PUBLICATION: The Daily Mail
DATE: February 25, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 26
DATELINE: London, England
The Daily Mail reports that noisy lawnmowers could soon be outlawed under a crackdown being considered by the EU. Garden machinery would have to be sold with a label showing how loud it is under plans being considered by the European Commission.
According to the article, the Commission has adopted proposals by MEPs to streamline rules on mowers, chainsaws and other outdoor machines such as concrete mixers and cranes. Current noise limits may be reduced because the Commission believes new technology should be able to produce quieter machines. Lawnmowers are already covered by EU law, but a report says: 'The lawnmower market will be carefully observed in the future and solutions are looked for to reduce the limits.' A spokesman said: 'The European Commission is not going to try to stop people in Britain from cutting their lawns on Sunday. This is merely a strengthening and streamlining of existing legislation.'
PUBLICATION: The Herald
DATE: February 25, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 3
BYLINE: Rory Watson
DATELINE: Glasgow, Scotland
The Herald reports that the European Commission is currently creating new noise limits for outdoor equipment and other incentives for noise reduction in the European Union
The report explains that draft legislation from the European Commission tabled in Brussels yesterday follows research from the World Health Organisation which shows people exposed to environmental noise can suffer sleeplessness, hearing difficuulties and even heart disease. While noise from cars and lorries has been reduced by over 80% during the past 20 years, decibel levels from other forms of machinery continue to grow as the equipment becomes more powerful. At a distance of seven metres, a chainsaw cutting wood is noisier than a heavy lorry accelerating.
According to the article, the EC wants to introduce noise limits for the first time on some outdoor equipment such as mobile cranes and dumper trucks, and will lower existing levels for compressors, power generators and hand-held concrete breakers. Noise limits laid down 14 years ago for lawnmowers and lawn trimmers will remain unchanged, but the Commission said it would examine whether levels could be reduced even further without discriminating between electric and petrol-driven models.
The report says in addition to proposing new limits for 14 major items of machinery, the measures would require a vast range of gardening and DIY equipment such as leaf blowers, hedge trimmers and chainsaws, to indicate the amount of noise they produce. "We are not sending out green police to prevent you from buying something. But we want people to know how many decibels they are purchasing when they are buying a hedge trimmer, for instance," said one EU official. Supporters of the move believe the need to mark decibel levels on equipment will raise public awareness and create a greater demand for less noisy products.
The article says although manufacturers fear the costs involved for industry in meeting the new targets, which must still be agreed by EU governments and the European parliament, the Commission believes the price of protecting people's eardrums is reasonable. It estimates that meeting the new standards should amount to only 2% of the total cost of equipment. The Commission has not made any attempt to legislate on the times of day that the outdoor equipment can be used. But it has said individual governments could possibly apply their own restrictions.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Star
DATE: February 25, 1998
SECTION: Local/Regional; Pg. 1B, 3B
BYLINE: Diana D'abruzzo
DATELINE: Wilmington, North Carolina
The Morning Star reports that officials in Long Beach, North Carolina have enacted a noisy cat ordinance.
According to the article, barking, howling dogs are a mainstay in Long Beach, where folks complain of canine commotion at town meetings and plead with officials to enforce noise restrictions. But a meowing, purring cat creating too much noise? Town residents say it's ridiculous. "I'm not aware of a cat noise problem," said Mayor Joan Altman, who admitted to snickering after seeing the proposal, drawn up by the town manager and planner. "I know problems can result from cat fights, but as far as cats in people's houses meowing too loud, I don't think that's what they mean." The anti- noise rule is just one of many affecting cats in the proposed animal control ordinance presented at the Town Council meeting last week. Proposed rules include making it unlawful for cats to "create unnecessary noise" and leave the owner's property without a leash.
The article reports that Daphine Prince said she has never heard a peep out of her neighbor's two outdoor cats. It just doesn't make sense to regulate cat noise when rules against dogs barking are barely enforced, she said. The town's animal control rules now pertain only to dogs. A proposed new section practically mirrors the dog rules, seeming to substitute the word "cat" for "dog." The copy-cat sections could explain why issues such as noise and leashes made it into the proposed cat rules. "It's obvious the cat portion was added in an effort to be fair to all pet owners," Ms. Altman said.
The report says Bob Miller, owner of two 4-month-old kittens, said he's never been bothered by cat noise and thinks the leash law will never fly. "Cats and dogs are a different breed, and you're never going to get a leash on the average cat," said Mr. Miller, who also owns a dog. "And I don't think cat noises are anywhere comparable to dog barking."
The article says though it seems silly to pet owners, noise restrictions and other rules for cats are being proposed to combat the large population of wild animals on the island, officials said. "I'm sure animal control wants to distinguish between wild cats and cats that are pets," Ms. Altman said. "There are a lot of irresponsible people who dump unwanted pets on the island, where they then have to fend for themselves. The cats usually get hit by a car or become wild."
The article explains that noise can be a problem when wild cats fight or mate, said Tony Rivera, animal control officer. But in the four months he's been on the job, he's never heard complaints from residents about noise. Ms. Prince said she often picks up stray cats, takes them to the veterinarian to be fixed and given rabies shots and then frees them back into the wild. A leash law would counteract those efforts, she said.
PUBLICATION: The Xinhua News Agency
DATE: February 25, 1998
DATELINE: Beijing, China
The Xinhua News Agency reports that Beijing is enjoying greater quiet since the adoption of noise pollution standards in 1984.
Some Beijingers (57.37 percent of the capital city's total) are enjoying an environment in which noise pollution is being controlled within national standards. The figure is closer to the 60 percent target set by the state for a city to reduce noises. Beijing initiated a program to establish noise control zones in 1984. Over the past 14 years, the city has adopted a series of related measures to reduce noise pollution in its urban areas, including regular monitoring of noise sources and relocation of plants producing high decibel levels. According to the report, 125 plants had adopted appropriate noise abatement measures by the end of 1996, including 99 that relocated to other areas. Noise abatement programs were also introduced by some 5,000 sources of noise pollution.
PUBLICATION: The Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 25, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 3; Zone: Nw; Northwest Schools.
BYLINE: Theresa Tracy
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that soundproofing is underway at Chicago area schools to protect schools from airport noise, but the price is high.
The article says the school board Monday approved bids to begin work at Jay School in Arlington Heights and Friendship Junior High in Des Plaines this summer. Bid documents for Low School in Arlington Heights will go out next month. District 59 stalled plans to soundproof the schools last fall after the City of Chicago's Department of Aviation cut a grant. The grant was cut because a test indicated that noise levels could be controlled by closing school windows and adding air conditioning. The final cost to soundproof and renovate three District 59 schools is tagged at about $9.3 million, and work is expected to be completed by July 1999
According to the article, under the final arrangement, Chicago will pay about $5 million and District 59 about $4.3 million of the total cost. Soundproofing Jay requires installing a new roof, exterior doors, a heating, ventilation and air conditioning unit and an updated electrical system at a cost of $1,017,030. The project will be funded through Aviation's School Sound and Insulation Program aimed at reducing noise levels in schools located near O'Hare International Airport. Additional work to replace the existing gymnasium roof and all exterior doors that don't qualify for funding, remove and replace unit ventilators with shelving, install new ceiling panels and an air unit in the teacher's lounge will cost the district $204,602. Friendship will also get a new air system, along with fire protection sprinklers, new ductwork, ceilings and lighting. The Friendship project will cost $403,000. Aviation's portion is $173,300. District 59 will pay $229,700. Renovations and soundproofing at Low are expected to cost about $7,738,516. Aviation's share, which covers air conditioning and ventilation for teaching rooms only, a new roof to cover the existing roof, ductwork, mechanical systems, electrical systems, some plumbing and masonry would be $3,836,654. DISTRICT 59.
PUBLICATION: Kyodo News Service
DATE: February 24, 1998
SECTION: Part 3 Asia-Pacific; Japan; Other Foreign Relations; Fe/D3159/E
DATELINE: Tokyo, Japan
Kyodo News Service reports that a group of 648 residents in Kanagawa Prefecture joined another group in a lawsuit over aircraft noise at the US Atsugi Naval Air Station, appealing to the Yokohama District Court for 510m yen in damages from the Japanese government.
The article describes how the group joined other residents living near the base in the third suit of its kind. On December 8, 2,823 residents in the prefecture filed suit with the local court, demanding 2.25bn yen from the government for damages from noise at the facility. They also demanded a monthly fee of 23,000 yen per plaintiff in future compensation until the noise falls to an acceptable level. The additional appeal brought the number of plaintiffs seeking damages for aircraft noise to 3,471, significantly outnumbering the 71 in the first lawsuit and the 156 in the second, with the compensation demanded totaling 2.76bn yen.
The article says plaintiffs claim that noise disturbance has not been eased since a January 1996 ruling by the Tokyo High Court that noise caused by the US navy's take-off and landing drills and by Japan's Maritime Self-Defence Force (MSDF), which also uses the base, had reached an illegal level. Aiming for an early conclusion, the latest lawsuit does not include a request that the government ban flights at the base during night and early morning hours, in contrast to the first two suits.
The plaintiffs said they will continue enlisting others around the base to join them, and hope to file an additional suit in April. The first suit against the base was concluded in January 1996 after the government withdrew its appeal of a Tokyo High Court ruling in December 1995, in which the state was ordered to pay 69 of 71 plaintiffs a total of 106m yen in compensation. That ruling rejected a demand for a ban on flights. The second suit is still being tried at the Tokyo High Court.
PUBLICATION: The Daily Mail
DATE: February 24, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 27
BYLINE: Andrew Sparrow
DATELINE: London, England
The Daily Mail reports that the British government is planning to create a specific offence outlawing "excessive" noise from in-car radios and tape and CD players.
According to the report, offenders could face hefty fines under the proposals being drawn up by John Prescott's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. "Excessive noise from vehicle stereo systems is a small, but growing problem causing unnecessary and annoying noise nuisance," Transport Minister Baroness Hayman said in a recent statement in the Lords. Drivers who play music at ear-splitting volume can already be prosecuted in some circumstances, but current laws make it difficult to catch them. Environmental health officers can take action under the Environmental Protection Act, but this applies only to parked cars. Only a handful of drivers have been successfully taken to court.
According to the report, a spokesman for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions said the new rules, likely to be introduced by the end of the year, would apply to moving cars as well as stationary ones. Offenders will be fined, and the fines are expected to be as high as those currently imposed on those who create a din in stationary cars. Last year, 11 drivers were fined a total of almost $4,000 after they played dance music on their car stereos into the early hours of the morning on the seafront in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset. Some of the cars had up to eight speakers and two amplifiers, and the worst offender was ordered to pay $2,000. "Noise from car stereos does cause offence," said a spokesman. "Other motorists usually cannot hear the noise, but it does cause a problem for residents. Usually it is people coming back from clubs at two or three in the morning, and sometimes the noise is horrendous. You can hear them from miles away."
PUBLICATION: The 1998 Rapid
DATE: February 24, 1998
SECTION: Press Release; Ip: 98/177
The 1998 Rapid issued the following press release concerning regulation of noise pollution in the European Community:
The European Commission has adopted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council of Ministers Directive on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission by equipment used outdoors, such as construction machines (cranes, excavators, compressors etc.) and garden machinery (lawnmowers etc.). The directive will update and replace nine (9) current directives covering separate groups of machines, thereby streamlining legislation in this field. The aim is to protect the health and well-being of citizens by reducing noise exposure and noise nuisance caused by outdoor machinery. An essential element of the proposal is to require that machines are marked with their noise emission level, thereby enabling buyers to make an informed choice.
The Commission's proposal for a directive on the noise emissions by equipment used outdoors covers 55 types of equipment which are normally used in the open air, such as construction machines (compressors, hammers, tower cranes, mobile cranes, excavators, and loaders), garden machinery (lawnmowers, chain saws, leaf blowers, and shredder/chippers) and working equipment on municipal vehicles (for example domestic refuse collection vehicles). In order to give information to buyers etc., all equipment is to be marked with its guaranteed maximum noise level.
Limits for the emission of noise are laid down for nineteen (19) types of equipment that are extremely noisy or annoying. Machines such as dumpers, graders and mobile cranes are subject to noise limits for the first time while existing limits have been tightened by 3 to 6 decibels for machinery such as compressors, tower cranes and hand-held concrete-breakers. Two phases are proposed for the noise limits: the first concerns the elimination of the noisiest equipment, and the second phase takes account of advances in technology. This second phase, in four years time, coincides with the entry into force of the directive on gaseous and particulate pollutants from non road mobile machinery Adopted by the Council on 16 December 1997, not yet published in the Official Journal, which covers many of the same types of equipment. Manufacturers can therefore take both tighter air pollution and noise emission requirements into account during the design phase. Setting and tightening of limits is a process that will continue in future, based on the experience gained from the planned collection of noise emission data.
The proposal also defines noise test codes, as the noise limit values are essentially dependent on the way noise emissions are measured.
The Commission's intention to bring forward the proposal was announced in the Green Paper "Future Noise Policy see COM(96)540 and IP/96/981 of 5 November 1996". As also mentioned in the Green Paper, the Commission is intending to broaden the range of instruments concerning noise. Legislation relating to the European harmonisation of product standards will be supplemented by measures concerning ambient noise exposure. The main aim will be to ensure information to the public and the responsible authorities on ambient noise exposure and ways to control it. An essential condition is that methods and procedures concerning noise measurement etc. are harmonised at the European level. The Commission will present this initiative at a conference to be held in Copenhagen on 4/5 May 1998.
PUBLICATION: M2 Presswire
DATE: February 23, 1998
DATELINE: Sheffield, United Kingdom
M2 Presswire issued the following press release concerning new regulations for offshore noise:
The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) today issued a reminder that new regulations dealing with hazards from electricity and noise offshore come into force on 21 February 1998. Both the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (EAWR) and the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 (NAWR) have been amended to apply offshore as well as onshore. The amending regulations, announced last August, are the Offshore Electricity and Noise Regulations 1997.
The new regulations result from the Health & Safety Commission's (HSC's) review of offshore health and safety law following Lord Cullen's report into the Piper Alpha disaster. They take forward HSC's policy of promoting the maximum convergence between the on- and offshore health and safety regimes and replace earlier provisions dealing with electricity and noise offshore. HSC proposed the regulations after full consultation with offshore employers' associations, trades unions and other interested bodies. There was widespread support for the principle of applying both sets of regulations offshore.
The EAWR place duties on employers and self-employed persons to prevent risk of injury from electrical equipment and systems, including requirements for the safe construction, operation and maintenance of systems and equipment. The NAWR are concerned with the protection of workers' hearing from exposure to noise at work and focus on measures to reduce noise at source and to ensure effective personal protection programmes.
Notes to Editors 1. Responsibility for offshore health and safety legislation was formally transferred to HSC and HSE under the Offshore Safety Act 1992. In August 1992, HSC announced plans for the review and reform of existing offshore law. The main elements of these plans were new, offshore-specific, goal-setting regulations where necessary; maximum convergence of the on- and offshore regimes by applying new general regulations offshore wherever appropriate; and considering the application offshore of existing onshore regulations. The Offshore Electricity and Noise Regulations 1997 complete the task of applying appropriate onshore regulations offshore. 2. HSC published proposals to extend EAWR and NAWR offshore in January 1996. The amendments apply them to offshore installations, wells, pipelines and pipeline works, and to certain connected activities within the territorial waters of Great Britain or in designated areas of the UK Continental Shelf. No other changes are made to either EAWR or NAWR.
Copies of The Offshore Electricity and Noise Regulations 1997 (S. I. 1997 No. 1993) are available from The Stationery Office, ISBN 0 11 064828 5, price GBP 1.10.
PUBLIC ENQUIRIES: write to: HSE Information Centre, Broad Lane, Sheffield S3 7HQ.
PUBLICATION: The Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 22, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Editorial Writers Desk
BYLINE: Karen Byers; K. Pennington; C. Downs; Ronald O. Davies.
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Karen Byers; K. Pennington; C. Downs; Ronald O. Davies.
The Los Angeles Times published the following letters to the editor concerning the El Toro Airport proposal in California:
I realize that The Times wants to present a "balanced" report about the fight over the proposed international airport at El Toro. However, your Feb. 8 article, "Truth Crash-Lands in El Toro Airport Fliers," borders on the absurd. The facts stated as "misinformation" were divided as six claims by the airport proponents and three by the opponents. While the claims supporting the airport dealt with serious fabrications, the one by Project 99 is but a small item that is in no way comparable to the misinformation spread by airport proponents.
Remember, both major pilots' associations expressed their concerns about the safety of easterly takeoffs. Similarly, it was academic research that demonstrated how airport noise affects the learning ability and the thought process of children. Furthermore, while the "mailers" by the pro-airport groups have the wealth of Newport Beach behind them, Project 99, for example, issues newsletters that are closer to pamphlets than to "slick mailers," and is supported by volunteers and by $25 and $50 contributions from concerned citizens.
For the county to claim that an airport can coexist with parks, colleges and recreation facilities is offensive to any reasonable mind. After all, the political leaders of Newport Beach have been claiming, according to The Times report from Oct. 21, 1990, that "the noise from John Wayne Airport lowered property values and mars the peace of the community." This was not balanced journalism; you wrote a tabloid-style "he-said-she-said" rather than determining the validity of the two perspectives.
KAREN BYERS
Irvine
The recent pro-airport mailers are littered with evidence of misinformation. First, the assertion that John Wayne is too small to meet future demand clearly ignores the fact that this facility could nearly double the number of passengers it handles without any expansion. Why would someone spend so much money to convince us to turn our backs on an asset that could be used to its full capacity, other than to benefit from its closure themselves?
Second, the bold statement that an airport would provide more than 140,000 good-paying jobs may be true, but the county's own planning says that the non-aviation options would actually produce more jobs and, in my opinion, better-quality jobs.
None will benefit more from an airport at El Toro than those willing to invest this kind of money to influence our decision.
K. PENNINGTON
Santa Ana
They don't want an airport close to them because they believe the resultant noise will adversely impact them. Admitting there is and will continue to be an increasing need for more local flights, South County people have a self-serving solution. What audacity to expect Newport Beach residents to endure twice the air and traffic pollution they are already experiencing so that South County will have none.
C. DOWNS
Newport Beach
Democracies have been called "a tyranny of the majority," and those votes by North County are perfect examples of why a majority vote does not necessarily make a just outcome. Fewer than 200 years ago, the majority of Americans were in favor of slavery.
Converting the Marine Corps base into an unnecessary international airport and depriving the local residents of life (pollution), liberty (loss of property value, increased crime) and the pursuit of happiness (noise, congestion, traffic) flies in the face of justice and fairness. "The greatest good for the greatest number" was a slogan from the Evil Empire of Russia. It sounds very similar to the new mantra of Newport Beach residents. Of course, based upon their outrageous propaganda fliers, maybe they are saying, "Let them eat cake."
RONALD O. DAVIES
Laguna Hills
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot
DATE: February 22, 1998
SECTION: Chesapeake Clipper, Pg. 04
BYLINE: Lewis Krauskopf
DATELINE: Norfolk, Virginia
The Virginian-Pilot reports that the U.S. Navy is planning to relocate their jet team, The Hornets, to the Chesapeake Bay area from Jacksonville, Florida. Bay residents are concerned about the noise from the jets.
The article says that Chesapeake will face many changes if the Navy's planned relocation of 180 Hornets to Oceana Naval Air Station goes through. The project may result in about 1,100 new residents, and 250 new students. A more than 50 percent increase in operations at Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field. Fred E. Pierson, community planning liaison officer for Oceana, is preparing estimates on the impact the F/A-18s would have on Chesapeake.
According to the report, all four of the Navy's plans to relocate the Hornets from Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Fla., would bring at least 120 of the jets to Oceana. The main concern on people's minds Wednesday: noise. The runway at Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field - which is used for field carrier landing practice - will see more operations, Pierson said. While overall operations will roughly double, to 400,000 annually, operations at Fentress will increase from 104,000 to 158,000 per year.
The article says Brian Whitesell, president of the Chesapeake Council of Civic Organizations, said he has heard residents complain about noise problems primarily after 11 p.m. Whitesell, a resident of Etheridge Woods, near Fentress, wondered whether flights could be spread more evenly throughout the day. The problems come before a carrier deploys, and the pilots have to practice more, Pierson said. Sometimes that will lead to flights as late as 4 a.m., he said. "It's going to be noisy sometimes," Pierson said. At the October public hearings, residents said the jets flew so low they could see the pilot's facial expressions. One problem, Pierson said Wednesday, is that pilots have been starting their turns immediately after leaving the runway. They've been instructed to start their turns at higher altitudes, Pierson said. Wednesday's presentation was one of many Pierson has made in the wake of the Navy's announcement; he said he's met with about 90 civic leagues, service clubs and real-estate organizations in the past six months. Civic leaders will be invited to an as yet unscheduled meeting in the Fentress area to discuss the expansion, Pierson said. The Navy is scheduled to decide on the relocation by the end of April or early May.
PUBLICATION: The New York Post
DATE: February 28, 1998
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 012
DATELINE: New York, New York
The New York Post printed an editorial regarding the noise problem in New York City and progress on Mayor Giuliani's effort to target noise pollution as part of his quality-of-life initiative. The editorial argues that the mayor is right to target noise pollution, that the program has made considerable strides, and that a new initiative is giving car-alarm owners a way to quiet their car alarms before their car is towed.
According to the editorial, people in New York City are wired for sound with radio headphones or Walkmen in order to wall themselves off from the incredible amount of noise in the city coming from car horns and alarms, "boom box" cars, police, fire and ambulance sirens, noisy bars and clubs, and lots of yelling. The editorial says the mayor is right to target noise pollution, and has already made considerable progress. Last November, the mayor signed a noise pollution bill that gives the city new prevention and enforcement tools. The editorial notes that the number of summonses issued for noise violations from October 1997 to January 1998 was up 22% over the same period in the previous year.
Now, the editorial says, there is a new program that lets car-alarm owners register with the local police precinct. When car-alarm owners put a sticker in their car window with the precinct's phone number, nearby residents can use the system to contact you when the alarm goes off, allowing you to silence the alarm before your car is towed.
The editorial also gives the phone number for issuing a noise complaint: call the Department of Environmental Protection Helpline at (718) 337-4357 or the Quality of Life Hotline at 1-(888) 677-LIFE.
PUBLICATION: News Tribune (Tacoma, WA)
DATE: February 28, 1998
SECTION: Local/State; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Al Gibbs
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ken Reid, former director, Airport Communities Coalition; John Rankin, chair of the Airport Communities Coalition and a Normandy Park city councilor; Bob Olander, Des Moines City Manager
The News Tribune reports that the Airport Communities Coalition, a group fighting the proposed construction of a third runway at the Sea-Tac Airport near Seattle, Washington, released documents two weeks ago showing that it considered using lawsuits against the project largely as a means to force airport officials to negotiate a financial settlement. The Coalition documents were made public as a result of judicial action after the Port of Seattle, which owns the airport, requested to review the documents.
According to the article, Ken Reid, the former director of the Airport Communities Coalition, wrote in a 1995 memo, "A favorable compromise outcome is unlikely to be produced directly through litigation. ... Rather, it seems our best hope is to put the Port (of Seattle) in a negotiating mood." Reid said that the 16-page memo, titled "Confidential Discussion Draft, Prospects for Success, A case for an ACC Negotiated Compromise," was never acted upon and may never have been seen by the elected officials who guide the Coalition. Reid dismissed the memo as the "musings of a novice bureaucrat."
The article reports that the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) is made up of the cities of Normandy Park, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, and Tukwila, and the Highline School District. The Coalition has spend more than $1 million per year in recent years in legal costs, and this year, has budgeted about $2 million for legal expenses in a series of court challenges against the Port's airport expansion project. John Rankin, the ACC chair and a Normandy Park city councilor, said the Coalition isn't pursuing negotiation as its main strategy now. He said, "We're going full speed in the opposite direction. We've got our eyes firmly fixed on the appeals (court) level." Bob Olander, the Des Moines City Manager, said courts are viewed as the Coalition's prime weapon. "We're in this to win," he said. "We still intend to win in court or on appeal."
But, the article explains, so far the Coalition has lost the two legal challenges it lodged against the expansion project. A hearings examiner ruled in late January that the Port's environmental impact assessment of the runway's effect on surrounding communities was adequate. And, a month earlier, a County Superior Court Judge ruled that the Puget Sound Regional Council acted properly when it amended its long-range transportation plan to include the third runway. There are three more lawsuits outstanding, and one is set to go to trial in the spring, the article notes.
The article goes on to explain that the expansion projects at the airport would cost $1.7 billion, and would include a new runway, an on-site hotel, a larger parking garage, a new terminal, and expanded passenger facilities.
The article also says that both the Port and the ACC have spent money and effort on presenting their side to the public. The school district has hired a public relations firm for $30,000 a month to take its message to the public, and other members of the ACC will spend around $200,000 on public relations this year. Port officials urged co-workers not to release high estimates of future airport traffic unless directly asked by reporters.
PUBLICATION: The Evening Standard (Palmerston North, New Zealand)
DATE: February 27, 1998
SECTION: News; Local; Pg. 3
BYLINE: John Myers
DATELINE: Palmerston North, New Zealand area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Neil Davis, secretary, Sanson Community Committee
The Evening Standard reports that a meeting was held Wednesday night between officials at New Zealand's Ohakea Air Force Base and the Sanson Community Committee in the Palmerston North, New Zealand area to discuss noise from jets and from base operations. Also attending the meeting were two Manawatu District Council members and, by invitation, members of the Collier family who live off the Ohakea main runway's east end.
According to the article, Neil Davis, secretary of the Sanson Community Committee, said the meeting cleared up some misconceptions about how environmental legislation is applied at the air base. John Hamilton, a Group Captain at the base, said the meeting allowed him to discuss the various rules and regulations that the air base observes. He said, "We need to re-emphasize to our people the need to have some regard for our neighbors." Hamilton said he would re-emphasize to pilots that they need to follow approach and take-off routes that have been established in order to avoid causing noise problems to the neighboring residents. Davis said that the committee was given a direct phone number to the base to use when aircraft didn't follow designated flight paths and caused excessive noise.
PUBLICATION: M2 Presswire
DATE: February 27, 1998
DATELINE: United Kingdom
M2 Presswire released a press release saying that the consultation, or review period, has been extended on noise limits for jets departing from Britain's Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted airports. According to the press release, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has decided to publish a supplementary consultation paper, and has therefore extended the consultation period to eight weeks after the supplementary paper is issued. As a result of this action, the International Air Transport Association has withdrawn its application for leave to apply for judicial review of the paper.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
DATE: February 27, 1998
SECTION: Bethlehem, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Christian Berg
DATELINE: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
The Morning Call reports that the Bethlehem (Pennsylvania) Zoning Hearing Board granted a special exception Wednesday to permit a concrete recycling plant, despite neighbors' concerns about traffic, noise, and dust. The project must also be approved by the city Planning Commission, the article notes.
According to the article, the concrete recycling plant would be located on a two-acre site on Silvex Road, off Route 412 south of the Interstate 78 intersection. The plant would convert old concrete from sidewalks, curbs, streets, and other sources into new construction materials, said James Casilio of Casco Enterprises. The recycling process consists of crushing the concrete, removing steel reinforcement, and final crushing and sorting. Truck traffic at the plant will run at an average of 72 trips per day, or one truck every 15 minutes.
The article says that a few residents attended Wednesday's meeting to express their worries about the plant.
Casilio, however, said he is trying to eliminate the fears of the neighbors. He said, "I had a good conversation with the neighbors after the meeting was over, and we're going to work with them all through the site approval process. I am confident we will be able to answer all their questions." He added that noise will be controlled by using electricity rather than diesel engines to power the equipment, installing retaining walls along the property lines, using sound-absorbent materials in the noisiest parts of the plant, and limiting operating hours to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7 a.m. to noon on Saturday. According to zoning officer Stephen Chanitz, the city's zoning ordinance sets a decibel limit on the level of noise that can be created, and a fine of up to $500 per day can be imposed for violations.
Casilio also said that the plant will comply with all dust regulations by spraying water on concrete at two or three locations in the plant.
The article notes that the proposed site is in the city's light industrial district, which does not allow a concrete recycling plant. According to Chanitz of the city, Casilio's request for a special exception was granted because zoning board members felt the proposal was "an industrial use of the same general character as the uses permitted," as stipulated in the ordinance.
PUBLICATION: The Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
DATE: February 27, 1998
SECTION: Local; Ed. F; Pg. 33A
DATELINE: Aurora, Colorado
The Rocky Mountain News reports that construction on noise walls in Aurora, Colorado will begin in the next few weeks. The walls will go up on both sides of Interstate 225 from Parker Road to East Yale Avenue, as part of an overhaul of the I-225 and Parker interchange. According to the article, the beige and dark brown masonry block noise walls will provide noise relief for nearby residents, and will cost about $4.5 million.
PUBLICATION: The Union Leader (Manchester, NH)
DATE: February 27, 1998
SECTION: Section A Pg. 1
BYLINE: Roger Amsden
DATELINE: Franklin, New Hampshire
The Union Leader reports that the city zoning board in Franklin, New Hampshire unanimously turned down a developer's request for a special exception to build a race track. The board's decision last night was greeted by applause from the standing-room-only crowd at Franklin City Hall, the article notes.
According to the article, developer Joseph Corso had proposed building a 5,000-seat stock-car track on a 190-acre parcel of land along Route 127, about a mile from the Salisbury town line. The article notes that the proposed site was in a conservation zone near the Daniel Webster birthplace and Punch Brook Farm, and was a mile away from a major rural housing development in Salisbury.
Residents had objected that the racetrack would create noise and traffic problems and change the character of the area. Norma Schofield, the zoning board chair, said she believes Corso may ask for a rehearing on his proposal, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: February 26, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Patrick McGreevy
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that officials from the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District reached a partial agreement Wednesday that allows major developments to proceed while talks continue about how to protect the schools from the noise and traffic expected to result from the developments. Last year, the article notes, the school district won an appeals court ruling that invalidates the Warner Center specific plan, which could block construction of the projects. However, school district officials agreed to ask the court to keep the plan in effect while a long-term agreement is negotiated that would provide funds to mitigate noise and traffic impacts on nearby schools. According to City Councilor Laura Chick, school district officials also agreed not to challenge the construction of an 11-story, $30 million office building for Twentieth Century Insurance Company on Owensmouth Avenue.
According to the article, the partial agreement was reached during a meeting between Councilor Chick, city attorneys and planners, Rich Mason, an attorney for the school district, Ruben Zacarias, the school district superintendent, and school board members Valerie Fields and Julie Korenstein. Chick said the city agreed to make developers pay for any mitigation measures for problems to be identified in an environmental study that will be done over the next eight months. Chick said school district officials want the city to agree now to specific mitigation measures to reduce anticipated traffic and noise impacts on Canoga Park High and Parkman Middle schools. But Chick said, "We can't do that. It's prejudging the supplemental environmental report."
Meanwhile, Mason, the attorney for the school district, said he was optimistic a long-term agreement will be reached. He said in the meantime, the district will seek to use bond money from Proposition BB to install air conditioning and soundproofing in two area schools, which would later be reimbursed by developer fees.
Richard Dinan, senior vice president of Twentieth Century, cautiously welcomed the partial agreement, the article reports. He said, "If those measures are adequate to provide the developer funding to proceed, I would have to say it's a successful and gratifying end to a very frustrating problem."
PUBLICATION: Japan Economic Newswire
DATE: February 26, 1998
DATELINE: Okinawa Prefecture, Japan
The Japan Economic Newswire reports that Japan and the U.S. agreed Thursday to build a concrete noise wall north of the U.S. Kadena Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, in order to ease noise pollution near the base. The noise wall will be paid for by Japan, the article notes.
According to the article, the wall will be 2.3 kilometers long and 5 meters high, and will cost 660 million yen. It is slated to be complete by the end of 1999.
The article explains that the noise wall was recommended in a 1996 report by the bilateral Special Action Committee on Okinawa. The Committee was formed to find ways to reduce the U.S. military presence in the southernmost island prefecture of Okinawa. The article notes that Okinawa is home to about 75% of the U.S. military facilities in Japan in terms of land area.
PUBLICATION: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: February 26, 1998
SECTION: Aukesha, Pg. 2
BYLINE: Sam Martino
DATELINE: Eagle, Wisconsin
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that a judge ruled Wednesday that the Town of Eagle, Wisconsin did not follow proper procedure when it rejected a conditional use permit for a clay pigeon shooting range at the McMiller Sports Center. Noise complaints from neighbors resulted in town officials' decision.
According to the article, the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) leased the McMiller Sports Center to Wern Valley Inc. to operate three rifle and pistol ranges and an area for clay pigeon shooting, in which the shooter moves from station to station to sight the clay pigeons. The company's contract runs until mid-1999, but the clay range closed last summer after the town wouldn't renew its permit. According to DNR and company officials, they were uncertain whether the clay range would re-open, despite the ruling. The rifle and pistol ranges would continue to be operated, according to Don Tills, a DNR spokesperson.
The article explains that according to Elizabeth Adelman, an attorney for Eagle, town officials were unhappy with noise from the range, but had no objections to the rifle and pistol ranges.
The article goes on to say that according to a town ordinance, noise from shooting at the clay range could not exceed 60 decibels. DNR officials hired a consultant to test the noise levels, and discovered that noise was above 60 decibels at a number of the sporting clay shooting stations. In response, DNR officials offered to establish the task force to look at the noise situation and other issues at the range. However, the judge criticized DNR for letting 16 months go by without forming the task force. "Sixteen months is too long for the Town Board to wait," the judge said. "They (DNR) have to step up with what they promised."
Nonetheless, the judge also ruled that the town failed to notify DNR of the noise violations within 15 days of when they occurred, as is required by town ordinances.
Meanwhile, Adelman, the town attorney, said that if the clay range re-opens, the town will obtain a meter to monitor noise there.
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: February 26, 1998
SECTION: News; Page A07
BYLINE: Robert Polner
DATELINE: New York, New York
Newsday printed an editorial commenting on New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's speech yesterday on quality-of-life issues. While Giuliani called his plan a "comprehensive new strategy" to foster a more civil city, the editorial says the plan actually echoed the major themes of the mayor's first term. The writer says the speech left some wondering if the mayor was simply trying to position himself for higher office as the "man who tamed New York," while others wondered if the mayor was to some extent trying to catch up in areas in which the city had fallen behind.
According to the editorial, Giuliani's critics say the "quality-of-life" campaign has a good deal of catch-up to do. The editorial notes that police last year wrote about 30 percent fewer tickets to drivers for moving violations than they had the year before, despite Giuliani's focus on ticketing speeding drivers and jaywalkers. Pedestrian fatalities also climbed sharply in 1997. Since a fatal illegal-roominghouse fire in Maspeth and the death of a teenager struck by a falling brick outside a school under repair in Brooklyn, the city has to catch up in building code enforcement as well, the article says. In addition, Giuliani called yesterday for more summonses to be issued for littering, but a City Council budget analyst noted that the city has 81 sanitation officers, compared to 125 officers in 1994. The mayor also pledged a crackdown on noise violations, but the council analyst said the city had a hiring freeze for air, noise, and hazardous materials inspectors.
The editorial reports that some critics say Giuliani's plan is missing the kind of ambitious initiatives that characterized the start of his first term four years ago when he launched the nation's largest workfare program, the privatization of city hospitals, and the merger of police forces. Fred Siegel, an author and Cooper Union Prof. said, "What worries me is that curbing crazy cabbies and cutting down on bike messenger moving violations, while good things to do, may be substituting for a serious second-term agenda."
The editorial goes on to say that housing experts say Giuliani cultivates no affordable housing initiatives, which helps demand for apartments and their rents to soar. In addition, the city's labor-market participation rate is the lowest among major northeastern cities, and is lower even than Tampa, Florida, a retirement community, according to Siegel. Other serious problems, according to the editorial, are high rates of childhood asthma in polluted, poor neighborhoods, low educational performance levels among kids, and a lack of serious programs to help welfare recipients looking for jobs.
PUBLICATION: Portland Press Herald
DATE: February 26, 1998
SECTION: Front, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Andrew Russell
DATELINE: Portland, Maine
The Portland Press Herald reports that Maine state and local officials are working on a plan to allow Business Express Airlines to locate its headquarters and maintenance facilities near the Portland International Jetport. Last fall, the city said there wasn't enough room for the airline to locate at the 636-acre airport, but the latest plan would allow the airline to locate on state-owned land near the Maine Youth Center, a juvenile detention center.
According to the article, however, there are several unanswered questions to the plan. One is whether the state can legally sell the property, some of which is valuable wetlands. Other unresolved issues include how much the property would cost and how noise from the airline's maintenance facility would affect nearby residents.
The article notes that Gary Ellmer, the airline's president, has been involved in discussions about the Youth Center property. The proposal calls for the state to sell about six acres on the South Portland side of the runways to the jetport, which would then lease the land to Business Express. The airline would build a 75,000-square-foot maintenance hangar on the site, and would lease or build a 20,000-square-foot office complex at the jetport for its headquarters.
Thomas McBrierty, Maine's commissioner of economic development, said the state is doing a title search and surveying the property, and when that work is complete at the end of March, the state can determine whether it can legally sell the land.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: February 26, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Lane Kelley
DATELINE: Hollywood, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports that officials in Broward County, Florida want to restore one of the state's most popular beaches, at John U. Lloyd State Recreation Area in Hollywood, by pumping sand from an area in front of exclusive Point of Americas condominiums at the Port Everglades Inlet. Erosion at the state beach has become so severe, the article says, that signs have been posted to warn people of drop-offs. But residents from the condominiums are protesting the plan, saying their beach will be reduced and the noise from the sand dredging operation will be a problem.
According to the article, the two-mile long state beach attracts about 700,000 beach-goers each year. The beach was last re-nourished with sand in 1989, but most of the new sand was gone within a year, according to Steve Welsch, head of the Beach Defense Fund. Conservationists have been urging county and state officials for years to re-nourish the beach again, the article notes.
To deal with the chronic erosion problem on Florida beaches, officials usually dredge up sand from the ocean bottom and dump it on the shore. But, the article says, that sand is running out, plus dredging is expensive and could damage coral reefs. Diverting sand from the inlet to the state beach would cost $29 million and take four years, but county officials predict that they would save $1.8 million annually with the project compared to dredging the ocean bottom.
But, the article reports, residents from the Point of Americas condominiums stormed a workshop Wednesday to protest what one described as a "sand grab." Irvin Baker, a condominium resident, said, "We all know Lloyd (State Park) needs help, but you don't take from Peter to help Paul." The beach in front of the condominiums is the widest in the county, at 350 feet, and residents are worried that the project will reduce their beach and bother them with noise from the dredging. Initially, a report found that the beach would be reduced by 70 feet, but county officials said Wednesday they have found a way to take the sand without reducing the size of the beach north of the inlet.
PUBLICATION: The Des Moines Register
DATE: February 23, 1998
SECTION: Today Pg.1
BYLINE: Sandra Boodman
DATELINE: U.S. and Germany
The Des Moines Register reports that a team of international researchers has found that chronic exposure to airplane noise can affect the health and psychological well-being of children. The researchers studied children living in the flight path of a new international airport near Munich, Germany.
The article reports that researcher Gary Evans of Cornell University and his colleagues studied 217 third- and fourth-graders aged 9 through 11, who live in a rural area 22 miles outside Munich. About one-half of the group lived in an area affected by flight noise, while the other kids lived in quiet communities nearby. The children were matched for age, parental occupation, family size, and socioeconomic status, the article notes. Researchers studied the children before the new airport opened, and again 6 months and 18 months after it opened. They measured the childrens' resting blood pressure and analyzed urine samples for the presence of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol, hormones that measure exposure to chronic stress.
The article explains that the researchers found that the blood pressure of children in the noisy communities was significantly elevated after the airport opened and that their levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine were higher. (Levels of cortisol were not elevated, but cortisol is believed to be a less-reliable measure of chronic stress.) The children in the noisy communities also said the quality of their lives had declined, but not until the 18-month survey. The changes were not present among the children living in the quiet communities.
The research team concluded that their study confirms the view that chronic exposure to noise is harmful to human health, even when it doesn't lead to detectable hearing loss. The article notes that the study was published in the January issue of the journal Psychological Science, published by the American Psychological Association.
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: February 23, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A01
BYLINE: Mary Ann Milbourn
DATELINE: Irvine, California area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bert Hack, leader of the El Toro opposition
The Orange County Register reports that Gary Proctor, chair of the Orange County (California) El Toro Airport Citizens Advisory Commission, is lobbying to educate and provide evidence to residents who oppose the conversion of the El Toro Air Base near Irvine into an international airport. The article profiles Proctor, and presents two differing opinions on him.
The article reports that Gary Proctor has acted as an airport commissioner for the John Wayne Airport for 15 years, and lives under the flight path of the airport. He is also a private pilot, and has been a lawyer in juvenile-criminal practice, an Orange County judge pro tem, and State Bar hearing officer. And, he is head of the El Toro Airport Citizens Advisory Commission, which was established in 1994 to oversee base-reuse planning.
Proctor believes that an analysis of aircraft, flight operations, curfews, the size of El Toro, the size of the runways, and a noise buffer zone can produce an airport that neighbors can live with. But, the article notes, the hard part is proving it. Proctor said, "I want to define the true impacts so people can make an intelligent decision about whether they hate the project, don't care about the project or love it." He added that his goal is to provide solid information so that people will not be unnecessarily alarmed by airport opponents. He said, "There's no way this information will make everybody happy -- some people will oppose it no matter what. But I want to reach the people who are truly upset who have no reason to be." Proctor believes that the information the county has already released, including a newsletter, Web page and reports, hasn't answered the important questions. He said, "What I want to know -- and the people of south county want to know -- is where are the planes going to be in the first 5,000 feet?" Limiting noise should be the first consideration for the airport, Proctor said, and then the county can determine how many people the airport can serve. He added, "I can't imagine how you can have an international airport operating 24 hours a day because of the impact on the community. You can't fly 747s over people's heads at 3 o'clock in the morning. You don't start (by deciding there will be) 20 million annual passengers and then determine what planes and curfew there will be."
Proctor went on to outline four areas that must be addressed before an El Toro Airport would be livable, the article reports:
Define the arrival and departure procedures.
Impose a curfew.
Determine the noise footprint.
Evaluate vehicle traffic to determine how many people can get in and out of the airport.
The most important step, Proctor said, is to determine what planes will fly out of El Toro, at what times, and in which directions. The county has budgeted $2 million for a flight demonstration, and Proctor supports that experiment, the article notes.
Proctor also said that the curfew is the essential component of any deal. He said county officials have to be dedicated to a curfew. But, the article notes, imposing a curfew could be difficult for the county because of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, passed by Congress in 1990, that prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing curfews and other noise restrictions that might interfere with airlines.
But Proctor insists that resistance from the federal government, as well as pilots and airlines, can be overcome, citing experience at John Wayne Airport. At that airport, airlines initially refused to switch to the quietest Stage 3 aircraft, but later relented. According to Proctor, airlines and pilot unions also protested when airport officials proposed cutting back planes' engines at an altitude of 500 feet to reduce noise over Newport Beach's Back Bay. Proctor said since the airport has imposed restrictions and changed procedures, noise complaints have gone down.
The article also gives two opposing views on Gary Proctor.
Robert Cashman, a John Wayne Airport commissioner, said Proctor knows flying, knows airports, and as a lawyer, knows when he is being snowed. Cashman said Proctor questioned the county's decision to plan for an El Toro airport that would serve 38.3 million annual passengers. Cashman said, "He asked (staff), 'Why are you talking about a 38-million annual passenger airport when we aren't going to be able to do one (that big)?' The only person who really spoke up was Gary." Subsequently, the article notes, the county agreed to plan for an airport at least one-third smaller.
Bert Hack, a leader of the El Toro opposition, said Proctor is biased in favor of an airport Hack said, "He's just a mouthpiece for the (pro-airport) organization and says what he's been told." Hack added that Proctor has never asked whether the El Toro airport is needed, but has only focused on what kind or what size of airport it should be.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 22, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Editorial Writers Desk
DATELINE: Irvine, California area
The Los Angeles Times printed the following letters-to-the-editor from residents in Irvine, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, and Laguna Hills, California, regarding the proposed conversion of the El Toro Air Base into an international airport:
To the editor:
I realize that The Times wants to present a "balanced" report about the fight over the proposed international airport at El Toro. However, your Feb. 8 article, "Truth Crash-Lands in El Toro Airport Fliers," borders on the absurd.
The facts stated as "misinformation" were divided as six claims by the airport proponents and three by the opponents. While the claims supporting the airport dealt with serious fabrications, the one by Project 99 is but a small item that is in no way comparable to the misinformation spread by airport proponents.
Remember, both major pilots' associations expressed their concerns about the safety of easterly takeoffs. Similarly, it was academic research that demonstrated how airport noise affects the learning ability and the thought process of children.
Furthermore, while the "mailers" by the pro-airport groups have the wealth of Newport Beach behind them, Project 99, for example, issues newsletters that are closer to pamphlets than to "slick mailers," and is supported by volunteers and by $25 and $50 contributions from concerned citizens.
For the county to claim that an airport can coexist with parks, colleges and recreation facilities is offensive to any reasonable mind. After all, the political leaders of Newport Beach have been claiming, according to The Times report from Oct. 21, 1990, that "the noise from John Wayne Airport lowered property values and mars the peace of the community."
This was not balanced journalism; you wrote a tabloid-style "he-said-she-said" rather than determining the validity of the two perspectives.
Karen Byers, Irvine resident
To the editor:
The recent pro-airport mailers are littered with evidence of misinformation. First, the assertion that John Wayne is too small to meet future demand clearly ignores the fact that this facility could nearly double the number of passengers it handles without any expansion. Why would someone spend so much money to convince us to turn our backs on an asset that could be used to its full capacity, other than to benefit from its closure themselves?
Second, the bold statement that an airport would provide more than 140,000 good-paying jobs may be true, but the county's own planning says that the non-aviation options would actually produce more jobs and, in my opinion, better-quality jobs.
None will benefit more from an airport at El Toro than those willing to invest this kind of money to influence our decision.
K. Pennington, Santa Ana resident
To the editor:
They don't want an airport close to them because they believe the resultant noise will adversely impact them.
Admitting there is and will continue to be an increasing need for more local flights, South County people have a self-serving solution. What audacity to expect Newport Beach residents to endure twice the air and traffic pollution they are already experiencing so that South County will have none.
C. Downs, Newport Beach resident
To the editor:
Democracies have been called "a tyranny of the majority," and those votes by North County are perfect examples of why a majority vote does not necessarily make a just outcome. Fewer than 200 years ago, the majority of Americans were in favor of slavery.
Converting the Marine Corps base into an unnecessary international airport and depriving the local residents of life (pollution), liberty (loss of property value, increased crime) and the pursuit of happiness (noise, congestion, traffic) flies in the face of justice and fairness.
"The greatest good for the greatest number" was a slogan from the Evil Empire of Russia. It sounds very similar to the new mantra of Newport Beach residents. Of course, based upon their outrageous propaganda fliers, maybe they are saying, "Let them eat cake."
Ronald Davies, Laguna Hills resident
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: February 26, 1998
SECTION: Community; Pg. 03
BYLINE: John Westcott
DATELINE: Newport Beach, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Carolyn Klein, resident
The Orange County Register reports the Newport Beach, California, City Council voted to create an ad hoc committee of council members, residents, and business representatives to take a closer look at how sound from bayfront restaurants affects residents. The new committee was created in the wake of the Council's handling of a recent noise controversy.
According to the article, noise measurements would be made, and a consultant hired to suggest ways of limiting noise without harming businesses unduly. "The council has to devise a better way of attending the problem," said Councilwoman Norma Glover. The council also changed its January 26 vote on Windows on the Bay restaurant, easing some restrictions and extending its hours. Instead of having to close the restaurant's patio by 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 10 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays, the closing time will now be 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight Fridays and Saturdays. Music must be off by 10 p.m. The new vote was 5-2, with Glover and Dennis O'Neil dissenting. Glover had suggested making the closing hours 11 p.m. on weekdays and 12:30 a.m. on weekends.
The article states the council came up with compromises after months of study and hours of discussion. Closing times weren't as late as Windows operator Scott Shuttleworth asked, nor as early as Lido Isle residents wished. The council also deleted a condition restricting when food can be served on the patio, and asked Shuttleworth to install a glass door facing the bay. Some Lido Isle residents were disappointed at the latest changes. "All I want is some peace and quiet," said Carolyn Klein. "I want to be able to go to sleep. " But Shuttleworth said Tuesday he was willing to work with the restrictions, and hoped he could prove to the residents that the restaurant won't be a nuisance. "We would like to set the standard for compliance," he said. "We'd like to prove that you can run a restaurant and keep the residents happy at the same time. "
PUBLICATION: Knoxville News-Sentinel (Knoxville, TN)
DATE: February 24, 1998
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A4
BYLINE: Jim Balloch
DATELINE: Knoxville, Tennessee
The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports the Knoxville City Council is expected to delay action on at least two matters currently on its agenda for tonight. One of the items is proposed revisions to the city's noise ordinance. The other issue deals with revisions to the ordinance governing wrecker service operations.
According to the article, the City Council will be asked to delay revising the city's noise ordinance so that Mayor Victor Ashe can appoint a committee to resolve some differences of opinion that remain following several community forums on the noise issue. The major obstacle remaining is how to regulate amplified sounds, particularly music, Gene Patterson, deputy to the mayor, said Monday at the latest public forum on the issue. A number of citizens have complained about excessive, sleep-disturbing noise from patio bars and night clubs on Cumberland Avenue, and about noises from public paging systems at West Knoxville car dealerships. Patterson said while it may be impossible to develop an ordinance that makes everyone happy, "we hope to come up with one that we can all be comfortable with."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 28, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 7; Letters Desk
DATELINE: Burbank, CA
The Los Angeles Times published two letters about the controversial expansion at the Burbank Airport. One letter is from Peter Kirsch, Special Counsel to Burbank on Airport Affairs. The other letter is from Thomas E. Greer, Executive Director of Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.
In his letter, Greer accuses the Times of joining with the city of Burbank in holding hostage Burbank Airport's replacement terminal. Greer wrote:
The Times has capitulated to Burbank's tactic of holding Burbank Airport's replacement terminal project hostage unless the Airport Authority and the FAA bow to the city's demands for restrictions on night and early morning flights (editorial, Feb. 20). The state and federal governments deal with environmental impacts of such projects by requiring thorough environmental impact reports. The reports for this project found that there was not a significant impact on aircraft noise from the new terminal.
The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 sets out how to get a new curfew or other aircraft noise restrictions. There is a mandatory study that must show to the FAA's satisfaction that the new rule is justified. The authority has offered repeatedly to do the study and live with the FAA's judgment. The Times would instead substitute a new policy tool: Implement noise rules, whether they are warranted or not, so long as the city nearest an airport is willing to jeopardize a vital safety project and demonstrates uncommon expertise and tenacity at holding a disruptive and expensive legal temper tantrum.
In his letter, Peter Kirsch, Special Counsel to Burbank on Airport Affairs takes the Airport Authority to task. Kirsch wrote:
The lack of candor in the Airport Authority's remarks after a court ruled in its favor shows why it has been so hard to settle the airport expansion dispute. The authority's suggestion that a new terminal would be built in two or three years is simply a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion. Both sides knew before the decision was rendered that the ruling would be appealed, joining four other lawsuits already on appeal by both sides. This battle has just begun, and the Burbank City Council is confident that the city will prevail in the Court of Appeals.
The law hasn't changed: The authority must still comply with Burbank's zoning laws. Much of the expansion land has been prohibited for airport use since before the authority even was created. Unless Burbank approves a zoning change, the authority could spend millions of dollars to acquire property it can't use. While this latest case is on appeal, the authority ought to consider how much the public would benefit if it became more flexible and reasonable.
Previous week: February 15, 1998
Next week: March 1, 1998
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index