PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: State and Regional
BYLINE: Marc Caputo
DATELINE: Mesa, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lou Torres, Southeast Valley Community Alliance
In this article the Associated Press reports on the plight of homeowners who face increased urbanization and airport noise in the metropolitan area surrounding Mesa, Arizona.
The diminishing quality of life discussed in the article is due in part to the burgeoning growth of Williams Gateway Airport. Among those affected are residents of Gilbert, Arizona who recently found out that the city failed to notify them and their homebuilders that the airport could turn into a major commercial hub.
One resident, named Tandy Cook, describes himself as being on the edge of sanity. Cooke, 46, is a retired Air Force veteran. He reportedly moved into his quiet Chandler cabin in 1986 to recuperate from medical problems. The article describes him as being under siege of the constant and unpredictable noise of helicopters, beating the air like a drum. "I am on edge. I'm really on the edge. I never know when it starts or when it'll end," the article said quoting Cook. The choppers are from a new airport helipad 100 yards from Cook's log cabin. Cook and his neighbors feel powerless to silence the busy helipad.
The article also paints the visual landscape of sprawling urbanization in the Mesa metro area: "airplane traffic grows above homes, roads widen before front yards, massive power lines sprout along backyards, neighborhoods get rezoned and crowded and dirty."
The response of the residents is variable the article said. Some such as Cook are said to find solace in Jesus, some try to just co-exist with it all, and others "fight it head on." But "all say that if they had to do it over again, they'd ask a few more questions before buying and remain a little more vigilant while the landscape changes outside the kitchen window."
The article includes personal vignettes of other residents, mainly seniors, who are trying to cope with the noise that accompanies the raging urbanization. One of them, Josephine Fuller, 80, remains in her home of 40 years located just a stone's throw from an overpass of the Squaw Peak Parkway in Phoenix. "I planted these trees here to cut down on some of the racket, but I don't know how much a difference it makes," the article said quoting Fuller.
Squaw Peak's opening in 1988 severed her neighborhood and ushered in the roar and dirt of 141,000 cars arching just beyond her little lemon-hued home.
"It's horrible, crazy. I don't know what I can do about it beyond turning the (television) soaps up and dealing with it. You know, I'm kind of hard of hearing but I won't get a hearing aid just to listen to all that rumble."
Residents in the area are focusing on stopping the potential expansion of Williams Gateway Airport. The Southeast Valley Community Alliance leads the fight against the airport's expansion through Lou Torres who is noted saying, the only way for homeowners' voices to be heard is to organize.
"While they're shuffling to tell us what's what, we're standing firm: We don't want it bigger," the article said quoting Torres.
The article also describes a family's anxiety regarding new kilovolt lines hanging just a few feet their home. Homeowners Linda and Robert Burt say their homebuilder didn't tell them about the power lines, nor did they ask. But when Linda, 28, learned a 230-kilovolt line could go in the easement behind her backyard, she investigated further. She received information from the power company about childhood cancer and power lines and received a booklet noting that of 14 studies on the issue, eight found a carcinogenic link. "We're a little nervous. It's not that I'm against power lines or anything, but there's more and more of them and they're getting closer and closer to our house," the article said quoting Linda.
PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: October 10, 1998
SECTION: Entertainment; Pg. I7
BYLINE: The Associated Press
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Calgary Herald reports Hollywood's Universal Studios may be the first southern California studio to have noise restrictions on its lots.
According to the article, Universal Studios may be restricted when it comes to filming pre-dawn scenes with explosions, shootouts and helicopters. A county commission approved the noise restrictions Wednesday as it considered Universal's plans for a massive explosion on its 168-hectare site overlooking the southern San Fernando Valley. If the recommendations survive an approval process, Universal would become the first southern California studio to have the restrictions, city and county planners said. It would be barred from making noises such as explosions and gunfire in three areas before 5 a.m. The entire lot would be off-limits to nighttime use of helicopters. Universal lawyer George Mihlsten told commissioners the restrictions will place the studio at an "immense competitive disadvantage."
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: October 10, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Jesse Hiestand
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports federal lawmakers from California are urging the Federal Aviation Administration to allow Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport to enact a mandatory curfew on nighttime flights without a formal review process, officials said Friday.
According to the article, the curfew is a major issue in the 16-year feud between the airport and Burbank, which wants the ban on nighttime flights and, in an effort to get it, has opposed the airport's plan to build a new, larger terminal. In a letter sent to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, two San Fernando Valley congressmen said they believe the airport is exempt from the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 because it had a curfew on the books before the law went into effect. The law, which gave federal authorities jurisdiction over noise and other flight restrictions, has a grandfather clause for curfews and other rules that were enforced before Nov. 5, 1990, airport officials said. New restrictions require the formal review and approval of the FAA. "We believe that a mandatory curfew at Burbank Airport could be adopted without those procedural requirements since it would be designed to enforce legal obligations that predate" the law, stated the letter, co-signed by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Mission Hills, and Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Woodland Hills. Sen. Barbara Boxer also supports this legal maneuver, which was first advocated by a law firm hired by the city of Burbank. Boxer spokesman David Sandretti. "We agree with the premise and have a similar letter of our own going out," Sandretti said.
The article reports while the city pushes for the curfew through an exemption, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority itself is trying to convince air carriers to simply accept a mandatory curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. That, under federal rules, would eliminate the need for the costly Part 161 study. None of the five major carriers that serve Burbank Airport could confirm Friday whether they were willing to accept a mandatory curfew. The airport's current voluntary curfew is adhered to by most of the carriers. However, the overnight flights that violate the curfew are said to be particularly annoying to some to residents in the flight path.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: October 10, 1998
SECTION: Denver & The West; Pg. B-02
BYLINE: Angela Cortez
DATELINE: Greenwood Village, Colorado
The Denver Post reports Greenwood Village officials want residents surrounding Colorado's Centennial Airport to have a voice in the battle between the airport authority and a commuter passenger service that has been banned from the airport.
According to the article, the city filed a motion this week with the Federal Aviation Administration, asking to be heard on the issue when hearings are held later this year. "We want (to explain) the community perspective and the impact (additional flights have) on land values, land use and environmental quality," said Connie Brooks, an attorney representing Greenwood Village. The Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority and Texas businessman John Andrews, the owner of Centennial Express, have been locked in a dispute since 1994, when Andrews first proposed flying passengers between Centennial and the Western Slope. The airport authority then passed a moratorium on applications involving regularly scheduled commuter flights. In the latest development, the Federal Aviation Administration cut about $1.5 million in annual funding to Centennial Airport, claiming Centennial discriminated against an approved airline use by refusing the shuttle service. In an effort to win back federal funding, the authority asked the FAA for an evidentiary hearing to present its side of the issue. When the FAA agreed to hold hearings, Greenwood Village officials - who support the authority's decision to keep Andrews out - decided they wanted a chance to present evidence. Brooks, the city's lawyer, said she expected the FAA administrative judge to rule Monday on whether Greenwood Village will be allowed to present evidence during the hearing.
The article states Greenwood Village residents, who live near the airport, often complain about noise and pollution from the airport. City officials believe that allowing Andrews to operate out of Centennial will attract additional commuter services that will cause too much noise. Airport authority President Polly Page said the authority can use all the help it can get to convince the FAA that the airport needs the money to remain a general aviation airport, but isn't able to add passenger airlines. "I think it's good for the FAA to hear from the neighbors," Page said. "We're seen as 'a board,' so hey, it probably would be good to have the FAA see some of the neighbors."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: October 10, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Orange County Focus Desk
BYLINE: John Canalis
DATELINE: Los Alamitos, California
Los Angeles Times reports Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center officials warn that noise from heavy runway activity may disturb residents through the end of the month.
According to the article, larger and louder aircraft will make regular trips to the base. Among the biggest craft are the cargo planes, including C-5, C-141 and Super-Guppie--among the military's biggest aircraft. Several flights a day are expected. Most will take place during the normal airfield operating hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Some flights, however, could occur off-hours. Officials said supply schedules at the Boeing plant in Huntington Beach made the flights necessary.
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: October 10, 1998
SECTION: General News, Pg. A1
BYLINE: John A. Nagy
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
The News & Record reports a 52-year-old legal case may be ammunition for property owners near the Piedmont Triad International Airport who opposed a Federal Express hub and a third runway at the Greensboro, North Carolina, airport.
According to the article, Thomas Lee Causby, who lived within a half-mile of the runway at the former Lindley Field, sued the U.S. government in 1942 after low-flying military planes destroyed his peace and quiet. Aircraft noise scared his chickens to death. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1946 that the government had wrongly "taken" Causby's land and not compensated him fairly for ruining his life.
The article reports the Greensboro case set a precedent that has stood for 52 years as a legal protection against low-flying aircraft for property owners across the country. Today, the Causby case may be the legal ace-in-the-hole for property owners near the same airport who fear the same diminution of property values and quality of life from the proposed FedEx hub and third runway. "The irony here is amazing," said Jeff Peraldo, a lawyer who lives near Piedmont Triad airport. The $300 million hub, which ultimately will employ 1,500, is scheduled to have at least 22 planes fly in and out of Piedmont Triad airport between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. each night. To date, no lawsuits have been filed in connection with the FedEx project. Some attorneys have told homeowners they don't yet have a reason to sue because no runway has been built and no noisy planes fly over their houses now. The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority has said it would try to route FedEx planes so they come in from the less-populated south end and take off in the same direction. But the airport authority likely can expect lawsuits from property owners upset about noise. And if homeowners ultimately do file any lawsuits, the Causby case will be the foundation of their argument.
The article states the Constitution's Fifth Amendment requires that property owners be compensated fairly when their land is taken for a public use, such as a road or school. Over the years, courts generally granted property owners rights to what's beneath the surface of their property, but the air was considered public dominion. Causby's case changed that thinking. In the 1940s, Causby ran a chicken farm on 2.8 acres near the Lindley Field airport. His home was less than a half-mile from the end of the runway. The military contracted with the airport during World War II to fly a number of aircraft into the facility. Bombers, fighters and cargo planes often buzzed Causby's property as low as 83 feet above the ground. Noise startled the chickens so much, they stopped laying eggs. Some birds flew into walls and killed themselves. Causby lost 150 chickens. The federal government offered Causby $2,000. He considered the sum too low, so he sued and won. U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the 1946 decision: "Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." A landmark ruling at the time, it since has been upheld and frequently used to support other lawsuits.
According to the article, Causby's concerns are not much different from those of homeowners living near the airport today. Several thousand homes were built northwest of the airport during the 1980s. Some of those homes, like Causby's, are a half-mile from the end of the proposed third runway. Homeowners have raised a number of concerns in recent months about the effect the new runway and accompanying air traffic will have on their property. Residents who live north of the airport worry the runway will devalue their homes, and the low-flying aircraft will destroy enjoyment of their neighborhood.
The article reports property owners have sued airport authorities in Memphis, Indianapolis, Louisville and Seattle because of low-flying, noisy aircraft. Some lawsuits resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements, like the $22 million settlement in Memphis with homeowners five miles from the airport. In Indianapolis and Louisville, those airports spent more than $120 million apiece to buy homes affected by noise. Consultants studying a third runway for the airport in Seattle say it could cost $2.3 billion to compensate property owners affected by aircraft noise. Both Raleigh-Durham International and Charlotte/Douglas International airports were sued because of low-flying planes. Raleigh attorney Jim Fuller represented 125 people who sued the Raleigh airport in 1992 after American Airlines opened a hub there and increased the number of noisy aircraft flying over nearby homes. Appearing before a three-judge arbitration panel, Raleigh airport officials argued that was the cost of progress. Fuller gave his final arguments while standing between two stereo speakers blasting noise from a Boeing 727 jet. "Never was I so eloquent," Fuller said. The judges ruled in favor of the homeowners. The airport ultimately settled for about $2 million.
The article states Piedmont Airport Authority officials realize they too run the risk of lawsuits. Hudnall Christopher, chairman of the authority's board of directors, said an environmental impact study already under way will determine how many people could be affected by the FedEx hub. "We need this frame of reference to see where we are and what would make sense" in terms of compensation to nearby property owners, Christopher said. Lawsuits, he said, "we accept as something we have to be cognizant of."
PUBLICATION: The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News
DATE: October 10, 1998
SECTION: Local; Pg. C1
BYLINE: Brief
DATELINE: Stuart, Florida
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News reports commissioners in Martin County, Florida, are expected to approve noise restrictions Tuesday after months of debate.
According to the article, if approved, the rules would set decibel limits on noises that cross property lines and restrict certain activities, such as construction and landscaping, from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Commissioners have scheduled a public hearing on the rules before voting on the issue. Supporters of the proposal said the rules are necessary to allow law enforcement officers greater latitude in responding to noise complaints. Some people believe simply having rules in place will reduce the number of incidents. But critics say the rules are too arbitrary, will clog the courts with unneeded cases and require businesses to buy expensive sound-muffling devices. Commissioners rejected similar noise ordinances in 1993, 1995, and 1996, but a majority of commissioners have indicated they will likely support the current version.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: October 10, 1998
SECTION: Real Estate; Pg. F01
BYLINE: Jacquelyn Powell
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Alphen, resident; Bradford Boehm, resident
The Washington Post reports that while noise may be an unavoidable part of apartment life in the Washington, DC, area, as it is elsewhere, developers, property managers, and tenants themselves can take steps to muffle their problems.
According to the article, during the summer, Jim Alphen hadn't gotten much sleep in a while, he said, because of noise from a supermarket at a nearby strip mall. Last May Alphen became a tenant at Sheffield Court apartments in Arlington. The strip mall is adjacent to Sheffield Court and, from Alphen's apartment, the droning from the supermarket's air-conditioning unit had become relentless and annoying. "The machine emits a rather loud, low-frequency sound, which really actually reaches my apartment as a vibration," he said. "It's constant, including nighttimes." Over in Dupont Circle, the Amoco gasoline station backs up to the east wall of the apartment building next door. In addition to the cars rolling through, a work crew is busily digging underground. "The gas station is always under construction," said Bradford Boehm, who has lived in the apartment building for two years. "This is at least the third time they've dug up whatever it is they've been digging up." The drivers pulling into the station, he said, "are not very considerate either. Their music will be blaring--and I mean blaring."
The article states Alphen and Boehm, no doubt, speak for the many renters who have ever been tormented by apartment noise. While throbbing stereos, city traffic and noise in the night may be an unavoidable part of apartment life, there are ways to address the problems. Builders take the noise issue seriously, said Ron Nickson, vice president of the National Multi-Housing Council. "They have to deal with that issue or it's a big issue for [tenant] turnover," he said, which is why wall materials rank high among their priorities. "There's a lot of caulking and sealing on structures. . . . What that does is insulate each individual apartment because one of the major problems for sound is a hole in the wall."
The article reports acceptable noise levels often are dictated by local housing codes. If a rental manager fails to address--or correct--a noise problem, tenants can turn to the housing authorities. In the District, noise complaints go to the Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. An inspector "will go out and take noise readings with a sound-level meter and there are certain decibel levels which are allowable depending on the type of zone that the property is in," said Hubert Johnson, director of the compliance division. If the offending sound "is in violation of 60 decibels," he said, a notice is issued allowing about seven days to correct the problem. Montgomery County has a noise ordinance that sets acceptable noise levels at 55 decibels for night and 65 for day, said Tom Ogle, director of the county's noise program under the Department of Environmental Protection. If the noise persists, he sends a notice of violation and corrective order, a civil citation with a maximum fine of $500. "A subsequent fine would be $ 750 and we ask the court to issue abatement orders," Ogle said. Violation of the order could result in a contempt charge. William Brown, coordinator for Arlington's code enforcement office, said: "We do have a county noise ordinance that specifies certain levels," but monitoring is restricted to " noise generated by some outside source." His office provides "expertise and noise meters to the police" to check out problems.
According to the article, northern Virginia, with two airports, logs numerous complaints about aircraft noise. The Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority Noise Abatement Office listed Arlington as having the most plane noise complaints last year--555. Jonathan Gaffney, the authority's vice president for communications, said people "who live around airports are pretty tolerant of what goes on," and therefore complain less about the actual noise than about what they perceive to be deviations from accepted flight patterns or times. Gaffney said the authority's noise monitoring and aircraft tracking system allows them to put tenants and homeowners at ease by assuring them of "where the noise is coming from [and] that there's a limit" to it.
The article reports noise in multifamily housing can come from just about anywhere, apartment managers and housing officials agree, but some types are more common than others. Most complaints are about stereos played too loud for nearby tenants, they said, adding that usually the solution is simple: Turn the music down. If insulation is an option, acoustical engineers can provide foam for the walls. Dale Gillilland of American Foam Centers in Arlington frequently hears about apartment noise. A few years ago his company insulated walls in the Watergate apartment complex in the District to muffle sounds from the heating and cooling system. He specializes in foam "for sound studios, recording studios, and that has to face in, toward the sound," he said. That means convincing the neighbor with the loud stereo to put the foam on his walls. "Loud stereos, far and away," are behind most of the complaints Ogle at the DEP receives. While apartment living can generate all kinds of noise sources, there are solutions, according to Ogle. In one case, he said, tenants of a Silver Spring high-rise were intensely annoyed by the crunching sound of trash compactors. "They [the compactors] were connected directly to the sheet metal trash chutes, so they vibrated. All you had to do was cut a section out of the sheet metal and put a flexible sleeve metal on it" to create a shock absorber.
The article states property managers and county officials emphasized that each noise circumstance should be weighed individually and that there are some sounds that simply cannot be avoided. Tenants should be reasonable and address problems on a case-by-case basis, remaining mindful that in certain delicate instances, only the kid-glove approach will do. In the case of the Dupont Circle gasoline station, the station manager posted a sign imploring his patrons to be considerate of the apartment residents. In Arlington, Sheffield Park's management informed the supermarket owner of the air conditioner problem. Alphen said he was told the air conditioner would be shut off at night.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: October 9, 1998
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Robbie Sherwood
DATELINE: Mesa, Arizona
The Arizona Republic reports Williams Gateway Airport may start charging military aircraft for touch-and-go landings, the largest source of noise complaints from area homeowners.
According to the article, the fee of $100 to $225 might discourage noisier aircraft from practice landings at Williams, Airport Director Lynn Kusy told members the City Council on Thursday. The airport must allow military operations as part of the former Air Force base's transfer agreement from the federal government. The only reason the airport has for not charging the military, Kusy said, is nobody else does it. Mayor Wayne Brown, who is on the Airport Authority Board, encouraged Kusy to place the proposal on an upcoming board agenda. "It's clear to me that we need to do something immediately, or this situation will have a broad impact," Brown said. "We may not have a facility big enough to hold all the people who will want a piece of our hide." Other potential ways to mitigate noise, such as changing flight routes to avoid houses, must be studied and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, a process that could take years.
The article reports thousands of recently arrived homeowners in the area have bombarded airport and city officials with complaints about overflights and a lack of notification that the airport even existed. And the noisiest aircraft around Williams are the large Air National Guard tankers, cargo planes and fighter jets that use the field for training. Military operations account for 15 percent of airport operations, Brown said, but "they account for 80 percent of the noise complaints." Williams currently charges non-military planes a landing fee of 70 cents per 1,000 pounds. If the airport authority approves the military fees, Kusy said, landing a C-130 Model H tanker from the 161st Air National Guard Unit at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport would cost $108. The fee for a KC-135, a Boeing 707 outfitted for military use, would be $225. Kusy said he doesn't expect the military to take this news well. Officials from the 161st were not available for comment Thursday.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: October 9, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Robert C. Herguth
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jack Saporito, executive director of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare
The Chicago Daily Herald reports a plan that could have added 30 daily commercial flights at O'Hare International Airport appears to be squashed for now. Local activists applauded the move.
According to the article, U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun along with Illinois' other Democratic senator, Dick Durbin, reached the 30-flight compromise in July with U.S. Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who initially proposed adding 100 daily takeoff and landing "slots" at O'Hare. The Senate proposal was to have been reconciled with a similar House version, but U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican whose district includes O'Hare, learned of airlines quietly lobbying for up to 40 or more slots, sources said. So Hyde, many of whose constituents are already noise -battered, asked House Speaker Newt Gingrich this week to kill the measure, which he agreed to do, said Hyde spokesman Sam Stratman. "We think this issue has been settled for a while - no new flights at O'Hare," he said, adding the slot proposal raised serious environmental and safety concerns with Hyde.
The article reports Joe Karaganis, attorney for the Suburban O'Hare Commission, had predicted more flights were being sought behind the scenes, and he said he was happy the slot plan was killed. "It's one battle in a long war," he said. "We're happy that a Washington politician who actually represents O'Hare stood up and told the industry enough's enough," said Jack Saporito, executive director of Arlington Heights-based Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, which has been fighting O'Hare noise and expansion. "He stood up and decided to protect our health, safety and welfare."
The article states Chicago aviation spokesman Dennis Culloton, however, noted that airport slots can be, and are, awarded by the U.S. secretary of transportation without approval of Congress. Iberia Airlines, for example, was recently given two slots to operate between Madrid and O'Hare in the summer, he said. While city officials have not taken an official stance on the slot issue just shot down, Culloton said the 30-flight measure would have provided improved access between Chicago and smaller cities. "They're not going to get that now," he said. Joe Hopkins, a spokesman for United Airlines, said his carrier had been trying to get more slots out of Congress. But he said that's because federal authorities have been denying domestic airlines slots and giving them to international carriers. "We think it's unfair and inequitable," Hopkins said, adding the 30-slot deal in itself would not have benefited United much. "We were trying to correct a wrong situation."
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)
DATE: October 9, 1998
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B2
BYLINE: The Associated Press
DATELINE: Knoxville, Tennessee
The Commercial Appeal reports Knoxville, Tennessee, is setting stricter standards for quiet.
According to the article, "loud" no longer is in the ear of the beholder in Knoxville. Police soon will be armed with decibel meters to catch the illegally noisy as Knoxville joins a growing number of cities enacting noise ordinances. In many cities, common sense remains the test for making a case against the unlawfully loud. It is called the "reasonable man" standard, and cities such as Nashville and Chattanooga still use it effectively. However, a city judge ruled that Knoxville's 36-year-old reasonableness standard was too vague and said the city's noise ordinance was unenforceable. A task force studied the problem for more than a year and the City Council passed an ordinance this week. There are exceptions. University of Tennessee sports fans can cheer as loud as they like at Neyland Stadium or Thompson-Boling Arena, but not in the streets.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: October 9, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N8
BYLINE: Jesse Hiestand
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports airport officials at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport have urged air carriers to accept an enforceable, mandatory curfew, officials said Thursday. Acceptance of a curfew could ease the longstanding dispute between the airport and the city of Burbank.
According to the article, city leaders have blocked the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport's plan to build a new terminal until there is a curfew on nighttime flights. If the airlines accept the curfew at a meeting next week, it could break the stalemate in the 16-year battle over the airport's proposed expansion. "It sounds like a big step in the right direction," said Burbank Mayor David Golonski. "We've always asked for a noise budget and curfew in return for a new terminal, and this opens the way for more discussion."
The article reports the meeting with the air carriers was called for by Thomas E. Greer, executive director of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. "I must assure you the Authority is not just 'going through the motions,' " Greer told the airlines in a letter. "It is important for all carriers to give this matter serious attention at this time because future Authority policy hangs in the balance." For the most part, air carriers have abided by a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew, which is voluntary and cannot be made mandatory without the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration. For that to happen, the FAA requires airport officials to complete a lengthy and expensive study of noise conditions called a Part 161 study. "There is no need to devote the considerable time and money to such a study if the airlines are willing to accept an enforceable, mandatory curfew right now," Greer told the airlines in his letter. But last year, Southwest Airlines, which accounts for 65 percent of the airport's flights, refused to accept a curfew, an airport official said.
PUBLICATION: Evening Standard
DATE: October 9, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 18
BYLINE: Peter Gruner
DATELINE: London, England
The Evening Standard reports Londoners were warned today that big city noise may be responsible for heart disease.
According to the article, Dr. Deepak Prasher warned that the accumulation of noise in everyday life could be responsible for increasing stress, according to a new study conducted in Germany. Dr. Prasher, who is based at the Royal National Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital and head of the EU-sponsored Protection Against Noise study, said: "The increasing volume of night time traffic, for example, can lead to chronic noise -induced stress. This in turn leads to changes in hormones and specific conditions like ulcers and heart disease. Children living around Munich airport were monitored over three years and found to have quite pronounced changes in blood pressure." Researchers looked at how the children performed a number of tasks and found that their cognitive performance and ability to recall words and remember things was impaired, he said. German scientists are now studying the medical history of people who have suffered heart attacks to discover if there is a link with stress-inducing noise, he said.
The article reports perpetual noise from traffic and aircraft is a problem for many people living in the overcrowded South-East. More than two million British workers are threatened each day by loud noises in factories, mills and airports. Clubs and sporting events also emit dangerous decibel levels. Everyday gadgets in the workplace and the home are louder, while televisions, radios and stereo systems are being played at higher volumes and for extended periods.
The article states recent studies suggest that intense physical activity further reduces the body's ability to withstand extreme noise. Soldiers are at risk because they raise their guns close to their ears to fire them, while taking part in vigorous exercise involving running and climbing. Scientists aren't sure why exercise causes a person's hearing to be more sensitive to loud noise. They think the workout might cause the body to use up elements like magnesium that protect the sensitive eardrums. Nightclubbers dancing to loud music are especially vulnerable to hearing loss. "Standing next to the speakers at a disco for just one evening can cause permanent damage for the rest of your life," Prasher said.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: October 9, 1998
SECTION: Local News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: David Schaefer
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
The Seattle Times reports the Metropolitan King County Council next week is expected to authorize the most extensive noise -reduction efforts in the history of Washington's Boeing Field.
According to the article, plans to insulate nearby houses and build a "hush house" and noise barrier to protect the nearby Georgetown area may not, however, satisfy residents, whose efforts to fight airport noise have grown as steadily as the air traffic at the Seattle area's second-busiest airport. "This is the most far-reaching piece of noise legislation ever adopted by the council," said Dwight Pelz, whose council district includes Georgetown and other areas near the airport. But because Pelz is chairman of a council committee that oversees the airport operation, any legislation favoring the airport that goes through his committee has the potential of offending his constituents. Pelz acknowledges he made some compromises in the noise proposal, but he maintains they were worth the price because of other concessions. However, unless some adjustments are made in a final version, Pelz said, he's not certain to vote yes when the measure comes before the full council on Monday.
The article reports county-owned Boeing Field, officially known as King County International Airport, is increasingly busy with air-cargo flights and private aircraft. It also is a main testing field for Boeing, which accounts for more than half of the airport's annual revenue. The airport management has been trying to persuade the council to approve a master plan to guide the airport's growth over the next 20 years. Among the most controversial provisions is a plan to shift the main runway 800 feet to the north, closer to Georgetown. The shift is one way to abide by a requirement from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that 800 feet at the south end of the runway be designated as a safety apron. The other option is to shorten the runway by 800 feet. Most Boeing Field users say they would not be impaired by a shorter runway, but Boeing has insisted it needs the full length for some of its testing.
According to the article, Cynthia Stewart, airport manager, said the airport plans to conduct an intensive noise study, similar to one undergoing at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Stewart said the volume of complaints about aircraft noise has increased dramatically in recent years, but it seems to be tied more closely to community organizing than to actual changes in flight patterns. Most complaints are related to air-cargo arrivals between 4 and 7 a.m. Although 90 percent of the area's air cargo arrives at Sea-Tac in the holds of passenger jets, aircraft- noise complaints have grown with the popularity of overnight delivery services. Airborne Express, United Parcel Service and several smaller carriers are based at Boeing Field. Stewart said the outlook calls for continued growth in the overnight-package business, although Boeing Field doesn't have enough space for any of the air-express operators to expand significantly.
The article reports the noise measure had been scheduled for a council vote early this week but was delayed at the last minute when part of the airport work plan compromise was questioned by county attorneys. Pelz said the Prosecuting Attorney's Office questioned whether the hush house could be built, and some of the other noise -reduction measures attempted, without FAA approval. Pelz said it was his understanding the changes would be made whether the FAA approved or not.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: October 9, 1998
SECTION: St. Charles Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Tommy Robertson
DATELINE: St. Charles, Missouri
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports officials in St. Charles, Missouri, are waiting for the full release of a federal report on the expansion of Lambert Field before joining Bridgeton in federal court to challenge that expansion.
According to the article, Mike Miller, St. Charles administrator, said Wednesday that the city will file suit once the full record of decision by the Federal Aviation Administration has been reviewed. "The FAA's record of decision is 1,200, pages and we were only able to get about 120 pages off the Internet last week," Miller said. "Once we get the full report and all the appendices, we will be filing suit in federal court. That might occur within the next week or two."
The article reports last week the FAA endorsed a plan by the city of St. Louis to build a 9,000-foot runway two miles closer to St. Charles. That plan, officially known as W-1W, would demolish about 2,000 Bridgeton houses and businesses to make way for a new runway. Bridgeton officials filed suit in state court against the city of St. Louis, which owns Lambert. That suit contends that St. Louis violated state law by failing to get zoning approval from Bridgeton for the expansion. On Monday, Bridgeton officials filed a general suit in federal court to block the expansion.
The article states Miller said the St. Charles' suit would be in federal court and would challenge the FAA as well as St. Louis. He also noted that elected officials have not told him to cease trying to get an agreement with St. Louis and Lambert officials to reduce aircraft noise over St. Charles. "I'm doing what the council's resolution calls for," said Miller of a resolution the City Council passed in February. That resolution states that the mayor and city administration would try to negotiate a noise abatement agreement with St. Louis and, if that agreement was not in place by the time of the FAA decision, then St. Charles would file suit."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: October 9, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 1; Zone: NW
BYLINE: Rogers Worthington
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joseph Karaganis, lawyer for the anti- noise Suburban O'Hare Commission
The Chicago Tribune reports behind-the-scenes maneuvering by United Airlines gave a senator reason to nix additional slots at O'Hare International Airport.
According to the article, the debate over additional takeoff and landing slots at O'Hare International Airport ended for 1998 this week with a word from Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.). Behind-the-scenes maneuvering by United Airlines apparently angered Hyde and gave him the rationale he needed to halt, at least for now, federal permission for extra air traffic at the world's busiest airport. A slot is one arrival and one departure at an airport in a 24-hour period. But for some of O'Hare's suburban neighbors, more slots mean more noise, and they have vigorously opposed any additions.
The article states when House and Senate versions of a bill dealing with the Federal Aviation Administration went to a conference committee this week, the bills were roughly in agreement that O'Hare should get 30 new slots. During the summer, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had sought 100 new slots at O'Hare, saying the extra air traffic would promote competition and lower fares and provide more flights to and from smaller cities. But an uproar raised by some of O'Hare's suburban neighbors prompted a compromise that lowered that number to 30.
The article reports on Wednesday, however, lobbyists for United Airlines sought to raise the total to 71 by restoring 34 slots that the Department of Transportation had taken from United and seven that the federal agency had taken from American Airlines. Federal officials have given the 41 slots to foreign airlines operating at O'Hare. "We are trying to get Congress to stop a practice we feel is very unfair," United spokesman Joseph Hopkins said Thursday. But Hyde caught wind of the attempt to raise the number of slots to 71 and went to House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), insisting that all of the proposed new flights be eliminated, a congressional source said. United said it plans to continue fighting to recoup the slots it has had to relinquish to the foreign carriers. Federal officials say the transfer is necessary so U.S. air carriers can obtain slots at foreign airports. But United claims that it has not been able to get the extra slots it wants at some foreign airports, such as London's Heathrow.
The article goes on to say American Airlines played no role in United's lobbying attempt, said American spokeswoman Mary Frances Fagan. She criticized United's move as an effort to "grab a bunch of slots to give them an even bigger advantage than they already have at O'Hare. Without United's involvement, it would have been a non-controversial bill," she said. With Congress set to adjourn for the year, chances of any extra slots being restored to the FAA bill are considered nil, congressional staffers said. "It's a tremendous victory for the communities around O'Hare," said Joseph Karaganis, a lawyer for the anti- noise Suburban O'Hare Commission. "But it's an ongoing battle."
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: October 8, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Associated Press reports noise restrictions for California's Universal Studios were recently approved by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission.
According to the article, despite Universal Studios' pleas, a county commission voted to bar the studio from filming explosions, shootouts and helicopters during pre-dawn hours. The noise restrictions were approved Wednesday by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission as it considered Universal's plans for a massive expansion.
The article reports if the recommendations survive a months-long approval process, Universal would be barred from creating "impulsive sounds," including explosions and gunfire, in three areas of its lot between midnight and 5 a.m. standard time and from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. during daylight saving time. The entire lot would be off-limits to nighttime use of helicopters. Currently, no other Southern California movie studio has such limitations, city and county planning authorities said. George J. Mihlsten, a lawyer representing Universal, told commissioners the restrictions would place the studio at an "immense competitive disadvantage. We think the limitations are just inappropriate for this industry," he said. "This is a key industry that needs to be supported by the county."
According to the article, Universal Studios overlooks the southern San Fernando Valley. The studio wants to add 3.25 million square feet of floor space over 15 years for entertainment, film production, offices, hotel and other uses on its 415-acre site, where facilities already provide 5.4 million square feet. Some nearby homeowner groups contend that would bring additional noise, traffic and pollution into the area.
PUBLICATION: The Dayton Daily News
DATE: October 8, 1998
SECTION: Neighbors, Pg. Z5-1
BYLINE: Valryn Bush
DATELINE: Butler Township, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Albert Hollis, resident
The Dayton Daily News reports residents of Butler Township, Ohio, asked for help with noise from Dayton International Airport.
According to the article, Butler Township residents presented township trustees with a petition last week protesting the noise from Dayton International Airport. "I will give any of you an opportunity to sleep in my house with the front door open," township resident Albert Hollis said. "Then you can see how bad it is." The petition contains the signatures of 23 residents whose homes are located near the intersection of Old Springfield and Dog Leg roads. It says they oppose the "excessive road noise, aircraft noise, and the fuel smell from Dayton International Airport and Emery Worldwide, which is a tenant." Hollis said other homeowners in the area also are affected and wanted to sign the petition, but they limited it to those living closest to Old Springfield and Dog Leg, where every household approached did sign. "We need your help," Hollis said. "The smell of fuel is so strong some mornings you can hardly stand it. The semis go all day and all night . It's getting out of control, and with Emery hiring 300 more people, we're wondering what's going to happen."
The article reports Hollis said he contacted Maceo Clarke Jr., of the airport's office of noise mitigation, who suggested that all involved-residents, Emery and airport representatives, and Montgomery County and township officials-sit down together. "We are here, and of course we want to be good neighbors," Clarke later said. "I saw an opportunity to address these concerns, meeting with all those who could impact those concerns," he said.
PUBLICATION: The Hollywood Reporter
DATE: October 8, 1998
BYLINE: Jeffrey Daniels
DATELINE: Hollywood, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joan Luchs, president of the Cahuenga Pass Neighborhood Association; The Coalition for Accountability in the Universal Studios Expansion (CAUSE)
The Hollywood Reporter reports the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission voted to recommend noise restrictions at Universal Studios in an effort to balance importance of film industry with noise concerns of residents.
According to the article, the commission meeting, which was continued to October 14, took place as a rally was held outside by an alliance of homeowners, residents and labor groups. The Coalition for Accountability in the Universal Studios Expansion, or CAUSE, presented a letter to officials demanding a formal oversight role in the development. Since Universal announced its expansion plans, several area residents have been vocal about noise problems from the studio, including nighttime filming and the use of helicopters. They also have raised concerns about traffic and warned that the expansion could cause gridlock. "I put in double-pane windows a few years ago because of entertainment noise from Universal," said Joan Luchs, president of the Cahuenga Pass Neighborhood Assn. "The noise can be pretty severe at times."
The article reports the commission's motion recommended nighttime filming restrictions on "impulsive sounds" such as pyrotechnics, gunfire, simulated explosions, loud music and sirens used for outdoor production activities near the edge of Universal's property. The commission's staff had supported these restrictions "as a reasonable exercise of the police power to protect the quality of life of the surrounding community," according to commission documents. Under the action, loud production activities are prohibited in the winter from midnight to 5 a.m. and in the summer from 1-5 a.m. Helicopter operations used for production purposes are barred from the entire lot during late hours. But the commission agreed to allow exceptions to nighttime filming when the studio gets a film permit and 48-hour advanced written notice to surrounding area residents. A county planning official said the commission sought to strike a balance between the importance of the industry and neighborhoods in its decision.
PUBLICATION: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: October 8, 1998
SECTION: Ozaukee Washington Pg. 2
BYLINE: William Breyfogle
DATELINE: Mequon, Wisconsin
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Harvey Lombness, resident
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports a special planning commission hearing was held in Mequon, Wisconsin, to address the issue of noise from a residence where swimming lessons are given.
According to the article, the Mequon Planning Commission hearing Wednesday sought to address the following questions: How much noise from a residential swimming pool is customary? How much noise should children be allowed to make during the day in a residential area? When is parking a nuisance? At issue are residential swimming lessons conducted by teacher Susan Heinzelman from her home on Hillview Drive. Several neighbors have complained that Heinzelman's swimming lessons, which are limited to no more than 10 students per class on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, constitute a nuisance in an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood.
The article reports Heinzelman's conditional use permit allowing her to hold swimming lessons at her home previously was discontinued by the Planning Commission and was later restored. Wednesday's hearing was scheduled as a final determination, after a summer in which neighbors and a city employee monitored the comings and goings at the Heinzelman pool. Several of Heinzelman's neighbors also are suing the city, claiming her conditional use permit never should have been restored. During questioning Wednesday, city planner Jill Harp said she easily could hear the sounds of children swimming and also of Heinzelman giving swimming lessons as she strolled by the property. She also noted a lawn mower was at times louder than the sounds coming from the pool. When asked if she considered it an "undue" amount of noise, she answered that it wasn't. On the other hand, neighbor Harvey Lombness, whose house directly abuts Heinzelman's, said the noise of children in the neighboring pool was causing health problems for both he and his wife. "We have no peace," Lombness said.
The article states both Harp and testifying neighbors offered written reports on the number of cars parked on the Heinzelman property as further evidence of a nuisance. Some neighbors complained of cars parked on Heinzelman's lawn and packing her driveway. Others complained that the number of cars in the area swelled when one swim class left and the next one arrived. Lombness complained that the increased traffic caused safety hazards on area streets. The Planning Commission, which was due to adjourn to closed session to consider its decision, had taken no official action at press time.
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: October 8, 1998
SECTION: Community; Pg. 01
BYLINE: John Westcott
DATELINE: Newport Beach, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bing Girling, resident; Tom Edwards, mayor and former member of the Airport Working Group
The Orange County Register reports California's El Toro Airport issue and how it's resolved could have enormous implications for John Wayne Airport and nearby residents.
According to the article, Bing Girling, like many other residents of Balboa Island and other neighborhoods grown used to the noise from John Wayne intruding into conversations and rattling windows, just doesn't want it to get any worse. That's why many residents are increasingly looking ahead to Dec. 31, 2005. That's the expiration date of the 20-year settlement agreement now limiting the number of passengers John Wayne Airport can carry, and the hours they can fly. "We've lived with John Wayne, we've tolerated it," Girling said. "But the settlement agreement is very important to us. Obviously, we don't want this thing to explode at the seams." While 2005 seems a long way off, residents and politicians know any effort to preserve and extend the settlement agreement must begin long before then. Nearly all of the six contenders for the two open seats on the City Council are placing the issue high on their priority lists. The biggest concern: If El Toro Airport is nixed, will the pressure to expand John Wayne become impossible to ignore? Opponents of El Toro look to big expansions at Los Angeles and Ontario to absorb increased flight demand. But local El Toro advocates say the demand will be greater than other airports can handle.
The article states the 1985 settlement agreement for John Wayne was significant and difficult to achieve. It was preceded by many complaints and a rash of lawsuits. By 1984, the airport's 12-month volume had climbed to 2.8 million passengers. Then Sup. Thomas F. Riley asked the Board of Supervisors that year to approve an agreement with Newport Beach to end the city's lawsuits in exchange for a long-term ceiling on the number of jet flights at John Wayne, but the motion died for lack of anyone seconding it. Newport's forces took a different tack in 1985. Tom Edwards, then a member of the activist Airport Working Group (and now mayor), discovered a newspaper article about how a similar dispute was settled between Westchester County and Midway Airlines Inc. The court's decision in that case established the right of a city to limit the number of passengers using an airport, setting a precedent to pursue a cap on John Wayne. On Aug. 27, 1985, the Board of Supervisors approved the momentous settlement agreement. They were-and remain-the toughest airport restrictions in the nation.
According to the article, the restrictions for John Wayne limited the number of annual passengers to no more than 8.4 million. (For the first five years of the agreement, it could be no greater than 4.75 million.) Daily commercial flights were limited to 55, including 39 of the louder MD-80s, and the rest to quieter aircraft. After 1990, the maximum would become 73. A 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on flights was continued. The proposed new terminal was cut in size to 363,000 square feet. The number of parking spaces was cut to 8,400. The agreement made a compromise at the time on the issue of a second airport for Orange County. The Board of Supervisors would become neutral on the issue, but not hinder an "unnamed third party" from pursuing it.
The article reports it's too early to predict the prospects for renewing the settlement agreement in 2005. Alternative G is one of a range of options being studied under the county's El Toro planning process. That would mean extending the current runway at John Wayne over the 73 freeway, acquiring 450 acres of office and other buildings near the airport, and boosting annual passengers to 25 million. City officials see no chance of that happening. That and other proposals must be part of the El Toro planning process to head off legal challenges. Under the county's preferred option, which envisions 23 million passengers annually at El Toro, John Wayne's capacity would increase slightly from 8.4 million to 9.4 million a year. Still, El Toro or no El Toro, officials agree a new settlement agreement will be crucial. Serious work on it probably won't occur until after the El Toro process is over, perhaps late 1999. "We still have time," City attorney Burnham said. "We have another seven years till it expires."
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
DATE: October 8, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Angela Greiling
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: James Prosser, Richfield city manager; Michael Sandahl, city council member
The Star Tribune reports Richfield, Minnesota, officials brought to Washington, DC, this week their fight against low-frequency airport noise in their suburban neighborhood.
According to the article, Richfield officials told Federal Aviation Administration and congressional staff members about the noise they predict will rattle 1,300 homes when a new runway is completed in 2003 at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Low-frequency noise, also known as ground noise, is created when planes land and take off. Many Richfield residents are used to living under flight paths, City Manager James Prosser said, but low-frequency noise rattles more homes and lasts longer than overhead noise. Prosser and City Council Member Michael Sandahl contend the master plan for the new runway needs to include measures to mitigate low-frequency noise. "We're not interested in stopping the runway, for a host of reasons, not the least of which is we have a lot of people who work at the airport," Sandahl said. Instead, they told the FAA and Capitol Hill employees about a $332 million plan that would include moving noise -affected residents to new homes. The largest portion of the cost, to be spread over a decade, would be acquiring land for those homes. This cost, Prosser said, would be offset by selling the land near the airport to commercial developers, whose buildings would be less affected by the noise. He said the net cost would be between $150 million and $200 million with the land sale factored in.
The article states Prosser and Sandahl met with three high-level employees at the FAA's Washington headquarters. Michael Erlandson, chief of staff to Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., also attended the nearly two-hour meeting. Prosser and Sandahl presented two studies that Richfield commissioned that project the low-level noise effects the runway will have. "The FAA seemed open to what they were saying," Erlandson said. He said the FAA told the Richfield officials that the agency would have to evaluate the conclusions of the studies, done by a California consultant, because the FAA hasn't done this type of study itself. The FAA and Sabo, whose district includes Richfield, are sympathetic to Richfield's concerns, Erlandson said. But he said the consensus is that the solution is up to Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the airport's governing body. Thus far, talks between those parties haven't drawn any mutual conclusions. Adding to the complexity is the fact that the noise impact is still just a projection, because it is unknown what will happen when the runway is finished.
The article also went on to say on Wednesday, Sen. Rod Grams, R-Minn., asked three congressmen to stop calling for negation of a plan to expand a runway at the airport. He sent the letter to the Western Republicans, who have asked for a change of plans so the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge can be protected. "As you know, the agreement to expand the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with impacts to the refuge was reached through negotiations by all parties involved," Grams wrote. "Only through tremendous efforts and understanding were the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Friends of the Minnesota Valley, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Airports Commission able to come to agreement on this important matter." In the letter, Grams suggested that the members were trying to stop the expansion in retaliation for the Clinton administration's opposition to a Senate bill that would benefit Alaska.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Kevin Barrett
DATELINE: Lisle, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Judy Yuill, village trustee; Ronald Ghilardi, mayor
The Chicago Daily Herald reports Lisle, Illinois, officials pledged this week to continue the fight for noise barriers along a three-quarter-mile stretch of the North-South Tollway.
According to the article, the pledge came during a public meeting Monday with the State Toll Highway Authority, at which time the town again was told by toll officials the stretch of roadway fails to qualify for noise abatement. "We have to do something," Trustee Judy Yuill said. "If we have to do it politically, we'll do it politically." For years, residents of the Oak View subdivision have complained that noise from the adjacent tollway is a constant nuisance, drowning out conversations and making back yards all but unusable. Those complaints brought little notice from the highway authority until the village conducted its own noise tests in the area.
The article reports village test results prompted the toll authority to conduct its own noise study, according to its spokesman, Scott Dworschak, who spoke at Monday's meeting. According to federal standards adopted by the authority, the tollway must produce noise levels above 67 decibels in any given area before sound walls can be built. To give a rough idea of those sound levels, Dworschak said a blender from three feet away produces roughly 90 decibels. "When it hits 67 decibels and it hits someone's home, that's when walls are required," he said. During on-site testing earlier this year, the authority found houses in the Oak View neighborhood did not meet those standards. Some computer models conducted in conjunction with those tests found, however, that certain areas experienced noise levels of 69 to 71 decibels, Dworschak said. But he said even the highest computer model results failed to jump high enough to trigger construction of noise barriers, which cost more than $1.3 million per mile. "Between 2 and 4 decibels your ear can barely perceive that change," he said, explaining that a jump of eight or more decibels normally is needed.
The article states village board members called the computer model flawed and the noise standards arbitrary. "When we get to the (67) number, it just seems to us the wall should go up," Mayor Ronald Ghilardi said. "It's just very perplexing to us that essentially the length of the (North-South) tollway, from I-88 to the Boughton toll plaza, everything but Lisle has sound walls," he said. The village board made little progress on a similar issue in the Beau Bien subdivision along the East-West Tollway. Board members pressed Dworschak for a promise to erect noise barriers there once the tollway is expanded in coming years. But Dworschak said only that tests would be conducted in the area to determine whether barriers are required.
PUBLICATION: Airports(R)
DATE: October 6, 1998
SECTION: Vol. 15, No. 40; Pg. 402
DATELINE: Burbank, California
Airports(R) reports city and airport officials are seeking ways to resolve the ongoing dispute over noise pollution, airline schedules and a terminal upgrade at Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.
According to the article, the latest development is a decision made last week by Airport Commission President Joyce Streator to generate a report on whether to launch an investigation of potential noise and curfew restrictions at the airport. The city of Burbank demanded the federal study, known as a Part 161 study, as one condition for dropping opposition to the replacement terminal project. However, Commissioner Jerry Briggs said, "Burbank officials must understand that the replacement terminal has to be built to improve safety at the airport regardless of the outcome of a Part 161 study." The current building is 68 years old and only 350 feet from active runways, out of compliance with current FAA safety standards. While, the Part 161 study has the potential of imposing restrictions on airline operations, in a meeting between local officials and FAA Administrator Jane Garvey this year, Garvey said the "bar is very high," Briggs recalled. According to Briggs, no other airport has succeeded in imposing noise access restrictions through Part 161.
The article states that in the meantime, airport officials attempt voluntary operation limits, such as one just reached in a use agreement with Reno Air. Starting this month, airport officials said Reno will offer four flights to San Jose, one at 6:50 a.m. The early flight would violate a voluntary curfew banning such flights before 7 a.m., but Reno said the aircraft will push back from the gate at 6:50 and not take off until past the curfew, ten minutes later.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A5
BYLINE: Eileen Travers
DATELINE: Montreal, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jean-Michel Legace, President of the Coalition of Little Burgundy
The Montreal Gazette reports that a proposed site for the Expos baseball stadium has got city officials and neighbors in an uproar.
According to the article downtown residents like Guy Joussemet want the Expos team to stay - anywhere but not in his back yard. The eight-story complex where Joussemet lives faces the Expos's proposed site for its $250-million ball park. "It's completely ridiculous and will make it unlivable here. We don't know where we'll go," the article said quoting Joussesmet.
Community groups, city councilors and other residents at Joussemet's 360-unit condominium complex raised residents' concerns regarding: diving property values increased noise pollution and traffic build-up. According to the article, a number of motorists are already in the area to attend events at the year-old Molson Centre up the street.
If the stadium were built residents would face a 8-metre-high wall rather than the skyline view of the Radisson Hotel and the silvery Bell building they want to keep. In addition to the 35,000-seat stadium, the site would include residential and commercial space, 173 parking spaces and offices as high as 37 stories.
Sam Boskey, a city councilor and member of the Montreal's urban-planning committee, is quoted saying, "There's no guarantee the Expos will survive forever. So the stadium could be empty for 12 months a year. We have to think this through."
According to Boskey the sound-impact study for the stadium likened the roar of a crowd when heard from the street to 85 decibels, or as loud as a coffee grinder.
Rene Lefebvre, who heads the Floralies tenants' association, is noted in the article saying a 5 1/2 apartment worth $240,000 a decade ago already fetches only $150,000. He is certain that if a stadium goes up and property values will go down.
Resident Pierre Mourot is a case in point. According to the article, Mourot bought a 4 1/2 apartment in 1988 near the Molson Centre just up the street. When Mourot tried to sell his apartment last year, it was worth 30 per cent less after the Molson Centre opened. "There's been tremendous depreciation," the article said quoting Mourot.
Mourot is described in the article as one who moved to Floralies so he could walk to work. The article notes he would now gladly trade his downtown address for peace in the suburbs.
Marcel Sevigny is the city counselor for Little Burgundy (the name of the area that holds the proposed site for the ball-park). According to the article Sevigny is concerned that more residents will follow Mourot and move out of the area.
In 1994, the proposed stadium site was slated for residential and commercial use in the city's master plan. The Little Burgundy site was to be a blueprint for urban development, the article said, referencing Sevigny's statements.
"For 15 years, a consensus has been made to fight to repopulate downtown Montreal. Building a stadium would destroy the dynamics of this effort," the article said quoting Sevigny.
Jean-Michel Legace, President of the Coalition of Little Burgundy represents 40 local groups. Legace is noted saying that he wants to see middle-income housing fill the site, not a stadium. "We're losing our people. I don't care where the Expos goes as long as they don't come here," the paper said quoting Legace.
PUBLICATION: Aviation Daily
DATE: October 5, 1998
SECTION: Vol. 334, No. 3; Pg. 21
DATELINE: Washington, DC
Aviation Daily reports the FAA is concerned that the European Union is getting ready to act unilaterally to limit the operation of hushkitted aircraft. According to the article, in a Sept. 14 letter, David Traynham, FAA assistant administrator for policy, planning and international aviation, told Michel Ayral, European Commission director for air transport, that a proposed EU regulation "would serve only to diminish the effectiveness of the ICAO process under a mistaken belief that U.S. carriers will transfer their Stage 3 hushkitted airplanes to EU registers after Dec. 31, 1999."
The article reports Traynham said an amendment being considered by the EU, to place a nighttime restriction on airplanes if the difference between the sum of their certified noise value and the sum of the Chapter 3 noise limit values is 5 EPNdb or less, "clearly affects U.S.-manufactured airplanes and greatly impacts U.S. cargo operators. Based on our preliminary estimates, this amendment would prohibit approximately 430 currently scheduled U.S. carrier cargo flights during this time period." The amendment "would clearly deviate from ICAO uniform international standards, as established by the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), would pose a threat to the ICAO/CAEP leadership, and would diminish the efforts of ICAO member states working together, under the Chicago Convention, as an international body to achieve global standards to reduce environmental impacts," he said. The world has worked well together through ICAO to address environmental aviation matters, Traynham continued. "Regional action such as these proposals can only undercut and possibly vitiate the ability of reaching international consensus on these very important issues. . . . I would urge you to reject this proposal with its accompanying amendments and consider the implications of actions that diverge from global standards that have been agreed to by all members of ICAO."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
Los Angeles Times reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the Burbank airport's appeal from a 1997 U.S. District Court ruling. That ruling, according to the article, says the Burbank Airport Authority lacked the legal standing to challenge the city's veto of the airport expansion project in federal court under the California's Public Utilities Code.
According to the article, the only issue before the high court was whether federal courts could refuse to hear the airport's case. The decision not to review the federal court's holding does not change the enduring conflict between Burbank and the Airport Authority over noise and traffic.
According to the article the U.S. Supreme Court did not states the reasons for refusing to review the 1997 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lourdes Baird.
Peter Kirsch, special counsel for the city of Burbank, is quoted saying, "Rather than the Airport Authority continuing to battle the city of Burbank in the courts, the city would much prefer that the Authority join with us to find ways to bring enforceable limits on growth and noise at the airport."
The article indicates that Burbank's leaders believe the ruling from federal courts upholds the constitutionality of a provision of the state Public Utilities Code that gives California cities the power to regulate airport expansion within their own boundaries.
Airport officials disagree and say state courts back their view. They point in particular to a ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West. According to the article West's decision says city officials signed away their powers over the airport under the PUC code when they agreed to set up the authority to run the facility under a 1997 agreement with the cities of Glendale and Pasadena.
Burbank is appealing the holding of the Superior Court and has also taken a new case before state court, claiming that the airport violated local land-use laws when it purchased 130 acres of land zoned for manufacturing use from the Lockheed Martin Corporation.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
Los Angeles Times published the following editorial opinions in response to the October 1 article, which discussed private party noise in residential areas of Los Angeles.
The front-page article about ear-splitting noise from private parties ("This Noise (Thump) Must Stop!" Oct. 1) may help enlighten the public as to how difficult a job it is for the police to enforce the law in this city.
Mention was made in the article that even having consensus as to what constitutes too much noise at night is very difficult in L.A. because there are so many different cultures here. That viewpoint, unfortunately, is used too often to justify rude, uncivil behavior in our city. It not only allows people to rationalize and justify trashing the environment, destroying property with graffiti and disturbing neighbors with loud parties, but also contributes to unfair stereotypes of other cultures.
I would imagine that if one were to visit the ancestral countries of any immigrant group in L.A., one would discover strong traditional attitudes toward respecting the rights of others.
Manners and civility are not the domain of certain cultural or ethnic groups. Being a good citizen should be expected from everyone.
BOB McKAY
Van Nuys *
Thank you for the wonderful article on people blasting their music and/or having loud parties. The solution is simple. Fine the noisemakers. A small amount for the first offense (to get their attention) and a large amount for the second and larger for the third. Unfortunately, the only thing that these people understand is money. Maybe that will teach them to have respect for others.
If we could only cut the calls by half, we could free the police to do more important things.
PAUL R. MICKELSON
Los Angeles *
The article on noise touched a raw nerve. Noisy parties shouldn't be over four hours, nor above a certain level of decibels, nor past 1 a.m. Police should use common sense or a decibel meter to determine when to quiet a party, so neighbors do not have to sign a complaint.
AL GARNER
Midway City *
USC anthropology professor Andrei Simic is quoted as saying, "On the most abstract level it has something to do with the lack of public consensus, the lack of cultural consensus about what the rules of behavior are." Is that the $ 2 term for "diversity"?
JOHN HOPKINS
Sierra Madre
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: Prince William Extra; Pg. V04
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Washington Post reports that Stafford County and the Regional Airport Commission plan to put in place a number of noise protection zones near Stafford Regional Airport.
According to the article the airport is currently under construction and is not expected to be operable until 2001. The protection zone is expected to affect a small number of private properties on the east and west sides of Interstate 95 and Route 1. A public hearing on the issue is scheduled for October 28.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 2; Zone: Nw
BYLINE: Anika M. Scott
DATELINE: Wheeling, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mike Gilbert, Citizens for Airport Safety and Environment (CASE)
The Chicago Tribune reports that local officials and residents are lobbying state aviation officials for an estimated $90 million in improvements at the Palwaukee Municipal Airport in Wheeling, Illinois.
According to the article some citizens believe the noise study - now slated for 2001 - has slid to the bottom of the list of improvements. The article quotes from Mike Gilbert, a member of Citizens for Airport Safety and Environment, or CASE saying, "They're spending millions of dollars on removing trees and repairing the grounds, but the noise study seems to be down the list."
Among the improvements noted in the article are the removal of trees and buildings to construct a taxiway. The improvements, nearby residents said, are a drop in the bucket to what's needed.
The article says the mayor of Prospect Heights and other local officials will pitch their plan to the state aviation officials Thursday in an effort to move them closer to financing the estimated $90 million in upgrades the airport wants over the next five years. Palwaukee has been allotted $3.4 million in the next fiscal year.
The noise study that CASE is lobbying is projected to cost $120,000. CASE - a group consisting of Wheeling and Prospect Heights residents, has wants to keep down the noise in surrounding neighborhoods. They have lobbied for bans on late-night flights and on planes of more than 77,000 pounds.
The article discusses the renovations in detail. Some of the renovations are routine maintenance, and some are required for compliance with federal aviation safety standards, the article said referring to the statements of Wheeling Village Manager Craig Anderson.
"For the past 10 or 12 years, most of the work done at the airport has been safety-related," Anderson said. "The maintenance has the side benefit of making it a nicer airport to use."
The Palwaukee airport is located in the city of Wheeling but co-owned by Prospect Heights. The airport says the proposed taxiway will prevent planes from taxiing on the same area used for takeoffs and landings.
Prospect Heights Mayor Edward Rotchford is noted saying he plans to make the airport- noise study a higher priority when he is in Springfield - a promise he made to CASE members.
The panel could rule on the issue of the airport-noise study after his presentation. Rotchford is quoted in the article saying, "They may say, 'Yes, we will update the study for the year 2000,' And they may say, 'We still consider it a low priority.' "
According to the article airport officials already have shifted funding for the noise study away from federal dollars to state and local funds, which Fred Stewart, the airport manager, says are easier to get.
Federal funds will pay for most of the taxiway and tree-removal projects, while the building demolition and paving of that area will be done with state and local funds, the article said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 3; Zone: D
BYLINE: Laura Zahn Pohl.
DATELINE: Lisle, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports that residents in Lisle, Illinois should not expect any noise relief from the North-South Tollway. Noise walls cost $1 million per mile to erect and there is a great demand for them along the entire tollway system.
The article says that Scott Dworschak, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, made these statements Monday night to the Lisle village trustees. Noise barriers along the East-West Tollway will be considered after the roadway is widened, the article says, referring to Dworschak.
Village officials expressed their protest to the authority about their recent computer "modeling" noise study that used 1996 traffic levels and highway speeds of 55 m.p.h.
Trustee Judy Yuill is quoted saying, "The people (near the tollway) are impacted greatly, and there's property de-valuation going on there. We're entitled to some help."
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: October 6, 1998
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Art Thomason
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lou Torres, President of the Southeast Valley Community Alliance
The Arizona Republic published the opinion of columnist Art Thomason who says the noise pollution suffered by new homeowners near Williams Gate Airport is far too often regarded without empathy by the public at large. Thomason points the finger at public officials who failed to protect Williams from encroaching developers.
According to the columnist the readers' likely opinion is that it must be "difficult to muster empathy for anyone who buys a home near a municipal airport and then verbally divebombs City Hall because the airplanes are too noisy." But the article notes that Mesa's city administration is under attack constantly by people representing more than 4,000 homeowners who moved into recently built subdivisions near Williams Gateway Airport.
Thomason quickly turns the tables and points the finger at every public official who sanctioned the development of homes within the "devastating-decibel range of flights lifting off and approaching Williams' runways."
Every politician and bureaucrat who caved in to developers is to blame Thompson says. Those who thought they had maintained an adequate noise barrier between the runways and new homes.
City officials including councilpersons, county board members and their planning staffs have known for years that Williams Gateway Airport was going to generate major noise, the columnist says.
Evidence of their guilt is a matter of public record, the columnist claims: "It is contained in volumes of development plans they rubber-stamped. It is on scores of videotaped hearings at which they ignored warnings about airport encroachment. It is in minutes of meetings during which they scoffed at predictions that they were creating a monster."
Homeowners who moved into the Valley and bought homes in neighborhoods around the airport were, on the other hand, never informed that low-flying aircraft could be buzzing in the space above their tile roofs.
Many homeowners inspected public reports issued by real estate agents for developers, the article adds. Some of the reports from some developers are devoid of any mention of the airport, let alone the noise. Other reports from other developers list the airport among "hazards and nuisances."
Such variances beg an explanation, the columnist says - an answer that hasn't come.
"They knew, they knew, they knew, and they didn't tell us," the article says quoting homeowner Carolyn Reidl.
According to the columnist, some homeowners contend that they asked about the airport and were told by real estate staffers that it was simply a former Air Force Base that didn't pose a problem.
"Most of us were misinformed or misled to believe that the airport would be used only occasionally for air shows," the article says quoting Lou Torres, president of the Southeast Valley Community Alliance. The alliance is a group of 4,000 members who live in the 14 subdivisions near Williams.
The deceit began, the columnist says, after Mesa and other Southeast Valley communities inherited the airport from Uncle Sam and started preparing for its conversion into a commercial, reliever airport and jobs center.
And it never would have reached the dimension of problems if the politicians and the bureaucrats had not failed to protect Williams from encroaching developers, the columnist says.
And it continued because nobody wanted to scare away potential homebuyers after the homes were built with reports of noisy airplanes.
Its no surprise then, the columnist asserts, that homeowners are now demanding protection from declining property values.
"I can muster a lot of empathy for that," the columnist says in closing.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: October 6, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Romulus, Michigan
The Associated Press reports that residents fear the expansion of Detroit Metropolitan Airport will increase airport noise, despite county efforts to implement a noise abatement program.
According to the article the county's $1.6-billion airport expansion includes a runway and 74 gates at a new, midfield terminal.
Residents have submitted a petition with more than 700 signatures to Wayne County criticizing its plan to handle noise at the airport where the number of landings and takeoffs has reportedly grown 27 percent from 1993-97 to 541,216.
Wayne County officials believe the noise around the airport will drop to an all-time low in 2000 when a federal law requiring all aircraft to use quieter engines or install sound-muffling systems goes into effect.
The article refers to the words of Colleen Pobur, director of a program that helps airport neighbors cope with noise. Pobur states, "Noise is very subjective. What one person finds acceptable, another doesn't."
Resident Doris Heitz, who has lived in Huron Township for 12 years, is quoted saying, "Some of my friends think I'm too sensitive. When we have people over for a barbecue, there are times you can barely hear the person next to you because of a 747. I don't think that's being too sensitive."
According to the article property most affected by airport noise is either bought by the county or on the list to receive sound insulation. Last autumn, the county began its insulation program, completing the modification of about 300 homes with special windows, central air conditioning and other sound-dampening details. The county has spent $31.7 million on these programs. A total of about 950 residences are expected to be sound-proofed, at approximately $25,000 each.
The article states that the neighbors' petitions are asking the county to create a more aggressive noise abatement policy. It suggests for example that the county should force planes to take off at steeper angles to diffuse the roar of their engines.
The Federal Aviation Administration wants the county to restudy the noise levels.
The effectiveness of the sound insulation to block out aircraft noise receives variable reviews. According to the article Ms. Pobur's office is in a sound-insulated residential home, about 1 mile south of the main Detroit Metro terminals. A passing aircraft was barely audible inside Ms. Pobur's office because, she said, the original windows were replaced with double-paned versions filled with argon gas. Central air conditioning means no open windows; extra insulation blown between the walls and under the attic eaves and acoustical doors to further soften the noise.
Designing and completing an insulation project such as an office or home takes about five months, the article said. The county insulates about 35 houses a month.
Much of the sound insulation installed has been subpar, however, in the views of Melissa McLaughlin, an aide to county Commissioner Bruce Patterson. "There are people who need sound insulation but don't qualify, and others get the work done but it still doesn't do the job," the article said quoting McLaughlin.
According to the article the Noise Mitigation Program has been paid for through a combination of the annual Federal Aviation Administration grant and a recent billion-dollar airport bond issue. [A $3 charge applies to all Detroit Metro passengers, the article said which is apparently included in the Federal Aviation Administration grant.]
A 1992 computerized study identified the areas most affected by aircraft traffic. Homeowners within the noisiest contour level can choose to let the county buy their property. The county will install sound insulation for homeowners living in less noisy areas. Most of the homes in the contour area are in Romulus, Taylor and Huron Township.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: October 6, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Las Vegas, Nevada
The Associated Press reports that four helicopter tour operators have ceased flying directly over the Strip in Las Vegas, Nevada because of noise complaints from hotel-casinos.
According to the article representatives signed a letter of agreement placing the centerline of the route over Koval Lane to the east and Interstate 15 to the west. The companies also agreed to fly 800 feet above the ground even though they are authorized to fly just 300 feet high.
The new flight pattern was arranged as a noise-abatement measure. It took effect Sept. 27 and has the blessing of the local office of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Tour operators don't expect the revised routes to hurt business the article said. The four companies include: Las Vegas Helicopters, Heli USA Inc., Sundance Helicopters and Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters.
PUBLICATION: The Detroit News
DATE: October 6, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. Pg. D1
BYLINE: David Josar
DATELINE: Romulus, Michigan
The Detroit News reports that more than 700 neighbors living near Detroit Metropolitan Airport want Wayne County to require the airport to take new steps to ease the noise before the airport begins its $1.6-billion airport expansion.
Airport neighbors are already fed up with the near-constant roar of passenger jets, the article reports. They fear the expansion plans, which include a runway and 74 gates at a new, midfield terminal, will make the noise much worse.
According to the article airport neighbors have submitted a petition to Wayne County criticizing its existing noise abatement plan. The number of landings and takeoffs has already grown 27 percent from 1993-97 to 541,216, the article said, causing residents to demand better protections.
County officials, on the other hand, have put their noise abatement program into high gear. They believe the noise around the airport will drop to an all-time low in 2000. That's the year a federal law requiring all aircraft to use quieter engines or install sound-muffling systems goes into effect.
Colleen Pobur is the director of the program that helps airport neighbors cope with noise. She is quoted in the article saying, "Noise is very subjective. What one person finds acceptable another doesn't."
Residents like Doris Heitz, on the other hand, have listened to the continual roar of aircraft present a different view. The article quotes Heitz, a 12-year resident on Sibley in Huron Township saying, "Some of my friends think I'm too sensitive. When we have people over for a barbecue, there are times you can barely hear the person next to you because of a 747. I don't think that's being too sensitive."
The article reports that homes and public schools most affected by airport noise have been purchased by the county to the tune of $31.7 million.
The county insulation program completed modification of about 300 homes last fall using special windows, central air conditioning and other sound-dampening details. Approximately 600 homeowners have turned down the offer, the article reported. A total of 950 residences are expected to be modified through the county's insulation program at a cost of about $25,000 each.
According to the article signatories to the petition that disputes the abatement strategy is more than 700. Petitioners want the current noise abatement plan scratched and replaced with one that deals with the airport aggressively. One suggestion includes forcing planes to take off at steeper angles to diffuse the roar of their engines.
Melissa McLaughlin, an aide to county Commissioner Bruce Patterson is quoted in the article speaking on behalf of residents in Huron Township and Romulus. "A lot of people just can't take it," McLaughlin is quoted, referring to the noise. McLaughlin is noted in the article saying the sound insulation installed by the county has been subpar and is reportedly skeptical of county assurances that the sound will drop."There are people who need sound insulation but don't qualify, and others get the work done but it still doesn't do the job," the article said quoting McLaughlin.
David Glaab, Huron Township Commissioner, is noted in the article saying that the noise control measures planned don't go far enough. "I just feel there's a lack of concern from (county Executive Edward) McNamara about us," the paper said quoting Glaab, 34, who grew up in Huron Township, where he now practices law. "Places like Dearborn get most of the positive impact from the airport, but we get the bad," the paper said continuing its quote from Glaab.
Heitz, is a resident who is described in the article as one living close to the airport and approved for the sound-proofing. She however will have to wait at least another year before designers can devise a plan to insulate her home.
According to the article Pobur is resisting the FAA's recommendation to restudy the noise levels. Pobur reportedly fears federal dollars for sound insulation may disappear because noise levels are dropping to all-time lows. Pobur is further noted stating his belief that the noise will drop considerably - by as much as three-quarters - when older, noisier planes, such as DC-9s and 727s, are phased out in favor of newer, quieter planes.
More than $24 has already been spent on property in the noise areas the article said, referring to Pobur. It takes about five months to design and complete an insulation project. The county does about 35 houses a month the paper said.
According to the article the Noise Mitigation Program has been paid for through a combination of the annual Federal Aviation Administration grant and a recent billion-dollar airport bond issue. [A $3 charge applies to all Detroit Metro passengers, the article said which is apparently included in the Federal Aviation Administration grant.]
A 1992 computerized study identified the areas most affected by aircraft traffic the article said. Homeowners within the noisiest contour level can choose to let the county buy their property. The county will install sound insulation for homeowners living in less noisy areas. Most of the homes in the contour area are in Romulus, Taylor and Huron Township.
A photograph accompanies the article.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call
DATE: October 6, 1998
SECTION: Local/Region, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Matt Assad
DATELINE: Allentown, Pennsylvania
The Morning Call reports that Bethlehem Mayor Don Cunningham will propose amending the existing noise ordinance. The proposed amendment levies fines up to $300 for booming car stereos and deafening car alarms.
According to the article city officials admit the existing ordinance is inadequate and unenforceable. "It's vague and ambiguous. Noise, as it's described in the ordinance, is basically open to interpretation. The new (amendments) give it more teeth. It will be much more enforceable," the article said quoting Lt Herbert Goldfeder.
The new amendment was prompted by a string of complaints from residents, mostly in South Bethlehem, about ground-shaking car stereos and frequent false trips of car alarms that have ruined their once-peaceful neighborhoods.
The paper describes how the blare of the same car alarm pierces the one of Bethlehem neighborhoods hundreds of times in one year. Friends of residents there have reportedly set off ultrasensitive car alarms instead of using the door bell leaving "neighbors holding their ears and reaching for the aspirin bottle."
Louise Valeriano, who lives in that neighborhood, said the car alarm near her home in the 1100 block of E. 4th Street has gone off as many as 10 times a day, sometimes in the predawn hours.
Valeriano believes the proposed $300 fine would be a big deterrent not to play with the car alarm. Under the proposed amendment, more than one false alarm per day also would draw a fine. In fact the article notes that Valeriano believes the mere threat of the ordinance has already worked in her neighborhood.
The new proposals would also give police the authority to issue fines for a stereo that can be heard more than 15 feet from the car or dwelling that contains it. Permitted uses or public assemblies would be exceptions.
The paper indicated that the new noise law will need the approval of City Council before police can begin enforcing it.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: October 6, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Jerry O'Brien
DATELINE: Providence, Rhode Island
Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that a skateboard facility will be expanding in spite of neighbors' complaints about noise.
Residents living next to Skater's Island, an indoor skateboard facility, want operators of the facility to exercise "reasonable limitations regarding noise", the article said.
The article quotes the residents' lawyer, James Hyman, saying, "We're asking for reasonable limitations regarding noise. . . [The noise incidents] do not rise to the level of criminality. They rise to the level of annoyance."
According to the article the lawyer asked operators to refrain from using the public address system when the facility's large garage-type door is open in the summer. Hyman also requested that they plant evergreens on two sides to inhibit the noise.
The operator's attorney, Patrick Hayes Jr., reportedly responded by saying that the business is operating under strict limitations regarding noise and there is no need for additional restrictions.
The above-noted comments were made at a city council meeting where operators of Skater's Island were requesting council approval to double its size. Since the public meeting ended at the council's meeting in September, the council would - according to Town Solicitor Michael W. Miller - have to readvertise proposed changes to the ordinance and reopen the hearing at a later date if it wished to include noise restrictions in the proposed ordinance.
Council President George L. Andrade Jr. remarked that the council was not looking for new amendments but was asking "for good faith." "If the sound is intolerable, let us know," the paper said quoting Andrade Jr.
The paper reported that the council unanimously approved double the size of Skater's Island.
PUBLICATION: The Vancouver Sun
DATE: October 6, 1998
SECTION: News; Regional Roundup; Pg. B5
DATELINE: Vancouver, Canada
The Vancouver Sun reports that citizens of Maple Ridge, Vancouver, Canada want train whistles silenced. An 800-name petition asked that city councilors do something about high-volume air horns.
According to the article the train whistles have made life miserable for persons living near the railroad tracks. Several dozen residents appeared at a municipal council meeting with an 800-name petition demanding the district ban the trains' noisy air-horns.
Eleanor Buck, the group's representative reported that between 40 and 45 Canadian Pacific and Westcoast Express trains sound their horns four times at each of Maple Ridge's eight crossing gates. According to Buck municipalities have the power to adopt anti-whistling bylaws and can negotiate with Transport Canada to ensure that safety is accounted for before banning the whistles. She is noted saying that whistles are redundant for purposes of ensuring safety because barriers, warning lights and bells now control all crossings.
Neighboring communities already have whistle bans, the article said, referring to Buck's comments.
PUBLICATION: Aberdeen Evening Express
DATE: October 5, 1998
SECTION: Pg.12
DATELINE: Aberdeen, Scotland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Low Frequency Noise Sufferers Association
The Aberdeen Evening Express says that environmental health officers will monitor low frequency noise levels emanating from an Abderdeen dairy. According to the article their new "state of the art" equipment can filter noise frequencies.
Councilpersons hope the equipment it can isolate the frequency that has been causing neighbors to complain about the dairy. The article states that the "lives have been made a misery" from the noise of the Wiseman Dairy located on Craigshaw Drive. Neighbors are reported saying that the noise usually occurs at night and is caused by loading and unloading, roof fans and refrigerators.
One neighbor described in the article, Mr. Garden, 53, has even resorted to wearing a special hearing device which emits a low frequency white noise to try to drown out the din from the depot. Until now, testing done by environmental health have shown the plant is not creating a statutory noise nuisance. A spokesperson for the council is noted saying, "We should be able to identify more specifically the noise (Mr. Garden) is hearing and locate its source (with the new equipment)."
Mr. Garden is quoted in the paper saying, "The problem is that they always come at the wrong times when the noise isn't as bad. It would be helpful if they could come out in the middle of the night."
The article refers readers to The Low Frequency Noise Sufferers Association which can be contacted at 6, Hyatt Place, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA4 5XY or telephone number 01749 345 643.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: October 5, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
BYLINE: Peter Dujardin
DATELINE: Hampton, Virginia
The Associated Press reports about how a small company is taking a forefront position to reduce airplane noise by changing the air flow around wings and fuselages.
The company - High Technology Corp. of Hampton, Virginia - is at the forefront in reducing noise.
Today's budget airlines and a global economy make it easier and more important for people to get around, causing planes to land and take off at record pace, the article notes. But the price tag is noise.
"Jets cut the air with a deafening roar - waking people from their naps and making pupils strain to hear their teachers," the article says of communities inundated with more and more noise.
HTC's Senior scientist Mehdi R. Khorrami is quoted responding to the obvious tension: "If you can't make the planes quieter, there's going to be pressure to limit landing and takeoff at major airports. We're trying to help prevent that."
The article informs the reader how noise from airplanes is not only from engine exhaust, or the air going through the engine blades. Some of the noise is created by the airplane's frame, known as the airframe, producing fast pressure changes as it moves through the air.
The company's founder and president, Mujeeh R. Malik, is isolating the later source in its effort to reduce aircraft noise the article said. "It used to be that engine noise was so loud that it was much more significant than airframe noise. But as the engine noise is reduced, the airframe noise is becoming more and more of a factor," the article said, quoting Malik.
The article explains that the wings create much of the airframe noise - especially after they lengthen, on takeoff and landing, to create extra "lift" area. According to the article it's difficult to land a plane without the extra lift because it will land at a much greater speed. Increasing the lift area helps keep the plane aloft as it slows - but it also adds more area and thus more noise.
HTC hopes to find a way to change the airflow around the plane and still maintain adequate lift, the article says. For that reason HTC does its experiments on computers and in wind tunnels. By altering the geometry of the wing or frame, or by adding an extra wing flaps, a new air blower, airflow around the plane can be changed - even if only slightly - to release pressure.
Louis Cattafesta, a senior research scientist at NASA "Sometimes small disturbances can have a very big effect," says. "Introducing a disturbance into the flow is sort of like pushing a snowball or rock down the hill that picks up speed along the way."
The article notes that both NASA and the airplane industry have interests for noise reduction. The article references Khorrami saying that one thing American companies need to be focusing on noise reduction to maintain a competitive edge in the world market. The European airplane manufacturing consortium, Airbus, is focusing a good deal of attention on reducing noise, according to Khorrami.
The article reports that HTC, is one of several companies participating in NASA's Langley's Airframe Noise Program, a program funded by NASA to come up with ways to reduce airplane noise. Other companies include Lockheed Martin and Boeing. HTC is the smallest company with only 20 employees. To date HTC has helped develop a computer model on airframe noise, and gone into NASA wind tunnels to compare the computer model with the real thing. Now, the company is moving toward solutions.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: October 5, 1998
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. 10A
DATELINE: Baltimore, Maryland
The Baltimore Sun published the following editorial regarding the use of trees to muffle the sound of vehicles on a heavily traveled route.
Out of sight, out of mind is the only answer officials have come up with to complaints about noisy traffic on Route 32. It had been suggested that planting trees might muffle the vehicles that can be heard through the closed windows of nearby houses. The State Highway Administration now says trees won't help much, but it will plant some anyway.
Plans to plant more than 800 evergreen trees on each side of Route 32 near Columbia and Clarksville were announced a week ago by state Sen. Christopher J. McCabe at a River Hill village board meeting. But Charlie Adams, SHA director of environmental design, acknowledged that the trees wouldn't effectively serve as noise abatement even after they mature.
Mr. Adams' candor understandably leaves people wondering whether the $50,000 expense of planting the trees will be worth the result. Nearby residents won't be able to see the traffic, but they will still hear it. The noise level is likely to increase when Route 32 is widened to accommodate additional traffic that has accompanied tremendous development in Howard County.
Opponents of widening Route 32 will use the state's inability to ease the noise problem as additional ammunition to fight the road project. It is not reason enough for the project to be suspended. The rush hour bottleneck where Route 32 narrows from four lanes to two is not only inconvenient but dangerous. Widening the road and perhaps adding an interchange makes the most sense.
As state and county officials move closer to a decision on the future of Route 32, they should explore options beyond planting trees to abate the noise. Perhaps homebuyers near this busy thoroughfare should have expected the daily serenade of 18-wheelers. But if some relief can be provided at a reasonable cost, it should be sought. Planting trees won't suffice.
PUBLICATION: Birmingham Evening Mail
DATE: October 5, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 12
BYLINE: Catherine Hendrick
DATELINE: Birmingham, Great Britain
The Birmingham Evening Mail reports that Safeway supermarket has been branded a "neighbour from Hell" by two families in Great Britain who have a long-standing noise dispute with the giant grocer.
According to the article the families of Jack Holmes, aged 60, and Karl Varney, aged 39, claim they have not had a decent night's sleep in eight years because of noise and vibrations from lorries at the store.
At the core of the dispute is Mr. Holmes' claim that Safeway had promised double-glazing two years ago but when Safeway's solicitors submitted quotes for double-glazing the families were told the cost was too high.
A spokesperson for Safeway states that there was a letter saying they would investigate the idea but no promises assuring the same. The paper quotes the spokesperson saying, "We have invested quite a considerable amount of money in reducing these problems."
According to the article Safeway has created a turning circle to guide the lorries away from the houses and put up a sign directing drivers to switch off their equipment while waiting. Safeway wants to begin receiving deliveries on Sundays as well and plans to ask the city council for permission to do so, the article said. All totaled the number of deliveries has actually been reduced over the twenty-years the company has owned the site.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: October 5, 1998
SECTION: News; Commuting; Pg. 5
BYLINE: Robert C. Herguth
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that the Dutch Air Force is scheduled to tryout O'Hare's Hush House. According to the article they plan to use one of their big planes - a Hercules C-130H - to test out O'Hare's $3.1 million structure.
The article describes O'Hare's "Hush House," as a C-shaped structure with 45-foot-tall steel walls designed to absorb noise stemming from nighttime repairs and maintenance.
The Dutch hope to build a hush house of their own, the article says, but want to test out the effects of their noisy military planes first.
Aviation officials are noted in the article saying they will try to convince the Dutch to conduct the test during the day - which would presumably be less bothersome to suburban residents living nearby.
The Dutch, however, prefer to test the aircraft during the nighttime the article said. Robert C. Herguth, the Chicago Daily Herald's transportation writer, presented this information one section of his weekly column.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: October 5, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Brad Hahn
DATELINE: Elgin, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that neighbors want property that has been utilized by manufacturing to be converted into quiet uses but the city of Elgin, Illinois.
Neighbors claim that the Starro Precision factory adds constant noise and traffic to an otherwise peaceful neighborhood.
"The noise has got to stop, the article said quoting a neighbor named Kennon. "We don't sleep at night, we can't nap during the day and we don't function as well."
According to the article Starro will leave the neighborhood and relocate to the city's Corporate Center in three weeks. The small west side neighborhood had been the location of operation for four decades.
Persons living in the vicinity want the company's 2 acres transformed into a park or office building- or, in other words, anything but another factory, the article said. The property's three buildings however, have been home to housing manufacturing businesses for more than 70 years, causing the landowner to believe he may have to sell to industrial buyers.
Its up to the city to decide what restrictions, if any, to put in place for this neighborhood with a factory occupying its center.
At present that decision lies with the city's planning and development commission.
The owner of Starro Precision, Bruce Stark, is quoted denying the severity of the problem. "We've done noise tests and everything else, and what they [the neighbors] are saying just isn't true. Stark describes the neighbors as overly zealous persons who are embellishing their complaints in order to remove industry from the neighborhood, the article says.
But neighbors featured in the article insist that it is impossible to exaggerate the disruptions caused by the company. "[S]even days a week you don't go to sleep until after midnight, and you better be up by 6 a.m.," the article said quoting neighbor Kathleen York. Other residents describe how machines are running every hour of the day and evening, making it impossible to enjoy a conversations outdoors. Semis roll in and out of the factory daily and the fumes provoke frequent bouts of headaches and nausea among neighbors, one resident said.
But according to the article factory owner Starro says he fielded only four phone calls from irritated neighbors in his 24 years with the company.
Neighbors are asking the city to narrow the uses that run with the property while landowner Leonard Winner pushes the city for a list of the widest possible uses.
Members of the city's planning and development board sent both parties back to talk compromise at the initial hearing. The article said that summit ended when neighbors walked out without an agreement.
The article depicts the compromise position of the city with a quote from Elgin city planner, Jerold Deering, "In an older community like Elgin that has experienced significant growth over 125 years, you'll have situations like this where industry was located on the periphery of town and the neighborhood caught up to it. We need to protect the interests of Mr. Winner and the interests of the neighbors, and the city council will strike a balance. Not everybody's going to be happy in the end, but the process is working."
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: October 4, 1998
SECTION: Section 14; Page 15; Column 1; The City Weekly Desk
DATELINE: New York, New York
The New York Times published the following letter to the editor regarding the unfair dispersal of early morning noise from La Guardia Airport.
In your good piece about airplane noise, "It's a Plane, It's a Noise. It's a Bother and Then Some" (Sept. 6), quoting my wife, some context was lost.
Our complaints -- to the powers that be at La Guardia Airport -- have had to do with the intense noise of planes at full throttle climbing to cruising altitude after takeoff. We are located in what seems now to be the preferred climb path of every westbound and southbound morning flight out of La Guardia, and the first one that we hear regularly awakens us at 6:05 every weekday morning and is followed at regular intervals of from three to five minutes by succeeding flights for the next hour.
In earlier days the takeoff paths were somewhat dispersed temporally and geographically so our area received only a fair share of the noise burden. That dispersal pattern seems to have been discontinued, to our profound disadvantage, but it is not just a weekend problem as the Port Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration would like you to believe. It is a weekday problem primarily and it is quite intolerable
While I agree that that the traffic of planes coming in to land is disturbing to East Harlem residents, and I sympathize with their plight, I wonder whether they have as much of a noise burden in the early morning. Joseph B. Russel, Fort Washington
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: October 4, 1998
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 26; Zone: C
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune published the following editorial praising Chicago's ordinance that outlaws loud, annoying music from car stereos.
First there was the sound, then there was the fury.
That's why two years ago the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance outlawing loud, annoying music booming from car stereos and rattling teeth for blocks around. Breaking the law would mean watching your car get towed off to the pound and paying a steep fine.
And it has worked. In fact, the law has worked so well that Ald. Percy Giles (37th) wants to change it.
He says some constituents have complained that their cars were impounded the first time they got pulled over for blaring stereos. And he complains that at least one business that sells and installs the equipment in his ward has closed down because the law has scared off customers.
But see that's the good news. The fewer outlets selling nuisances, the fewer nuisances there will be.
The intent of the law was to provide relief to people who shouldn't have to put up with mind-numbing noise day and night because it suits the musical taste of some hearing-impaired cretin with a driver's license. And that is what it's doing.
Under the law, which authorizes police to impound a car if the stereo is clearly audible more than 75 feet away, about 5,770 vehicles have been towed. That's a lot of noise.
The fact that sales of "supersonic" stereos are down is a clear indication that impounding is having the desired effect. Nevertheless, it probably wouldn't hurt to allow a warning ticket on the first offense, with impoundment and an even heftier fine on the second.
But anything less stringent--like Ald. Giles' idea to prohibit impounding vehicles before 9 p.m. (later on weekends)--is nonsense. People have a right to freedom from obnoxious noise not just when they are in their beds but when they are in their homes, their yards and their neighborhoods.
If drivers want to crank up the sound, that's fine--that's what headphones are for.
PUBLICATION: Birmingham Post
DATE: October 7, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 22
DATELINE: Birmingham, England
The Birmingham Post reports British Airways has announced the purchase of new, quieter, and more environmentally friendly aircraft. The news is welcomed by England's Birmingham International Airport.
According to the article, a British Airways announcement of an order for new aircraft is regarded as being of vital importance to its future. The new aircraft will replace the existing Boeing 737-200 series and British Aerospace ATPs. The aircraft will fully comply with the European Noise Regulations, which must be achieved by 2002 and are considerably quieter and environmentally friendly than the present fleet. "This is a major announcement for the airport, the communities that surround it and the Midlands region it serves," said Brian Summer, managing director at Birmingham International. "It represents a major commitment by British Airways to further develop its operations from Birmingham as the new aircraft will give increased capacity for the development of services."
Previous week: September 27, 1998
Next week: October 11, 1998