PUBLICATION: The Evening Standard (Palmerston North, NZ)
DATE: June 27, 1998
SECTION: News; Local; Pg. 2
BYLINE: Carlin Gerbich
DATELINE: Palmerston North, New Zealand
The Evening Standard reports rural New Zealand residents living under flight paths are concerned about how proposed new noise level limits near Palmerston North airport will affect future homes and additions to existing properties.
According to the article, residents attended a meeting held by staff from the Palmerston North City Council, Manawatu District Council ,and the Palmerston North Airport about the proposed noise limits on Thursday night. If the proposals are accepted by the city council, future homes and additions planned for parts of the Milson area and rural areas under the flight path of incoming and outgoing flights will have to be sound-proofed. City council senior planner Peter Frawley said some residents thought it unfair that new homes would be affected by the proposed noise level plans, while older homes weren't. "But under the resource management act, we're unable to make such a bylaw retrospective."
The article reports some residents also questioned the computer modeling and how the three contours -- defined areas of how proposed noise levels would affect areas around the airport -- had been determined. About 300 existing homes within the city boundaries would be affected by the proposals, and about 540 future homes. In the Manawatu District, 30 existing homes would be affected by the proposals and about 80 future homes could be. Manawatu district planner Patrick McHardy said the proposals were not only looking at present noise levels at the Palmerston airport but at expected future noise levels.
PUBLICATION: News Tribune (Tacoma, WA)
DATE: June 27, 1998
SECTION: Local/State; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Al Gibbs
DATELINE: Tacoma, Washington
The News Tribune reports the Port of Seattle and opponents of its proposed third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport have agreed to negotiation talks with a nationally known mediator.
According to the article, in a deal arranged by Gov. Gary Locke, the port and the Aircraft Communities Coalition on Friday agreed to meet with a mediator to see if they can negotiate a settlement to years of contention and expensive lawsuits. At issue would be mitigation for aircraft noise, pollution, and traffic congestion in the cities that surround the airport. Sea-Tac handled more than 24 million passengers last year.
The article reports neither side agreed to stop court actions that have so far cost taxpayers $10 million. "Nothing here affects the litigation," said Peter Kirsch, the Denver-based lawyer for ACC. The port also intends to continue construction on the $587 million third runway. Dump trucks are daily hauling fill dirt to a canyon on the northwest corner of the airport, and taxiways that would connect the new runway to Sea-Tac terminals have been built. The ACC has not won even a minor court battle in its legal efforts to stop the runway. Port officials are optimistic that a settlement could be reached, said port spokesman Mike Merritt. "There are still a lot of questions to be answered," he said. The mediator will be Gerry Cormick of Seattle, who in 1988 helped mediate earlier aircraft noise disputes at Sea-Tac. "He's a very prominent mediator," said Kirsch, who has worked with Cormick before.
The article went on to say Kirsch denied that he or any ACC official had approached Locke privately to bring the two parties to the table without appearing to concede anything. "I certainly wouldn't do that," Kirsch said. "Who put this bug in (Locke's) ear I don't know." Likewise, Merritt denied that any port official had initiated the discussion. But Locke aide Tim Ceis said the inspiration for mediated discussions was Locke's alone. "It may be that the governor did sense there would be acceptance of the idea, but there was no back-channel talks involved." Rather, said Ceis, Locke has been concerned about the airport's development since his days in King County government, when - with reservations - he supported the project in Puget Sound Regional Council discussions and votes. Ceis said Locke is uncertain whether any resolution can be forged in the dispute. "We don't know how far this might go," he said. "But we're cautiously optimistic we can resolve something with these talks."
PUBLICATION: The Press (Christchurch, NZ)
DATE: June 27, 1998
SECTION: Features; General; Pg. 8; Weekend
BYLINE: Seth Robson
DATELINE: Christchurch, NZ
The Press reports helicopter noise is annoying visitors and ruining the natural quiet in New Zealand's national parks. Conservation and park groups are taking measures to avoid the over-flying that has plagued the US's Grand Canyon.
According to the article, the problem of noisy aircraft in Mount Cook National Park has been around since the first scenic flight in 1943. But aircraft buzzing climbers is more recent intrusion. At 2400m the only noise a climber wants to hear as he makes his way up Mt. Cook is the tap, tap, tap of his own hammer against rock. He does not expect to hear is the clatter of helicopter blades as a group of passengers snap photos. Helicopters can be distracting in a situation where the slightest mistake could send a climber plummeting to his death. Helicopters also ruin the tranquil alpine surroundings which are sometimes the main reason a climber is up that high.
The article states low-flying aircraft is one of several problems being considered by a committee of local flyers, the Mount Cook-Westland National Park Operators Group. Mount Cook Group operations manager Wayne McMillan says it is mostly helicopter operators who buzz climbers, and it must stop. "When you are getting into the technical part of the climb the last thing you want is to be buzzed by an aircraft. If you consider other people's needs you keep away from them." McMillan says the main issue being considered by the group is the effect of aircraft noise on visitors. On a busy day Mount Cook Group flies up to 50 flights out of the Mount Cook Aerodrome. When those aircraft combine with helicopters and fixed-wing flights out of other areas, there can be 50 to 60 aircraft sharing the airspace around Mount Cook at any one time. McMillan says the noise is caused by the aircrafts' propellers rather than by their engines. "When the propeller is in fine pitch during take-off the tips of the blades move faster than the speed of sound and are quite noisy. By varying the rpms of the blades and the pitch we can change the noise footprint," he says.
The article states Department of Conservation concessions manager Andy Grant says action over aircraft noise was prompted by reports of problems in the United States. Complaints about aircraft noise over the Grand Canyon reached such a crisis that no-fly zones were declared. "Neither the aviation industry nor the department want the same thing to happen here as happened in the US," Grant says. Because there is a spirit of co-operation between the aircraft industry and DOC on the noise issue, "It allows us to use soft laws rather than regulations and contracts." For example, aircraft operators voluntarily avoid flights over the Hooker Valley in Mount Cook National Park. DOC is planning to erect signs to inform hikers that they are entering an area where they can experience "natural quiet". "Natural quiet means you can hear the birds and the bees and the water running down the stream. That is what a national park is mostly about," Grant says. "If you allow motorized access everywhere the degradation of natural quiet is going to take place." He says there are areas, however, where there are legitimate needs for aircraft in the tourism industry. "Apart from tourists they also fly recreationalists into the back country and allow older people and handicapped people to get in there."
According to the article, as a condition of Mount Cook Group's concession to make snow landings in the Liebig Range, the company had to finance noise surveys. Of the 400 people surveyed in the Blue Lakes area of Mount Cook National Park during summer, 15 per cent were annoyed by aircraft. Blue Lakes was chosen for the survey because it is under the flight path of aircraft landing at the Mount Cook Aerodrome, and because it is one of the most popular walking areas, with 80,000 visitors each year. For now, DOC has set a "threshold level" of 25 per cent -- the proportion of visitors who have to express annoyance before action to reduce noise is taken. "If I was standing there looking out over the glacier trying to experience what a national park is all about, and had no previous conceived notion of what it would be like, my experience would be affected by the number of aircraft that are up there on a busy summer day," Grant says. Monitoring will continue, and DOC is looking at what should be done if more people complain. The operators group plans to establish a code of ethics for the industry. Low-level flying is the main area of concern.
PUBLICATION: The State Journal Register
DATE: June 27, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 6
BYLINE: Buford Green
DATELINE: Jacksonville, Florida
The State Journal Register reports the city of Jacksonville, Florida, is looking at a new proposal to restrict noise in neighborhoods.
According to the article, in Jacksonville, the quiet of warm summer evenings is repeatedly shattered by loud music, wild parties, and repeated visits by the police. To solve the noise problem, Mayor Ron Tendick recently submitted a proposal to the city council, a move he hopes will alleviate a problem that his office has dealt with repeatedly, especially during the spring and summer. "If there is a typical situation, it would be an apartment house that for years experiences no problems with tenants," explained Tendick. "Then the ownership changes and, for whatever reason, over a period of time they start having problems with new tenants. What invariably happens is that somewhere in the neighborhood there are single-family homes that have their peace disrupted, with loud noise in the middle of the night, police calls and even intimidation against the people who complain. It all just kind of festers." Tendick presented a general proposal to the council. City attorney Dan Beard will investigate just how much authority the city has to address the problem. "What we've tried to do in this proposal, and we will go at it cautiously to make sure we're on solid legal ground, is to try to get the property owner to step forward and help," said Tendick. "We're not trying to punish the owner and not trying to get him to evict anyone. We recognize that once a renter gets in, it is tough to get them out."
The article reports the city currently has a nuisance abatement ordinance, but it deals with physical nuisances such as property being in disrepair and trash and debris piling up, Tendick said. The city can charge owners for taking care of such negligence. Another state statute allows the city to suppress disturbances. "We are trying to see that, after repeated calls and/or arrests, we can declare that place a nuisance, and then get the property owner involved to help us, even if he has to go there every night and quiet things down," Tendick said. The mayor said some people, even some aldermen, may not think noise is a major problem, but he adds, "It seems to me, at this desk, that it has been a very prevalent problem at times. When I have someone in my office, crying, saying she has been called names . . . we have to try to find some way to try to help. Last year, an elderly women who owns a nice bungalow, the only single-family home in her block, said she was having problems in the neighborhood and wants to sell, but can't because the property value has dropped so low because of the problems."
The article states Tendick's proposal asks that after repeated police calls and disturbances at a location, the city could declare it a nuisance and give the owner 48 hours to deal with the situation. "We will build some discretion into it, because if we see the owner is trying to help, we can work with him," the mayor said. "I think the typical responsible property owner will want this as a tool to help them get problem renters out because that doesn't help their property values."
PUBLICATION: AP Worldstream
DATE: June 26, 1998
SECTION: International News
DATELINE: Karlsruhe, Germany
AP Worldstream reports Germany's Constitutional Court refused Friday to hear an appeal of a controversial ruling that came from a neighbor's complaints about noise coming from a house for mentally handicapped men.
According to the article, social workers placed seven retarded men in the home near Dueren, just west of Cologne, in 1993. Neighbors soon began to complain about the "screams, groans and shrieks" the men made in the garden. Attempts to negotiate a compromise failed, and the neighbor went to court. In January, a court in Cologne ruled that the garden could not be used during specified "quiet times," chiefly evenings and weekend afternoons.
The article reports the social workers' association appealed the ruling, charging the court relied on a tape recording made by the neighbor instead of appointing its own expert. But the Constitutional Court noted the association did not present any expert opinion of its own. The court refused to accept the appeal on technical grounds, saying something left undone could not be called unconstitutional.
PUBLICATION: Capital Times (Madison, WI)
DATE: June 26, 1998
SECTION: Local/State, Pg. 2A
BYLINE: Paul Alongi
DATELINE: Dunn, Wisconsin
The Capital Times reports residents of Dunn, Wisconsin, say motorbikes racing on a nearby track keep them awake at night, but the owner of the property says he's a good neighbor who regulates racing hours.
According to the article, Dan D'Antoni, who owns the track, said he limits racing to three days a week, and everyone goes home before 7:30 p.m. "We ain't no gang. We ain't nobody," he said on Thursday night. "There's families with kids out there." Siding with complaining residents, town supervisors said they want the track out of D'Antoni's property because it's a nuisance to his neighbors. "It's not the sort of thing we want in the town of Dunn -- engines running all time of the night," Town Supervisor Stanley Solheim said.
The article reports the track that's the source of alleged nighttime noise is set in a valley, surrounded by farm fields and a thick cropping of trees. But the Oregon Heights subdivision is within earshot. Many residents of the neighborhood and other areas near the racing grounds said they are afraid to have their names mentioned in print for fear of retaliation from bikers who use the track. "I'm literally afraid for my life," a source who lives near the track said. But D'Antoni said their fears are unwarranted. "I want to be a neighbor," D'Antoni said. "I don't want to be somebody to hate or somebody that hates them." Some sources said their fears have been increased by the sound of gunshots coming from D'Antoni's 80-acre parcel of land. The property owner acknowledged that people sometimes shoot guns on his land, but he says they mean no harm. "I have friends that shoot trap out there," he said.
The article states Town Board members said the concerns of upset residents are major problems, but there isn't much they can do about alleged noise at the track because it's on private land. About 30 residents showed up at the town of Dunn supervisors' meeting Tuesday to complain about the track. Their concerns prompted a revision of the town's nuisance ordinance. A town attorney is redrafting the law to make it tougher. It would authorize officers to hand out fines for excessive noise, shining headlights in the windows of homes, and kicking up too much dust. D'Antoni said he's stayed within the limits of the law and plans to do so in the future. "It doesn't sound like we have too much power to control this because of people's rules of land," Solheim said. And although officers from the Dane County Sheriff's Department have visited the motorcycle track, it hasn't done much good, said Town Supervisor Eleanor White. When police show up, bikers typically leave for about an hour and then return, White said. But D'Antoni contends he's the victim. He said neighbors have trespassed and dumped garbage on his property. However, the motorcycle enthusiast said he's willing to forgive and forget. "I say come on over and see that mother and father and two kids" riding motorcycles, D'Antoni said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: June 26, 1998
SECTION: Nws; Pg. 23
BYLINE: Becky Beaupre
DATELINE: Rolling Meadows, Illinois
The Chicago Sun-Times reports the city of Rolling Meadows, Illinois, wants to have more say about how soundproofing efforts are funded by becoming a voting member of the Chicago-funded O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission.
According to the article, a Rolling Meadows alderman wants his city to have more say in soundproofing by becoming a voting member of the Chicago-funded O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. But at present that is not possible. Rolling Meadows belongs to the noise group, but, unlike 17 of the 24 other members, it isn't able to vote on how sound insulation funding is allocated. In accordance with the organization's bylaws, that right is reserved for communities and school districts that experience an average of at least 65 decibels of airplane noise. But Rolling Meadows Alderman Mark Evenson justified his request, saying, "I've always felt we experience more airplane noise, more flights than most other towns" on the commission. However, the average decibel reading that determines voting isn't based on current readings from sound monitors, said Mark Fowler, executive director of the commission. New data are being released this fall. If they show a high enough decibel reading for the suburb, it could gain the right to vote.
PUBLICATION: The Columbus Dispatch
DATE: June 26, 1998
SECTION: Editorial & Comment , Pg. 10A
DATELINE: Columbus, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joe Motil, resident
The Columbus Dispatch published the following editorial by Columbus resident, Joe Motil. He opposes the building of a major thoroughfare through an historic section of the city, which he says will bring noise, traffic, and the destruction of urban green space and a neighborhood. Motil writes:
My concerns about the Morse-Bethel proposal certainly are not limited to the fact that it is within the boundaries of the district in which I live, but more appropriately the effect it will have an our entire community. As a construction worker, the development of commercial structures, roads and bridges has been my bread and butter. And I have always favored responsible projects and development that serve the area's best interests. In the past I was criticized for working with VAST, or Voters Against Stadium Taxes, which helped defeat the 1997 0.5 percent sales tax increase that would have subsidized the construction of an arena and soccer stadium. I did favor arena construction, but not at taxpayers' expense. And once again the voters may be asked to support a project that certainly would create good-paying construction jobs and benefit my industry, but one must set aside self-interest to seek quality-of-life improvements for this community.
As a former vice-chairman of the Columbus Historic Resources Commission and past resident of the Northwood Park historic district, I feel this plan will have a devastating impact on Old Beechwold, one of Franklin County's unique districts. The traffic, noise and poor air quality created by perhaps 30,000 trucks and automobiles will not be diminished by an 8-foot-high wall. Building a major thoroughfare at this location will only destroy and divide a neighborhood for the sake of vehicular convenience. On the west side of the river, this construction would increase traffic on secondary roads and in the neighborhoods, and cause unsafe conditions. And if Bethel Road needs to be widened between Godown and Olentangy River roads, (which both sides concede is very likely) years of planning, and the combined efforts between the citizens association and the city of Columbus to establish specific commercial development guidelines would be wasted. I also am concerned about the possibility of increased traffic congestion at Morse Road and High Street, and further commercial development on Morse Road between High and Indianola Avenue. This would have a tremendously negative impact on the area homeowners. And unquestionably, the elimination of 40 homes, quiet streets, mature trees and precious urban green space weighs heavily in my opposition to this plan.
This is a community of affordable housing for middle-income families in an excellent, well-established neighborhood. It's the type of neighborhood that identifies our city as a great place to live and raise a family. What I hear from people is that they value areas like this and are tired of losing them. And they want less noise in their neighborhoods. So let's finally start concentrating on a comprehensive mass-transit system that combines rail, train and bus service. We should be strengthening and promoting these types of neighborhoods, not bulldozing them.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: June 26, 1998
SECTION: Opinion, Pg. 17A
DATELINE: Palm Beach, Florida
The Palm Beach Post published the following letter to the editor from Florida resident Roy L. Huber. Huber responds to an opinion article about residents' dissatisfaction with airplane noise standards. Huber writes:
I have never seen most of the common ills of our society so vividly demonstrated as in the May 31 Opinion article "Airplane noise 'standards' fly in face of residents." When I was flying supersonic fighters 40 years ago, our engines had about 7,000 pounds of thrust. We had to use a shallow climb angle, merely trying to survive as we nursed the old beasts upward. Sometimes we flew as low as 200 feet over homes at full throttle; yet we never had to endure the airfield's neighbors whining about the noise. Now, as a passenger who flies out of Palm Beach International Airport, I marvel at the progress. New jet engines have about 50,000 pounds of thrust. As modern technology continued to improve, I had the pleasure of flying jet fighters that could fly faster than twice the speed of sound. We could climb at much steeper angles and "remove ourselves" from homes by several thousand feet. Today, a typical airliner can climb out as steeply . . . and does! The positive perspective is to be thankful for the progress.
PUBLICATION: The Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
DATE: June 26, 1998
SECTION: News/National/International; Ed. F; Pg. 5A
BYLINE: Michael Romano
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Rocky Mountain News of Denver, Colorado, reports the chairman of the Transportation Committee has given his approval, freeing up money for a much-disputed sixth runway at Denver International Airport. Some opponents will still fight the runway, based on noise issues.
According to the article, a key obstacle to the long-delayed sixth runway at Denver International Airport was cleared when Rep. Bud Shuster, R-Penn., who chairs the Transportation Committee, gave his blessing to the $85 million project. The dispute over the runway has been an issue since the airport opened in February 1995. Opposition was led by Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Wayne Allard, who were concerned about the barrage of noise complaints from residents of the surrounding counties. Hefley received support in Congress from Frank Wolf, R-Va., who blocked the funding by inserting a clause in the Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization Act of 1998. His opposition was enough to stop construction of the runway. But Shuster last week won approval to allow Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater to approve funding in spite of Wolf's opposition. "Denver should be able to compete just like any other airport, and the sixth runway should be up to the people of Denver rather than the folks here in Washington," said Shuster's spokesman, Scott Brenner.
The article reports Sen. Allard said the runway fight could be over. "It doesn't look like there will be any move to block it," he said. But Hefley remains dead-set against the runway, according to spokeswoman Leigh LaMora. "He's going to continue to work to keep the ban," she said. If funding is approved, construction of the runway would not begin until October. It can't be built unless Congress passes the full appropriations bill and President Clinton signs it. Allard said a new environmental impact study must be conducted. Elaine Valente, an Adams County commissioner who is opposed to the runway, said Shuster's action leaves the issue "wide open." Adams County is suing Denver for about $3.5 million over noise issues. "Our position all along has been this: Show us that the sixth runway will make things better," she said. "We are firm in our belief that it will exacerbate some of the problems we have now - and create more." In March, a study determined that a sixth runway would not increase noise beyond current levels for the estimated 90,000 nearby residents who live in homes where it exceeds 65 decibels, the accepted threshold for the most serious problems. Valente dismissed the study: "I didn't see anything new in it at all. It's all been very frustrating."
The article reports Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell offered conditional support for the project last month, helping move the issue forward. Campbell, a member of the appropriations committee, said his support is based on the cooperation between the Federal Aviation Administration and neighboring communities to help reduce noise levels. "DIA, as planned, includes the sixth runway," he said. "I am hopeful the FAA, airport officials and representatives of the surrounding communities can agree on a plan that allows us to move forward." Once Congress gives its approval, the FAA must review the project. The sixth runway, a north-south configuration planned for the northwest quadrant of the airfield, would stretch up to 16,000 feet, long enough to accommodate jumbo aircraft, said DIA spokesman Chuck Cannon. The other five runways are 12,000 feet. "It's very, very important to the airport," said Cannon, who estimates that it would take about a year to construct the runway. "Basically, the last obstacle to funding of the sixth runway is over," said Sean Conway, Allard's spokesman.
PUBLICATION: Aberdeen Press and Journal (Aberdeen, Scotland)
DATE: June 25, 1998
SECTION: Public Services: Armed Forces, Pg.6
BYLINE: Clive Dennier
DATELINE: Tain, Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: David Munro, resident; Jim Paterson, councilor
The Aberdeen Press and Journal of Aberdeen, Scotland, reports new flight paths designed by the RAF to reduce noise for villages around the Tain bombing range in Easter Ross are making life noisy and miserable for one farmer.
According to the article, temporary flight paths have put David Munro's farm directly under low-flying RAF jets using the Tain Air Weapons Range. In the past, jets have flown circuits over the village of Inver to the west of Rockfield and right through the heart of Easter Ross. Local people complained repeatedly to Councilor Jim Paterson. He asked the RAF to consider a flight path that took planes outside the Tarbat peninsula, around the point of Tarbat Ness and then down the Moray Firth one mile off the coast, before returning to Fearn Airfield. But at April's meeting of the Tain Range Liaison Committee, made up of RAF officials and members of the community, the RAF said it was too costly to keep to Paterson's circuit. It devised a flight path as near as possible to Paterson's route. Planes now cut inside Portmahomack Point and fly just over the sea instead of heading a mile out. The first two-week trial of the route took place in May. Another two-week trial began on Monday .
The article reports it is the new trial circuit which has infuriated Munro. "The last time I complained about the noise caused by RAF jets in the vicinity was in the 1960s, but I was forced to complain again on Tuesday because the noise while I was working in the fields for several hours was unbearable," he said. Munro added: "When I phoned the range to complain, I couldn't speak for quite a long time because the noise was so loud even from behind a closed window in my house. "If as a private individual I made a noise like that I would be immediately stopped." Paterson agreed the trial flight path was no better than the old route. He insisted his suggestion would have been better. "People have tried to be reasonable but everyone is getting fed up with this situation," he said. "I think we're getting to the stage where people are saying: 'Is it really necessary for the range to be here?"
The article went on to state RAF spokesman Craig Lindsay said the circuit devised was the closest it could get to that requested by Paterson. He said: "The exact circuit would have doubled the time it took pilots to go round and halved the amount of training. It's as near as we're prepared to go without prejudicing training for possible detachments to trouble spots overseas." Lindsay added that it would be extremely difficult to find another range in Scotland, because of the cost of buying land and the fact other people would be faced with noise. It would also be costly to the taxpayer to move to ranges in England or Wales. Councilors and RAF officials will discuss the results of the trial circuits at next month's Tain Range Liaison Committee meeting.
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal (Atlanta, GA)
DATE: June 25, 1998
SECTION: Gwinnett Extra; Pg. 01Jj
BYLINE: Stacy Shelton
DATELINE: Gwinnett, Georgia
The Atlanta Journal reports for the second time in recent months, county commissioners in Gwinnett, Georgia, changed the alcohol law to allow restaurants to play music outside their buildings.
According to the article, the latest change, approved unanimously Tuesday night by the commissioners, gives bars and restaurants serving alcohol flexibility to play music on their patios and decks. The law previously prohibited them from making any noise outside their buildings. The change was written for Darden Restaurants, an Orlando-based chain that owns Red Lobster and Olive Garden. Darden plans to open its new restaurant, Bahama Breeze, within a year near Gwinnett Place mall. The restaurant features a steel drum player and reggae music on the restaurant's veranda. In April, commissioners approved a change to allow brewpubs to make beer for their customers. It was requested by Hops Restaurant Bar & Brewery, which is opening its second metro Atlanta location this summer at Gwinnett Place Drive and Ring Road.
The article reports County Administrator Charlotte Nash said the recent changes are part of the county's rapid evolution from a rural farmland to a suburban business center. It's been just over a decade since the county started allowing liquor-by-the-drink sales, Nash said. "A lot of ordinances dealing with alcoholic beverages were drawn very, very tightly originally, and we have relaxed them over time." But despite similar requests in the past from other establishments, county officials were unwilling to budge on the noise standards until now, Nash said. "We've been real careful about outdoor music because in lots of ways, it's just easier to say 'No, we're not going to allow it' rather than deal with monitoring it." The amendment closely follows the county noise ordinance and does not allow sounds that can be heard outside the establishment's property lines. It states that "in no event" shall such "loud, unnecessary or unusual" noise be made between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Roger Chapin, government relations director for Darden who attended the commission meeting and pushed for the noise amendment, said, "I think this new ordinance will kind of clear up some confusion in the marketplace right now," Chapin said.
PUBLICATION: The Dominion (Wellington, NZ)
DATE: June 25, 1998
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 10
DATELINE: Palmerston, New Zealand
The Dominion reports residents who live near New Zealand's Palmerston North airport will hear tonight about new regulations that affect the noise insulation of new homes.
According to the article, residents have complained about the noise from air force trainer jets that use the airport for takeoff and landing tests. Palmerston North City Council and Manawatu District Council are holding a public meeting tonight to tell people of new regulations for new homes within their districts. The councils have created a series of air noise contours around the airport. No new homes will be allowed to be built in the inner contour, all habitable rooms of new homes in the second contour must be insulated, and in the outer contour the insulation is required for bedrooms only. Rooms added to existing homes in the contours will have to be insulated. The councils are also talking to the air force about a proposal to ban trainer jets from the airport between 9.30pm and 1.30am.
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: June 25, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. L01
BYLINE: Howard Gregory, Staff Writer
DATELINE: New Milford, New Jersey
The Record reports more than 60 residents attended a planning board meeting this week in New Milford, New Jersey, to discuss proposed outdoor roller-hockey rink. While some tried to demonstrate the need for the facility, others talked of the noise and traffic the rink would bring to the neighborhood.
According to the article, representatives of a non-profit group called New Milford Roller Hockey Inc. appeared before the Planning Board on Tuesday night to present plans for the rink they want built on tennis courts behind Borough Hall. But the group's architect was asked by the Planning Board to return with more details that would show how the rink would affect drainage and parking in the neighborhood. Councilman Henry Chernin said if the Planning Board approves the proposal, the borough would lease the property to the roller-hockey group. The roller-hockey group was started about 1 1/2 years ago by parents who wanted to give their children a safe alternative to playing the sport in the streets. The group plans to raise the money needed to build the 185-by-85-foot rink.
The article states the group asked for the borough's assistance in locating a rink site, but officials said final plan approval would be contingent on support from neighboring residents. Two previous locations have already been rejected after neighbors complained. Group members said neighbors who came to complain about the proposal were bothered by noise and traffic congestion that already exist at the recreation facility. The site, Group members said, is a logical location for the roller rink. "It's a year-round recreation area," said the wife of a roller-hockey member. "All recreation should be in one area, and this is the town recreation area. End of story." But neighbors complained that they were being treated as "second-class citizens" for not being given a public hearing before the mayor and council, as happened when residents near two previously rejected sites voiced concerns. Borough officials said they did not give residents living near the tennis courts a hearing because the area was already designated for recreational use. The residents contend they already suffer noise and traffic congestion from baseball games, from swim club events, and from people using the recreation complex's basketball and tennis courts. "My back yard is full," one resident said. "Find another location."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: June 25, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Karla Schuster
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports a new group, Supporters of Aviation Resources Inc., (SOAR), says complaints about airplane noise during the past year have been exaggerated. Its aim is to silence criticism of the Boca Raton Airport.
According to the article, Charles R. Morgenstein, a pilot and chairman of SOAR, said at a regular Airport Authority meeting on Wednesday, "There isn't a big noise problem at the airport and if there is a noise problem, they've been addressed very well by the airport." Morgenstein said he was prompted to resurrect the organization, which had originally formed as an airport booster group in 1993, as criticism grew of the airport and its response to noise problems. "We want to get the corporate users of the airport as well as private users and citizens who like living near an airport politically active and involved," Morgenstein said. "The naysayers have managed to get the council's ear, and now we want to balance the negative publicity with some positive publicity."
The article reports during the past year, several homeowners' groups near the airport formed an organization called BRAAG - the Boca Raton Airport Action Group - to address the increasing jet noise that they say is ruining their quality of life. Residents' complaints prompted the Airport Authority to create a noise advisory group, and the City Council has met several times with airport officials about noise complaints. So far, SOAR has met with some skepticism from City Council members. "I think it's fine that there will be more people involved in the debate on these issues, but I've been out there (at the airport) and I've heard the noise, " said City Council member Steven Abrams. "Promoting the airport as an amenity to attract business and expand Boca's economic base is something all of us want, but based on the letters and calls we've gotten, it's clear noise and the airport's response to it is an issue," he said.
PUBLICATION: Wisconsin State Journal
DATE: June 25, 1998
SECTION: Local/Wisconsin, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Marv Balousek
DATELINE: Madison, Wisconsin
The Wisconsin State Journal reports a proposal to toughen Madison, Wisconsin's noise regulations may please residents but irk businesses.
According to the article, the ordinance could offer more protection for neighbors of industrial plants such as those living near Madison-Kipp Corp. on the city's East Side. But it also could require businesses to get new permits for noise that meets existing standards. At this point in the process, the proposed ordinance is being reviewed by city committees. The new ordinance would cut maximum allowable stationary noise in the city in half, from about 70 to 75 decibels to 60 to 65 decibels, depending on the time of day. As points of reference, a vacuum cleaner generates about 70 decibels, while normal conversation is about 60 decibels. Heavy traffic can generate 75 decibels. In 2001, a second phase of the ordinance would impose even tougher standards, setting maximum allowable levels in residential areas at 57 to 62 decibels at night.
The article reports some experts consider Madison's current ordinance loose by today's standards. Under the new ordinance, Madison's standards would be tougher than ones in Portland, Oregon or San Antonio. "The purpose of it is to not have permanent equipment like giant air conditioners and big fans constantly going 24 hours a day," said Harry Sulzer, new construction supervisor with the city's Building Inspection Unit. "It is a stationary noise ordinance that deals with permanent noise sources." Building inspectors armed with noise monitors would enforce the ordinance, and violators would be subject to fines of $25 to $100 for each offense. Rather than checking noise randomly, Sulzer said inspectors will respond to noise complaints. Sulzer said a controversial point in the ordinance is whether it applies to existing noise sources. "This ordinance as it's written is retroactive, but that may not be adopted," he said.
The article states that as written, the proposed ordinance would apply to existing companies and could require them to apply for conditional-use permits to meet the tougher noise standards. At Madison-Kipp, a die casting company that makes machine parts of aluminum and zinc, chairman Reed Coleman said the company has taken measures on its own in response to neighbor noise complaints since a noise study committee began meeting five years ago. "We have done so many things to change the way in which we do things and change location in the plant," Coleman said. "We have dramatically diminished the extent and level of noise we create." Sulzer said Madison-Kipp complies with the current ordinance but might find it tougher to comply with the new standards. "The way it's written, the day the ordinance is effective, they could be not in compliance," he said. "They would have to get a variance." Likewise, emergency generators at Madison Gas & Electric Co. also may not comply with the new standards, Sulzer said. Sulzer said inspectors would be trained to help noisemakers resolve the problem or apply for a variance. "I think there's a lot of work to be done on it," he said of the proposed ordinance. "Someone will redraft it, then it will go back through the boards and commissions again."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: June 25, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 7B; Zone: Nw
BYLINE: Pat Clawson
DATELINE: Rolling Meadows, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Evenson, alderman
The Chicago Tribune reports an Illinois alderman in Rolling Meadows is urging that his city secure voting rights on the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission
According to the article, a recent report showed Rolling Meadows residents had made more calls to the O'Hare hot line than their counterparts in Arlington Heights, a voting commission member. The noise compatibility commission was created by Chicago to give suburban officials a say in noise -abatement efforts at the world's busiest airport. An April noise complaint report by the Chicago Department of Aviation said 21 callers from Rolling Meadows complained about aircraft noise levels during 35 phone calls to the hot line in April, compared with 18 callers making 25 phone calls from Arlington Heights. Ald. Mark Evenson also noted that aircraft noise monitors have reported higher levels of noise in Rolling Meadows than in Chicago and at one of two monitoring sites in Mt. Prospect. "I think that it is extremely unfair that the City of Rolling Meadows is not given the same rights which less affected towns continue to receive," he said. Evenson also urged the council to consider passing a resolution opposing runway expansion at O'Hare, similar to one recently approved in Arlington Heights.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: June 24, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Chris Fusco
DATELINE: Schaumburg, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Stueve, resident; Gayle Smolinski, Roselle Village president
The Chicago Daily Herald Cook reports Schaumburg trustees unanimously approved final plans for a publicly financed minor-league ballpark Tuesday, despite objections of noise and traffic congestion from some homeowners.
According to the article, a Schaumburg Northern League franchise will take the field next May. Schaumburg's stadium will be east of Springinsguth Road and south of the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway. Modeled primarily after Wrigley Field, it will hold 7,000 people. About 75 people turned out to protest the ballpark plans at Tuesday's village board meeting. The stadium will be built just north of a subdivision of town houses in Roselle, while two dozen homes sit along Long Avenue to the east of the proposed ballpark in unincorporated Schaumburg Township. Single-family dwellings are north of the ballpark in Schaumburg. Many of those homeowners pleaded with the trustees Tuesday to stall the project. They left the meeting dejected. "It was a done deal from the beginning," said Long Avenue homeowner Jim Stueve, who has watched offers to buy his house die as news of the stadium plans spread. "When you live in a dictatorship, you get dictatorship results."
The article reports Schaumburg Village President Al Larson, however, said the village has been willing to work with residents regarding their concerns about the traffic, lighting, noise, and pollution the ballpark will create. "Long Avenue residents brought us a whole series of concerns, and we've addressed every one of them," Larson said. "The only one we differ on is the location." Village studies conclude the ballpark will have minimal impact on surrounding areas. A berm with an 8-foot-tall fence and 13-foot-tall trees will shield Long residents from lights and noise, although crowd noise cannot be controlled. Traffic studies conclude that timing improvements to be made to existing traffic signals and police traffic patrols around the ballpark will decrease congestion in the area.
The article states nearby residents and Roselle Village President Gayle Smolinski reject the village's studies. They say thoroughfares are gridlocked between 5 and 7 p.m. on weekdays. But the traffic study - performed by Metro Transportation Group of Hanover Park - concludes traffic on those roads ebbs after 6 p.m. The peak hour for weekday ballpark traffic will be between 6 and 7 p.m. About 300 cars will use local streets like Spring South Road and Rodenburg in the event of a sell-out. That traffic will be spread out over an hour's time and village officials do not expect sell-outs every game. Still, Smolinski wants Schaumburg to develop a plan to prevent people from driving to the stadium from the south by using Rodenburg or other neighborhood streets in Roselle. If Schaumburg refuses to address the traffic issue, Roselle trustees may consider shutting down Rodenburg during games. "That's getting a little hysterical, don't you think?" Larson said.
PUBLICATION: The Columbus Dispatch
DATE: June 24, 1998
SECTION: News , Pg. 4B
BYLINE: Lornet Turnbull
DATELINE: Columbus, Ohio
The Columbus Dispatch reports a state-of-the-art monitoring system planned for Port Columbus should help airport officials better identify the source of noisy flights that give residents sleepless nights.
According to the article, tracking information along with flight data from the Federal Aviation Administration should allow the airport to determine what flights are generating what noise. The noise and flight track monitoring system will include microphones mounted on 20-foot poles in neighborhoods east and west of the airport. The listening system - capable of isolating aircraft noise - will be connected by telephone line to a central computer that will dial up and retrieve information on airplanes taking off from Port Columbus. "Often, there can be a cloak of anonymity around who's causing the noise, " said Bernard F. Meleski, director of planning and development. "This data will allow us to work with the airport users on a more informed basis. We might be able to use this to develop patterns of flight that might be more beneficial to neighborhoods around the airport."
The article states the new system is part of an ongoing program by the airport to comply with FAA noise pollution rules. Port Columbus receives about 300 complaints a year from neighbors - most of them in the summer months. People living nearby complain about low-flying aircraft, loss or interruption of sleep, inability to hear telephone conversations and a general concern over quality of life. The extension and re-opening of the north runway earlier this year has led to an increase in those complaints, Meleski said. "When people call now, we're frustrated because we are unable to give them the information they want," he said. Currently, Port Columbus uses three mobile units to monitor noise levels at the airport periodically -- usually only after it receives a complaint from neighbors. The outmoded system involves tripod-mounted microphones connected to data-recording equipment, Meleski said. Sirens and lawn mowers can trip them and result in a false read. Systems such as the one planned for Port Columbus are in use in many of the nation's major airports, including Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and the three major New York metropolitan airports.
PUBLICATION: Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV)
DATE: June 24, 1998
SECTION: B; Pg. 4B
BYLINE: Keith Rogers
DATELINE: Las Vegas, Nevada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Randy Harness, chairman of Sierra Club Conservation; Jessica Hodge, chairwoman of Clean Air Project
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports environmentalists said Tuesday they oppose Clark County's plans for a new airport in the Ivanpah Valley because it would disrupt national parks, stimulate more urban growth, and increase air and noise pollution.
According to the article, the Sierra Club's Clean Air Project chose to announce their views on the airport plans in a parking lot for trucks near Tropicana Avenue and Interstate 15. "This is going to explode in growth along that corridor," said Sierra Club Conservation Chairman Randy Harness. "We figured it was a good metaphor to see all the trucks, the traffic and the dust," he said, explaining why the club's Clean Air Project chose that location for a briefing on the air cargo hub. The airport is proposed for an area between Jean and Primm on the east side of I-15. Harness and Clean Air Project Chairwoman Jessica Hodge, said while a bill is circulating in Congress for the Bureau of Land Management to sell 6,395 acres in Ivanpah Valley for airport development, the public is being left out of the process. "An environmental impact statement should be done. It shouldn't be breezed through Congress by certain special interest groups," Harness said. But Clark County Assistant Aviation Director Jacob Snow said if the bill succeeds and the land is sold, the law requires any impacts of the project to be addressed in a public forum. "We agree with them 100 percent, and that study will be done and is required under federal law," Snow said, noting that the proposed site is not critical habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise-- a threatened reptile.
The article reports Hodge and Harness said they also are concerned about noise impacts from cargo jets that would serve Denver, Reno, San Francisco, Southern California, Phoenix and possibly Mexico. They said they fear the natural quiet of the nearby Mojave National Preserve, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and Death Valley National Park will be disturbed. "There are a lot of questions here," Harness said. Snow said the affected flight corridor is already heavily traveled by aircraft, but county officials would be willing to sit down with the Sierra Club and the National Park Service to discuss ways to keep aircraft noise at a minimum. "I don't think it's going to be anywhere close to Mojave National Preserve but that doesn't mean we're not going to work to make the impacts as minimal as possible," Snow said.
The article also reported Harness questioned why the airport proposal wasn't included in the BLM's 20-year Resource Management Plan, now in its final stage. A BLM spokesman in Las Vegas, Phillip Guerrero, said the county's initial letters about the proposed airport came after comments had been gathered on the 20-year plan. If Congress approves the land sale, then Clark County would have to make a formal proposal that could result in an amendment to the Resource Management Plan. "But as of right now, it's a congressional action and that's all it is. No amendment is needed to the plan," he said.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: June 24, 1998
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. 7B
DATELINE: Providence, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin published the following editorial from resident Edward Moncada, encouraging police enforcement of noise regulations in Providence, Rhode Island. Moncada writes:
The Providence Police Department should take notice of the recent reinforcement by neighboring police departments of efforts to curtail the spread of noise pollution. The once quiet residential neighborhoods of Providence cannot defend themselves against drivers who speed through with music blasting from their speakers, sending annoying bass vibrations throughout windows and walls. How as a community are we to improve the decaying conditions of our neighborhoods when inconsiderate drivers are constantly playing music at deafening levels throughout the late hours of the night?
As a community, we can organize recycling campaigns, home improvement campaigns and even the collection of neighborhood litter, but lately there has been a noticeable increase in the amount of noise pollution created by disrespectful drivers, which we face helplessly. The Providence Police Department, following its obligation to the safety and security of the public it serves, must begin to crack down on these speeding boomboxes and hand out serious fines!
PUBLICATION: The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News (Stuart, FL)
DATE: June 24, 1998
SECTION: Local; Pg. C1
BYLINE: Kevin Osborne
DATELINE: Martin County, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dan Forlenza, resident
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News reports commissioners in Martin County, Florida, are working to develop a constitutionally sound ordinance to control noise nuisances.
According to the article, county commissioners delayed a decision Tuesday on noise rules because they need more time to fine-tune an enforceable ordinance that will withstand potential legal challenges. The county's attorneys will review how other communities handle noise restrictions and are expected to bring a proposal to commissioners July 28. Communities such as Fort Lauderdale and Marion County have noise ordinances, but many hire consultants to ensure their rules are legally defensible. County Attorney Gary Oldehoff said communities typically have different standards for day and night hours and that residents have different ideas about what is reasonable. Noise rules must have clearly defined standards and can't be broadly drafted, he added. "This kind of language has to be very, very clear," Oldehoff said. "If there's too much wiggle room, it will probably be declared invalid." Several area ordinances haven't survived. Stuart rejected a proposal last year, and a Port St. Lucie ordinance was declared unconstitutional in 1994.
The article states commissioners began considering noise rules in May, after owners of The Florida Club golf course community on State Road 76 said country music played at a nearby pig farm was a nuisance to golfers. David Wasserman, an attorney for several farmers, questioned the noise rules that exempted golf course landscaping activities. "I think that's ludicrous," Wasserman said. "I also represent people who have lived here a long time ... people who are also deserving of equal treatment under the law." Officials said the rules weren't proposed because of the pig dispute, but the County Commission rejected similar ordinances in 1993, 1995 and 1996.
The article goes on to report Martin County is proposing to restrict farm noises to 85 decibels, which is about as loud as a garbage disposal or a household drill. Homeowners would be prohibited from making noise that disturbs neighbors 100 feet away. Several residents supported the proposal. "I think most of the ordinances are made for a few non-conformists who don't respect the rights of the majority," resident John Gustafson said. Resident Dan Forlenza said he was most interested in keeping loud music down. "My major complaint is these boomboxes. The garbage trucks are doing something constructive. The lawn mower people are doing something constructive," Forlenza said. "I don't blame anyone for listening to music. I love music. But keep it to yourself."
According to the article, a change that appears likely is a loosening of restrictions on building contractors and construction crews. Previously, the rules would have allowed construction noise only between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. But some builders objected, saying they need to start work earlier because they often must stop because of midday heat. Commissioners indicated they would allow a 7 a.m. start time. "I think we need to find balances on these things," Commission Chairwoman Donna Melzer said. Also, Commissioners Elmira Gainey and Janet Gettig objected to a provision that only set limits on noises from stereos, radios and TVs between certain hours. They said the standards should be applied throughout the day.
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press (Neptune, NJ)
DATE: June 23, 1998
SECTION: B, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Arpie Nakashian
DATELINE: Long Beach Township, New Jersey
The Asbury Park Press reports New Jersey's Long Beach Township officials have rescinded an ordinance that had limited the days and streets on which ice cream vendors could operate. The canceled ordinance was passed last year after residents complained of noise and fumes from the ice cream trucks.
According to the article, the Board of Commissioners on Friday rescinded restrictions placed on ice cream vendors, noting that complaints last year were over auxiliary generators some vendors had used on their trucks and not bells used to attract customers. The generators were noisy and produced exhaust fumes, prompting complaints, Commissioner Peter L. Murphy said. Officials then set the odd-even limits to help alleviate the problems, he said. Under the ordinance adopted last year, vendors could sell on even-numbered streets on even-numbered calendar days, and odd-numbered streets on odd-numbered days. That ordinance frustrated vendors, who would stop to sell their frozen treats to beachgoers at the ends of streets where lifeguard stands were located.
The article reports in addition to rescinding the ordinance Friday, the Board of Commissioners introduced an ordinance based on a state model that sets limits on noise. The new measure includes some compromise on both sides, Murphy said. "We don't have a war with these guys. We're getting along well with the vendors," he said. "The vendors know that if they make a lot of lot of noise on the streets east of (Long Beach Boulevard), we would resort to the odd-even plan," he said.
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press (Neptune, NJ)
DATE: June 23, 1998
SECTION: B, Pg. 2
BYLINE: Erik Larsen
DATELINE: Spring Lake, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Walter E. Kimm III, councilman; Gary J. Rich, councilman
The Asbury Park Press reports a proposed ordinance in Spring Lake, New Jersey, to limit noise pollution produced lively discussion at last night's Borough Council meeting.
According to the article, the council agreed to table the ordinance for another month as officials consider the legal consequences of the proposal. "We understand a lot of people commute from the city and want to come home and relax on their deck without the noise, " Councilman Michael Mattia told those in attendance. "We have to be careful," warned Mayor Thomas J. Byrne. "We're going to have laws where the birds can't land in the trees." Councilman Joseph C. Rizzo said that if the council approves the ordinance, the wording will have to be cautious or it's "going to drive the police crazy."
The article reports earlier this month, the council proposed amending noise regulations that would prohibit both private and commercial lawn mowing and leaf blowing during certain times during the weekdays and weekends. The proposal also would restrict the hours anyone could operate power tools, garden equipment, and model vehicles and perform residential or commercial construction, repairs or demolition. Commercial construction would be restricted between certain hours from Friday to Monday morning. Homeowners also would be prohibited from doing construction or repairs between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. weekdays and from 5 p.m. Friday to 10 a.m. Saturday. No outside construction or repairs would be allowed by homeowners from 4 p.m. Saturday to 8 a.m. Monday. Councilman Walter E. Kimm III said he supports the ordinance and told residents it was an opportunity to improve the quality of life. "This town hums from sun-up to sundown with leaf blowers. There are people who like their quiet," Kim said. "There's got to be some quiet time in this town."
The article goes on to state residents at last night's meeting agree noise is a problem but disagree over how it should be restricted. "Whatever happened to going to your neighbors?" asked former Councilwoman Priscilla M. Reilly. "Why can't we go up and talk to each other instead of legislating everything? We're a small town." Councilman Gary J. Rich said the idea behind the ordinance was not to legislate noise but to provide legal grounds on which to make a complaint against a noisy neighbor who would not be open to a friendly discussion.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: June 23, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Jon Davis
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dwight Walton, village trustee; Virginia Kucera, village trustee and member of advisory committee; Stephen Daday, village trustee and chairman of advisory committee
The Chicago Daily Herald reports the village of Arlington Heights has requested the Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise re-issue their plan for mitigating airplane noise in the village's airspace.
According to the article, village Trustee Dwight Walton noted the advisory committee issued such a plan when it was formed in October 1991. Walton asked that a new plan look at airplane noise trends and whether the village is in a position to affect noise at O'Hare International Airport. "Perhaps in some ways you've done that, but I think it would serve us well in 1998 to put that into writing again," Walton said Monday night during a meeting of the village board's committee of the whole. "I agree wholeheartedly," said Trustee Virginia Kucera, who sits on the O'Hare noise committee. The noise problem is so complex the committee is taking it on one problem or report at a time, she said. "It doesn't seem like we have a blueprint in front of us," Kucera said.
The article reports Walton asked if the one noise monitor currently located in southern Arlington Heights is enough to give the village the information it seeks? The village needs solid data in order to tell residents what the long-term noise trends actually are, he said. The committee is now getting that information from the city of Chicago, although at a frustratingly slow pace, said Trustee Stephen Daday, who chairs the Advisory Committee. Asked where he sees the O'Hare noise committee going, Daday said the future is hard to predict because the atmosphere surrounding airport problems changes almost monthly as political climates shift and new topics like a third airport or construction come to the forefront, he said. Daday said the panel will likely begin talking about a new game plan at its July 21 meeting.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: June 23, 1998
SECTION: News Pg.01b
BYLINE: Bob Hill
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
The Courier-Journal published a column by Bob Hill that contends officials in charge of the $700 million expansion of Kentucky's Louisville International Airport are deaf to noise pollution concerns of residents.
According to the column, for the airport's expansion, thousands of people were illegally bulldozed from their homes - many of them people in their late 60s and 70s who had spent a lifetime there. In other homes under the airport flight path, people were not given much say over the future of their homes or their families. In addition, "Louisville International Airport has done very little to study the impact of the noise produced as a result of the new runways and flight patterns. Rather than using professional, high-tech monitoring system, the airport has been calculating the validity of its noisereduction plan by having airport firefighters count how many airplanes are landing on which runways." There have been several situations in the process of expanding the airport in which attorneys' fees have been higher than the price of a noisemonitoring system. "Airport officials also argue that monitors are not needed until the new noise plan is updated this fall, but that's nonsense; how are you going to establish any sort of meaningful plan without knowing the noise patterns to begin with?"
The article states the real issue is that Louisville International Airport, for all the money spent and the promises made, has done a shameful job of tracking the noise residents below are most affected by. Other airports track flights and evaluate noise with radar-based monitoring, permanent monitors and actual logs of noise complaints that show times, locations and numbers of complaints.
The column concludes with two memos from the columnist: "Memo to Louisville International Airport officials: People don't trust you anymore. They get bulldozed from their homes, misused, lied to and ignored, are refused any real input in your expansion process, have their ears shattered on a nightly basis, and that warm, cozy feeling is gone. "Memo to 8th Ward Alderman Greg Handy: How can you have any kind of valid Ad Hoc Airport Project Analysis Committee when it includes only representatives of the airport, the airport control tower and United Parcel Service? Have noise -affected residents been left off because they might have something to say that airport leaders don't want to hear?"
PUBLICATION: Gloucestershire Echo (United Kingdom)
DATE: June 23, 1998
SECTION: Environment: Pollution, Pg.8
DATELINE: Cheltenham, England
The Gloucestershire Echo published the following letter to the editor about the ill effects of noise from a resident of High Street, Cheltenham, England:
Madam - I have been wondering for a long time why a certain group of people who have no idea of a noise level limit should be allowed to run (and even ruin) the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands of people. With the music speakers about nowadays in pubs, clubs, flats and houses, the noise level of music, TV and radio has surely passed the bounds of acceptability.
Everywhere we see posters telling us to complain if noise affects us but when we do complain, we are told that there is nothing they can do. Sometimes my parents have an argument because the constant thump of loud music gets on their nerves and I cannot do my homework properly because it interrupts my concentration. It's all right for people who do not understand the situation to say, "why not move?" but that is easier said than done. Anyway, some people have to live in town.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: June 23, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Tony De Paul
DATELINE: Warwick, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Suzanne Gemma, resident and member of SONIC
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports the newly expanded T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, Rhode Island, is bringing new noise to its host city, afflicting almost 4 square miles of neighborhoods with enough noise to make them eligible for house soundproofing at taxpayer expense.
According to the article, engineers hired to perform a study of the noise problem and to recommend ways of attacking it presented some preliminary findings to the public yesterday. A year's worth of radar data from the control tower, computer simulations, and actual noise measurements in the neighborhoods, all support Warwick residents' complaints of an increase in noise since last summer. Though many new flights at Green are on quieter Stage 3 jets, the number of loud Stage 2 aircraft at Green has doubled since 1993, the study found. The number of people living in neighborhoods eligible for soundproofing has increased from 5,890 to 8,750. (Twenty percent live in houses already soundproofed by the state Airport Corporation.) The high-noise area is 23 percent bigger than it was in 1993.
The article reports Landrum & Brown, a Chicago firm, presented the findings yesterday to a review committee representing the airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration, general aviation pilots, local cities and towns, and Warwick residents, some members of SONIC, an antinoise group. Members of the public yesterday proposed ideas ranging from a ban on airline mechanics running engines overnight to wholesale buyouts of entire neighborhoods, like Hillsgrove and Lincoln Park. Suzanne Gemma, a SONIC member from Cowesett, said, "For our own quality of life, we need to know, frankly, do we sell and get out now or do we hang around in the hope that something will get a little bit better?" Landrum & Brown recommended residents hang around. The engineers predict the high-noise zone, though growing now, will shrink dramatically after Stage 2 jets are outlawed at the end of next year. By 2003, they said, the high noise area will be 30 percent smaller than it is today, and 15 percent smaller than it was in 1993, when the last noise study was done. That study, performed by a different company, erroneously foresaw shrinking noise levels by now. Landrum & Brown said the previous study underestimated how often airline pilots would ask controllers to put them on Green's longest runway, and failed to anticipate the number of older Stage 2 noisemakers that would use Green once the new terminal opened.
The article goes on to report the study will now focus on ways to control noise. At a public meeting scheduled for Aug. 13, Landrum & Brown plans to make its recommendations, which could include new flight rules for pilots on how steeply they should climb on takeoff and when to reduce power. The engineers also could recommend mapping new "flight tracks" in the airspace over Warwick, thus routing aircraft - to the extent possible in a city of neighborhoods - over industrial and commercial districts, green space, and Greenwich Bay.
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: JUNE 23, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A15
BYLINE: Benjamin Pimentel
DATELINE: San Bruno, California
The San Francisco Chronicle reports California's San Francisco International Airport received a multi-million dollar grant yesterday intended to make SFO more safe and efficient. About $11 million will go toward airfield work, while the rest of the funds will be devoted to noise reduction, including $4 million for soundproofing homes in South San Francisco and San Bruno.
According to the article, the grant from the Department of Transportation was part of a $15 million package. "As we all know, noise is a source of irritation in the Bay Area, and this is going to help alleviate some of that," said Evelyn Szelenyi, district representative of Congressman Tom Lantos, who helped secure the grant. SFO spokesman Ron Wilson said the grant will be used to help some of an estimated 3,000 homes that are still affected by noise from aircraft leaving the airport. Federal law requires airports to keep noise level to within 65 decibels. Since 1981, SFO has helped decrease noise levels at 12,000 homes in the San Bruno and South San Francisco area either through soundproofing or other means, Wilson said. Lantos' office said the federal government has awarded about $40 million in grants since the early 1980s for soundproofing private homes and public buildings.
The article states SFO has stressed that it has always been responsive to its neighbors and the Airport Community Roundtable, the local group of San Francisco and nine other cities that meets regularly with SFO on noise issues. Wilson said SFO has also allocated $120 million for insulating homes as part of its ongoing expansion program. Homeowners apply for the home insulation funds through their cities, which work with airport officials in the distribution of the grant money. Last year, the Federal Aviation Administration also required planes arriving from Hawaii to fly at a higher altitude over Woodside in the early morning hours. This change was based on the recommendation of SFO and the roundtable.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: June 22, 1998
SECTION: News Pg.01a
BYLINE: Nina Walfoort
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Sistarenik, treasurer of the Airport Neighbors' Alliance; Don Conrad, resident; Mary Rose Evans, president of Airport Neighbors' Alliance President; Greg Handy, alderman; Barbara Shaffer, resident
The Courier-Journal reports Louisville International Airport has done little to track the impact of noise from changes in runways and flight patterns that have occurred under the airport's $700 million expansion.
According to the article, people living near the airport say the problem of the roar of airplanes, especially at night, has worsened since a second runway opened in December. They fear it will get even worse when United Parcel Service expands its operation over the next three years. Some have questioned whether the airport is following the procedures in a noise-reduction plan adopted in 1993. A Courier-Journal analysis of 5,822 flights over two weeks in April showed that planes flew over neighborhoods north of the airport nearly twice as often at night as they are supposed to under the noise-reduction plan. Doug Stern, spokesman for the airport expansion project, said the newspaper's analysis "is not a statistically valid sample." When asked how the airport determines whether the noise -reduction plan is being followed, he said it relies on airport firefighters who count how many airplanes are landing on which runways during the night. Unlike many other airports, the Louisville airport uses none of the three standard methods for evaluating noise: radar tracking systems, sound monitors and complaint logs. "It's crucial to know if what they have in place now is working," said John Sistarenik, treasurer of the Airport Neighbors' Alliance. "Monitoring is the only way to know if they're reaching their stated goals." Stern said the airport hasn't installed a monitoring system because officials have known since the noise plan was written that the runway configurations would change. A monitoring system could be included when the noise plan is updated, starting in fall, he said.
The article states controlling flight patterns is a key component of the current plan. On a busy night, more than 30 flights an hour may arrive between midnight and dawn. The plan recommends that certain flight patterns be used to minimize disturbance to the airport's neighbors. According to the plan, the weather should allow night flights to arrive from the south and depart to the south about 80 percent of the time, flying over neighborhoods that are sparsely populated and scheduled for relocation. The Courier-Journal's analysis found that just 60 percent of flights held to the night pattern. That means planes flew over neighborhoods north of the airport nearly twice as often as they were supposed to during those two weeks. For day flights, the airport's plan says planes should come in from the north and depart to the south. The Courier-Journal's analysis showed that planes followed the preferred day flight pattern about 70 percent of the time. In response to The Courier-Journal's study, Stern said that weather dictates flight patterns and that the percentages are meant to be calculated over 12 months. He contended that the number of airplanes flying over residential neighborhoods is being kept to a minimum and that the airport is meeting the 80 percent standard set in its noise -reduction plan. He said the information collected by airport firefighters indicates that the preferred night pattern is followed 80 to 85 percent of the time. "It's reliable information," he said. The airport also released a hand-written list of nightly percentages compiled by airport General Manager Bob Michael and a letter that said 76 percent of arrivals and 83.9 percent of departures flew over southern neighborhoods going back to December 1995. Don Conrad, who lives in Edgewood just east of the airport, doesn't believe those percentages are accurate, and he says the airport seems "unconcerned" about whether it's holding to the noise-reduction plan's preferred flight patterns. "There is no oversight whatsoever." Conrad said aircraft aren't following the noise plan's suggested flight paths. For instance, they're supposed to make their turns when they reach a certain distance from the runway or a certain elevation, but they often turn earlier and come right over Edgewood, he said. "As a result of not following the flight tracks, the noise the airport is putting out, instead of bothering a select few, is bothering everybody," he said.
The article reports accurate data on flight patterns is important because flight tracks are plugged into a computer model that determines which neighborhoods get the worst noise and might be candidates for relocation or other relief. Airport consultant Walt Gillfillan, who has been working with 8th Ward Alderman Greg Handy on noise mitigation, said scientific monitoring that records actual flight paths is necessary to measure definitively how well noise -reduction plans are working. "Unless you monitor the actual performance, you have no idea whether they're working or not," Gillfillan said. He and other experts agree that radar-based monitoring is the most effective way of doing that. That's one of three standard methods airports use to evaluate noise. The radar systems determine what paths planes are following and what neighborhoods they are flying over. Many large airports and some smaller ones near urban areas also use permanent sound monitors to measure and record decibels at the airport and in adjoining neighborhoods and logs of noise complaints that show the times, locations and number of complaints.
The article goes on to say Louisville International Airport doesn't have any permanent noise monitors. Handy said he proposed that the aldermen pay for noise monitors a few years back, to no avail. And some residents suggested installing monitors when the last sound-reduction plan was written. "People have wanted there to be some noise monitoring at some point so we can see how accurate these noise models are," Airport Neighbors' Alliance President Mary Rose Evans said. Washington-based attorney Eliot Cutler, who has worked with airports all over the country, said Louisville is behind the curve in responding to residents' noise concerns. Particularly with the expansion of the runway capacity and growth of UPS, it should be prepared to install a noise -monitoring system. "They're being used all over the country, in big airports and little airports," Cutler said. "The notion that Louisville is too small or can't afford it is nonsense."
Also pointed out in the article is that Louisville Airport collects complaints but doesn't analyze them or share them routinely with community officials and legislators, as some airports do. Handy said he has also advocated a noise-complaint log. "We don't have a designated complaint line like many airports do," said Rande Swann, public relations director at Louisville International Airport. "Everyone is referred to the public relations department." She said she is also responsible for checking out complaints and making sure the control tower is following procedures. Many airports report noise complaints - with a breakdown of the time, location and type of call - to a community forum or airport commission monthly. Often they map out where complaints are coming from and keep them in a database. Swann said the complaint summary here is broader. "We don't treat noise complaints any different than any other comment, complaint, compliment or suggestion." Swann said the airport does try to respond to all complaints when it is given a phone number or address. But Evans said many of the alliance's members have given up on calling because it doesn't get results. "People who know say it's just not worth it to call the airport anymore," she said. Barbara Shaffer, a resident of Schnitzelburg, said she has complained to the airport several times, but received a response - a form letter - only once.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: June 22, 1998
SECTION: News Pg.06a
BYLINE: Nina Walfoort
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bob Johnson, chairman of Minneapolis' Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, reports an increasing number of airports are using sound monitors and radar systems to track the exact paths of arriving and departing airplanes. This information can be used to assist in noise abatement measures.
According to the article, the Federal Aviation Administration doesn't keep track of how many airports use noise -monitoring systems, but a Boeing Web site on airport noise counts 70 airports that monitor noise or track flight paths. At several airports where the systems are used, they are considered effective tools. "If someone in the community calls and says, 'An airplane just flew over me at 500 feet and I can see the lights on the plane and the eyes of the people in it,' we can actually find the location and the height it flew over, " said Ron Wilson, director of public affairs for San Francisco International Airport.
The article reports in Minneapolis, a noise monitoring system used since 1992 has made a tremendous difference in the airport's ability to identify and reduce noise, officials there say. In Minneapolis, a radar-based tracking system correlates with sound monitors. "We went for many years with information that was just kind of by guess and by gosh - we think this is happening or it isn't happening," said Bob Johnson, chairman of that city's Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council. "Without this kind of system, you have a great deal of difficulty in tracking noise complaints to see whether or not they are really serious." Roy Fuhrmann, aviation- noise manager at the St. Paul-Minneapolis International Airport, said the tracking system recently helped identify the source of specific complaints the airport was getting about a "screaming aircraft." They discovered that a valve in certain Boeing 757s was opening during arrivals, causing a screaming sound. The airline was notified and worked with the engine manufacturer to change the timing of the valve opening. "That would never have been possible without this technology," Fuhrmann said.
The article goes on to state many airports establish "preferred flight patterns" similar to Louisville's night plan. But unlike Louisville, some of those airports also employ systems to evaluate whether planes are following those patterns. In San Francisco and Boston, the patterns are designed to bring night flights in and out over the water. Both airports have tracking systems to monitor how often those patterns are followed, and the results are reported to community-based groups that monitor noise. In Boston, a sampling is taken about five days each month. "We do sit down with FAA tower personnel and discuss times when we think it (the preferred flight pattern) should have been used and it wasn't," said Nancy Timmerman, the noise -abatement supervisor at Logan International Airport. Cincinnati Northern Kentucky International Airport bought a flight tracking system last fall to gather more accurate data about how well airlines are complying with that airport's flight patterns and procedures, said aviation- noise manager Barb Schempf. She said having the data has helped keep airlines honest. "They know we're watching over their shoulders," she said. The tracking system is also used to respond to complaints, which are compiled in a database and reported monthly to a community-based Aviation Noise Abatement Committee, she said.
PUBLICATION: The Fresno Bee (Fresno, CA)
DATE: June 22, 1998
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Louis Galvan
DATELINE: Hanford, California
The Fresno Bee reports an ordinance was recently approved to fine hosts of noisy parties if California's Kings County Sheriff Department has to make a return visit to quiet the site.
According to the article, an ordinance that allows the Kings County Sheriff's Department to charge people for the cost of sending deputies more than once to quiet down a loud party has been approved by the county Board of Supervisors. The new law-called the Noisy Party Ordinance-is the Sheriff's Department idea. The Department succeeded in getting a similar measure approved last year by the Avenal City Council. Avenal, which does not have a police department, contracts with the Sheriff's Department for law enforcement.
The article reports Assistant Sheriff Bill Landis said the new law is aimed at cutting down on the number of trips deputies have to make within a 24-hour period to quiet down loud parties in the unincorporated areas of the county. Since the law went into effect in Avenal, Landis said, he has not heard of any incidents in which deputies had to return to a party after the hosts had been warned once. While he didn't have the exact number of noise complaints the department receives, Landis said it's not uncommon to encounter parties with crowds ranging from 200 to 500 people. He said problems usually don't occur if the parties are supervised by responsible adults. But some gatherings do get out of control. "Those usually involve young adults with a mixture of juveniles," he said. "An 'X' number of people are invited, but the word spreads and soon everyone in town is there. And when you have that number of people . . . "
The article states the terms of ordinance No. 574 are clear. Once a deputy determines that a party is in violation of the law, the deputy will notify the person in charge to correct the situation or be held liable for the cost of additional personnel and equipment if a deputy has to return. The cost would vary from incident to incident, depending on how many deputies responded and how long it would take to resolve the issue, Landis said. Anyone who receives a bill for violating the ordinance will have 15 days to file an appeal with the Board of Supervisors, which in turn must schedule a hearing within 45 days to determine the matter. Lt. Jim Moreau of the Hanford Police Department said he understands what the Sheriff's Department is trying to do. But, he said, the department does not get many complaints about loud parties. And Hanford Police have found that people who are warned to turn down the noise usually do so. "Once in a while, we have to go back," he said. "If we do, we just break it up."
PUBLICATION: Portland Press Herald (Portland, ME)
DATE: June 22, 1998
SECTION: Local & State, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Andrew Garber
DATELINE: Farmington, Maine
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: David Lubman, member of task force for the Acoustical Society of America; Robert Apfel, professor of mechanical engineering at Yale University; Eileen Peterson, educational audiologist
The Portland Press Herald reports classroom noise and reverberation is a fundamental and little understood issue that interferes with learning at schools in Maine and across the nation, experts say.
According to the article, architectural features that may be aesthetically pleasing bounce sound around a room so that it can be difficult for some students to concentrate. Just a few people talking can make a classroom noisy. Sabrina Beach's classroom at the W.G. Mallett Elementary School has high ceilings, tall windows, hardwood floors - and a problem with noise. "The kids wear headphones to cut out the noise so they can read," said Beach, who runs the resource room for learning disabilities at Mallett Elementary School. Beach's experience is indicative of a broader problem. Classroom noise and reverberation interferes with learning at schools in Maine and across the nation, experts say.
The article reports students sometimes have a hard time hearing what their teachers are saying, and the reason is that schools frequently aren't built with listening in mind. Classrooms often have hard floors, concrete walls, lots of windows, high ceilings, and chalk boards that cause sound to reverberate and distort. In addition, there are plenty of noise makers at schools: passing traffic, playgrounds, ventilation systems, scraping chairs, slamming doors, and the children themselves. Sometimes, even the layout of a school can cause problems. Joe Turcott, a second-grader at Mallett Elementary, recalls having a hard time hearing his teacher during the winter when a music program was held in the gym which is located underneath his classroom. "We heard all kinds of music," he said. "My teacher, she would just try to make her voice much louder."
The article states noise and reverberation is an issue for all children, but especially affects students with impaired hearing or learning disabilities. One study found that students with normal hearing, in a classroom with above average acoustic design, understood 71 percent of what the teacher said. However, hearing impaired students could only understand 48 percent of what the teacher said, according to an article in the American School Board Journal that reviewed research on the topic. Students who can't hear the teacher well may not understand their lessons. And "there is some evidence that many of these children become bored because they don't know what is going on and become disruptive," said David Lubman, who serves on a task force which looks at classroom acoustics for the Acoustical Society of America. Noise and reverberation also can cause voice fatigue among teachers, who have to constantly raise and lower their voices depending on the noise levels in their rooms.
The article goes on to report the topic of classroom acoustics is new for many educators. Robert Apfel, a professor at Yale University and an expert in the field, says there is a general lack of awareness because many people are used to having noisy schools. "It's amazing how someone can abuse you in small amounts over time, and you don't complain, but someone punches you in the jaw and you complain immediately," he said. "But really you are much worse off from the chronic abuse." Mallett Elementary School in Farmington is aware of the noise issue and strives to make classrooms quieter. The principal's closet, for example, contains bags full of used tennis balls. Teachers cut holes in the balls and stick them on the legs of chairs and desks. The tennis balls eliminates the sound caused by bare chair legs scraping on the hardwood floors, said James McDevitt, the special education director for SAD 9, which includes Mallett Elementary. Teachers also use art projects to dampen sound. Several classrooms hang papier mache mobiles from the ceiling and textured art sculptures on the walls. The school also has lowered the ceilings in many rooms and in some cases installed carpeting. The difference in rooms can be dramatic. During a recent visit, McDevitt ducked from the noisy hallway into a quiet, carpeted room with a lowered ceiling. "You walk in here and you can hear the difference," he said. Still, there are problems difficult for teacher to control, such as traffic noise filtering in through the classroom windows.
According to the article, there are no estimates available for how many schools in Maine or across the nation have problems with noise and reverberation. It's an issue in new schools, as well as those built decades ago. Eileen Peterson, an educational audiologist at the Baxter School for the Deaf, said "there are probably classrooms in most schools that have acoustic issues that need to be dealt with." Improving acoustic design is sometimes just an awareness issue, she said. "I've gone into schools sometimes and see they have painted the corkboards. That takes a surface that was absorbative and turns it into a highly reverberant surface. If you have corkboard up, that's a good thing. Leave it corkboard." Schools should hire a professional to look at noise issues and ways to make classrooms quieter, said Apfel of Yale University. Taking steps to make classrooms quieter isn't necessarily expensive, he added. For a new school, "I don't think it would add half a percent in cost to make it acoustically designed," said Apfel. Inexpensive steps schools can take include putting draperies on windows, installing mufflers that reduce noise in the ventilation system, or installing carpeting which helps reduce noise. "When a new school is designed, a fire marshal comes in, and all the other professionals come in," he said. "But when it comes to the main function of the school, the communication channel, no one comes in and says, 'Have you met the minimum criteria there?' "
PUBLICATION: The Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
DATE: June 21, 1998
SECTION: Local; Ed. F; Pg. 33A
BYLINE: Tustin Amole
DATELINE: Aurora, Colorado
The Rocky Mountain News reports a recently released report by the Air Force concerning noise levels from Buckley Air National Guard Base may force Aurora, Colorado, city planners to reconsider already-approved developments.
According to the article, the noise study, released this month, indicates that portions of the Murphy Creek subdivision and a 500-acre portion of the former Plains Conservation Center, planned for single-family development, may fall within areas that exceed the city's average daily 55-decibel noise limits for residential areas, requiring special soundproofing. Experts say the average noise level of a busy street is about 80 decibels. A jackhammer can reach noise levels of 108 to 120 decibels. The uncertainty is forcing city officials to conduct their own study to determine what effect the noise from the base might have on future zoning restrictions. "The present picture appears to affect Murphy Creek by reducing sound exposure north of Jewell. And south of Jewell, it appears to have gotten a little bit louder, and that's preliminary," said Dave McCord, senior planner for city of Aurora. Murphy Creek would be north of the landfill, between East Yale and East Mississippi avenues. East Jewell Avenue will run through the middle. "We don't have good maps yet that will give us good information," McCord said.
The article reports federal standards allow development in areas where the noise level is 65 decibels or higher, but the city of Aurora requires soundproofing such as double-pane windows and other noise mitigation measures in homes in areas where noise levels regularly reach 55 decibels. Murphy Creek is a planned 1,100-acre subdivision with an 18-hole public golf course and up to 4,000 homes. The subdivision was approved in 1995 despite critics' fears that is too close to the Lowry landfill, a Superfund cleanup site still being used. Property owners have yet to submit plans for residential development, and it's not clear what effect the noise report now may have. Another area that would have been affected by the noise report is Main Street. "That one is at least part built," McCord said. Residential zoning for the area was determined prior to the release of the noise study, he added. "I'm not sure if it changes."
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: June 22, 1998
SECTION: Section A; Page 14; Column 5; National Desk
DATELINE: Islamorada, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Keith Douglass, county commissioner
The New York Times reports County Commissioners in Monroe County, Florida have approved an ordinance that prohibits operating personal watercraft within 1,200 feet of 14 beaches and resorts from Key West to Key Largo. The Personal Watercraft Industry Association, an association that represents five manufacturers of personal watercraft, plans to file suit in a Federal court asking that the ordinance be repealed.
The experience of Juanita Greene, 74, a retired newspaper reporter living in an idyllic forest and waterways in Key Largo is described in the article. "I planned to live my life out in the Keys, but the Jet Skis drove me crazy.", the article said quoting from Ms. Greene. She moved to the greater Miami area in a neighborhood she describes as quiet and peaceful less than two months ago.
One of the jet-powered watercraft nearly hit her and her granddaughter while they were swimming. But it was not this near accident that changed her retirement plans, it was the "high-pitched whine" the Jet Skis made as they roared along the coastline that shattered her quiet existence the article said.
Monroe County, which includes some of the country's most popular water sports locations, seeks to prevent others from following Ms. Green's example by drafting the ordinance, the article says.
As previously stated, the ordinance prohibits personal watercraft - commonly known by brands like Jet Ski - from being within 1,200 feet of 14 designated spots from Key West to Key Largo. Under the ordinance the personal watercraft operator on these shores must idle out to the perimeter area at speeds of about five miles an hour. The ordinance, as proposed, regulates only 2 percent of the shoreline of the Keys, the article notes, referring to Karen Lee, an environmental advocate who pushed for limitation on personal watercraft. Some of the shoreline proposed for regulation is residential, other parts are wildlife sanctuaries.
Keith Douglass was the county commissioner who introduced the proposal. The ordinance "is primarily supposed to protect human life. However, it also goes to protecting their quality of life," the article says, quoting Douglass.
Personal watercraft requires no licenses and are popular among young people and tourists, who critics say often lack experience in handling the vehicles.
Manufacturers of personal watercraft plan to fight back. Peggy Mathews, the Florida representative of the Personal Watercraft Industry Association, is quoted in the article arguing that "When you start regulating on someone's perception on quality of life, you are not thinking on a rational basis." The article, the Personal Watercraft Industry Association, which represents five manufacturers of personal watercraft, plan to file suit in a Federal court asking that the ordinance be repealed. Mathews reportedly would not discuss any terms of the complaint.
Other industry representatives are reported saying that personal watercraft should not be singled out for regulation. They contend that education is the best way to insure that personal watercraft operators use the crafts in safer and less obtrusive ways.
According to the article, one in every three new boats sold in the country is a personal watercraft, referencing data from the Boat Owners Association of the United States. More than 36 percent of recreational boating accidents in Florida involved personal watercraft last year compared with less than 15 percent in 1990, according to the Florida Marine Patrol.
Next year manufacturers will produce vehicles that promise to produce about 50 percent less noise, the article said referring to Mathews' statements. Existing personal watercraft already meet Federal and state sound regulations the article said.
Personal watercraft has already been banned by the state of Florida in several areas, including the Everglades. Efforts to legislate restrictions in the tourist-dependent Keys have been met strong opposition. The article notes that the islands have 65,000 permanent residents but about 3 million tourists each year.
PUBLICATION: The Detroit News
DATE: June 21, 1998
SECTION: Front; Pg. Pg. A1
BYLINE: Charlie Cain
DATELINE: Grayling, Michigan
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dan Alstott, Au Sable Manistee Action Council and Rusty Gates, Anglers of the Au Sable
The Detroit News reports that the sounds of war games is annoying local residents living in the pristine area near Northern Michigan's Camp Grayling Site. The noise is coming from an almost 50% increase in summer training exercises at Camp Graying. Citizens and summer residents say the expanded training at the camp offends the solitude and drives away potential tourism. Military sources, however, say noise is a small price to pay for the opportunity to provide terrain that will prepare soldiers for war.
According to the article, Camp Grayling is the largest military installation east of the Mississippi River. A total of 15,000 National Guard soldiers from three states will have used the 147,500-acre setting to ready themselves for war before the summer months end. That number is a 50 percent increase from last year. An additional 28,000 soldiers will take part in weekend exercises - a number that is about the same as last year.
Residents and visitors who live and play in the scenic woodlands, lakes and streams of this Northern Michigan site say the war games offend the solitude. The population are concerned that the explosives and huge military machinery harm the environment, robbing future generations of nature's simple pleasures in this area which includes some of the nation's better canoe and trout streams.
The article reports that although the troop strength is up, it's nowhere near the levels of the mid-1980s, when more then 35,000 soldiers trained at Grayling.
Dan Alstott, a retired consulting engineer moved in 1997 to the Au Sable summer home he had used on weekends for the previous 13 years. "It was absolutely unbelievable, around-the-clock jets, artillery, helicopters, you name it," Alstott is quoted, recalling the mid-1980's. "They'd fly F-4s and A-7s over you, two trees high. You literally couldn't talk to someone next to you. It was crazy. And the military's response [was] 'Yeah, we're here to make noise. We were here before you, and if you don't like it, move.'"
Dan Alstott, 67, helped form the citizen's group, Au Sable Manistee Action Council, in 1987 to help curtail the military's operations, the article said. Its 900 members joined with the 600-member Anglers of Au Sable in an effort to curtail some of the military operations. They achieved success with the suspension of loud training operations during the Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day weekends, as well as the first weekend in April, when trout season begins.
A curfew for firing now applies to large caliber weapons. They can be fired only during daytime hours: one hour after sunrise and must stop three hours after sunset. Many of the shells used in the drills are now non-explosive - both to appease the community and as a result of base budget cuts, trimmed from $4.5 million in 1994 to $2.7 million today.
Although Alscott credits the camp with some improvements in the noise, the article says he fears things will regress in the future.
The articles notes that Col. Gary McConnell, base commander for the past four years, says he agrees that there have been improvements in community relations. According to McConnell a public information officer who was hired in recent years now works with the community and notifies key community members before unusually loud operations start. "There is a whole different mind-set. Our kids are more concerned about the environment then we were," the article said, quoting McConnell. The article mentions that the base has also added five full-time environmental specialists to its payroll.
And according to McConnell's wife, the military is considered an asset to the community. Lynn Porritt-McConnell, executive director of the Grayling Regional Chamber of Commerce, is reported saying that the chamber's board went on record urging the military to continue at least the level of activity we had last year. The camp contributes about $20 million annually to the Grayling-area economy, the article said, referring to Porritt-McConnell's comments.
But the article notes that not everyone agrees the military is a desirable economic asset. Rusty Gates, a renowned trout fisherman who heads the Anglers of the Au Sable, believes the camp threatens the area's fishing. Gates owns a 16-room lodge just two miles south of the tank range on the Au Sable. He is quoted in the article saying the fact that the chamber head is married to the base commander "shows the chamber is in bed with the military. The chamber wines and dines the military because they view it as a cash cow when in fact it's driving a lot of people away from here."
In addition to noise issues, the article highlights residents' concerns about the environmental impact of the military operations. "You can't have bombings and live ammo for 40 or 50 years without having long-term adverse effects as far as leeching and runoffs in this fragile system with river watersheds and lakes," the article said quoting Susan Cooper, a summer resident of the Au Sable.
Cooper feels suspect about the camp's environmental testing program and expressed regret that some of the camp's critics lost a court battle to force the camp to do extensive environmental cleanup at its weapons ranges, the article said. "If the Guard remains a good neighbor, we can live together," the article said, quoting Cooper. "We're taking our two grandchildren up the Au Sable to introduce them to the joys of northern Michigan. We have to be concerned about the heritage we're leaving our children. This is a valuable resource that can't be replaced."
The article says base commander McConnell shares those concerns but is also concerned that soldiers under his command are prepared for war if the call ever comes. "The noise is the price of freedom," the article said, quoting McConnell. "The sound of the helicopters and jets is the sound of freedom."
The article includes a summary of the summer training schedule at Camp Grayling provided by the Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: June 21, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Editorial Writers Desk
DATELINE: Irvine, California
Los Angeles Times published several letters to the editor relaying opinions about the various options for the conversion of the El Toro Airforce Base. Options discussed in the editorials include: (1) the economic feasibility of the Millennium Plan, an economic development option; (2) conversion of El Toro to commercial airport to meet the increased air travel demands; (3) the possibility of meeting air travel demands by building a commercial airport at Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center; and (4) the Diego Freeway and meeting increased air demand through the Long Beach Airport. The opinions are as follows:
Recently, the pro-airport Orange County Regional Airport Authority released misleading information regarding the economic feasibility of the Millennium Plan, which is the non-aviation alternative for El Toro.
The economic premise of the Millennium Plan is based on the same factors as the county's airport plan.
The Base Reuse and Closure Act stipulates that property used for economic development and public benefit can be conveyed below market rate or at no cost. Portions of the Millennium Plan such as the open space, parks and potentially the stadium and convention center can be conveyed under these provisions, just as the county hopes to have the entire property for the proposed airport conveyed at no cost.
The uses presented in the Millennium Plan were based on significant market and financial feasibility research conducted by numerous organizations including Arthur Andersen, Ernst & Young and the Concord Group.
The El Toro Reuse Planning Authority has identified specific types of end-users, and has based the plan on development scenarios that have been done before in Orange County. By all measures, commercial, residential, sports and cultural development will remain strong and profitable well into the next century.
The stadium and convention center will not be built with taxpayer dollars. If it cannot be built without taxpayer dollars then the approximately 100 acres will be used for some other purpose. Irvine officials are in negotiation with the National Football League and financial backers who propose to fund the development of a stadium provided a NFL expansion team is located in Irvine.
Financing development projects is an incredibly complicated process, and because of the complexity can be easily misrepresented.
The simple answer is that the Millennium Plan will pay for itself over time. There will be revenue bonds generated in the early stages that are guaranteed by either private backers or future revenues for development on the site. This is exactly how John Wayne Airport is financed, and how the county reports it would finance the construction of an airport at El Toro.
RICHARD DIXON
Chairman
El Toro Reuse Planning Authority
They claim their lifestyle will be destroyed. Real estate values will plummet. Children's health will suffer. Schoolchildren will be unable to concentrate. No one will be able to sleep at night. There will be an aircraft over their homes every minute, 24 hours a day.
One would be led to believe that there are no sane people in South County, which I am sure is far from true.
I have lived within one mile of John Wayne Airport, directly in the takeoff pattern, for some 30 years. I am a retired military and commercial pilot. I have flown in and out of both John Wayne and El Toro airport many times.
Yes, airplanes cause noise, pollution, disruptions, but nowhere near the extent some South County residents would have us believe. Let us look at the facts, remembering that Newport Beach residences do not have a 18,450-acre buffer zone, as does El Toro.
Real estate values in Newport Beach continue to escalate. Residents are upgrading their property. Homes are much in demand. Newport Beach continues to be a most desirable place to live.
There is no evidence that children's health has suffered, or their ability to learn has been impaired.
The fact remains that John Wayne can never meet the increasing demand for air travel, as some South County residents have suggested. One of the major reasons for the increased demand is created by the growth in South County. Every time they fly out of John Wayne, they fly over my house, yet they are horrified at the thought of me flying over their homes. So much for brotherly love.
LEONARD HALL
Colonel, USAF Ret.
Newport Beach
This isn't news to the county Board of Supervisors. To try to make El Toro somehow function as an international airport in an otherwise well-planned residential and commercial area, the board is considering drastic operational restrictions that the federal government doesn't like, such as curfews, artificially narrow flight corridors and altered safety rules to force airliners to take off into the mountains.
Because we deserve the best value for our precious tax dollars, constructing an installation that cannot properly function is money wasted.
A commercial airport at El Toro is simply bad regional planning. El Toro is uncomfortably close to the operations at John Wayne. Joint use would pack all air and ground traffic in one small corner of the county. It makes far better sense to spread the impact of two air facilities across a larger area.
If we really need a second airport, and that has yet to be proven, we should select a prime site, one providing flexibility and affording the highest potential usage. Fortunately, we have a better alternative to El Toro right here in Orange County: the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center.
Building a commercial airport at Los Alamitos is the perfect answer to future air passenger and cargo needs. Geographically, it's ideally situated. The North County location would ensure wide separation from the air and ground traffic at John Wayne. Because Los Alamitos is near the ocean, with no mountains close by, flight operations could be optimized.
Takeoffs could be routed over the open spaces of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, minimizing noise and pollution. The runways are long enough to accommodate the larger aircraft necessary for cross-country and international flights without expensive reconstruction.
GREG SMITH
City councilman
Irvine
Just 15 to 20 minutes north on the San Diego Freeway exists the Long Beach Airport, an ideal facility that is terribly underused.
Long Beach would be the perfect facility for all of John Wayne's private aircraft as well as all of John Wayne's cargo aircraft. That would open John Wayne to increasing its flights without an increase of landings or departures.
The very idea that the El Toro question should be only an Orange County question is selfish and naive. It is time to look at this question on a regional basis, as one does for seaports, railways and highways.
It is also time to remove our heads from the sand, and commence negotiations with Long Beach to find a mutually equitable and economical solution for both.
RICHARD SOLO
Irvine
PUBLICATION: The Idaho Statesman
DATE: June 21, 1998
SECTION: Local ; Pg. 2b
BYLINE: Mary Ann Reuter
DATELINE: Boise, Idaho
The Idaho Statesman reports that Boise City Council will be considering a new noise ordinance aimed at barking dogs.
The article describes how innocently one person’s dog becomes another’s nuisance: “Midmorning and you're at work. Your night-shift neighbor is home, trying to sleep. Your dog is home, too - pacing the yard. Bored and lonely, Fido begins to bark, bark, bark ...”
According to the article Boise’s Assistant City Attorney Bill Nary is writing the new barking-dog ordinance for the Boise City Council to consider. Nary is noted saying, “People get incredibly rabid about this subject."
The current law is described as a nuisance-based ordinance that allows owners to he cited for "excessive, continuous or untimely barking or noise." The dog owner who is prosecuted, faces a misdemeanor charge, punishable by maximum fine of $300 or six months in jail.
But getting the case to court, the article said, required a complaint signed by a neighbor. And, before an animal control officer can issue a citation, evidence must be provided that the problem dog was barking continuously.
Roger Schmitt, executive director of the Idaho Humane Society, says "[The current law] is very subjective now. We need something quantifiable."
Each month Animal Control responds to about 140 complaints from neighbors. "Most occur when two people are working and they're not aware of the problem,” the article said, quoting Schmitt. “They come home, the dog doesn't bark."
According to the article, half of the 979 complaints filed between October 1997 and April 1998 resulted in citations. Among those cited, eight percent were repeat offenders.
The article reports that Boise’s City Council is considering for its new regulation a no-fault ordinance. (Boise reportedly has existing no-fault noise ordinances that govern radios and public address systems.) The new ordinance would define continuous and intermittent barking during daytime and evening hours and would not consider intent. The animal control or police officer would simply verify the nuisance situation after receiving the neighbor’s call, then sign the complaint.
Enforcement of the 24-hour ordinance is expected to be expensive, the article said. Nary, the city attorney, believes that adding animal control officers and vehicles for full evening and weekend coverage could run Boise $50,000 to $60,000 a year.
The article closes with a six point list for how to keep your dog from barking provided by Dee Fugit, public relations and education director for the Idaho Humane Society.
PUBLICATION: Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, CA)
DATE: June 21, 1998
SECTION: Neighbors; Pg. N1
BYLINE: Jennifer K. Morita
DATELINE: Loomis, California
The article reports initial plans for the Heritage Park Estates project included a 14-foot-high sound wall, but members of the town staff suggested installing an earthen berm instead. "We have looked at several different options on how to mitigate the sound and how to meet the town's concerns about preserving a semirural appearance to the project," Remington said after the meeting. "Just doing an earthen berm would require a massive amount of dirt to be moved." A berm would involve moving 12,000 to 14,000 cubic yards of dirt to the site, an effort that would cost $120,000 to $140,000, Remington said. "That's a big pile," he said. The berm also would result in the loss of 11 lots.
The article states residents on the south side of the freeway object to a sound wall because they fear that traffic noise would be reflected by the wall and travel to their neighborhood. "This project will increase the noise on my side of the freeway," said Anna Nakashoji. "We have enough noise as it is. If you do put in the sound wall, I suggest you put a sound wall on our side as well." Daniel Bartell, a 25-year resident living on the south side of the freeway, agrees. "The noise has increased dramatically in the last five to six years," Bartell said after the meeting. "Every morning and evening it sounds like we have a freight train running through our back yard, and there's three houses with acreage between my home and the freeway. In a letter to commissioners, Bartell reminded them that the town rejected a proposal to build a sound wall between the Turtle Island development and residences because it doesn't conform to the general plan. Two commissioners, however, said they favored a sound wall.
According to the article, Remington and developers now propose building a smaller berm with a sound wall on top and landscaping in front of the wall facing the freeway. Remington said a combination berm and sound wall would minimize the noise level for the south side of the freeway. "We feel that, with a certain amount of berm and some landscaping, the reflection of noise will either not exist or be very minimal," Remington said. "We're going to have an acoustical consultant look at that." At Monday night's Planning Commission meeting, Remington also circulated computer-enhanced photos of what the area would look like with a sound wall, partially hidden by trees and bushes. Commissioners Janet Daniel and Bob Myer said they preferred using just a sound wall after examining the computer-enhanced photos. "It's much more attractive and uses the property more efficiently," Daniel said. "The sound wall would absorb the noise just as much as a berm, and a berm would be a waste of property and a big pain to maintain." The Planning Commission postponed a decision until its July 7 meeting.
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal
DATE: June 27, 1998
SECTION: Business, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Dave Hirschman
DATELINE: Memphis, Tennessee
The Commercial Appeal reports the Memphis/Shelby County Airport Authority unanimously approved a proposed $ 22 million payment to area homeowners Friday designed to settle a 9-year-old airport noise suit.
According to the article, if approved by U.S. District Court Judge Odell Horton and area residents, homeowners will receive payments ranging from $525 to $4,200, depending on how long they have lived in the area. Lawyers for the Airport Authority and property owners worked out the deal during 18 months of talks. However, if a significant percentage of area residents reject the deal, the Airport Authority can cancel it. "We want 100 percent participation from property owners," said R. Grattan Brown Jr., a lawyer for the Airport Authority. "[T]he more participation we get, the more protection the Airport Authority will have." Airport area residents say they will not decide whether to accept payments until they see details of the proposed settlement. Technically, residents will be paid for granting navigation easements or permanent permission for airplanes to overfly their property.
The article reports the noise suit began in 1987 when a group of 27 area residents sued the airport, claiming loud jets and pollution were harming property values and their quality of life. That same year, the Airport Authority began a $140 million plan to purchase 1,400 surrounding properties to make way for airport expansion. Most of money for land acquisitions came from federal grants. Money for the current proposed noise suit settlement will come from the Airport Authority through increased landing fees. In 1993, airport property owners won a major legal victory in this current action when U.S. District Court Judge Robert McRae allowed them to bring a class-action lawsuit against the Airport Authority. As McRae defined it, the class included more than 12,000 property owners who lived near the airport. The Airport Authority opposed the class-action, arguing that each homeowner was affected differently. But on Friday, airport officials said the move could make the settlement easier by defining membership. "In some ways, having a class has been helpful for purposes of coming to this agreement," Airport Authority chairman Arnold Perl said.
The article states Judge Horton has scheduled a Sept. 3 meeting to discuss the proposed resolution. If he tentatively approves the settlement, he will instruct the Airport Authority to notify all 12,441 homeowners. Later, Horton will hold a fairness hearing where residents can speak for or against the deal. After the fairness hearing, property owners will have five days to decide whether to remain part of the class or exclude themselves from it. Those who opt out of the agreement can bring separate civil suits against the Airport Authority. But if a large number of residents opt out, the Airport Authority may cancel the agreement and go to trial. "The Airport Authority can terminate the settlement if more than an acceptable number of participants opt out," Brown told the board during a meeting Friday. That acceptable number of participants will be given to Horton and held under seal, Brown said.
Previous week: June 14, 1998
Next week: June 28, 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