PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: May 16, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 1; Zone: SW
BYLINE: Rogers Worthington
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joe Karaganis, lawyer for the Suburban O'Hare Commission; Ron Wietecha, Park Ridge Mayor and Vice President of the Suburban O'Hare Commission
The Chicago Tribune reports that Joe Karaganis has been the lead lawyer for 13 years for the Suburban O'Hare Commission, a group of 11 suburbs northwest of Chicago fighting noise and runway expansion at O'Hare Airport. The article profiles Karaganis, and contrasts the ways in which he has earned the animosity of some city and airline officials and the devotion of his clients.
According to the article, a number of city and airline officials accuse Karaganis of unnecessarily dragging out the fight over O'Hare noise, especially now that Mayor Richard Daley has announced the city will spend more than $230 million to soundproof homes and businesses in the suburbs. Daley's announcement has won the support of some suburban mayors, but Karaganis and the commission remain unconvinced. On May 2, Karaganis sued Chicago for unconstitutionally excluding suburbs that belong to the commission from the soundproofing program, the article reports. The suit seeks personal punitive damages from city Aviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney, former Commissioner David Mosena, and Daley adviser Edward Bedore. Herbert Gardner, a director for United Airlines, said he doesn't have a high regard for Karaganis "because he does this kind of thing."
But Karaganis' suburban clients applaud his style, the article says. His lawsuits have won $16.6 million in soundproofing for homes and churches. And Ron Wietecha, Vice President for the Suburban O'Hare Commission and Park Ridge Mayor, said politicians who have negotiated with the commission have repeatedly suggested that the commission get a new lawyer.
The article reports that Karaganis was one of Chicago's first generation of "green" lawyers. He took environmental cases that forced a half-dozen Illinois steel mills to clean up their acts, closed a polluting South Side asphalt plant, and required Homestake Mining Co. to reform its haphazard discarding of toxic tailings in South Dakota, the article says. In the current fight, however, the article says Karaganis is at odds with most local environmentalists because he and the commission support the proposal to build a third regional airport near Peotone. Environmental activists, by contrast, believe a new airport would be an engine for more urban sprawl.
The article goes on to say that Sam Vinson, a lawyer for Kerr-McGee Corp., faced Karaganis recently in court over the $250 million cleanup of a toxic dump in West Chicago. He said Karaganis' O'Hare tactics are like those of Vietnamese guerrilla leader Ho Chi Minh. Vinson said, "He understands how to create underground cells that will fight forever, and to move public opinion by using citizen action groups extraordinarily well." Vinson added that he found Karaganis to be tough, shrewd, resourceful, and a good-faith negotiator.
But some airport opponents of Karaganis say he's not a good-faith negotiator. A former city Aviation Department official who asked not to be identified said, "I don't think he negotiates in good faith. You give him an inch, which is what he asks for, and then, when he gets to the 11th hour, he asks for a mile." Some officials said that negotiations in Springfield last year over a new regional noise panel fell apart because Karaganis realized the commission couldn't control which suburbs joined the panel and couldn't win a city guarantee of no new O'Hare runways, the article says. Karaganis maintained that the city was trying to stack the noise panel with cities that don't suffer critical noise problems. Some officials have also portrayed Karaganis as enriching himself through prolonged conflict. However, Karaganis said the dispute has continued because the city will not give up plans to expand O'Hare. He added that he has taken no fee from his noise-related settlements and has represented two DuPage County Catholic schools in a noise-abatement case for free.
The article also says that some suburbs have joined Mayor Daley's new O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, and other suburbs have received soundproofing efforts, which have taken away some of the support of Karaganis' and the commission's plans. But Karaganis believes the mayor's commission is a move to build a suburban consensus so that the governor will approve a new O'Hare runway. Karaganis is involved in one legal fight with Chicago to get access to papers that he says will show a new runway remains in the city's plans, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: Origin Universal News Services
DATE: May 16, 1997
SECTION: General and City News
DATELINE: London, England
Origin Universal News Services Limited reports that the British Airports Authority (BAA), the operator of London's Heathrow Airport, said today it would not oppose a recommendation that there should be no increase in the quota of night flights permitted at the airport. The recommendation came from the Inspector of the inquiry regarding the construction of a fifth terminal at the airport. In addition, BAA circulated a newsletter to 500,000 homeowners surrounding the airport outlining the companies' position and discussing the results of a recent Gallup poll that showed most local residents support the fifth terminal.
According to the article, in the newsletter circulated to the residents, BAA's Chief Executive Sir John Egan said the company would guarantee that the quota of night flights would not increase. He went on in the newsletter to lament the length of the inquiry, which has lasted two years so far. He repeated that the terminal would not require a third runway, and that noise from planes arriving and departing from the airport would be no greater after the new terminal was built than it was in 1994. The article reports Egan also said there would only be a 3% increase in road traffic at peak times, and the traffic would be mostly confined to motorways and other trunk roads. Egan's newsletter also outlined the results of a series of opinion polls carried out by Gallup. The polls showed that supporters outnumbered opponents by two to one. The latest poll, released today the article says, showed that 50% of the local community around Heathrow are definately in favor of the terminal, while 25% are definitely against it. A similar poll conducted in 1994 showed that only 36% were definately in favor of the new terminal, the article says.
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: May 12, 1997
SECTION: Pasco, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Sarah Huntley
DATELINE: Port Richey, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Judy Christenson, Pier Road resident
The Tampa Tribune reports that due to a boom in business along Port Richey, Florida's waterfront, four restaurants are now offering live music, outdoor seating, and drinks in the evenings. But homeowners along the Pithlachascotee River and Miller's Bayou, who live directly across from the restaurants, say noise from the restaurants echoes across the water and disrupts their peace. City officials are struggling to solve the problem.
The article reports that in January, residents went before the city council to complain about the problem. Judy Christenson, a Pier Road resident who lives directly across the river from the eateries, said that the music is so loud some nights, her walls shake.
According to the article, Port Richey has a noise ordinance, but almost everyone agrees it has been enforced haphazardly. The ordinance stipulates that businesses cannot provide outdoor entertainment without a permit, and that businesses within 1,500 feet of residential property have to keep their indoors noise below 40 decibels. The article reports that the ordinance gives regulatory authority to the city's code compliance officers and the police department, but the city hasn't always acknowledged that dual role. City Manager Vince Lupo said, "My predecessor made changes with respect to the enforcement of the ordinance. He viewed it primarily as a building or construction problem, not a police matter." However, Lupo recently asked the police department to re-certify its decibel meter and train two officers to use it. Lupo also intends to ask the engineering department at the University of South Florida to study the restaurants and propose soundproofing techniques, the article says. He also believes the city council should update the regulations to address the changing atmosphere along the river. He added that the ordinance was "built for a different time," and that the majority of the noise problems crop up along the river, where sound can travel a long distance.
The article reports that the restaurants Catches Seafood & More, Hooters, the Seaside Inn, and The Porthole Pub all feature musical acts with varying frequency. The restaurant owners say they sympathize with the residents, but that their business depends on the combination of drinks, music, and a view. Lee Usilton, the vice president of operations at Hooters, said, "We understand the people living across from us. But none of us have what I would call a Led Zeppelin concert. We're talking about a guy with a guitar playing Jimmy Buffett." Dora Crabtree, owner of the Seaside Inn, said officers recently ticketed her and a customer when the customer began playing an electric guitar on the outside patio. Crabtree believes the $80 fines are too high. Crabtree said, "I'm not saying we shouldn't have a noise ordinance. You've got to keep it under control. But a zero tolerance? Come on. This is commercial property. I've got to make a living, too." Both Crabtree and Lynn McGuire, owner of The Porthole Pub, said city officials need to set uniform noise standards, and then communicate them better to restaurant owners. McGuire said she tried to find out about the current noise ordinance, and was sent from office to office with little result. She said, "I'm trying to do things by the book. But if there are no guidelines, how can they bust me?"
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: May 13, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. N1
BYLINE: Eric Wahlgren
DATELINE: Van Nuys, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Gerald Silver, chair of Stop the Noise Coalition and president of Homeowners of Encino
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that about a dozen former military jets take off from the Van Nuys (California) airport on a regular basis. The planes are owned by the wealthy and are considered the ultimate aircraft to own among some pilots. Meanwhile, Valley residents concerned about safety and noise at the airport say that every unnecessary flight out of the airport increases the danger factor from aircraft.
The article reports that MiGs and other war planes now regularly enter the Valley airspace. Some of the planes reach speeds of 1,400 mph and cost $4,000 an hour to keep aloft. The article says that actor John Travolta, Chrysler President Bob Lutz, and others nationwide have bought a total of about 400 of the fighter planes from former Eastern bloc and NATO countries. The jets cost from $75,000 on up and require as much as $1 million more to refurbish them. The Federal Aviation Administration requires that owners "demilitarize" the jets and puts the planes through intensive inspections. According to George Lazik, a Woodland Hills resident who flies his MiG-17 out of Van Nuys Airport, pilots must pass rigorous tests to fly the jets, racking up 1,000 hours of flight experience and making a trip in the plane that is scrutinized by an FAA examiner. In addition, airport and FAA guidelines restrict where, when, and how the jets can fly. The article says the planes can only really cut loose once they reach the skies above Edwards Air Force Base in the Antelope Valley.
Although there are restrictions on the jets, some Valley residents concerned about safety and noise don't like them, the article says. Gerald Silver, chair of Stop the Noise Coalition and president of Homeowners of Encino, said, "This is very dense airspace, swarming with aircraft. Every unnecessary flight only increases the danger factor. If they want to fly them, they should do it out in the desert, where the only things they will bother are turtles and lizards."
The article reports that Don Kirlin, president of the Classic Jet Aircraft Association, said two types of pilots itch to fly such planes: longtime civilian pilots who seek the ultimate thrill of flying a fighter jet, and former military pilots who want to fly again. Kirlin added that, "There is a lot of pride in having the bad guys' aircraft." The jet owned by Kirlin was flown by North Vietnamese pilots during the Vietnam War, the article says.
PUBLICATION: The Record
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: News; 4 Star, also in 5 Star, 3 Star, 2 Star, 1 Star; Pg. L03
BYLINE: Monsy Alvarado
DATELINE: Paterson, NJ
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rep. William J. Pascrell Jr.
The Record reports a one-mile sound barrier will be built along Route 80 in Paterson, New Jersey to make life quieter for residents adjacent to the major highway. According to John Dourgarian from the state Department of Transportation, the sound barrier will consist of three walls, 14 to 24 feet high, and will cost the state $4.2 million. The barrier should be complete by June 1998.
According to the article, the barrier will muffle noise by roughly 10 decibels, estimated by DOT officials. Noise will be reduced about 50% for residents living directly next to the highway and will be reduced by about 25% for residents living two blocks away.
Rep. William J. Pascrell Jr., D-Paterson, had urged the DOT to study the noise problem when he was the Paterson's mayor in 1992. Residents have been complaining about the noise level since the early 1980's, including disturbed sleep, not being able to have company in their own backyards, and car debris/wrecks on their lawns.
According to Dourgarian, the project will not interfere with traffic; lane-closures will be periodic during off-peak hours. The barrier's walls will be brown and rust colored, but with chiseled pictures of historical Paterson sites. The barrier will run along the eastbound side of Route 80 in West Paterson from east of the Morris Canal to Squirrelwood Road, then from west of Madison Avenue in Paterson to Lakeview Avenue. On the westbound side, the barrier will run from Mary Avenue to the Passaic River in West Paterson.
PUBLICATION: NBC News Transcripts
DATE: May 13, 1997
BYLINE: Robert Bazell, science correspondent and reporter; Linda Vester, anchor
DATELINE: U.S.
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Nancy Naibler, specialist, League for the Hard of Hearing; Dr. Jim Hudspeth, Rockefeller University
NBC News reports that twenty-eight million Americans suffer from hearing loss, and that noise levels are growing in the U.S.
According to the transcript of the broadcast, Nancy Naibler of the League for the Hard of Hearing in New York said that noise is escalating. She said, "If you look around your home, and you look at some of the loud appliances, the vacuum cleaners, the blenders, the blow driers, and think about what the person is doing for recreation: the snowmobiles, the jet skis...."
Naibler said she is especially concerned about noise exposure for children, because hearing loss damage accumulates over a lifetime and usually has few warning signs. Naibler showed several common toys that give off sound levels known to damage the human ear, and said of a toy megaphone that only a couple of minutes of exposure would cause permanent damage to hearing. The broadcast went on to report that tests are finding more young children and teen-agers with hearing loss, as many as 10% in some schools. In addition, one in three Americans 65 and older has hearing loss, the broadcast said.
The broadcast also illustrated the way in which noise destroys hearing. According to Dr. Jim Hudspeth of Rockefeller University, we have about 16,000 hair cells in each ear that detect what we hear. The broadcast showed what a hair cell looked like under a microscope when responding to an average sound, and a loud sound. The hair cell broke in response to a loud sound, and once a cell breaks it is not repaired or replaced. The broadcast concludes that the only defense against hearing loss is prevention.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: May 17, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Jim Reeder
DATELINE: Stuart, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cliff Barnes, John Bruhn, St. Lucie County Commissioners; Bill Thiess, St. Lucie Village Vice Mayor
The Palm Beach Post reports that expansion plans for the St. Lucie County International Airport in Stuart, Florida will receive more study by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The council agreed Friday to hold a workshop session before the project comes to them for approval as a development of regional impact (DRI). Before the council workshop is held, the council's staff will study the airport's impact on roads, noise levels, air quality, water quality, and other issues. The workshop is expected to be held later this summer.
According to the article, two St. Lucie County Commissioners, Cliff Barnes and John Bruhn, urged planning council to carefully examine the proposal to turn the general aviation airport into a commercial jetport. Barnes said, "All the reports say we should expand the airport to attract large jets. They don't say there are people operating large jets that want to come here." Barnes added that a jetport would harm areas to the east, including St. Lucie Village, the Indian River Lagoon, Jack Island State Park, and high-rises on Hutchinson Island. Because some of the houses in St. Lucie are historic structures, Barnes said, they should be "just as great a regional concern as a jetport." St. Lucie Village Vice Mayor Bill Thiess made a stronger stance, saying that a jetport at that location would be a grave mistake, the article reports. Thiess said that a DC-9 did touch-and-go landings at the airport, and "the noise was unbelievable."
County Commissioner Ken Sattler didn't think much of studying the plan further, however. Sattler said it was a waste of time to "go over the same issues again and again."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 3; Zone: D
BYLINE: Robert Derocher
DATELINE: Downers Grove, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that the Downers Grove, Illinois Village Council is considering expanding its noise regulations to restrict the use of outdoor home tools and loud stereos from vehicles. In addition, the council is considering giving police more power in handling noise complaints.
The article reports that the council is considering a proposal that would prevent the use of mowers, blowers, and power tools outside homes from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Mondays through Saturdays and from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Sundays. In addition, the proposal would ban loud stereos and speakers that cause "unreasonable noise or vibration" and stereos that can be heard 75 feet from a vehicle, the article says. Police would also have greater discretion in handling noise complaints, under the proposal. A noise violation would no longer be considered disorderly conduct, and citizens would not have to sign complaints. Police could also issue warnings before giving out tickets, the article reports.
PUBLICATION: The Richmond Times Dispatch
DATE: May 13, 1997
SECTION: Area/State, Pg. B-6
BYLINE: Gordon Hickey
DATELINE: Richmond, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Anthony Jones, City Councillor
The Richmond Times Dispatch reports that yesterday Charlene Hinton of the Richmond (Virginia) Police Department told the City Council that since last June there have been six convictions for violating the city's noise ordinance. The comments came after the police department had been criticized for not enforcing the noise ordinance.
According to the article, Councillor Anthony Jones had been the most vocal in his criticism that the ordinance wasn't being enforced, but the news that there have been six convictions silenced him. The six convictions all involved loud car sound systems. Fines were usually about $30 with court costs of about $50, the article says.
The article reports that the ordinance was passed in July 1995, and it made any noise audible from a distance of 50 feet or more illegal. In 1995, a car sound system provision was also added to the city's existing noise ordinance, the article says. Before 1995, it already was, and still is illegal to sound a car horn for no good reason; to play a radio, phonograph or musical instrument too loud in a home; to keep loud animals; to drive a loud car; to blow a steam whistle, except at the start or end of the work day; or to loudly peddle your wares on a quiet street, the article reports. Violation of the noise ordinance is punishable by a fine of up to $250, and is considered a class four misdemeanor. Hinton of the Police Department said that an officer must actually hear the noise in order to make an arrest. She added that police receive many complaints about car radios, but by the time they arrive, the noise is no longer there. Deputy Chief Teresa Gooch said there is no way for a citizen to take out a warrant for violation of the noise ordinance, but that the police department was exploring that.
PUBLICATION: The Richmond Times Dispatch
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. A-22
BYLINE: Sergeant Dale C. Mullen, Richmond Police Department.
DATELINE: Richmond, VA
The Richmond Times Dispatch prints the following letter to the editor written by Sergeant Dale C. Mullen from the Richmond (Virginia) Police Department:
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Twice in the past three weeks you have criticized the Richmond Police Department and Police Chief Jerry Oliver for perceived non-enforcement of the city's noise ordinance ("Just Asking," April 20 and "Pet Causes," May 12).
The first assumes that Chief Oliver must order officers to make arrests. That is incorrect. All officers are bound by an oath to support, defend, and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Richmond.
The second was amusing in its hypocrisy. You took a swing at "small minds" presuming to set public health law regarding pet-ownership while "Richmond schools are falling in, drug lords and their mules and minions reign, (and) murders are committed in broad daylight, downtown." But with a quick backhand, you criticize Chief Oliver for not taking care of "real public nuisances, such as boom boxes and blaring car stereos."
Which will it be? Should the City of Richmond ignore smaller problems (animal control) until the larger ones (an astonishing murder rate) are solved, or should the police department pursue every nuisance (loud stereos) to an arrest?
The police department and the City Council have a duty to serve the public by attending to all matters of public safety and welfare, large and small. The truth of the matter is that while relentlessly pursuing murderers, "drug lords, and their minions," officers of the Richmond Police Department also regularly enforce the City Code regarding unnecessary noise. Enforcement efforts range from arrest on a summons to a friendly warning.
PUBLICATION: The Sunday Telegraph
DATE: May 11, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 05
BYLINE: Linda Jackson
DATELINE: London, England area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dermot Cox, chair, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise
The Sunday Telegraph Limited reports that the British Airports Authority has apologized for a loud demolition explosion that occurred at London's Heathrow Airport. The 2 a.m. blast frightened thousands of residents, many of whom believed they were caught in a terrorist attack, the article reports.
According to the article, the blast occurred when explosives destroyed an old hangar used to house Concorde. The British Airports Authority said that contractors had promised the explosion would be inaudible, the article says. The explosion was heard at least seven miles away in Kew, west London. In Longford, a village a mile and a half from the airport, resident Rita Pearce said she was very frightened from the explosion. Dermot Cox, chair of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, said, "It is completely tactless to do something like this in the light of the IRA threats sweeping the country. Residents thought there had been a terrorist attack. Obviously an explosion of the force necessary to destroy a hangar is going to make a great deal of noise."
PUBLICATION: The Post and Courier
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: B, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Nadine Parks
DATELINE: Hanahan, South Carolina
The Post and Courier reports the Hanahan (South Carolina) City Council adopted a land-use plan that would permit only 120 acres of the 746-acre Brown Tract to be used for businesses, with the rest used for single-family homes. City Administrator Dan Davis states the 120 acres will be rezoned by the city planning commission for "limited industry," meaning businesses that are environmentally friendly and compatible with residential areas. The commission's aim is to prevent noise and traffic pollution. A land architect had originally proposed 238 acres be used for industry.
Davis also stated this plan is not permanent. When someone purchases the land they have the right to ask for a rezoning to build upon it. Mayor Larry Cobb and Councilman Jeff Chandler chose not to vote. Both are employed by Westvaco Corp., which owns the Brown Tract.
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: May 11, 1997
SECTION: Section 13LI; Page 23; Column 1; Long Island Weekly Desk
DATELINE: Long Island, New York
The New York Times printed an editorial in which the writer describes the noise problems with the use of leaf-blowers and advocates restrictions on them, giving examples of other municipalities that have banned or restricted them.
The editorial says that the coming of spring brings with it the "mind-numbing" noise of leaf blowers, which invade our surroundings, prevent us from enjoying the outdoors, and keep us from opening windows. The writer also says that leaf-blowers pollute the air and make airborne pollen, dirt, and residue from chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and wash debris down storm drains and pollute the water.
The writer goes on to say that industrial gas-operated leaf-blowers have average noise levels of between 95 and 102 decibels. By comparison, New York State law mandates that noise levels from cars cannot exceed 82 decibels.
The editorial writer says that her/his village has proposed that gas-operated industrial leaf-blowers are not permitted in the summer. This proposal follows a trend around the country and includes communities such as Scarsdale and Pelham Heights in Westchester, Montclair, N.J., Greenburgh, N.Y., and Evanston, Ill. In addition, California has more than 40 muncipalities, including Los Angeles and Berkeley, that ban leaf-blowers year round, according to the editorial.
The writer explains that in her/his village, a petition to restrict leaf-blowers in the summer has been signed by an unprecedented number of residents. The writer urges other communities in Long Island to take steps to restrict leaf-blowers and increase the peace and quiet of their neighborhoods.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel
DATE: May 13, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Karla Schuster
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Boca Raton Airport Action Group; Tom Knibbs, director, Yamato/Spanish River Boulevard Association; Harry Stanfield, chair, Federation of Boca Raton Homeowner Associations; Steven Abrams, City Councillor
The Sun-Sentinel reports that members of the Boca Raton (Florida) Airport Action Group, a new alliance of 14 homeowners' associations representing an estimated 15,000 residents, appeared before the City Council Monday and demanded that jet traffic at Boca Raton Airport be curbed and that the airport be brought back under city control.
According to the article, the demands of the Boca Raton Airport Action Group at Monday's meeting were as follows: -- The independent Airport Authority cease negotiations to lease the last 20 acres of available space at the airport to Boca Aviation, the existing fixed-based operator. -- Plans to build a control tower be halted. -- Council members, who have no direct control over the airport, lobby the state to regain control of its operation. -- The City Council support a night-time flight curfew suggested by Mayor Carol Hanson late last month.
The article reports that Harry Stanfield, chair of the Federation of Boca Raton Homeowner Associations, said the new alliance is one of the largest formalized coalitions of homeowner groups. He added, "You always have groups of people that get together and form an organization for a cause, but I don't know of any that had whole associations creating a new group for a single issue." Tom Knibbs, director of the Yamato/Spanish River Boulevard Association, said the new alliance has "some serious momentum going," and was making a push to be heard.
Several City Council members, including Councillor Steven Abrams, were interested in finding out how difficult it would be for the city to regain control of the airport, the article reports. The article goes on to say that the city gave up control of the airport to the state in 1960. There was a movement to take the airport back in the early 1980s, which ended with a referendum in which voters approved creating the independent airport authority. The article says that most of the authority's members are appointed by the City Council, but otherwise, the council has no control over the airport.
Meanwhile, the City Council is trying to arrange a meeting with the airport authority about noise problems and is considering applying to the Federal Aviation Administration for a flight curfew. However, airport officials oppose a curfew and say the FAA rarely approves such measures. Knibbs of the homeowners association said the new alliance is worried that the airport's expansion onto the last 20 acres of vacant airport space will attract more jets, but according to Mark Wantshouse, president of Boca Aviation -- the existing fixed-based operator, the expansion is not just aimed at jets. Wantshouse said about 35 percent of the 20-acre expansion will be used for small plane hangers. He also added that the proposed control tower, which homeowners believe will attract more jets, will result in less noise because it will reduce the number of planes circling the area while waiting to land.
PUBLICATION: The Vancouver Sun
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. B1 / Front
BYLINE: Gerry Bellett
DATELINE: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Urban Noise Task Force; Lynne Kennedy, City Councillor and member of the task force
The Vancouver (British Columbia) Sun reports that Vancouver's Urban Noise Task Force, a 10-member committee formed by the city council in March 1996 to recommend solutions to urban noise problems, has come up with a report of 165 recommendations to reduce noise. In addition, Tuesday night members of the public were invited to comment on the city's noise problems. Citizens spoke out about problems ranging from motorcycles to street buskers, ambulance sirens to leaf blowers.
According to the article, motorcycles were a popular noise concern for citizens at Tuesday's meeting, especially the excessive noise that occurs when motorcycles leave a stop sign or traffic light. City Councillor Lynne Kennedy, also a member of the task force, said, "People are furious about this. They say if we can control boom boxes in cars, why can't we do something about motorcycles?" Kennedy went on to say that the motorcycle industry claims that motorcycles emit acceptable levels of noise when they are purchased, but she believes buyers can have special baffles installed to increase exhaust noise, the article reports. The task force recommended that non-standard exhausts on motorcycles be prohibited. Others have called for restricting motorcycles from certain areas of the city, the article says.
Another noise concern, mostly from city merchants, is street buskers who play music on the sidewalk. Some merchants say the buskers drive business away and annoy staff. Councillor Kennedy said, "Some buskers are good and can attract people to a business, but people are calling for licensing buskers." Another noise that residents complained about was noise from gardening machines. Kennedy said that while the machines might be acceptable in the suburbs, they are deafening in the concrete canyons of the city's West End.
The article reports that the city council will take action on the 165 recommendations of the task force on May 27. The city's staff has examined the recommendations and is advising the council to reject 23 of them. Some of the recommendations rejected by the staff include designating all parks as quiet zones, restricting the use of chainsaws in parks, restricting grass-maintenance machinery on golf courses, and curbing the use of lawnmowers. The staff rejected many recommendations that would cost money to implement. In addition, members of the city staff said some recommendations were beyond the city's jurisdiction, such as restricting airplane activity in Coal Harbor or flights by propeller-driven aircraft. Recommendations supported by the city staff include increasing public education and awareness of noise problems, and establishing a noise hot line or Web page.
PUBLICATION: The Richmond Times Dispatch
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. A-22
DATELINE: Richmond, VA
The Richmond (Virginia) Times Dispatch printed an editorial in response to Sergeant Dale Mullen's letter to the editor defending the police department's actions with respect to the noise ordinance. This editorial claims that there have been only six convictions for violating Richmond's noise ordinance since June 1996, and that this proves the Richmond police have not been actively enforcing the ordinance.
According to the editorial, anyone can witness six violations of the law by standing on a downtown street corner for 15 minutes. The editorial goes on to accuse the police department of turning a blind eye to noise violations except on a few occasions.
The editorial also claims that Sergeant Dale Mullen, in his letter to the editor, essentially admits that the noise violations are small potatoes to the cops. However, the editorial writer disagrees. Many of the lyrics blaring from stereos onto city streets also violate Virginia's Curse and Abuse statute as well as the noise ordinance, the editorial says. The editorial writer says that police are dismissing the obligation to protect citizens from verbal assaults. Finally, the editorial concludes by saying that the day Richmonders can stand on 4th and Broad without being subjected to noise from passing cars is the day the editorial writer will believe the policie are being diligent in enforcing the city's noise ordinance.
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Pasco, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Sarah Huntley
DATELINE: Port Richey, Florida
The Tampa Tribune reports the growing commerical restaurant business along the Pithlachascotee River in Port Richey, Florida has residents complaining about the loud live music. The city already has a noise ordinance, which councilman Ron Barnett supported a stricter enforcement of after the city council met with restaurant owners and riverfront residents.
The article reports that the city's ordinance requires that outdoor entertainment must have a permit from the city council and cannot play past 10 p.m. Indoor music is permitted, but restaurant owners may be fined if entertainment is heard more than 100 feet from the property and if three of eight listed conditions are met. The conditions include being located next to water, making noise that lasts more than 10 minutes or occurs more than five times an hour and making noise within 1,000 feet of a residential neighborhood. Police officers also have the right to measure decibel levels, and the city has the option of revoking a business' occupational license after two violations and a hearing before the council. The ordinance was enacted in 1977 and amended in the latter part of the 1980's. Residents are upset because they feel the ordinance is not being enforced, according to the article.
Some of the riverfront's restaurants include Hooters, the Port Hole Pub and Seaside Inn, the article says. Officers have received complaints about Hooters 27 times since January, according to Police Chief William Downs. The department has issued Hooters 17 warnings and 5 citations. The remaining 5 complaints could not be pursued because the music had stopped before officers arrived. Despite their record, Hooters has not been called before council to defend its occupational license.
The city will be discussing the issue of riverfront noise again during its May 27 meeting, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Local News; Pg. B3
BYLINE: David Schaefer
DATELINE: Seattle, WA
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Nick Latham, School District Spokesperson; Tom Slattery, President of the School Board
The Seattle Times reports that the noise from the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has caused ongoing dispute between the Highline School District and the Port of Seattle. Highline Schools asked the Port yesterday to conduct and pay for a study of the effects of noise on schools near the airport. The schools also asked the Port to pay for noise abatement and renovations to two schools. The Port is excited that the schools are wanting to talk, but is not in agreement with everything in the proposal, including the supposedly high budget of $20 million. The Port will respond to the proposal, according to director of aviation professional and technical services Mike Feldman.
The article reports that a sore topic for both sides is the possibility of the construction of a third runway at the airport. According to a recent study by consultants for the district and nearby cities, as many as eight Highline schools would have to be relocated or replaced and 26 others receive noise insulation if the airport built a third runway. The estimated cost for all the reconstruction, acording to the consultants, would be $1 billion.
A few years ago, the Port had offered the school district $50 million to insulate the schools against airport noise, but the district refused, according to the article. The president of the school board, Tom Slattery, feels district officials do not know the cost of insulating all of the affected schools and therefore refused to agree to a $50 million limit.
Nick Latham, a spokesperson for the district, estimates that half of the district's 22 elementary schools are affected by the airport noise. The district includes the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park and SeaTac. The district also covers areas of King County and small parts of Kent and Tukwila.
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune
DATE: May 14, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 7B
BYLINE: Laurie Blake
DATELINE: Minneapolis / St. Paul, Minnesota
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: South Metro Airport Action Council
The Star Tribune reports that the South Metro Airport Action Council, an airport noise activist group of Minneapolis / St. Paul, Minnesota, gave a list of requests to the the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise Tuesday at a public hearing on airport noise.
According to the article, the following requests were made by the activist group: -- Adopt more accurate ways of measuring aircraft noise and more strictly enforce noise regulations. -- Undertake more research into the long-term effects of noise on children and older people. -- Do a better job of preventing de-icing fluids from leaking into ground water. -- More closely regulate airborne particles such as soot and fallout from aircraft exhaust. -- Change federal law to require airports to report toxic emissions such as ozone, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, just as industrial polluters are required to do. -- Reopen the office of Noise Abatement and Control under the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The office was closed in the early 1980s. -- Require that public health concerns be given more attention in environmental impact statements connected with the construction of new runways. -- Urge greater use of high-speed rail on trips of 500 miles or less. -- Reduce the noise heard in cities with hub airports by sending more flights to nonhub airports.
PUBLICATION: The Kansas City Star
DATE: May 16, 1997
SECTION: Metropolitan; Pg. C5
BYLINE: Russ Pulley
DATELINE: Lee's Summit, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mary Rose Marquart, Ed Knapp, Lee's Summit residents; Marcia Hoskins, chair of a Lee's Summit task force to fight the project; John Smith, City Councillor
The Kansas City Star reports that the Union Pacific Railroad announced that it is planning to sell train tracks that run through Lee's Summit, Missouri to General Railway Corp., which plans to run trains from St. Louis to Kansas City. Residents in the eight subdivisions near the train tracks are frightened that the trains will bring noise and safety problems and drops in property values.
According to the article, the homes in the eight subdivisions near the tracks range in value from $130,000 to $400,000. The track was shut down in 1980, and woods obscured it long before many of the homes were built. Mary Rose Marquart, whose home is 30 feet in front of the tracks, said when she and her husband bought their home, they thought the railroad track would become a hiking trail. Because trains would have to blow their whistles at each of seven road crossings in town, Marquart believes the whistles would have to sound all the way through town. Ed Knapp, a neighbor of the Marquarts, is worried about noise, but more importantly, about the safety of his kids. He pointed out that a footpath behind the neighborhood houses that connects to a playground in the city park crosses the tracks. The article says that Marcia Hoskins, chair of a Lee's Summit task force formed to fight the project, said the railroad would hurt property values of more than 100 homes next to the track.
Meanwhile, City Councillor John Smith said the city planned to start a letter-writing campaign opposing activation of the line to the federal Surface Transportation Board, which must approve the sale. Smith added that about 17,000 people live in areas the track passes, and 7,000 residents regularly use Ward Road, a street the track crosses.
General Railway President John Larkin said that the reactivation of the train tracks will not damage property values, and that the "vast majority of people will find they don't even notice it." He said the company plans to leave trees around the tracks to buffer noise and act as a visual barrier. The deal between the two companies should close in about a month, the article reports. General Railway will have to rebuild about 200 miles of track, an undertaking which residents speculate will cost millions of dollars and will not justify the two trains the company plans to run. They suspect the company has plans for more trains, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: Newsday
DATE: May 12, 1997
SECTION: News; Page A30
BYLINE: Geoffrey Mohan
DATELINE: Brookhaven, New York
Newsday reports that Suffolk County (New York) police officers this weekend impounded five all-terrain vehicles and issued summonses to their drivers near Brookhaven, New York. The police operation, in conjunction with officials from Brookhaven Town, the Suffolk Parks Department, and the state Department of Conservation, set up traps Saturday to capture the all-terrain vehicle riders and charged them with having open alcoholic beverages and operating an all-terrain vehicle without the property owners' permission. Police officials' action came after serious complaints from property owners about the noise and dust from the vehicles, which are now banned on public land.
The article reports that all-terrain vehicles have grown wildly popular on trails through wooded areas of Long Island, but as they have moved increasingly onto private property, they have angered property owners and adjacent residents. The police operation Saturday set up traps to catch the vehicles near Wading River Estates and in a wooded area of Middle Island. Sgt. Thomas Brady of the Sixth Precinct's Community Oriented Police Enforcement squad said a few of the vehicle riders got away from police officers, but most of them were nabbed. At the Wading River Estates site near Route 25A and Randall Road, police issued summonses to Rodney Pearce, 27, of Bay Shore; James Tomko, 26, of West Islip, and Thomas Lowth, 29, of West Sayville and charged each with having open alcoholic beverages (beer) and operating an all-terrain vehicle without the property owners' permission. Lowth was also issued a desk-appearance ticket on charges of possession of marijuana, the article reports. In addition, Ronald Cutting Jr., 18, of Shoreham, was issued a summons for operating an ATV without the landowner's permission, and he received two summonses for failure to produce insurance or registration. Police said the wooded area is privately owned and abuts a large state conservation area, the article says.
Police also impounded an all-terrain vehicle at a lot beside a Kmart shopping center on Middle Country Road, Middle Island, the article says. The vehicle was being used 13-year-old, who is under the 16-year-old minimum age for such vehicles. The juvenile was not charged, but his parents will be required to pick up the vehicle, the article reports.
According to the article, the summonses will require a court appearance and could result in fines of $100 to $500. In addition, it will cost the owners $110 to recover the vehicles.
Police Sgt. Brady said more stings are planned in Brookhaven Town's move to crack down on the riders.
PUBLICATION: The Guardian
DATE: May 17, 1997
SECTION: The Guardian Home Page; Pg. 14
BYLINE: Alex Bellos and Keith Harper
DATELINE: London and Manchester, England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dermot Cox, chair, Hacan (an anti-noise group opposed to Heathrow Airport's new terminal); Geoff Gazzard, member, Coalition Against Runway Two (an anti-noise group opposed to Manchester Airport's expansion); Roger Higman, senior transport campaigner, Friends of the Earth
The Guardian reports that London's Heathrow Airport and Manchester's airport both face serious opposition in their expansion plans. The organized campaigners against the airports' expansions argue the expansions will bring too much noise and that Britain needs a national aviation strategy.
The article reports that the Heathrow expansion plans are to build a fifth terminal in order to handle the increase of passengers from 54 million this year to an expected 80 million by 2013. The expansion will cost about 1.6 billion pounds. The British Airports Authority, which owns Heathrow, say that residents will not be affected by increased noise from the terminal because jet engines are getting quieter and there will be better noise monitoring. However, opponents believe that the flight increase has been massively underestimated and that a million people living in a corridor from Greenwich to Henley will suffer "unacceptable" noise. The public inquiry into the Heathrow expansion is in its second year and has so far cost 60 million pounds. The inquiry will soon become the longest in British history, and is not expected to end until late next year, the article says. If approved, construction could begin in 2000, with a projected opening in 2004.
The article reports that within the next few months, Heathrow's public inquiry will address the most contentious issue -- noise. The inspector of the inquiry, Roy Vandemeer QC, has said he plans to stay in a house near the airport to find out how noisy the airport really is.
The article goes on to say that there is a formidable opposition to Heathrow's expansion plans -- the group Hacan, purported to be the world's largest anti-noise group with 8,000 voluntary members and a budget of 30,000 pounds. In addition, the 12 local authorities surrounding Heathrow are opposed to the expansion, and are funding the case against the terminal at the inquiry. Five thousand people have indicated they want to give evidence in the inquiry, and only 300 have appeared so far. Although many people will waive their right, the article says, the inquiry and its aftermath will last till well beyond 2000.
The article also reports that both sides in the battle have launched PR offensives, believes that the inquiry is reaching a critical time. Hacan members wrote John Prescott, head of the new superministry of transport and environment, reminding him that he once called Conservative aviation policy "absurd" and asking him to work for a nationally co-ordinated strategy, the article says. At the same time, the British Airports Authority (BAA) released a Gallup poll that showed local people are twice as likely to support the new terminal as to oppose it. BAA chair Sir John Egan also sent a letter to 500,000 residents closest to the airport, saying that he would guarantee a freeze in the number of night flights in an attempt to speed up the inquiry, the article reports. Dermot Cox, chair of Hacan, said BAA's poll had misleading questions, and that the offer of a freeze on night flights was "blackmail" because British Airways has said that if a fifth terminal is not built, they would have to increase night flights. "It is not an offer, it is a threat," Cox said. Hacan maintains that BAA has consistently misled the public inquiry. For example, Hacan members say that BAA projected there would be 420,000 flights a year with the fifth terminal, but there were already 423,000 flights a year in 1996.
Meanwhile, the protest surrounding Manchester Airport's expansion has entered the direct action phase because the project has already gained approval, the article reports. The Manchester Airport plans to build a second runway in order to handle an increase in passenger numbers from 14.9 million this year to an expected 30 million by 2005. The project will cost 200 million pounds, and will destroy 1,000 acres of greenbelt, 22 buildings including five 17th century buildings, and ancient woodland. Increased noise will affect 60,000 residents in Stockport, Cheadle, and the Knutsford area. The article reports that construction will begin shortly, with an opening planned for 2001.
The article goes on to say that the Manchester Airport announced its expansion plans in 1991, and local environmental groups immediately started to campaign against it. However, during the 101-day inquiry in 1994, opponents did not prevail, and Geoff Gazzard, of the Coalition Against Runway Two, said the inspection "rubber stamped" the proposals. Most of the coalition's 100 members were introduced to direct action through road protests, the article says. Now, many of the activists are locking themselves in tunnels and waiting to be physically dragged out as a means of protest. The article goes on to say that the coalition has raised only a few thousand pounds in their fight. The article adds that the Manchester city council owns about 55% of the airport, but residents outside the Manchester city limits will experience the largest increase of noise.
Finally, the article says, Roger Higman, a senior transport campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "Globally, air travel is rising much much faster than road transport. It's difficult to see what will stop it rising until we change people's behaviour."
PUBLICATION: Business Wire
DATE: May 13, 1997
DATELINE: San Francisco, California
Business Wire reports in an industry press release that the Air Transport Association (ATA) today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco which challenges a local ordinance that would force U.S. airlines to offer employment benefits to the "domestic partners" of employees. ATA claims that airlines can only be governed by federal laws, not local laws. (Ed: This issue is relevant to airport noise issues because the airline industry uses the same arguments with respect to local noise ordinances as with San Francisco's domestic partner ordinance.)
According to the article the San Francisco ordinance requires companies holding contracts with the city to offer the same benefits to unmarried registered domestic partners that are offered to the spouses of married employees. The San Francisco International Airport is owned by the city, so every airline doing business at the airport holds contracts with the City of San Francisco. The city ordinance is set to take effect June 1, 1997.
The article reports that for 60 years, the airline industry has operated under federal laws only, under the theory that state and local laws could interfere with rates, routes, services, labor relations, and employee benefits. Carol Hallett, ATA president and CEO, said, "Airlines have always been governed by federal, not local, laws because it would be impossible to operate in hundreds of communities with different and possibly contradictory, local ordinances. A national transportation system requires one regulatory master, and that is the federal government." Hallett went on to say that, "The San Francisco ordinance would undo important federal laws that specifically prohibit local governments from mandating employee benefits to national companies. With this lawsuit, we are simply seeking to preserve the rights that allow U.S. airlines to operate the world's safest and most efficient national transportation system." Hallett added that the suit has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but with a city mandating airlines' employee benefits. The ATA, which has a long history of opposing local and state laws, is the nation's oldest and largest airline trade organization, with 22 U.S. and 3 international technical members.
According to the article, the lawsuit was filed against the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and the San Francisco Airports Commission. It seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance on association members.
The article reports that the ATA lawsuit is based on the following federal laws:
The Airline Deregulation Act. This law broadly preempts state and local laws that seek to regulate fundamental business decisions of airlines. Within the last five years, the U.S. Supreme Court, citing this law in two different cases, upheld federal jurisdiction over the air transport industry by preempting state laws (Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 1992, and American Airlines v. Wolens, 1995).
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). This became federal law in 1974 to regulate employee pension plans. It specifically preempts all state and local laws which "relate to" an employee benefit plan or even reference such plans. The San Francisco domestic partners benefits ordinance violates the ERISA law because it specifically addresses requirements of an employer's benefit plans for its employees.
The Railway Labor Act. This was enacted in 1926 to set common workplace standards for all employees of interstate transportation carriers, maintain labor stability among carriers, promote collective bargaining on pay and benefit issues and avoid any disruption of interstate commerce that would result from inconsistent labor laws in different states and communities. The law recognizes the unique nature of the airline industry and preempts local ordinances like the San Francisco domestic partners benefits law.
PREEMPTION CASES
According to the article, the airline industry has a long history of challenging local laws that attempt to intrude upon areas controlled by federal law. The article reports that even before the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (see above), airlines frequently challenged local laws on preemption grounds. The article lists several examples, given below, of cases that aircraft operations, noise emissions, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, and the Airline Deregulation Act.
Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst (1955). On a challenge brought by Allegheny Airlines, Cedarhurst's local ordinance establishing a minimum height for airplane operations that conflicted with the minimum standard established by the Federal Aviation Administration was ruled to be preempted.
Air Transport Association v. Crotti (1975). The Air Transport Association sued for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding the application of state noise standards to aircraft operations. The court determined that federal law preempted application of the state noise standards.
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines (1983). Delta and other airlines challenged the validity New York's Human Rights law and disability benefits law under ERISA. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that, in part, the laws in questions were preempted by ERISA.
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1992). Trans World Airlines challenged the application of Texas state laws covering deceptive airline fare advertising on the grounds they were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. The Supreme Court agreed with TWA's contention.
American Airlines v. Wolens (1995). In American Airlines v. Wolens, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the breadth of the law's preemption and held that a group of participants in American Airlines' frequent flyer program could not challenge the airline's retroactive changes to its program under the Illinois state consumer fraud regulations.
THE SAN FRANCISCO LAWSUIT
SAN FRANCISCO'S ORDINANCE
The article reports that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the Nondiscrimination in Contracts Ordinance, commonly known as the domestic partners benefits ordinance, on November 4, 1996, and the ordinance was signed into law four days later by the mayor. The ordinance prohibits a city agency or department from entering into a contract with any business or individual that does not offer employment benefits -- such as health care coverage, life insurance, employee discounts -- to individuals who register with the city or state as domestic partners if these benefits are offered to the spouses of employees, the article says. "Domestic partner" is defined as "any person who has registered a domestic partnership with a governmental body pursuant to state or local law authorizing such registration." The ordinance also requires city contractors and lessees to produce a statement affirming that the same employment benefits being offered to married couples are offered to domestic partners. The ordinance applies to all contracts, permits, and agreements that originate or which are enacted after June 1, 1997, the article reports.
THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION'S POSITION
According to the article, the ATA's case is based on the argument that federal laws seek to ensure even, fair, and consistent interstate commerce, and local ordinances applied to airlines are preempted by federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The ATA claims that because airlines operate nationally and internationally, the federal government must regulate the industry to protect it from conflicting state and local laws and regulations. The ATA says issues relating to rates, routes, and services offered by air carriers, and matters covering labor relations and employee benefits are specifically exempted from state and local regulation by several federal laws, the article reports. The ATA claims that if airlines were required to adhere to a variety of state and local laws and regulations, their ability to operate efficiently would be severely impaired and would negatively impact the U.S. economy. The ATA cites the The Airline Deregulation Act, The Railway Labor Act, and The Employee Retirement Income Security Act to support their preemption argument.
In addition, the article says that the ATA argues the San Francisco domestic partners benefits ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution for the following reasons:
Impermissible Extraterritoritality. The Constitution recognizes the sovereignty of individual states and the obligation of states and cities and counties to not interfere with the sovereignty of other states. San Francisco lacks the authority to impose nationwide domestic partners benefits requirements on employers outside of California.
Commerce Clause. This clause of the Constitution grants the federal government the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce and prohibits states and localities from imposing unfair burdens on or creating impediments to interstate commerce. The San Francisco ordinance violates this clause because it attempts to regulate interstate air carriers and imposes regulations on their nationwide operations.
The lawsuit also claims that the domestic partners benefits ordinance is beyond the authority of the City and County of San Francisco because the city, under state law, has jurisdiction over municipal affairs, not statewide affairs, and the airport is not strictly a municipal organization. Regulating the employee benefits of private employers with headquarters outside the City and County of San Francisco is beyond the city's jurisdiction, the ATA claims.
The ATA also cites a federal court case from 1989 (Air Cal Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco) in which the Board of Supervisors and the city were found to lack power to impose a prevailing wage ordinance at the airport under the city charter, the article reports. The court ruled that only the Airport Commission could impose such action. The ATA believes similar charter limitations bar airlines from complying with the the domestic partners benefits ordinance because the Airport Commission has jurisdiction.
ABOUT THE AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION
The article goes on to give information about the Air Transport Association (ATA). ATA has its headquarters in Washington, D.C., with regional offices in New York and Los Angeles. It was founded in 1936 by a group of 14 airlines, and it is the primary trade association for the principal U.S. airlines, the article says. The ATA has played a role in all the major government decisions regarding aviation since its founding, the article reports, including the enactment of the Federal Aviation Act, the creation of the Civil Aeronautics Board, development of the air traffic control system, and airline deregulation. ATA's purpose is to support and assist its member carriers by promoting the air transport industry and the safety, cost effectiveness, and technological advancement of its operations; advocating common industry positions before federal, state and local government; and assuring governmental and public understanding of all aspects of air transportation.
The article goes on to say that ATA member air carriers carry over 95% of all the passenger and cargo traffic in the United States. The organization has 22 U.S. airline members and 3 foreign flag carrier technical members. ATA members include: Alaska Airlines, Aloha Airlines, American Airlines, American Trans Air, America West Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, DHL Airways, Emery Worldwide, Evergreen International Airlines, FedEx, Hawaiian Airlines, Kiwi International Airlines, Midwest Express Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Polar Air Cargo, Reeve Aleutian Airways, Southwest Airlines, Trans World Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, and USAirways. Technical members include: Air Canada, Canadian Airlines International, and KLM-Royal Dutch Airlines.
The president and CEO of ATA is Carol Hallett, the press release says. Hallett has served as U.S. Customs Service Commissioner, U.S. Ambassador to the Bahamas, and Director of the U.S. Interior Department's Western Region. She also has served as Assembly Minority Leader for the California State Assembly and, in 1982, was the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor.
For more information about the ATA's lawsuit concerning San Francisco's domestic partners benefits ordinance, contact: David Fuscus, Managing Director, Communications, Air Transport Association 415-512-6800.
The ATA's Internet site is: http://www.air-transport.org
The ATA's address is: 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004-1707; 202-626-4000
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Greater Middletown; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Stacy Wong
DATELINE: Cromwell, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Steven Donen, president of the condominium association
The Hartford Courant reports that the Board of Selectmen in Cromwell, Connecticut Wednesday night approved a revised noise ordinance that forbids noise in excess of 45 decibels.
According to the article, the board's action pleased the residents of Skyview Condominiums, who had complained about noise. The ordinance is not expected immediately to solve the problem with the low-frequency bass notes from a club in the Cromwell Square Shopping Center, the article reports, because the music is probably below accepted volume levels. However, residents have still complained of rattling walls and vibration resulting from the music.
The article goes on to say that the ordinance was passed unanimously by the selectmen. Selectman Richard Newton said, "One of the reasons I like this ordinance is because it is progressive. It's scientific. It's not what's tolerable to you, or what's tolerable to me. It's objective." Steven Donen, president of the condominium association, said there was still a ways to go in defining the ordinance, but the association was pleased the selectmen were sensitive to it.
The article reports that Police Chief Anthony Salvatore says noise meters will be purchased by the town, but the police department will contact the state Department of Environmental Protection for assistance first.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 8; Editorial Writers Desk
DATELINE: Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Senator John McCain, R-Arizona
The Los Angeles Times reports that finally, after ten years of pressure by Congress and most recently by President Clinton, noise regulations have gone into effect to reduce noise from aircraft over the Grand Canyon. The Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service had been dragging their feet for years, as the 95,000 air tours which fly 800,000 people over the park continued to increase: in some areas causing noise disturbance every two minutes.
The Times reports that Clinton issued an executive order to push agencies to act to reduce aircraft noise by December, but the regulations are largely ineffective and noise is still a growing problem in the 27 parks in the region.
The article concluded by noting that Senator John McCain has proposed the National Parks Overflight Act, which would make the secretary of the Interior Department responsible for noise reduction in the parks, and should shift the emphasis towards protecting solitude for the larger numbers of tourists on the ground. The bill should soon have a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee.
PUBLICATION: The Times Union
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Capital Region, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Michael Gormley
DATELINE: Albany, NY
The Times Union reports the Albany (New York) County Airport plans to buy 9 more homes north of the airport, according to airport Chief Executive Officer John Egan. More than 30 houses have already been bought in the past by either the airport authority or Albany County, which used to own and operate the airport. The 9 homes on Kelly Road, if purchased, are planned to be demolished or converted into commercial buildings, garages, or warehouses.
According to the article, further study, negotiations with homeowners, and approval of a federal transportation grant application will all determine which houses will be bought and at what cost. The funds are planned to be used within the airport's noise abatement program. If a house is 30 or 40 years old and is in a noise-abatement area, the airport can purchase the house or in less pressing cases pay the homeowner for insulation.
The airport authority will be receiving $4 million of a $19.3 million grant from Congress for other purposes, the article reports. The grant is aimed at improving 11 airports in New York, and Albany plans to use the funds for passenger bridges, terminal expansion, and replacing the asphalt apron surrounding runways.
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A7
BYLINE: Mike Funston
DATELINE: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lawrence Mitoff, chair, Council of Concerned Residents
The Toronto Star reports that the Council of Concerned Residents, a citizens group that filed a court action against the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and the federal government over airport noise and a runway expansion at Pearson Airport, has asked the Mississauga Council to give the group one square inch of public land in a move to strengthen their case.
According to the article, the citizens group's chair, Lawrence Mitoff, explained the group's request to the Mississauga Council, saying, "lawyers representing the airport desperately want this case dropped. They're arguing that because our group owns no property, it can't sustain any losses from airport operations, and hence we have no right to sue. Unfortunately, our lawyers are concerned this argument may prevail. This council can either make a meaningful gesture by donating one square inch of land to us, or concede that the airport authority will from now on dictate the sleeping hours, health and property values of our residents."
The article goes on to say that Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said the city needed legal advice on the implications of fulfilling the group's request before it could answer. The request was referred to the city solicitor's department.
The article reports that the lawsuit brought by the residents group was filed in Ontario Court, general division, six months ago. A series of procedural hearings are being held to determine whether the case can go to trial. The lawsuit claims that when the airport's new north-south runway opens, scheduled for November, planes will fly just a few hundred meters over houses in the Rockwood subdivision, and will cause intolerable noise and lower property values.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: May 15, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: John Canalis and Mimi Ko Cruz
DATELINE: Costa Mesa, CA
The Los Angeles Times reports that on May 5, Costa Mesa (California) officials passed an ordinance that bans the use of horns -- and other attention-getting devices -- from being used by truck vendors for non-driving purposes. The city wants to quiet neighborhoods where residents have complained about noise from truck vendors selling ice cream, produce, and other products. City officials say that some trucks drive by the same area every ten minutes.
The article reports that although state laws don't allow a ban on the vending trucks themselves, the new ordinance has drawn on portions of other ordinances that have already withstood legal challenges. It appears compatible with state law, and so jurisdiction conflicts -- such as the required insurance policies in a Santa Ana ordinance that were overrided by existing state law -- shouldn't arise.
The article reports that the ordinance will include distance restrictions, which say that truck vendors must stay 500 feet from schools and parks, 300 feet from other vendors, and 100 feet from intersections. Areas with speed limits over 35 mph are off limits. Trucks must move on after 10 minutes in one place, except for at construction sites where they may remain for 30 minutes. Vendors may only operate between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Some call the new regulations racist against Latino vendors who are merely trying to stay off of welfare, but residents deny those allegations. Some feel the vending trucks are dangerous because children are excited by the horns.
The article also reports that other aspects of the ordinance include requirements for a city business license, county health sticker, operator's permit, and trash receptacles.
Previous week: May 4, 1997
Next week: May 18, 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