wonderful cash cow for lawyers. And it's very, very difficult for community groups to do anything." In addition to the cost, the process of lodging an appeal and preparing for a court hearing is very complicated, the article reports. Harris said the Resource Management Act was great in theory, but it has turned out to favor large organizations that have substantial financial resources.
The article also notes that RANAG was the only residents' group appealing the city council's district plan, but the group was supported by other local residents associations and the Wellington Federation of Progressive Associations. In addition, the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand, Air New Zealand, and Wellington International Airport are also appealing the plan.
PUBLICATION: The Columbus Dispatch
DATE: July 2, 1997
SECTION: News Local & National, Pg. 2D
BYLINE: Jill Riepenhoff
DATELINE: Westerville, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lynda and Steve Kruk, residents; Donald Wuertz, Delaware County Commissioner
The Columbus Dispatch reports that residents living near the Polaris Amphitheater in Westerville, Ohio have been complaining about noise from concerts for several years, with little tangible result. Now, Delaware County Commissioner Donald Wuertz has launched an effort to get the city of Columbus to enforce its noise ordinance, and visited residents near the amphitheater last night during an Ozzy Osbourne concert. The article goes on to focus on the impact of the concert noise on the life of one family who lives near the amphitheater.
The article reports that Lynda and Steve Kruk, and their 7-, 4-, and 2-year-old sons David, Danny, and Derek, live about a mile and a half from Polaris in the Overlook subdivision of northern Westerville. The Kruks reported that last night's show was tame compared to some -- the house didn't shake, and the music didn't wake up their kids. But again, their quality of life was disrupted by a show they didn't want to hear, the Kruks said. Adding to the concert and crowd noise last night, the Kruks' yard was also filled with noise from planes flying advertising banners and television and police helicopters.
According to the article, the Kruks said they were looking for a peaceful life when they moved from Chicago five years ago. "One of the main reasons we bought this house . . . was to have privacy," Lynda said. "Well, we don't have privacy. This is just unfair. I don't understand why I have to live with this." During concert nights, the Kruks are forced indoors, where there are few alternatives to cranking up the TV set. Lynda said on concert nights, they try to get their boys to bed before the music gets too loud, but sometimes the effort is pointless because the music is "blasting." The article says that Lynda has been lodging complaints with the amphitheater and the town during every concert for three seasons. This year, she said, Polaris general manager Patrick Leahy responded to her complaints with form letters that read: "We have a state-of-the-art sound monitoring system . . . After checking the data from the system after the show we were in compliance with the city's sound ordinance." Lynda added that every season, Polaris sends free tickets to the Kruks, but she "throws them right in the garbage."
Meanwhile, Delaware County Commissioner Donald Wuertz drove around the neighborhood last night and talked to residents, the article reports. "They are very upset that their calls have gotten no response, and they're very frustrated," said Wuertz. He added that he stopped his car a half-mile from the concert, turned off the engine, and felt the metal of his car vibrating. "So you can imagine sitting in your house and trying to relax," Wuertz said.
PUBLICATION: The Montgomery Advertiser
DATE: July 1, 1997
SECTION: Sports; Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Hunt Archbold
DATELINE: Montgomery, Alabama
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Emory Folmar, Montgomery Mayor
The Montgomery Advertiser reports that Montgomery (Alabama) Mayor Emory Folmar has placed a curfew of 10:30 p.m. on the Montgomery Motorsports Park dragstrip facility, in response to complaints about noise from the racetrack from residents. Racetrack owner Jimmy Easterling, meanwhile, has been testing sound levels from the facility with a decibel meter and plans to hire an audiologist to take professional sound readings in order to convince the mayor to rethink the curfew. The mayor, meanwhile, said he doesn't care about the results of the sound tests.
According to the article, curfew resulted after residents complained to the mayor's office and the police about late-night car noise at the track. Mayor Folmar said, "The citizens of Montgomery deserve peace and quiet and that's who we will serve. It's the people who are my primary concern... the curfew will stay."
Meanwhile, Easterling said his $4 million Montgomery Motorsports Park dragstrip facility, located on 335 acres of a mostly wooded area off North Boulevard, is losing money because of the curfew. Race day schedules have been pushed up, and drivers are being forced to rush to finish their events, he said. Easterling added that the Mayors Cup on Saturday night wasn't finished before the curfew, and as a result, no champions were declared and six drivers split the first-place prize money. Easterline also said there have been fewer drivers since the curfew was imposed, because some out-of-town drivers haven't been able to get off work in time on Saturdays to make it to time trials, and other drivers have become unsure whether the night's racing program will be completed. Easterling wants the mayor to re-evaluate the curfew.
As part of his effort to convince the mayor to consider the issue, the article reports, Easterling took a decibel meter to several neighborhoods near the track during the Mayors Cup to record sound levels. He said the measurements showed the sound levels of the racing cars were similar to that of a normal conversation between two people. On Saturday, a race with jet cars produced higher readings, but Easterling said the cars make only rare appearances at the track. Next, Easterling plans to hire an audiologist to take professional sound readings sometime this month, and present the results to the mayor.
The mayor, however, has said he is not interested in the results, the article says. "The human ear is all I'm interested in," Folmar said Monday. "I don't care about any sound instrument." Folmar maintained the noise is loud and the people have spoken. He added, "I'm sorry, but we had a lot of complaints. Some people wanted the curfew to be at 9:30." Folmar has refused to speak to Easterling on the matter, the article says.
The article also reports that audiologist Faye Churchill of Birmingham's Industrial Testing Associates, said, "In physics, noise is periodic sound. But psychologically, noise is unwanted sound. It's not too loud, but it can be perceived as something else."
PUBLICATION: Newsday
DATE: July 2, 1997
SECTION: News; Page A29
BYLINE: Emi Endo
DATELINE: Great Neck Estates, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Larry Nadel, Great Neck Estates Mayor; David Fox, Sandor Schweiger, Village Board Trustees; Edith Mendel, chair, Great Neck Estates Environmental Conservation Commission
Newsday reports that the village of Great Neck Estates, New York has banned the use of gasoline- or diesel-powered leaf blowers within 300 feet of residential property between June 15 and Sept. 15. After the ban expires in September, the village will decide whether to keep it, change it, or drop it. Meanwhile, two other Long Island towns, North Hempstead and Oyster Bay, have restricted the use of leaf blowers to certain hours.
The article reports that at a village meeting May 29, the Great Neck Estates Village Board voted 3-2 to pass the leaf blower ban for the summer, in response to a petition with about 350 signatures supporting leaf blower limits. The ban exempts electric blowers from the ban, and stipulates that violators can receive maximum fines of $1,000. Village Mayor Larry Nadel, and trustees David Fox and Sandor Schweiger voted for the ban, while trustees Ed Causin and Sidney Krugman voted against it. Mayor Nadel said when the three-month ban ends in September, the board will evaluate how it worked and make a decision on extending it. Nadel said, "Can the gardens be kept beautiful and can it be the same cost without blowers? We will find out. The leaves are still in the trees today and right into the middle of September. And there's no reason to be blowing the dirt around."
According to Edith Mendel, chair of the Environmental Conservation Commission of Great Neck Estates, leaf blowers are not only noisy, they are "extremely polluting because they emit a tremendous amount of exhaust and gasoline." She said blowers also can dislodge topsoil and blow viruses and pollen into the air. The lawn crews "can use brooms," she said.
The article goes on to say that Val Santelli Jr., of Santelli and Son Garden Center, said gardeners can use brooms, but "any fool could see it would take more time to sweep than use a blower. I'm just passing on my cost to the customers." Santelli added that leaf blowers may blow dust and make noise, but so do road sweepers, lawn mowers -- "There's a lot of noisy things," he said.
Meanwhile, the article notes, the towns of North Hempstead and Oyster Bay both limit the use of leaf blowers to between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays, and between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekends and national holidays.
PUBLICATION: The Indianapolis News
DATE: July 2, 1997
SECTION: Metro West; Pg. W01
BYLINE: Bruce Smith
DATELINE: Plainfield, Indiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Waterfill, attorney for the residents
The Indianapolis News reports that residents of Cottonwood Court in Plainfield, Indiana have dropped their lawsuit against Indianapolis International Airport operator BAA after receiving promises that the airport will a new program to mitigate the noise impact. The program will allow homeowners in certain areas to sell their homes to the airport or receive a free package of new windows, doors, and insulation to cut down on airplane noise.
According to the article, a group of 48 residents on Cottonwood Court filed the lawsuit last January in Hendricks Circuit Court, asking for $1 million in damages caused by disruptive noise and nuisance, trespass on their property, and damage to the resale values of their homes. Mark Waterfill, the attorney for the residents, said the program will be good for everyone, "as long as the promised program is actually put in place." Waterfill said the program also will benefit other parties such as the schools and local government, and will stabilize the neighborhood.
The article says that a study of the airport's noise impact was done five years ago, and Cottonwood Court and the surrounding Sycamore Estates were found to be in an area impacted by noise. However, the subdivisions were not included in the airport's subsequent offer of a guaranteed buyout. This year, an update of the noise study is underway, and Cottonwood residents filed the suit to get the attention and force the hand of airport officials. The article says Sycamore Springs has about 190 homes, including 36 on Cottonwood Court. The subdivision is located off state highway 267, near Hendricks County Road 700 South.
The article says that the Airport Authority Board now plans to implement a program that will affect all Sycamore Springs homes. The purchase assurance program will allow homeowners to sell immediately to the airport if they choose, or to get new windows and sound insulation at no charge. Homeowners may also opt for the soundproofing measures, and then sell to the airport if they aren't happy with the improvements. The soundproofing measures are estimated to cost about $25,000 per home, the article reports. The article notes that the guaranteed purchase offer also will be expanded to include the Brunswick Park subdivision on the southeast side of Plainfield.
PUBLICATION: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: July 3, 1997
SECTION: Neighbors Pg. 3
DATELINE: Bayside, Wisconsin
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the Village Board in Bayside, Wisconsin has approved an ordinance that allows police officers to issue disorderly conduct citations to motorists for any loud noise coming from a vehicle, including loud car stereos and peeling rubber when accelerating. According to the article, the ordinance was requested by Police Chief Bruce Resnick because officers currently have no enforcement power over such behavior. The article adds that the ordinance does not cover noise from motorcycles.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: July 4, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A1
BYLINE: David Schaefer
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ken Reid, executive director, Airport Communities Coalition, a group that includes the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Federal Way, Tukwila, and the Highline School District; Peter Kirsh, attorney for the coalition
The Seattle Times reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) yesterday gave its final approval to a new, third runway at Seattle-Tacoma (Washington) International Airport, which is an important step in the airport's planned major expansion. Meanwhile, officials in the cities in South King County that have opposed the third runway said the decision was no surprise and just means the cities will add the FAA to the list of agencies they plan to sue.
According to the article, the FAA's approval carries with it the commitment of $260 million in federal money toward construction of the third runway, which is expected to cost $587 million, said airport spokesperson Bob Hennessey. The Port of Seattle, which owns and operates the airport, expects to begin acquiring homes immediately that would lie in the new runway's path, Hennessey said. He added that the FAA's decision represented the federal government's final agreement that the environmental review of the runway has been completed successfully, the article reports.
The article goes on to say that the Port claims the airport needs a new runway so that two runways can always be used for departures and takeoffs. Currently, the airport's two runways are only 800 feet apart and can't both be used in bad weather, which at this particular airport is about 44 percent of the time, the article says. The proposed third runway would be separated from the others by 1,700 feet, which would allow two of the runways to be used in bad weather and all three in good weather. The article notes that the third runway is only part of a proposed $1.7 billion, 10-year expansion plan for the airport that includes new roads, added parking, a new hotel on the airport property, renovation of Concourse A, a new north terminal, and renovation of the airport's subway system.
Meanwhile, opposition to the planned expansion has been strong, the article says. Ken Reid, executive director of the Airport Communities Coalition, which includes the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Federal Way, Tukwila, and the Highline School District, said at least four lawsuits aimed at stopping the runway will continue. The coalition is opposed to the added traffic and noise that the airport expansion will bring. The article notes that the airport has been one of the nation's fastest-growing. The Puget Sound Regional Council earlier tried to find a site for a new regional airport, but failed, and subsequently endorsed the third-runway plan. In response, the Airport Communities Coalition sued the Port and the regional council over the environmental studies associated with the runway. The coalition believes that the true impact of the runway on schools, communities, and private property values has been understated, and could be three times the actual construction-cost estimates. The trial date for that lawsuit in the King County Superior Court is set for January. A second suit brought by the coalition is scheduled for next May, and an appeal is pending before the Port's hearing examiner. Another lawsuit, in which the Port challenged the city of Des Moines on compliance with the state's Growth Management Act, is to go before the Growth Management Hearings Board on Wednesday, the article reports.
The coalition's executive director notes that the Port can still proceed with construction on its own property, despite the pending lawsuits. In fact, the relocation of South 156th Way could begin later this year, the article says. But the attorney who represents the coalition, Peter Kirsh, said he believes the Port won't get started with construction for awhile. He said, "This approval was never in doubt. It means they are eligible for federal money. But it is not a permit, and they need lots of permits." Kirsh did not say whether the coalition would seek an injunction to stop construction, but did say, "There are a lot of options available to us to make sure construction doesn't actually begin."
The article also notes that one lawsuit over the expansion may be almost over. The city of SeaTac, which is not part of the coalition but had its own suit against the Port, may be ready to settle, the article says. Cal Hoggard, SeaTac city manager, said yesterday that the parties have reached a tentative settlement and will present it Tuesday to the SeaTac City Council and the Port Commission. Hoggard said the details of the settlement may not be released as long as the Port is involved in other lawsuits, but added that the settlement will address noise, air quality, transportation, and land use concerns. He said that the city is prepared to settle in order to avoid spending their time and money in court.
The article also printed the following timeline for the airport's expansion plan:
Summer 1997: Widen approach roads
Winter 1997-98: Relocate South 156th Way
1998: Add parking and renovate Concourse A
1998-99: Replace satellite subway system
1999-2000: Build new control tower
2001: Begin actual construction of runway
2005: First use of new runway
PUBLICATION: The Richmond Times Dispatch
DATE: July 3, 1997
SECTION: Area/State, Pg. B-1
BYLINE: Wynne Wasson
DATELINE: New Kent County, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: James Burrell, New Kent County Supervisor; Betty Burrell, New Kent County Treasurer
The Richmond Times Dispatch reports that the New Kent County (Virginia) Board of Supervisors agreed to rework a proposed noise ordinance after members of the public convinced them that the ordinance unfairly targeted gun owners.
According to the article, County Supervisor James Burrell brought up the topic of a noise ordinance at the board's May meeting. Burrell had received phone calls from residents complaining about semi-automatic gunfire in the middle of the night in central New Kent, and Burrell himself also had heard the gunfire. He said, "I don't believe in a police state. But my right to a good night's sleep supersedes a neighbor's right to shoot a gun all night." New Kent Treasurer Betty Burrell added that noise from gunfire "not only wakes you up but makes you leery about why they're shooting." The article goes on to say that after bringing up the topic, Burrell gained the unanimous support of the board to enact a tough county noise law. County Attorney James Cornwell Jr. was directed to craft the ordinance. The proposed ordinance said, in part: "Unless specifically allowed by permit granted by the county, the discharge of any and all firearms is prohibited in New Kent County between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. except in the actual protection of life or property, or by one engaged in lawful hunting."
The article reports that at a public hearing on the ordinance on June 8, the proceedings were quickly halted by comments from the public. An audience turned out in force, the article says, including both gun owners and some who didn't own guns. The speakers at the hearing said they perceived the ordinance to be an effort to steal their rights. Isabel White said, "This means you can't even shoot a gun on New Year's Eve. I think you're making too many laws . . . taking away our rights." New Kent resident William Roles, who said he did not own semiautomatic weapons, said, "I moved up here from James City County because I got tired of being told everything I couldn't do. Y'all are getting real close here. You're picking on a certain group of people with a hobby. . . . If you're going to do a noise ordinance, stick to noise." Other speakers pointed out that there were already laws in place for breaking the peace that would have solved the nighttime gunfire problem if they had been used, and that the proposed ordinance singled out gun owners.
In response to the public comment, supervisors agreed the ordinance needed revision, and directed the county attorney to rework it. Cornwell, the attorney, recently said he had revised the ordinance, focusing on "excessive noise" and eliminating any reference to firearms or explosives. The article says supervisors will set a new public hearing on the changes at their meeting on July 14.
The article also notes that the noise issue is an example of the controversy that arises when the county tries to balance interests between longtime rural residents and the expanding suburban population. Board Chair Mark Hennaman said, "It's a very fine line between protecting a land owner's rights and where these rights encroach upon others. We can't expect everyone to be happy, but to find the middle."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 3, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 8; Editorial Writers Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times prints an editorial that finds fault in an approved ordinance that will fine gardeners gardeners up to $1,000 -- or give repeat offenders a six-month jail term -- for using leaf blowers within 500 feet of homes. The ordinance is scheduled to take effect on July 1st, but the paper says that police will be overburdened and will have difficulty enforcing the rule. Instead, the editorial suggests a modification to allow a gradual phase-out of leaf blowers or more lenient restrictions that simply govern their hours of use.
The editorial says that the police department has a noise enforcement staff of only four. Although the paper admits that noise harms quality of life, it maintains that police should spend their time preventing violent crimes instead; "most Angelenos would rather be protected from violent criminals."
The article notes that the mayor and at least one city council member have already said that they are willing to compromise with gardeners, even if the ordinance must be revisited in council. Several alternatives include: a modification to allow a gradual phase-out of leaf blowers, or more lenient restrictions that simply govern their hours of use. Gardeners say that the ban would be fine if customers were willing to pay for the extra time that raking would take.
PUBLICATION: The Columbus Dispatch
DATE: July 1, 1997
SECTION: News Local & National, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Jill Riepenhoff
DATELINE: Delaware, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Don Wuertz, Delaware County Commissioner
The Columbus Dispatch reports that neighbors of the Polaris Amphitheater, in Columbus, Ohio in southern Delaware County, have brought their noise complaints to Delaware County officials after saying they get no help from Columbus officials. Columbus has jurisdiction over the amphitheater. At a meeting between officials from Delaware County, Westerville, and Columbus yesterday to discuss noise problems from Polaris, Delaware County officials learned that a violation of Columbus's noise ordinance requires decibel levels to be over 65 decibels for an average of an hour and complaints cannot be registered over the telephone. In addition, only residents of Columbus can file a complaint, the article says. Neighbors who live in Westerville or unincorporated Delaware County have no legal recourse.
The article reports that Delaware County Commissioner Don Wuertz said yesterday, "There is a lack of response from Columbus. (Residents) just don't know where to turn." Columbus officials, however, were surprised at this news. George Arnold, Columbus development director, said that this year the city has had few, if any, complaints about noise from the amphitheater. County Commissioner Deborah Martin said residents had told her they had given up. Meanwhile, after a Columbus City Council meeting last night, Columbus Mayor Greg Lashutka said the city has responded quickly to noise complaints and would continue to do so.
The meeting yesterday revealed to Delaware officials that Columbus' noise ordinance only addresses the health aspect of noise, the article reports, not the nuisance aspect. Performers can be cited for violations if their music exceeds 65 decibels for an average of an hour, and can be fined up to $100 for a first offense. In addition, Columbus residents who want to file a complaint about Polaris must do so in person at the Columbus city prosecutor's office on High St., the article reports. No complaints can be lodged over the telephone. The amphitheater this year installed a system to monitor decibel levels and to inform each performer about the Columbus ordinance, according to Arnold of the city of Columbus.
PUBLICATION: The Vancouver Sun
DATE: July 5, 1997
SECTION: Satrev; Letter from California; Pg. C10
BYLINE: William Booth
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peter Graves, Meredith Baxter, actors
The Vancouver Sun reports in an editorial that after months of intense political battle, the ban on gasoline-powered leaf blowers in Los Angeles, California finally took effect, and the city may never be the same. The editorial writer believes it is difficult to imagine the city without the constant noise of leaf blowers. He goes on to outline the ban and the controversy surrounding it.
The editorial reports that during well-attended city council meetings and lawn-side interviews with the media, opponents of leaf blowers talked about the "human insanity" of it all, and the health hazards of airborne dust and bacteria. Two leaders of the leaf blower ban fight were actors Peter Graves, of TV's Mission Impossible, and Meredith Baxter, who was on Family Ties. Before the vote last May, the editorial says, Graves said to the city council: "Leaf blowers are bad. They call them leaf blowers, because, indeed, they do blow leaves around and around and around. But they also blow other things around." Graves mentioned "fungus," the editorial says.
The writer goes on to say that the ban prohibits the use of the backpack-style gas-powered blowers emitting more than 45 decibels within 150 meters of a residence. By comparison, a household vacuum cleaner emits 60 decibels measured from 3 meters away. A leaf blower emits about 65 to 70 decibels. Gardeners and their employees who violate the restriction can be fined up to $1,000. In a complication, the city itself had just recently purchased 100 new leaf blowers for its parks and recreation areas, the editorial reports. However, city crews may be able to keep using the blowers as long as they mantain enough distance from residences.
The editorial says that the leaf blower ban was opposed by, among others, the Japanese-American Chamber of Commerce and the Latin American Gardeners Association, which staged rallies opposing the ban. This week, a protest was held at city hall in which hundreds of gardeners shouted and waved signs, some wearing green T-shirts that said: "Use a blower. Go to jail." Gardeners have threatened that they may have to use water hoses to replace the leaf blowers, but this is illegal as well due to the fact that Los Angeles is essentially a desert, the editorial reports.
Electric-powered leaf blowers are an option, the editorial says, but gardeners dislike this option and have warned of a possible surge in shrub-side electrocutions. A spokesperson for Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan has suggested that gas blowers might be able to be converted to vacuums, which would get around the ban. However, opponents rightly ask what would be the difference, the editorial says, because vacuums emit the same noise and emissions levels. City-wide, gas blowers emit 5.6 tons of hydrocarbons per day, while lawn mowers emit 7.4 tons. In total, lawn maintenance contributes as much as 5 per cent to the city's smog, the editorial reports.
The editorial concludes by quoting Alvaro Huerta, spokesperson for the Association of Latin American Gardeners, who observed sadly, "The most powerful country in the world cannot produce a quiet blower." The stagnant broom and rake industry, however, is preparing to rebound, the writer notes.
PUBLICATION: The Evening Post
DATE: July 3, 1997
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 10
BYLINE: Suzanne Green
DATELINE: Wellington, New Zealand
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jenny Jorgensen, member, Makara Guardians
The Evening Post reports that the Energy Corporation (ECNZ) wants to build a wind farm in Makara, New Zealand, and has met with opposition from residents in the area. At a Wind Energy Association and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority conference in Wellington this week, ECNZ Makara project manager Graeme Mills presented a paper on the proposed wind farm, and said the company is working to understand the potential nosie effects. He also urged Makara residents to understand and have faith in the input processes of the project.
According to the article, Mills said the wind farm, which is proposed for the former Quartz Hill radio station property, is still in the conceptual phase of development. The design will not be finalized, he said, until issues about potential adverse effects had been resolved. He hoped that a resource consent application would be lodged later in the year. The article reports that ECNZ knew there would be some controversial aspects of the proposed wind farm, especially the potential visual impact. However, the company had not expected the noise issue to be such a significant issue, the article says. The company believes the noise impact will vary around the area, and will require a range of mitigation measures.
However, Jenny Jorgensen, a member of the Makara Guardians which is fighting the proposed development, said there are 100 houses, a cafe, a school, a golf course, a church, and a pony club within 2 km of the proposed site, the article reports. She said wind power is a good idea in the right place, but the Makara site is not a good location. She added, "We don't want Wellington to make a mistake. That area (Makara) is really lovely, unspoiled and it's tranquil. It (a wind farm) just doesn't make sense."
Meanwhile, Mills of ECNZ said the company had been consulting with a large number of individuals, small groups, and organizations to gather input. He said many individuals had been open-minded, but there was a lot of suspicion from some individuals and public agencies.
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA)
DATE: July 5, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 16
BYLINE: AP
DATELINE: Rome, Maine
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Phil Bradley, resident; Rep. Robert Pendleton (R-Scarborough); Great Pond Task Force
The Patriot Ledger reports that the debate in Maine over what to do about water scooters is growing. Critics say the personal watercraft, known by brand names such as Jet Skis or Sea Doos, are noisy and a nuisance, while proponents say the scooters are a great way to draw families to Maine and make money. The state legislature had a chance to pass regulations governing the watercraft this year, but essentially did nothing, the article says.
The article reports that the water scooters emit a jarring sound, and some users routinely "buzz" boats and shoreline homes, making the noise, and resentment against the drivers, grow. Rep. Robert Pendleton (R-Scarborough) who tried this year to limit the use of water scooters along Maine's coasts, said, "They're like the early snowmobiles . . . cruising around, jumping waves, doing circles, charging all over the place. Something has be done to give them a wake-up call." But when Maine state lawmakers were presented with a package of regulations this year that included a 16-year-old driving age, imposing new safety regulations, and limiting use of motorized scooters on small and pristine lakes, they failed to act. However, the article notes, water scooter proponents were essentially put on a form of probation. Leaders in the watercraft industry asked lawmakers for time, saying that voluntary safety and education programs could curb the recklessness of some riders, which is giving the sport a bad name. Legislators did create a new civil offense called imprudent operation of a watercraft, which will allow people to file complaints against scooter operators who repeatedly harass other people. Hank Tyler, of the State Planning Office, said, "If the behavior changes, a lot of the problems will go away. We've seen that with snowmobiles."
However, some opponents believe patience won't work, the article says. Other opponents want water scooters banned on the smaller, more remote, and most pristine of Maine's roughly 5,000 lakes and ponds. The Great Pond Task Force, a 21-member panel that studied the issue for a year, recommended that water scooters be banned from all great ponds in Maine's unorganized, northern territories, and from all ponds smaller than 200 acres elsewhere, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: July 3, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 5B
DATELINE: Blasdell, New York
The Buffalo News reports that the Village Board in Blasdell, New York will hold a public hearing July 16 on adding a noise ordinance to the village code, in response to complaints from residents about loud music after 2 or 3 a.m. According to the article, the proposed ordinance would limit noise levels to 65 decibels between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 decibels from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m., said Village Clerk Barbara Cesar. Noise levels would be measured with a decibel sound meter installed in a police car.
PUBLICATION: Metropolitan News-Enterprise
DATE: July 2, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 9
BYLINE: P. Paul O'Donoghue
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that hundreds of gardeners staged a protest at Los Angeles' City Hall yesterday to oppose an ordinance that bans the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers within 500 feet of residences starting today.
According to the article, the ordinance bans the blowers because they cause noise and air pollution, but the city council moved to allow the use of equally noisy leaf vacuum devices in their place. However, commercial gardeners dislike leaf vacuums, which they say are like using a domestic vacuum cleaner with the crevice tool attached to clean an entire home. Violation of the new ordinance is considered a misdemeanor, and after two warnings, gardeners and their employers are can receive a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.
The article reports that Adrian Alvarez, spokesperson for the Los Angeles Latin American Gardeners Association, led the protest at City Hall yesterday. He said the City Council passed the ordinance without asking gardeners for their opinion, and he called for a one-year moratorium on the ban. City officials, manufacturers, gardeners, and homeowners should then come together to study the problem and work out a solution, Alvarez said. He also remarked that there are many other tools, such as jackhammers and chainsaws, that are used in the city and that cause much more noise than leaf blowers. Homeowners will not be willing to pay the extra cost involved if gardeners can't use leaf blowers, and the result will be that the work will be done by the large, "cheap labor pool" working illegally, while undercutting those who work according to the rules, he said. The result would be a return to "feudal" conditions with workers using machetes to do gardening work, Alvarez argued. The Asian American gardeners also are supporting his group's protest, Alvarez said. In addition, his association, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, is currently in the process of becoming a labor union and is considering organizing campaigns to recall City Councillors Richard Alarcon and Richard Alatorreboth, who have large numbers of gardeners in their constituencies. Gardeners will continue to organize protests against the ordinance, the article says.
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal
DATE: July 2, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. A10
BYLINE: Los Angeles Times
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lea Friedman, Joel Busch, residents
The Commercial Appeal reports that rakes and brooms showed up in lawns and gardens in Los Angeles yesterday as the city's ban on gas-powered leaf blowers took effect. Some gardeners continued to use leaf blowers in defiance of the law. Meanwhile, more than 500 gardeners staged a protest at City Hall, demanding a one-year moratorium on the new law so its impact can be studied further. As gardeners struggle with the new ordinance, police are still in the process of drawing up guidelines to enforce it.
The article reports that city officials acknowledged Tuesday that they have no plan in place to enforce the ordinance, which prohibits use of the blowers within 500 feet of a residence, and imposes fines of up to $1,000 and jail terms of up to six months for violators. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police Department said guidelines for enforcement and officer training regarding the ordinance still are being prepared, the article says.
Meanwhile, some residents welcomed the start of the ordinance, the article reports. Lea Friedman said she hates leaf blowers, but admitted that her gardener uses one. Resident Joel Busch: "It's been loud. . . . I'm so glad it's over."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: July 4, 1997
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 2; Zone: D
BYLINE: Rogers Worthington
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Geils, Bensenville Mayor and president of the Suburban O'Hare Commission; Joseph Karaganis, attorney for Bensenville and the Suburban O'Hare Commission
The Chicago Tribune reports that a lawsuit brought in May by the village of Bensenville (Illinois) against the city of Chicago, alleging that the city had ignored Bensenville and other member towns in the Suburban O'Hare Commission in picking homes for soundproofing this year, has been settled. Under the terms of the settlement, an additional $11.4 million will be spent this year on soundproofing near the O'Hare International Airport for 344 more homes in Bensenville, Des Plaines, and unincorporated parts of DuPage and Cook Counties. Meanwhile, the chair of the recently formed O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission hoped the settlement would be the beginning of a more cooperative effort to solve airport noise problems, but members of the Suburban O'Hare Commission continued to insist that the Noise Compatibility Commission, formed by Chicago's mayor, was simply a mouthpiece for the city.
According to the article, U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman urged lawyers for Chicago and Bensenville to settle the suit last week, and the parties reached a tentative agreement. The Bensenville Village Board approved the settlement Tuesday. Both sides characterized the proposed settlement as a victory, the article reports. Bensenville officials said the deal is a victory for the soundproofing program, and Chicago officials portrayed it as a way to keep the soundproofing program underway and on track. Dennis Culloton, a spokesperson for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's Aviation Department, said the lawsuit could have halted the city's soundproofing program for the year because there might have been injunctions or temporary restraining orders against the city. In that case, Culloton said, no one would have gotten soundproofing that year. Culloton added that the proposed settlement simply moves up the timetable for soundproofing homes in Bensenville and the other communities. However, Joseph Karaganis, attorney for Bensenville and the Suburban O'Hare Commission, said the proposed settlement will "prevent the city and its allies from playing political games with opponents of O'Hare expansion." Karaganis said member towns of the Suburban O'Hare Commission believed that they would not have receiving soundproofing at all if it weren't for the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, a group of suburban mayors formed by the mayor, stood behind the proposed settlement Thursday. The commission's chair and mayor of Arlington Heights, Arlene Mulder, urged the SOC to begin to work with the Commission and the city to move toward solutions to airport noise. Mulder said the settlement is beneficial for everyone involved, and that it "demonstrates that discussion is more productive than confrontation in the courtroom." However, SOC members continued to portray the Noise Compatibility Commission as a mouthpiece for the city. John Geils, Bensenville Mayor and president of the Suburban O'Hare Commission, said, "We've unmasked the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission as the voice of the City of Chicago." Geils went on to say that the group, formed by Daley, is "not a representative tool for deciding how to (address) the problem" of O'Hare noise.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: July 2, 1997
SECTION: Metro Chicago; Pg. 1; Zone: N
BYLINE: Bob Kemper
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joseph Karaganis, attorney for Village of Bensenville; John Geils, Bensenville mayor and chair of the Suburban O'Hare Commission
The Chicago Tribune reports that hundreds more homes around Chicago's O'Hare International Airport will be insulated against jet noise under the settlement terms of a lawsuit between the Village of Bensenville and the City of Chicago. Chicago has agreed to spend $11.4 million more by the year's end to soundproof 344 additional homes in Bensenville, Des Plaines, and unincorporated portions of DuPage and Cook Counties. The city originally had planned to spend $21 million to insulate 624 homes in Northlake, Schiller Park, and parts of unincorporated Cook County.
According to the article, the lawsuit was filed by Bensenville officials, who argued that jet noise was just as loud in many Bensenville homes as in the homes the city planned to soundproof. Officials from Bensenville believed that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was using federal money to soundproof homes in areas that were more sympathetic to his side of the decades-old fight over airport noise, while ignoring suburbs like Bensenville, that were still fighting the mayor.
The article reports that U.S. District Judge James Holderman urged the two parties to settle the suit late last week, and the agreement became public on Tuesday. Tuesday night, the Bensenville Village Board met to discuss the settlement, and voted unanimously to approve it. The settlement terms could be before Judge Holderman by Wednesday.
Under the settlement, Chicago will soundproof 63 homes in Bensenville, 19 in unincorporated DuPage, 22 in Des Plaines, and 240 in unincorporated Cook this year. In addition, the article says, Chicago will spend $22 million in 1998 to soundproof 671 more homes, including 97 in Bensenville and 36 in unincorporated DuPage. Details for which homes will be soundproofed in 1999 were not worked out, but the agreement stipulates that Chicago will treat Bensenville the same as other suburbs during the evaluation process. Bensenville agreed under the terms of the settlement not to sue the city over how it chooses homes for soundproofing through 1999.
The article goes on to say that the attorney for Bensenville, Joseph Karaganis, said that even if the lawsuit is settled, one issue is still unresolved -- the fact that Chicago has limited its soundproofing program to single-family homes, leaving out multi-family homes. Karaganis suggested that residents of multi-family dwellings could seek help from the state legislature, the Federal Aviation Administration, or U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), whose district includes Bensenville. Karaganis added that Bensenville will get $5 million worth of soundproofing for 160 homes over the next two years. The soundproofing measures include new windows, soundproof doors, extra insulation, and central air conditioning, the article reports. The number of homes to be soundproofed in Bensenville is the same percentage that will be soundproofed in the other suburbs involved in the program, Karaganis said.
The article reports that Mary Rose Loney, Chicago's aviation commissioner, said she was satisfied with the settlement, and happy that the city can pick future candidates for the soundproofing program without worrying about another lawsuit. "We wanted to settle in order to keep the home insulation program on schedule and not unfairly punish the residents in the affected communities," she said.
The article notes that Bensenville and Chicago have been at war over O'Hare for years. John Geils, Bensenville Mayor and chair of the Suburban O'Hare Commission, said Tuesday night that those working to solve the O'Hare noise problem need to deal regionally with noise pollution, air pollution, and safety issues, the article says.
PUBLICATION: Idaho Falls Post Register
DATE: July 5, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A7
BYLINE: Candace Burns
DATELINE: Custer County, Idaho
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jack See, owner, Redfish Lake Lodge
The Idaho Falls Post Register reports that officials in Custer County, Idaho have banned personal watercraft on Stanley Lake, and have decided to more heavily police them on Redfish Lake due to noise complaints from campers, anglers, and others.
According to the article, county commissioners want to discourage behavior of both motorboaters and personal watercraft skiers that results in repeated fluctuations of engine noise. The measures undertaken on Stanley and Redfish Lakes are an attempt to deal with the problem without passing an ordinance, according to Ted Strickler, chair of the Custer County Commission.
At Stanley Lake, Strickler said, the commission decided to ban personal watercraft completely because the lake has traditionally been used for fishing. In addition, the road to the lake is scheduled to be oiled, which will bring more motorized boats to the lake, and more conflicts. County commissioners also placed other restrictions on the lake, including a ban on water skiing between 6 p.m. and 10 a.m. and a ban on vehicle parking at Inlet Beach on weekends or holidays.
The article goes on to say that Redfish Lake is noted for its serene setting at the base of the Sawtooth Mountains. One end of the lake is surrounded by campgrounds close to its shores, and campers often go to sleep and wake up to the noise of jet skis and motorboats. In response to the problem, Custer County Sheriff Mickey Roskelley plans to put two unofficial deputies on personal watercraft on the lake to police other jet skiers. Roskelley said the deputies will request that the jet skiers stay away from the shorelines. Strickler of the County Commission said Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation has received repeated complaints about the noise on Redfish Lake. In addition, the article says, Jack See, who owns Redfish Lake Lodge, surveyed visitors last year and found that 99% of about 200 people objected to the noise. See said, "Jet Skis are not a traditional use for a high mountain lake. They just bring so much noise and commotion with them."
Meanwhile, Custer Waterways Committee Chair Allen Getty said Thursday he has resigned because he believes it is preposterous to have law enforcement officials patrolling the lake on the very vehicles they are trying to control, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: July 1, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: David Cazares
DATELINE: Dania, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bob Mikes, Mayor; John Bertino, City Commissioner
The Sun-Sentinel reports that Dania (Florida) City Commissioners might back out of a settlement signed two years ago with Broward County about runway expansion at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The article says that the city dropped its legal fight in October 1995 in exchange for up to $1.6 million for city utility lines and possible buyouts of homes. Tonight, City Commissioners will discuss whether residents received enough protection under the settlement.
According to the article, airport officials plan to extend the south runway from 5,276 feet to 9,000 feet by the year 2000. The runway project is being undertaken to accomodate passenger growth, which is expected to reach 22 million a year by 2012. Dania residents and commissioners spent about $300,000 fighting the runway expansion, fearing that property values would drop because of jet noise. But the settlement, approved by city commissioners 3-2, was thought to have ended the battle. But now, commissioners have been motivated to reconsider the deal, partly by the fact that the cities of Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood have recently sought bigger concessions from the county. Dania Mayor Bob Mikes said, "The impact on the other cities is minimal, yet what they are going to get is tremendous compared to what we're getting." Mikes said the city wants assurances that the county will buy the homes of residents adversely affected by noise, the article reports. He added that such an assured buyback program could be essential if Federal Aviation Administration officials don't allow restraints on new runways to control the noise. Both Mikes and Commissioner John Bertino have pledged to get a better settlement for residents, or renew the city's fight. Bertino said, "When we signed that agreement, we gave up a lot of our negotiation room. We might now have to go hat in hand (and) ask if we could please have something. The second thing we could do is take a very, very hard stance."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 1, 1997
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Michael Granberry
DATELINE: San Diego, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Richard Dixon, Lake Forest City Councillor; Bill Kogerman, executive director, Taxpayers for Responsible Planning; El Toro Reuse Planning Authority
The Los Angeles Times reports that a district appeals court in San Diego, California rejected an attempt by opponents of the proposed El Toro Airport to invalidate a 1994 referendum that supported the airport. Other lawsuits from airport opponents are still to be decided.
According to the article, the referendum called Measure A was an amendment to an existing General plan put forth by the county that allows a civilian airport to be built at the El Toro Marines Base when it closes in 1999. The referendum -- which had been funded by wealthy developers -- passed in 1994, and in 1996 a judge ruled that the referendum was "valid and lawful." This recent appeal to that decision lost. Airport opponents had pointed to the State Aeronautics Act and tried to say the referendum wasn't legal because it mandated the airport, but the judges in the appeal agreed that it was simply an amendment. The plaintiffs may appeal again to the state Supreme Court.
The article goes on to report that a representative from Lake Forest said that upholding the referendum was a confirmation that "ballot-box planning is legal, and I find that very scary. Even if I were a developer, I would be nervous about what Measure A really means and the fact that it has far-reaching implications beyond what happened in Orange County." Taxpayers for Responsible Planning, which is an anti-airport group suing to have the environmental impact report for the airport redone, are more confident in their suit than they were in the Measure A suit anyway. Head of the group notes that a recent county poll shows that "48% of Orange County residents don't want an airport at El Toro, while 35% definitely want the airport."
The article notes that the airport sees the ruling as a vindication: "Measure A passed twice, really." Other airport proponents said it didn't really matter, since the County Board of Supervisors have already decided to support the airport.
The article discusses the three lawsuits which are still active over the airport plan. They will be heard by a judge who is known to support environmentalists over developers. One, initiated by Taxpayers for Responsible Planning and the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, says that noise, traffic, and pollution weren't considered in the environmental impact report. allege that the county's environmental impact report failed to consider noise, traffic, and pollution impacts of the proposed airport. Another suit is brought by the county against Irvine, alleging that the county controls land use issues on El Toro Base property.
PUBLICATION: Financial Times
DATE: July 3, 1997
SECTION: Letters to the Editor; Pg. 12
BYLINE: Dermot Cox, noise activist
DATELINE: London, England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dermot Cox, chair, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (PO Box 339, Richmond, Surrey, UK)
The Financial Times printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Dermot Cox, chair of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, regarding the proposed noise cap at London's Heathrow Airport:
Sir, It is disappointing that your Business Travel page reprints the British Airports Authority line on its proposed "noise cap" at Heathrow Airport without any critical examination ("Heathrow puts a lid on noise," June 23). The noise topic will be one of the most intensely argued sections at the Terminal 5 inquiry. We are presenting evidence that, far from noise improving at Heathrow after the past 10 years, the disturbance experienced by some 1m people has increased broadly in parallel with the 50 percent increase in flight numbers.
The methodology used by the Civil Aviation Authority to assess noise is based on social surveys conducted 15 years ago, since when the numbers of flights and types of aircraft have changed significantly, while the index used has also been changed. These measurements no longer have any contact with or relevance to the impact of aircraft noise on real people. BAA's noise cap using this system is worthless as a guarantee that a fifth terminal -- which would itself be larger than Charles de Gaulle or Schiphol airports -- would not make an intolerable noise climate far worse. The only cap which can guarantee a limit on noise at Heathrow is a cap on flight numbers.
PUBLICATION: Utne Reader
DATE: July/August 1997
SECTION: New Planet/ Environment; pg. 14-15
BYLINE: Rebecca Scheib
DATELINE: United States
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joel Reynolds, attorney for NRDC (National Resources Defense Council)
According to an article in Utne Reader by Rebecca Scheib, an underwater sonar defense system being developed by the U.S. Navy could harm the hearing of whales and other marine mammals. The Navy's Surveillance Towed Array Sonar System, Low Frequency Active (LFA), is designed to detect certain submarines with a intense, low-frequency tone. This tone, however, can reach 235 decibels, high enough to damage a whale's hearing.
Utne Reader's Scheib cites an article in New Scientist (March 1, 1997) that says the loss of hearing to marine life is only one of several harmful effects of the Navy's LFA. Loud, annoying sounds produced by the sonar defense system may also cause marine mammals to alter migration patterns, abandon feeding grounds, and disrupt breeding patterns by drowning out courtship calls.
According to Utne Reader, noise pollution in the ocean is not new. Citing an article by Evelyn Adams published in Orion (Summer 1996), Utne Reader notes that since World War II, "the noise level of oceans has increased 15 to 30 decibels due to mechanized human activity, which has reduced the suitable area available to marine animals by 25 percent or more." In Orion, Adams reports about a study done of the oscar, an aquarium fish. After four days of exposure to human-made sounds, most fishes' ears showed minor physical damage, suggesting that harm from noise pollution may occur slowly over a period of regular exposure.
Still, research on the effects of noise pollution on marine life is sketchy, largely inconclusive, and controversial. "Some researchers argue that the animals will adapt to the increased sound levels." But interestingly, the LFA project may lead to more studies and an increased understanding of this topic. Concerned about the project's "adverse environmental effects," the article notes that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) pressured the navy to submit an environmental impact statement for the LFA. NRDC attorney Joel Reynolds says, "We have enough information to know that there is reason to be concerned…." The NRDC hopes that an independent research team selected in conjunction with the NRDC will result in more informed protection of marine life.
PUBLICATION: Newsday
DATE: June 30, 1997
SECTION: Business; Page C06
DATELINE: Long Island City, New York
Newsday reports that Andrea Electronics, based in Long Island City, New York, has introduced a new anti-noise stereo headset for the computer market, the QuietWare 1000 PC stereo headset. According to the company, the product is the first in a new line of peripherals designed to enhance voice-driven PC and Internet applications. The article also reports that the new headset uses Andrea Anti-Noise Active Noise Cancellation microphone technology, and QuietWare Active Noise Reduction headphone technology.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: June 29, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Eric Wahlgren
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Glenn Barr, deputy to City Councillor Marvin Braude; Gerald Silver, president, Homeowners of Encino
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that an ordinance banning gas-powered leaf blowers will take effect Tuesday in Los Angeles, despite increasing pressure from gardeners to call off the ban. A group of Latino gardeners plans to stage a nine-hour sit-in / protest in front of City Hall on the first day of the new ordinance. Meanwhile, the City Council is set to consider a proposal that would exempt gas-powered leaf vacuums from the ordinance, even though they produce the same noise levels.
According to the article, the ordinance prohibits anyone from using a gas-powered leaf blower within 500 feet of a residence. Gardeners and their employers who violate the law will receive two warnings, after which they can be fined up to $1,000 and sentenced to up to six months in jail. The ordinance also holds clients responsible if their gardeners are caught more than twice using gas-powered blowers. Glenn Barr, deputy to City Councillor Marvin Braude, who wrote the ordinance, said the law represents a long-standing effort to reduce noise and pollution, and the city has no plans to delay it, the article reports. Barr added that police will take action when they see violators and when they receive complaints by phone. But, he said, they probably would not be able to respond to every call because "they tend to view things like this as a low priority."
Alvaro Huerta, spokesperson for the Association of Latin American Gardeners of Los Angeles which is staging the sit-in, said his group represents more than 500 Latino gardeners. He said the group wants a moratorium on the ban to allow gardeners to come up with alternatives and to study the law's economic effect on their ranks. Huerta said, "Taking away the gas-powered blower from a gardener is like taking a hammer away from a carpenter. Without it, it will take them twice as much time to do the same job. They are going to lose customers, and they are going to lose money."
However, the article goes on to say, many homeowners have long looked forward to the arrival of the ban, saying they hope it will make their neighborhoods quieter. Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino, said, "The gas-powered leaf blower has been a constant source of noise and aggravation. You add the leaf blower to all the jet and helicopter noise, and there is an endless racket."
One of the goals of the new ordinance is to reduce the region's smog problem. But Sam Atwood, a spokesperson for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, said outlawing leaf blowers will not stop much of the 14 tons of pollution released daily by gas-powered gardening equipment, even though gas-powered leaf blowers have no pollution control equipment. Atwood said, "The ban's effect on pollution is going to be fairly small, certainly not something we would notice in the air on a given day. But leaf blowers do pollute quite a bit."
Meanwhile, Glen Barr said the city is taking measures to lessen the economic impact of the ban on gardeners and landscapers. He pointed out that the ban does not apply to electric-powered leaf blowers, which are quieter and don't emit pollutants. In addition, under a proposal going to the City Council, the Environmental Quality and Waste Management Committee urged Friday that the ban exempt gas-powered leaf vacuums. The leaf vacuums produce the same 65-decibel noise level, but they cause less particulate pollution. Barr said the City Council also is expected to lower the business tax rate for gardeners from $5.91 to $1.18 for every $1,000 earned, the article reports.
However, gardeners insist that nothing can make up for the loss of the gas-powered blower. Walter Imai, an official with the Southern California Gardeners Federation, which represents more than 2,100 gardeners, said using an electric-powered blower is like using a hair dryer to remove leaves. Imai said that electric-powered blowers would make a job run longer, and could result in higher gardening prices. He added that the gardeners he represents are looking into converting blowers into vacuums with a $40 kit that could make them legal, but would emit just as much noise. The article also reports that Huerta of the Latino Association said that many gardeners already live on the edge of poverty, and some could be pushed over the edge with the new ordinance. Huerta said gardeners follow a strict daily schedule, and losing the gas-powered blower could slow them down dramatically.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: June 29, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Peter Goodman
DATELINE: South River, Maryland area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: L.T. Pimental, Dick Barton, residents; Steve Vaughn, Natural Resources Police Captain
The Washington Post reports that after a Maryland state law designed to quiet waterways passed last year, temporary regulations went into effect last summer that restricted noise levels on state waters and made it easier for the rules to be enforced. Now, the state Department of Natural Resources wants to make those regulations permanent, and residents and boaters are once again in conflict, the article reports. The issue is especially important for residents and boaters on South River, the article says.
According to the article, last year the state legislature adopted a law setting a 90-decibel limit for boat engines on all Maryland waterways. Previously, the decibel limit was 75 decibels, but the Natural Resources Police were required to test boats only from the shore or close to the shore. The new law lets police pursue, stop, and test boats they suspect of exceeding the decibel level. Boaters whose vehicle violates the noise level are giving a warning and are directed to make their boats comply with the law. Police say the new law is a valuable tool, the article reports. Natural Resources Police Capt. Steve Vaughn said the law helps the police respond to complaints more effectively, and eliminates a loophole that had allowed boaters to get around noise limits for years. Before the new regulations, Vaughn said, boaters who were members of officially sanctioned racing organizations could cite a section of the regulations that allows them to "test" their engines by revving them loudly. Under the temporary regulations, boaters must notify the Natural Resources Department of any engine tests, and must perform the tests only between 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays, or 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends. The temporary regulations are set to expire in August, but Maj. Mike Howard, chief of planning and education for the Natural Resources Police, said he expects them to become permanent after they are reviewed by a state legislative committee. The article says the department now is taking public comment on the rules.
The article goes on to describe how the conflict over the rules is played out on the South River, which runs south of Annapolis. The river, which has wide banks and a straight path to the open waters, has long been an attraction for racing-style boats. Development in the area has increased the population, and technology has introduced faster, noisier boats, which has exacerbated the conflict, the article reports.
Dave Robinson, a former professional boat racer who lives in a houseboat on the South River, explained the boaters' point of view. He said he likes to travel fast in his 28-foot Pantera, and the noise comes with the speed. Robinson said, "You hear the power. You feel the power. That's appealing."
But residents have a vastly different take on the issue, the article says. South River resident L.T. Pimental said he can live with cabin cruisers and even jet skis, but the noise from the high-performance speedboats that zip by his home is unacceptable. Pimental said, "Their noise level gets so bad that if three of these boats were to run down the river at the same time, I couldn't talk to you. You wouldn't be able to hear me, and I wouldn't be able to hear you." South River resident Dick Barton, who lives on a section of the river that has no speed limits, said the boaters are "making noise in my back yard." He added, "You've got a few wild mavericks out there that basically get silly with what they're doing and don't think about anybody else. They're going up and down the river at -- forget the speed; the decibel level rattles the windows."
Todd Harper, a boater whose vehicle can achieve about 100 mph, said he believes boaters should operate the vehicles quietly when they're near houses. Harper admitted that when he was younger, he liked to speed down Annapolis's Ego Alley, but now he's happy to limit his high-speed cruising to open waters. But, Harper said, the fun-vs.-noise divide runs deep, the article reports. He said, "When I hear a 'go-fast' boat go by and I'm on my neighbor's porch on the South River, I jump up and grab my binoculars and say, 'Look at that!' I'm sure there are some people who jump up and grab their binoculars and say, 'Let's get the numbers on that.'"
PUBLICATION: Dallas Morning News
DATE: June 29, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 12A
BYLINE: New York Times News Service
DATELINE: Boulder, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sister Hildegard Dubnick of the Abbey of St. Walburga
The Dallas Morning News reports that the 22 nuns at the Abbey of St. Walburga near Boulder, Colorado have decided to move their abbey because of the noise and development that now surround their once-rural home. The article says the nuns are building a new abbey on a donated plot of land near the Colorado-Wyoming border, about a two-hour drive north from their current location.
According to the article, Sister Hildegard Dubnick, who has been at the abbey for 10 years, said the sisters don't want to be cut off from the world, "but we also don't want our own exit off the expressway." The article says there was once a dirt track rolling past the abbey, but now there is now a four-lane road with so many cars that the voices of the nuns singing their psalms, which they sing seven times a day, are often drowned out. Dolores DeBolt, a neighbor and friend of the sisters, said, "Up until a few years ago, when you turned off the main road and entered the abbey, it was like you were in a different world. Now it's just too noisy to hear the prayers." Sister Dubnick added, "We want to pursue our discipline, and a certain degree of quiet helps us do that."
The article reports that the abbey is located on 150 acres two miles east of Boulder, a university city with a population of 96,000, and 10 miles west of Louisville, where the population has more than doubled in the past 10 years. The article goes on to say that the nuns' predicament is becoming common in many communities in Colorado and other Western states where rural land and life is being edged out by suburban sprawl. Colorado is one of the fastest-growing states in the West, the article says, and has experienced a a 16% population increase between 1990 and 1996. The population in Boulder County, the location of the abbey, is expected to grow by more than 20% this decade. These large growth rates have brought with them the familiar problems of increased traffic, noise, and air pollution. Marv Clyncky, a neighbor of the nuns, said of the area, "It's incredible how much it's changed. This used to be a total ranching and farming community, but now there are so many new houses." Clyncky added that he believes the increasing land taxes and the loss of peace and quiet drove the nuns away.
The article explains that the abbey was founded in 1935 by a nun who was a political refugee from Nazi Germany. She was soon joined by other nuns who hoped to make a living by farming. Many people in the area believe that the nuns were the models for William Barrett's novel Lilies of the Field, which describes the life of nuns from abroad who make their way in the West in the 1930s. Sister Dubnick, however, said the story could have described the lives of many nuns of that period. Since the abbey was founded, the nuns have supported themselves by hosting retreats and other guests, raising livestock, selling homemade dairy products, selling crafts in their gift shop, leasing parcels of their land, and most recently, formatting computer data.
The nuns decided to move after learning that expanding on their existing property would be too difficult, the article reports. They bought land south of Denver last year to build a new abbey, but then a local philanthropist donated 253 acres near the Wyoming border, which the nuns accepted. The article reports that the land is largely undeveloped, and they will have to build roads before construction can begin. But their new abbey will give them enough room to allow more nuns to join their cloister. They currently have a list of nuns who wish to join, the article says. The nuns plan to take their 60 head of cattle and two llamas to their new site and try to work the rocky soil, as well as their computers to try to expand their data entry business.
PUBLICATION: Newsday
DATE: June 29, 1997
SECTION: Page E15
BYLINE: Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson
DATELINE: Hempstead, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Mooney, resident and director of the Bay Park Civic Association; Larry Spatz, Jeane Brennan-Basile, residents
Newsday reports that two new sirens in the Bay Park area of Hempstead, New York were installed to warn residents of hurricanes or disasters at the nearby Nassau County sewage plant, but homeowners who live near the sirens say the sirens' piercing wails are too loud. Until recently, the sirens went off every noon and during fire calls in other neighborhoods.
According to the article, the sirens were mounted on poles on Hewlett Point Avenue and North Boulevard, and were turned on last month. The article reports that residents living near the sirens say they weren't consulted before the sirens were installed, but Bay Park Fire Commission Chair Joseph Williams insists that leaders of civic associations in the area were informed and "offered positive comments." However, after the siren system began to be tested, residents started complaining, the article says. The sirens sounded every noon, as well as anytime the East Rockaway Fire Department received fire and rescue calls. Residents say the siren also went off during a test procedure for a sewage plant emergency, which panicked residents unnecessarily. opponents of the new system said. According to the article, angry residents lodged complaints with Bay Park fire commissioners, East Rockaway village and fire officials, and officials from the Town of Hempstead and Nassau County. In response, Fire Commission Chair Williams agreed to shut the alarms off temporarily. A Commission meeting scheduled for Friday will address the issue and collect suggestions from residents.
Resident Jim Mooney, also a director of the Bay Park Civic Association, commented, "That shrieking, loud siren noise is a little too much to handle. It definitely needs modification. I'm not sure we need it at all." Resident Larry Spatz, whose home faces the siren, agreed. "This is a summer community," said Spatz. "Everyone has their windows open . . . They could have put it in the park" two blocks away.
In response to residents' complaints, Williams said the new sirens were badly needed in order to replace the hamlet's two antiquated sirens. The old sirens also were located in places where they couldn't be heard as well, he added. East Rockaway, which uses the same kind of equipment, recently was upgrading their system, and the chance to piggyback the sirens on their project was a way to get the sirens while saving money, Williams said. The sirens, which each cost $17,392, were paid for by Bay Park's fire district, but Nassau County will reimburse them. Williams said the sirens' location at the head of Grand Canal and near the beach was chosen because the water will help carry the sound to reach more Bay Park residents. "I thought I was helping the community," Williams said. "They are in an area where there is a tremendous amount of flooding. What if there is a problem in the Bay Park sewage plant? How would you notify people?"
One residents who has lived in the area for 23 years, Jeane Brennan-Basile, said there has always been more than adequate warning of disasters in the past. Resident Spatz agreed, and added that if the sewage plant needed a siren, it should have been placed on the plant building.
Meanwhile, fire officials in East Rockaway say they have no control over the sirens because the hamlet is not in the incorporated village. However, according to East Rockaway Fire Department Secretary Ralph Luisi, residents don't understand that the noise coming from the sirens earlier this month occurred during a test period. Luisi said the sirens can be adjusted downward in volume and can be made to screen out certain calls. He added that the sirens are quieter than the old sirens, but the alarms are in front of different peoples' houses now.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Business Journal
DATE: June 30, 1997
SECTION: Vol 17; No 42; pg 5A
BYLINE: Larry Holyoke
DATELINE: St. Charles, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Steven Flaum, attorney, McDermott, Will & Emery in Chicago; Rose Kasper, St. Charles City Councillor who helped launch a citizens' group opponsed to airport expansion; Geoffrey Gosling, professor, Institute of Transportation Studies at University of California, Berkeley
The St. Louis Business Journal reports that the St. Charles (Missouri) City Council is considering its legal options in opposing expansion plans for Lambert St. Louis International Airport. Council members are worried that the W-1W expansion plan which has been submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval will send more low-flying planes over St. Charles. Although the council appears to be preparing for a legal battle, council members said they also are keeping lines of communication open and trying to reach an agreement on noise abatement with airport authorities.
According to the article, the council invited several airport planning and noise experts to a public council meeting June 24, after which council members held a closed-door executive session to discuss legal issues with Steven Flaum, an attorney with the Chicago firm of McDermott, Will & Emery who specializes in representing municipalities in airport noise disputes. Rose Kasper, a City Councillor who helped launch a citizen's group opposed to current expansion plans because of noise concerns, said the council wanted to discuss all of its legal options, but would like to settle the problem without going to court.
The article went on to say that Kasper said the council's next step will be to send a letter to St. Louis Mayor Clarence Harmon, requesting permission to make a presentation to him on the studies of the experts who addressed the council. One of the experts, the article reports, was Geoffrey Gosling, a professor at the Institute of Transportation Studies at University of California, Berkeley. According to City Councillor Rory Riddler, Gosling questioned many of the assumptions that went into choosing W-1W over other expansion proposals. One criticism Gosling made, for example, was that the W-1W plan was evaluated on the assumption that no new terminal would have to be built, but according to his analysis of data supplied by the planners, a new terminal eventually would have to be built even under the W-1W plan, according to Riddler. In addition, Riddler said, Gosling argued that planners should not have dismissed the idea of sharing future traffic with Mid-America Airport. Riddler added that the council is angry that the airport authority is not willing to negotiate over noise, and that many other airports have noise abatement agreements.
Meanwhile, the article reports, the Federal Aviation Administration is expected to issue a final environmental impact study on W-1W within 30 days. Gentry Trotter, a spokesperson for the airport's public relations firm, said airport officials are "confident the FAA will render a favorable decision" on W-1W. In addition, Col. Leonard Griggs Jr., director of Lambert, said in a prepared statement, "The St. Louis Airport Authority has never proposed signing an individual noise agreement with any community in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Furthermore, Congress in 1990 passed legislation that prohibits us from restricting airline/aircraft operations."
PUBLICATION: Indianapolis Business Journal
DATE: June 30, 1997
SECTION: Vol. 18; No. 15; Pg. 10
BYLINE: Toby Eckert
DATELINE: Plainfield, Indiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Waterfill, Cottonwood Court resident and attorney for the residents' group
The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that a group of residents in Plainfield, Indiana has dropped its lawsuit over airport noise after the Indianapolis Airport Authority agreed to include the residents' homes in a new noise-reduction program. The agreement stipulates that the authority will pay to soundproof homes in the Cottonwood Court subdivision, but if residents are still bothered by the noise, the authority would purchase their homes and try to resell them.
The article reports that attorney and Cottonwood Court resident Mark Waterfill filed the lawsuit for 48 Cottonwood Court homeowners who said noise had become a nuisance after the construction of a new runway and an increase in cargo flights. The suit sought $1 million in damages from BAA Indianapolis, the private manager of the airport. Waterfill said he estimated that home values had dropped 25%, or $1 million, because of the noise. Waterfill said of the new agreement with the airport authority, "Essentially, we're happy about the purchase assurance."
The article says that the purchase-assurance program is one aspect of a four-part noise relief program. The airport plans to expand the buyout program it has run since 1988, purchasing and demolishing homes in the worst noise areas. In areas less affected by noise, if a home sells for less than its appraised value, the airport will pay the difference, though the payment cannot exceed 5% of the value. In addition, the airport is proposing flight standards that would reduce the noise from turning airplanes after takeoff. BAA spokesperson Dennis Rosebrough said the new programs are designed to preserve some of the neighborhoods around the airport.
According to the article, 1,450 homes will be affected by the new programs -- 132 in the purchase/demolition area, 359 in the insulation/assured purchase area, and 959 in the sales subsidy area. In July, six public hearings on the play will be held in neighborhoods around the airport. The Airport Authority Board plans to vote on the new program in September, and the Federal Aviation Administration must also approve the program.
Previous week: June 22, 1997
Next week: July 6, 1997
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