PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 24, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Chris Fusco
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Craig Johnson, Gayle Smolinski, Tom Marcucci, Congressman Henry Hyde
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that concerned communities near the O'Hare International Airport have taken out a full-page ad in order to motivate people to contact their lawmakers and voice their concerns about increased air traffic which they feel will lead to more noise pollution and collisions.
The article states that when the possibility of increased takeoffs and landings was announced Friday, the mayors of ten communities surrounding O'Hare International Airport and the DuPage County Board chairman decided to go on the warpath. The leaders, who are members of the Suburban O'Hare Commission, placed a full-page advertisement calling the airport "an accident waiting to happen" in three newspapers. The advertisement includes the words of a retired American Airlines pilot who says "it is only a matter of time until two airliners collide making disastrous headlines." The purpose of the ad is to motivate people who are concerned about noise pollution and safety impacts to call Gov. George Ryan, U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, state Sen. James "Pate" Philip, Illinois House Republican Leader Lee Daniels and U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Those who placed the ad hope citizens will voice their concerns about the lifting of the " slot rule", which would allow an increase in daytime air traffic. The ad also lauded of Wood Dale for opposing an increase in flights at O'Hare.
The article continued that Chicago Aviation Department spokesman Dennis Culloton dismissed the pilot's statement that O'Hare is destined for disaster. Even the National Air Traffic Controllers Association local at O'Hare Tower, he said, endorses the lifting of the 30-year-old slot rule. "Safety is their No. 1 priority," Culloton added. "It always will be." But Elk Grove Village President Craig Johnson, who signed the ad, doesn't agree. "There's no question the noise is bad and safety is paramount," he said.
The article concludes by stating that the ad comes in the wake of a discusion between Johnson, Roselle Village President Gayle Smolinski and Elmhurst Mayor Tom Marcucci meeting who met with Hastert April 5 to discuss the rule. According to Johnson, Hastert was polite but "noncommittal." Johnson added that several mayors plan to fly to Washington next month to voice their objections with regards to lifting the slot rule and another bill that would increase the number of hourly flights. Congress is scheduled to vote on one of the bills this summer. "The issue is coming to a head," Johnson said. "Now more than ever we need to tell people it's crunch time and make sure their voices are heard."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Daily News
DATE: April 24, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Donna Huffaker
DATELINE: Pasadena, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Senator Adam Schiff
The Los Angeles Daily News reports that funding is being sought from the state by Senator Adam Schiff in order to help residents living near the Burbank Airport soundproof their homes from noise pollution caused by airflight.
The article states that California Sen. Adam Schiff announced Friday he wants to help soundproof houses near the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport against aircraft noise and is looking for $400,000 in state funds to do so. Schiff, D-Pasadena, said the money is needed to fund work on the 50 homes that are most affected by the airflight noise. The average cost of oufitting each home will be $40,000, and applications have already been submitted for 150 homes in Burbank and Los Angeles. The renovations that are available include new windows, attic insulation, weather stripping and central air and heat. According to a Federal Aviation Administration study completed in 1989, only those who are exposed to community noise equivalency levels of 65 decibels or greater are eligible.
The article also states that the funding that Schiff has requested would provide 20 percent of the cost of the Residential Acoustic Treatment Program while the Federal Aviation Administration and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority would provide the remaining $1.6 million. "The state has a clear and compelling interest in ensuring that homes in the most heavily noise -impacted areas are insulated against burdensome aircraft noise and should take a leadership role in protecting those who suffer from the adverse impacts that result from airport operations," Schiff said in a statement released Friday. Burbank Airport officials have commented that Schiff's efforts will help homeowners affected by airflight noise. "This is a really good, concrete step toward reducing noise for nearby residents," said Sean McCarthy, assistant director of public affairs and communications for the airport.
The article concludes by stating that the program is part of an ongoing effort by the airport to soundproof 2,300 homes within about 15 years in Burbank, Sun Valley and Hollywood at a cost of about $110 million, which will mainly come from the federal government. Funds have also been secured by Burbank Airport to insulate Mingay Adult School in Burbank.
The Orange County Register reports that recommendations by the Orange County Board of Supervisors for enlarging the El Toro Airport to about half the size of the Los Angeles Airport are being met with opposition by those who say the airport will cause increased noise pollution for residents of neighboring communities as well as increase the likelihood of accidents due to the increased traffic.
The article states that plans for the El Toro airport are up in the air. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has recommended that the current military base become an international commercial airport that they hope will be about half the size of today's Los Angeles International Airport by 2020. But the supervisors will not make a final decision until December when the decision will be referred to the Navy secretary for a final decision sometime next year.
County officials say they will abandon the airport plan only if they discover a "fatal" flaw in the plan. Yet, airport opponents say they will do whatever it takes to prevent the airport from becoming a reality. Already several lawsuits have been filed by opponents and they are expected to challenge the final environmental impact report and airport plan as well as the Navy's environmental analysis. Opponents of the airport are also pressing for an initiative destined for next March's ballot which, if passed, would require two-thirds approval by county voters before construction on the airport could begin. Other state legislation that has been proposed includes requiring the approval of voters for airport financing bonds.
The article goes on to state that starting sometime next year, the county wants to begin limited interim air cargo service consisting of about 12 flights a day. Opening day for the El Toto airport terminal should be sometime in 2005, if the plans go through. Officials estimate that the El Toro Airport would be approximately the same size as the John Wayne Airport is today, serving an estimated 8.8 million annual passengers with 312 daily landings and takeoffs per day, 24 of which would be cargo flights.
The article states that at this point, details for flight patterns are not final, although plans would be used similar to the current Marines' operations. Takeoffs would be towards the east toward Foothill Ranch and Rancho Santa Margarita as well as due north toward Irvine Lake and Anaheim Hills. Landings would be from Dana Point, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills and Laguna Woods in the south. However, both of the nation's commercial pilots' associations are questioning the safety of the proposed takeoff patterns. The Federal Aviation Administration will rule on the flight patterns sometime after the county has completed its airport plan this year.
The article concludes with opponents of the airport stating that numerous homes, including those in Laguna Woods and Aliso Viejo, will be in the 64-decibel zone, a level of noise hardly distinguishable from 65 decibels at which point the state requires the county to soundproof homes. County studies show Rancho Santa Margarita, Lake Forest, Monarch Beach, Anaheim Hills, Northwood and Coto de Caza will be exposed to 50-60 decibels averaged over a 24-hour period but opponents argue that individual jets might be much louder than the overall average and that planes flying overhead every three to five minutes will make the noise intolerable for many people.
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: April 23, 1999
SECTION: National/Foreign; Pg. A1
BYLINE: by Stephanie Ebbert and Frank Phillips
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John O'Conner, Henry S. Cole
The Boston Globe reports that Senator Thomas Birmingham and environmental groups are rallying the EPA to halt the construction of a runway that they say will negatively affect residents of Chelsea and surrounding communities and that a supposed increase in flights does not warrant the construction.
The article states that Logan International Airport wants to build another runway but the US Environmental Protection Agency Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham don't want them to. Even though the EPA is not in charge of the approval process, a negative analysis issued from their office could be enough to stop the project in its tracks as it makes its way through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review. A more deadly opponent is Birmingham, who has vowed to push for a legislative ban on expansion plans at Logan if the administration does not allow an independent commission to investigate the issue.
The article continues that Birmingham, who represents the community of Chelsea which is the most heavily affected by Logan, said an independent panel is necessary because Massport is playing the bully in attempting to get the runway in question activated. "Massport's institutional credibility is seriously flawed," Birmingham told State House reporters. Massport is planning to build the additional runway in order to prevent flight delays and to ready for growth anticipated in the near future. Birmingham's argument is that since the frequency of flight delays has been questioned, the issue needs to be addressed by an independent panel. Birmingham also says that the Logan authority is rushing their judgement on the runway proposal and thinks they should look at other options such as the expanded use of Hanscom Field in Bedford to relieve airport congestion.
The article then goes on to say that Birmingham has not fully developed his ideas on the commission's makeup, but believes its work would take no more than six months to a year. He also defended himself against opponents who say he is using his political clout to determine an issue that has a massive impact on his contingency. "I chose to push research above demagoguery because, ultimately, that is in all our best interest," Birmingham said. Runway proponent Governor Paul Cellucci was not available for comment, but he is not in favor of any more studies. "The governor believes the issue has been studied thoroughly," said press secretary Ilene Hoffer. Birmingham is confident that he could get a Senate Majority to help him ban the Logan expansion, but was not so sure whether he could muster enough support to circumvent the gubernatorial veto. He also commented that he had not yet spoken in detail with House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran re garding the issue. Finneran, who has not taken a public position on the issue, was not available for comment.
The article continues that as the time for public comment ended on the environmental report concerning the proposed runway, the EPA, who define the Boston area as overburdened, suggested that the Massachusetts Port Authority retract its proposal and instead investigate using a more comprehensive and regional approach. "Smart growth requires efficient transportation, but it also requires that we preserve and enhance the livability of established, urban communities," said the EPA's New England administrator John P. DeVillars. Without a more detailed plan, the runway would leverage traffic problems for only five years. "We've been on the record since 1995 in saying you cannot and should not look at the runway in isolation," said DeVillars. "You have to look at how all of the strategies can be employed to make Logan more efficient. It has everything to do with mass transit access to baggage handling to maximizing high-speed rail at other regional airports."
The article also lists the EPA's other worries such as the fact that even the existing airport effects have not been fully investigated, said DeVillars. "There are many, many neighborhoods where very little soundproofing has taken place, and I think, before we talk about increasing impact on a community, we need to adequately address the current impacts." The EPA also believes that Massport does not take into account the detrimental affects on low-income and minority populations, and also fails to meet federal regulations that are designed to protect small communities from being swallowed up by large development proposals. Finally, the report ignores other environmental affects other than noise. "The cursory attention to environmental justice in the draft proposal is not acceptable, especially for neighborhoods in East Boston, Chelsea, and Roxbury that stand to see a threefold increase in aircraft overflights if this expansion goes through," DeVillars added.
The article continues with Betty Desrosiers, Massport's director of aviation planning, saying that because air quality and other environmental effects are expected to improve, the report focused solely on noise. "Have we adequately examined the environmental justice question and provided enough information? We think we have," she said. "The EPA is asking us to provide that information in a different way and we'll do that." However, opponents feel that Massport is basing its analysis of noise effects on incorrect models. Massport noise monitors placed in neighborhoods show higher noise levels than the FAA-approved noise monitors that Massport mentions in its plan, a plan which also uses 1993, a high-traffic, high- noise year, as a base for analysis,
The article then states that Executive Director Peter Blute has questioned DeVillars' motives because of his previous ties with Governor Michael Dukakis administration and his association with US Representative J. Joseph Moakley, a South Boston Democrat, a strong opponent of the runway plan and a lobbyist in 1993 for the Clinton administration in securing DeVillars the regional EPA appointment. "We expected DeVillars, what with his loyalties, to go along with the opposition," Blute said. "This is a political matter. It is more in the political realm than in the regulatory realm." DeVillars also worked as a top aide for the Dukakis administration which opposed the runway expansion in the 1980s. Dukakis is coming out against the latest proposition, and his former transportation secretary, Frederick P. Salvucci, has also been engaged in the opposition.
The article concludes by stating that yesterday, environmentalist John O'Connor of Greenworks released a report he has written for Communities Against Runway Expansion, a group that also thinks Massport should withdraw its proposal. "Massport's environmental impact study is, at best, intellectually misleading and at worst, a book of half-truths, misconception, and outright lies," said O'Connor, a candidate for the 8th Congressional District last year. The analysis, by O'Connor and Henry S. Cole of Washington, criticizes Massport for not considering the increased amounts of smog-producing pollutants that would be a by-product of increased air traffic at Logan.
Finally, the article says that the Massport plan, which is now being examined under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, could be issued a certificate to proceed to final review as soon as next week. But public outcry regarding the expansion has put a wrench in the works, as has the legislative hurdle imposed by Birmingham. Executive Director Peter Blute said the expansion proposal will be decided in a process that features federal and state environmental review, and state and federal courts. 'I don't think this is ultimately decided by the state Legislature," Blute said.
PUBLICATION: The Capital
DATE: April 23, 1999
SECTION: Crownsville; Pg. B2
BYLINE: by Michele Besso
DATELINE: Crownsville, Maryland
The Capital reports that residents of Crownsville, Maryland have mixed opinions over whether or not residential properties should be upzoned from rural-agriculture and one house per acre, to two houses per acre. While some residents have much to gain, others have much to lose.
The articles states that the Crownsville Small-Area Planning Committee is frantically seeking solutions for the rezoning requests of several residents near Crownsville Road. But the neighbors still don't have any answers. The county has recommended rezoning near Crownsville Road, Chesterfield Road and I-97 from R-1 (one house per acre) and RA (rural agricultural) to R-2 (two homes per acre). The issue of "upzoning" residential properties, which Committee Chair man Donald Yeskey says most members of the Small-Area Planning Committee are opposed to, will be revisited at the next meeting, which is not yet scheduled.
The article continues with comments from residents who are affected by the proposed change. "We don't know how much influence the Small-Area Planning Committee has," said William Mueller, the owner of 30 acres between Chesterfield Road and I-97, which is west of Crownsville Road. "One of us wants one thing and another something else. In the end it's up to the county. There's no big conflict between us (neighbors). It's about individual rights." Mr. & Mrs. Mueller, who are farmers, want their property to remain designated residential-agricultural because they don't want to pay higher taxes which would result from the R-2 zoning.
The article mentions the situations of other residents in the area. David Jones, the owner of a 9-acre parcel on Crownsville Road near I-97, says that the upzoning would allow him to subdivide his property and turn it into a storage yard (with commercial zoning) but that the location of his parcel would make it impossible to do so. State policy regarding highway noise setbacks make it impossible to build on two-thirds of his property which is zoned R-1.
Alan Boehm lives on Chesterfield Road but he too cannot build homes with an R-2 zoning because of noise setbacks. But Bryon Krane, who owns 20 acres between Crownsville Road and I-97, supports the rezoning simply because he can't afford to leave his land idle anymore.
PUBLICATION: Jiji Press Ticker Service
DATE: April 23, 1999
DATELINE: Tokyo, Japan
The Jiji Press Ticker Service reports that the final phase of a noise reduction plan in Japan will begin in 2001 with the tightening of regulations for truck and motor cycle noise.
The article states that Japan's Environment Agency announced Friday that starting in 2001, they plan to tighten regulations on truck and motorcycle noise by exerting pressure on the auto industry to produce low-noise models. The new regulations, which will be implemented this year, wrap up the government's anti-noise campaign which was devised in 1995 by the Central Environmental Council, an advisory panel to the agency. Large and medium-sized trucks, motorcycles with engine displacements of over 50 c.c., snowplows, tractors and other vehicles are now all subject to the tighter noise controls, agency officials said. Full implementation of the anti-noise package is expected to reduce the noise level at a two- to four-lane intersection by about 40%, officials said.
PUBLICATION: Orange County Register
DATE: April 23, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B02
BYLINE: Mary Ann Milbourn
DATELINE: El Toro, California
The Orange County Register reports that a simulation of air traffic intended for an El Toro Marine Corp base has been approved and that the test flights will give neighbors an idea of what the noise would be like if the airport was used for commercial flights.
The article states that according to a recent Marine Corps review, the Orange County's proposed El Toro flight demonstration will have no major effect on the environment. This decision, made by Maj. Gen. Robert Magnus who is commander of the Marine Corps' western air bases, now provides an opportunity for Orange County to hold a June commercial-flight demonstration. Courtney Wiercioch, who is the manager of the county's El Toro project, said they had been expecting the decision all along.
The article goes on to say that the proposal will allow for up to five different commercial jets to take off and land at El Toro Airport as many as six times daily during a weekday and a weekend day. The demonstration, which pro-airport county supervisors say will give residents a chance to hear what the noise will sound like, is tentatively planned for June 4-5 or June 11-12 and will cost somewhere in the range of $2 million to $3 million.
The article concludes by saying that opponents of the demonstration believe that it is just a waste of money and that the results will not be scientifically valid since there are fewer flights than there would normally be. The only valid demonstration, opponents say, would be to fly planes 24 hours a day which would simulate a real airport. However, a Marines Environmental Impact Review Board said a major environmental analysis was not warranted as the commercial aircraft to be flown is similar to the aircraft used currently by the Marines at the base.
PUBLICATION: The Tennessean
DATE: April 23, 1999
SECTION: Williamson, Pg. 3W
DATELINE: Brentwood, Tennessee
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mrs. J. D. Patrick
A letter to the editor in The Tennessean reports that one woman will never spend "another dime" in Tennessee because of the state's refusal to build sound walls along the interstate behind her child's home.
To the Editor:
I recently visited in Brentwood, Tenn. One of my children lives in Brentwood, on Lipscomb Drive. The back of their yard borders on Interstate 65. The noise is unbearable day and night. You cannot talk to them or the children if you are in the back yard. This noise of trucks and cars is heard in the house all day and night.
I think it is disgraceful that the town of Brentwood, Nashville and the state of Tennessee have not had barriers built to keep down and help eliminate a lot of this terrible noise.
With the wealth of Tennessee, it is a disgrace that the Department of Transportation has not allotted the money or gotten a grant from the United States to take care of this problem. These people work and spend their money there and also pay a very high sales tax.
I will never spend one dime of money in your state again and discourage my friends from doing so.
Mrs. J. D. Patrick P.O. Box 73 Jackson, Ga. 30233
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: April 23, 1999
SECTION: Metro Lake; Pg. 2; Zone: L; Lake Overnight.
BYLINE: John Flink.
DATELINE: Chain O' Lakes
The Chicago Tribune reports that despite a concession towards the Chain o'Lakes Power Boat Association allowing them to use cutoff muffler switches, the boat owners are still upset with a noise ordinance that allows individual marine patrol officers to ticket them for sound violations without the use of a decibel meter.
The article says that the Chain o' Lakes Power Boat Association is still going to court regarding a controversial Fox Waterways noise ordinance despite a Thursday night vote to drop the prohibition on muffler cutoffs. The removal of the prohibition on cutoff switches once more allows boaters to switch between underwater and above-water mufflers.
The article concludes by stating that the Association is upset that individual marine patrol officers can decide whether or not a boater is in violation of the 90-decibel noise limit without the use of a decibel meter. They are worried that this could lead to an abuse of power by the officers and have asked that the law be amended to require decibel meters. "They're still going to leave it to the officers' discretion, so we're still going to take them to court," said Michael Lovergine, president of the powerboaters group.
PUBLICATION: Seattle Post-Intelligence
DATE: April 22, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Steven Goldsmith
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Councilwoman Margaret Pageler; Mark Sidran, Seattle City Attorney
The Seattle Post-Intelligence reports that the proposed "Added Entertainment Law" has split the City Council as the responsibilities of club and bar owners are discussed with regards to how their establishment affects the rest of the neighborhood.
The article states that Mark Sidran, Seattle's city attorney, wants to see rowdy nightclubs outlawed, calling the City Council's proposed task force too weak for regulating the potential problems such as vandalism, noise, crowds and violence created by clubs and bars. Opponents of Sidran's view said this plan puts too extreme of a burden on the club owners. All that is certain is another year of debate and rewrites concerning the "Added Entertainment Law" and the amount of interest being generated by more than just the 200 liquor establishments with live music that the law would affect. The law is just one of many quality-of-life issues that is causing concern in Seattle's increasingly crowded urban setting. Other concerns include yards full of junk and garage band rehearsal noise.
The article continues with Sidran using the example of San Francisco, where bars must comply with a "neighborhood impact statement" which allows the issues of noise, traffic, and safety to be addressed. He argues that these impact statements have not affected San Francisco's nightlife in the slightest. But Seattle club owners are not convinced. They say that the law will prove to be a burden for all club and bar owners, rather than just the few it is targeted for. The Seattle Human Rights Commission also says that the law will exacerbate the tension caused by the perceived blame placed on clubs with mainly an African American clientele. "Downtown Seattle is a hip-hop-free zone," says Chris Clifford, the owner of a bar who is suing the city for its tactics.
The article concludes by stating that the current proposal which has been debated by city council members, club owners, and residents eliminates much of the burden placed on club owners to anticipate potential problems, but some argue that it still puts excess responsibility for what patrons will do outside the club on the owner. But people like Councilwoman Margaret Pageler are still worried that the plan will not improve security and crowd-control and that the police force will continue to be monopolized by certain clubs. "We can't have two-thirds of our police department outside one establishment," she said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 22, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Timothy S. Rooney
DATELINE: Schaumberg, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Debbie Weston, resident, Schaumburg Village President Al Larson
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that at Schaumburg Regional Airport in Illinois, citizen complaints have prompted airport officials to begin monitoring the noise levels of departures and arrivals in order to ensure that the airport is complying with FAA regulations.
The article states that in order to gain impartial information on the noise levels, monitors may soon start logging departures and arrivals at Schaumburg Regional Airport. "Do we want to make an effort to go out there and make sure there is compliance?" asked Schaumburg Village President Al Larson during a recent committee meeting. "I would be interested in having some kind of monitoring in place to ensure they are complying with our ordinance instead of reacting to complaints," Larson said. "I want it to be more proactive than reactive."
The article goes on to say that the Schaumburg noise abatement ordinance, adopted in July, mandates that in order to comply with Federal Aviation Administration rules pilots must fly to a height of 600 feet before turning and that they must also turn left in order to avoid residential areas. Pilots who don't comply will face fines or airport expulsion.
The article continue by stating that the noise has become worse in the past two years, according to Roselle resident Debbie Weston, who lives about 1 mile east of the airport on Irving Park Road. She continues to complain to the city about noise, and has little hope that the monitors will help better her quality of life. However, Weston expects few results from a new monitoring program. "Them trying to monitor all of these dozens of planes is not going to work," she said Wednesday.
According to Schaumburg transportation planner Leanne P. Redden, the village hopes to begin monitoring in the next few weeks. "We can develop some long-term statistics," Redden said. "When someone does complain, we would have information to give to people." She also said that they hope to encourage pilots to utilize the entire 3,800 runway in order to get as much height as possible while taking off. Complaints and noise complaints will continue to be addressed, according to transportation committee chairman and airport advisory committee member Pat Riley.
PUBLICATION: The Los Angeles Daily News
DATE: April 22, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Lee Condon
DATELINE: Burbank, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Pierson, Burbank City Manager
The Los Angeles Daily News reports that a start-up company is hoping to integrate coast-to-coast flights into the services currently offered at Burbank Airport despite the concerns of Burbank officials that nonstop flights will trouble neighbors with noise problems.
The article states that a group of Oregon investors are investigating whether or not a new airline is necessary to meet the need of coast-to-coast travelers flying out of Burbank Airport. The investors have sent out a survey to frequent flyers around the Los Angeles area querying whether they would use Burbank Airport instead of Los Angeles International Airport for flying to The survey, sent to frequent travelers in the Los Angeles area, asks whether passengers would be willing to use Burbank Airport instead of Los Angeles International Airport for flights to New York, Boston, Miami, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. Currently, commercial flights from Burbank Airport only go to Dallas and Denver.
The article goes on to say that Wisconsin-based consultant Jay Sorensen will be performing the survey for the Oregon investors. "I'm working on their behalf to research opportunities that may exist on the West Coast," he said. "We are looking at airports across the country." Although Sorenson refuses to reveal his client, Peter Kirsch, who is a lawyer for the city of Burbank, named the client as Coast Airline Inc., based out of Portland, Ore. "They are a start-up company," said Kirsch, a specialist in litigation pertaining to airports. "A lot of these companies will try to start up and never get going. I can't tell if they are for real yet."
The article continues by saying that the survey is only part of the preliminary planning process, and that a timetable for when the coast-to-coast service would start has not yet been determined. According to Sorenson, part of the business plan will evolve from surveying the opportunities at airports. The investors have inquired about Burbank Airport, but according to Victor Gill, a spokesman for the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, no information about the principals involved has been revealed. Gill added that these kind of inquiries happen every couple of years when start-up airlines test the market. "We don't even know if these people have any airplanes," he said.
The article continues with Gill stating that although it would be possible to establish coast-to-coast flights from Burbank, it is doubtful that they would make up the bulk of the airport's services. "(Burbank Airport) is a great place to stage frequent short-haul nonstop service," Gill said. Up until now, airlines have not needed to provide coast-to-coast flights from Burbank since the same service is already offered from LAX. Another obstacle that might stand in the way of the investor's plans is the mandatory curfew for night flights and a "noise budget" that Burbank officials are pushing for, said Sorenson.
The article continues with Jim Pierson saying that it does not matter if flights travel across the country or not. What does matter is that new airlines comply with existing curfews and possible noise budgets and that Burbank not try and transform itself into a national airport, as opposed to a regional one. "It starts us down that path. I think the airport wants to build its Taj Mahal and the way you do that is get more tenants," Ovrom said. "I think the airport wants to grow its business."
The article concludes with Gill denying that Burbank Airport solicited the investors, and that airport officials are not attempting to attract more carriers. Although, he adds that airport officials have approached current airlines at Burbank Airport with regards to improving their current service levels. The newest provider, Southwest, arrived in 1990, while Reno Air came and went in 1998. Sorenson claims that the needs of his clients could be met regardless of whether or not Burbank Airport expands its service.
PUBLICATION: The Charleston Post and Courier
DATE: April 22, 1999
SECTION: B, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Elsa Mcdowell
DATELINE: Charleston, South Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Deb Meteraud, Jim Pierson
The Charleston Post and Courier reports that one woman is up in arms over the barking dogs that are preventing her and her children from getting sleep. She is in full support of a proposed law that would fine dog owners who do not silence their animals.
The article states that animals who make "frequent and continued noise" are to have their fate decided by the Charleston County Council as it debates whether to adopt a law that would fine owners of such beasts. A woman in West Ashley who lives next to six beagles who bark all day and night is in favor of the law. Despite trying to resolve the problem with the neighbor who owns the hunting dogs, the woman and her children still can't sleep a full night. Luckily the dog owners in question are moving to a rural area, but Deb Meteraud is going to keep up the fight for quiet dogs.
The neighbors are moving to six acres in rural Berkeley County. But Deb Meteraud is moving forward with her crusade.
The article continues with neighbor Jim Pierson, who has had similar problems with four other dog owners, agreeing that Meteraud is faced with a problem. He says that, when asked, owners will not always cooperate with frustrated neighbor. "I've spoken with them. Two acted well and took care of it," he says. The other two did not. His suggestion for dealing with uncooperative dog owners is to ring their doorbell every time the dog barks, no matter what time of day or night. Other neighbors are frustrated as well, and offer their support to Meteraud.
But according to dog owner Sharon Lisk says her dog only barks when there is a good reason, and that no one seems to stop their children from yelling or throwing things outside of her window. "Certain people allow their children to disturb others while they are inside two buildings away," she said. She also complains about loud car stereos and teenagers squealing their tires in the condominium driveway. "Before County Council decides to impose a law which would put people in jail for their dog's barking, perhaps they should take a look at nuisance children, people with loud car stereos and teen-agers who race through parking lots."
PUBLICATION: San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: APRIL 22, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. A17
BYLINE: Marshall Wilson
DATELINE: San Carlos, California
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that San Carlos Officials have voted to move ahead on construction of a longer runway which residents fear may lead to larger planes and increased noise pollution.
The article states that San Mateo County officials have decided to move ahead with plans for a 600-foot "safety overrun" to San Carlos Airport despite concerns that a longer runway could lead to larger planes. The 3-to-2 vote to proceed did not come easy. After nearly three hours of emotional testimony Tuesday night, the decision was finally arrived at. However, problems raised at the meeting could possibly lead to a better system for registering noise complaints and less flights occurring at night.
The article goes on to say that the plan for the airport includes a 300-foot safety area at each end of the runway, hangars, tie-downs and other projects which will update and improve the airport's grounds and safety standards. Those who opposed the plan say that the board should give neighboring cities the right to veto a proposal that could lead to bigger planes. "The physical setting of the airport would not allow (bigger airplanes) nor would the weight allowed on the landing strip," Board president Mary Griffin said. "There is no way it could be SFO south."
The article continues that despite assurances, residents of Redwood Shores and Foster City residents are concerned that the extra 600 feet of asphalt runway could someday be used for bigger, noisier planes. Many residents have already complained that aircraft noise is a problem. Some neighbors of the airport are even pushing for the county to close the airport, saying that it is incompatible with local homes and businesses. Currently, San Carlos Airport has about 150,000 takeoffs and landings per year on its 2,600-foot runway and houses about 500 planes. One of the planes happens to be owned by Griffin's husband.
The article states that critics are worried that commuter air traffic currently using the San Francisco International Airport could someday be diverted to San Carlos. Trapped between the two airports, Foster City will hold a town hall meeting on Monday to try and come up with strategies for keeping noise levels down. At the San Carlos Airport, the Pilots Association have come devised a volunteer nighttime ban on practice flights where pilots fly repeatedly over Redwood Shores to practice touch-and-gos.
The article continues by stating that now that the vote has passed, county officials will proceed with an environmental study for the master plan in order to qualify the airport for federal grants. They hope to see a draft finished by the end of the year with board hearings planned for early 2000. An airport oversight agency made up of the cities around the airport -- San Carlos, San Mateo, Belmont, Redwood City and Foster City -- has also been proposed. "I could not support going forward without some assurances for those cities around the airport," said one board member.
The article continues by stating that Griffin thinks it is premature to take such steps prior to the environmental report being completed. She is also concerned that supervisors could lose their authority over the airport. However, supervisors are planning to let critics know that they are serious about noise by crafting an ordinance that would fine pilots whose planes exceed the current weight limit of 12,500 pounds. Supervisors have also asked their staff to come up with a better way to register noise complaints from residents. Although some neighbors have called for closing the airport, supervisors are not eager to go this route, as the county would probably have to refund millions of dollars in grants to the Federal Aviation Administration.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: April 22, 1999
SECTION: St. Charles County Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Tommy Robertson
DATELINE: St. Charles, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pat McDonnell, St. Charles Citizens Against Airport Noise
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that a citizen group formed to fight noise pollution emanating from Lambert Field is heading up to the Missouri Legislature en masse in order to get their point across.
The article states that the vice president of St. Charles Citizens Against Airport Noise, or CAAN, announced to the St. Charles City Council that his group was gearing up to fight a bill in the legislature aimed at airport expansion. Pat McDonnell, who opposes a controversial expansion plan intended for Lambert Field announced Tuesday that a delegation sent to the Missouri Senate the day before to speak out against the bill had been "procedurally mugged." "We went down with the understanding that our delegation would get to speak in opposition to the bill that would take away the condemnation zoning laws of eight communities around the airport. We were allowed a 15-minute presentation by approximately 20 of us," he said.
The article also states that the Missouri House had voted 115-19 two weeks ago to approve the measure which is sponsored by Rep. O.L. Shelton, D-St. Louis. The bill would allow St. Louis (which owns Lambert) to disregard "any land use plan or applicable zoning" rules of another county or city. Currently, the bill is in the Senate. "We'll make a point of talking to these legislators, and I think it's gotten to the point now where we have to make a definite stand," he said. A bus of supporters will leave the St. Charles City Hall at 8:15 a.m. and return by 4 p.m. Wednesday.
The article also states that Council member Rose Kasper, 8th Ward, will be announcing a new resolution next week, "Reminding people once again of our promise to fund a real-time study, to abide by the results of a real-time study and to give a historical synopsis of what we've offered and what's been turned down by the city of St. Louis." A real-time study will simulate the flow and pattern of air traffic if the runway expansion known as W-1W occurs. The zoning bill was denounced in a resolution passed in March by the council who also urged the Missouri Municipal League to stop the bill, calling it a threat to the zoning ordinances of cities and counties within the state.
The article concludes by stating that St. Louis Circuit Judge Henry E. Autrey ruled that the town of Bridgeton cannot use zoning ordinances to block the airport expansion, nor is the city required to comply with another Bridgeton ordinance whereupon it could seek immunity from zoning.
PUBLICATION: Newport News Daily Press
DATE: April 21, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. C1
BYLINE: Jeff Long
DATELINE: Newport News, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Howard and Coleane Brackens, Kelly Myers
The Newport News Daily Press reports that citizens of Newport News, Virginia want to put a stop to noise that is affecting their lives. Although the City Council is trying to find a solution to the noise problems that are plaguing residents, deciding which establishments will be liable for excess noise is causing some disagreement.
The article states that noise complaints in Newport News are on the rise. Howard Brackens has called the police so many times to complain about the Peninsula Family Skating Rink that he is starting to feel like a nuisance himself. Neighbors living near a construction-material recycling center in the north end are also complaining, this time about loud humming and other noises coming from the site.
The article states that Kelly Myers complained about noise at the Atlanta Beer Garten during a recent Planning Commission meeting. The restaurant is applying for permission to have live entertainment. The Beer Garten, at the corner of Jefferson Avenue and Turnberry Boulevard, already has a disc jockey on Friday and Saturday nights, Myers said. Newport News officials say the disc jockey, like live entertainment, also needs to get permission from the city, which it currently doesn't have. If the permit is granted, it will probably require that no noise be audible beyond the restaurant's property.
The article continues by stating that because the restaurant's manager did not attend the first meeting the officials have postponed action until a later Planning Commission meeting. However, an assistant manager did say that the volume at the restaurant has already been turned down. Now, instead of two amplifiers, only one is being used. "We've done everything we can possibly do," said the assistant manager, Rick Clark who also mentioned that there had been no noise complaints during the past weekend.
The article goes on to say that the noise problem at the recycling center was solved when the company's right to do that kind of work was denied by the council, but the noise problem continues. Now the city is debating whether to adopt a law that would tighten noise regulations on industrial and commercial businesses. "I don't think anyone has a right to transmit noise from his property to my property," Vice-Mayor Charles Allen said recently during a council discussion. "Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease," said Mayor Joe Frank. "I'm concerned about how we craft this so that we don't all of a sudden make Little Leagues criminals."
The article states that Council members are in agreement that organized athletics should not be affected by the law, but that nightclubs and other organizations should be. The city council has asked the city attorney to show them examples of a noise ordinance to help them with the ongoing debate. "I think the city attorney is going to be extremely challenged to come up with something that is logical and enforceable and makes sense," said Frank.
Some council members know that even ball gamers can get loud...very loud. Less-organized games should be disciplined, Frank said. "If 30 drunks get out there and are hooting and hollering," said Frank, "that's not going to be exempt." According to Council-woman Madeline McMillan, the current laws are too vague. "It's kind of, 'I'll turn it down when they catch me,' " McMillan said, "which puts the onus on the person making the complaint."
The article says that City Manager Ed Maroney is against crafting ordinances that are based on decibel levels. Lengthy studies would be required, he said, and costs would be too high due to equipment purchases needed to measure the noise in question. Also, allowances for the different levels of noise would have to be adjusted depending on which part of the city the noise was emanating from. Other factors that would have to be taken into consideration when determining allowable noise levels include wind, temperature and physical barriers as well as intermittent sounds which can occur at different frequencies and have different impacts.
The article mentions a sample ordinance in Austin, Texas where sound levels cannot get above 80 decibels after 10 p.m. If the noise is coming from a nightclub, levels are usually taken from the curb in front of the building. Normal human conversation usually measures 55 decibels. Humans can only tolerate sounds to about 120 decibels. Howard and Coleane Brackens, who live near the skate rink mentioned above, have used a $30 sound meter to measure between 70 and 80 decibels of noise coming from the rink which is 82 yards from their home. Keith Phillips, the owner of the rink, could not be reached for comment, but he recently met with Police Chief Dennis Mook concerning the complaints. In a memo to Maroney, Mook outlined plans to cut down on noise at the rink. They include: a "zero tolerance" policy which police will utilize regarding noise ordinance violations at the rink; amplifiers will be kept below certain sound levels; a quieter heating and cooling system; installing vegetation along the property line to quiet noise; and no more midnight to 3 a.m. skate sessions that currently include the loud bass of "hip hop" music.
PUBLICATION: International Herald Tribune
DATE: April 21, 1999
SECTION: Opinion; Pg. 10
BYLINE: by Rodney E. Slater, David L. Aaron and Stuart E. Eizenstat
DATELINE: Washington D.C.
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rodney E. Slater, David L. Aaron, Stuart E. Eizenstat
The International Herald Tribune recently printed an editorial by Rodney E. Slater, David L. Aaron and Stuart E. Eizenstat stating how they feel about the recent European Union "hush kit" rule that will supposedly bring more peace and quiet to airports on both sides of the Atlantic.
An editorial by Mr. Slater, U.S. secretary of transportation; Mr. Aaron, U.S. undersecretary of commerce; and Mr. Eizenstat, U.S. undersecretary of state, says that there is a lot of trans-Atlantic noise about aircraft noise. People on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly concerned with noise around airports. In February, the European Union proposed a "hush kit" rule that would limit the acquisition and use of certain kinds of aircraft equipment. But the rule is flawed. In fact, it will not result in a single quieter jet plane in Europe
This unilateral action threatens all progress on a new international standard for even quieter jets in the coming decade and beyond. It is a lose-lose proposal that excludes quieter U.S.-manufactured aircraft while exempting for several years other noisier jets that do not meet the current standard. We propose a win-win solution to the problem. Hush kits are high-tech mufflers for airplane engines. They were developed as a way to make an airplane that meets the old international noise standard quiet enough to comply with the current standard. The EU's proposed rule would restrict the acquisition and use of aircraft equipped with hush kits, no matter how quiet they are. Equally troubling, the rule would also restrict the acquisition and use of airplanes that have been equipped with certain kinds of new engines. Both the hush kits and the new engines comply fully with the latest standard developed through the International Civil Aviation Organization. Why is the EU hush-kit rule counterproductive? First, it is harmful because it is a unilateral measure. For more than 50 years, the United States and Europe agreed to operate on international standards set through the aviation organization. Implementation of its standards has led to large reductions in noise levels around airports in the United States and elsewhere. Without the organization, airlines and aircraft manufacturers would have to meet different standards from country to country. Ultimately, the cost of meeting these varying standards would be passed on to airline passengers or could even stop aircraft from flying. By unilaterally setting its own regional standard, the European Commission's proposal will undermine decades of cooperation in the International Civil Aviation Organization. That is why the organization's president, Assad Kotaite, has described the EU hush-kit rule as inconsistent with the agency's framework adopted by consensus. We endorse his call for postponement of EU action to adopt or implement the regulation. Second, the proposed limitation on hush kits will not actually reduce noise around European airports. Hush-kitted aircraft are well within the acceptable noise standards still in effect, and they are actually quieter than some planes that Europe would still allow under the hush-kit rule. The proposed regulation would significantly harm U.S. commercial interests, while conveniently permitting noisy European aircraft to continue flying. Finally, the rule's formulation is flawed. For example, it allows hush-kitted aircraft to continue to fly in Europe as long as the airplanes do not change owners. This approach defies logic. If the true goal is to limit noise, why does it matter whether such an airplane is owned by an American, European or African company?
Progress in formulating international restrictions on noise pollution sometimes is painstakingly slow. The current noise standards developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization were approved in 1977, but will not be mandatory for all subsonic aircraft until 2000 in the United States and 2002 in the European Union. The first steps in laying the groundwork for the next generation of noise rules have already been taken. We believe that this process can and should be speeded up. But there is no point in negotiating multilateral standards if the EU can unilaterally adopt its own standards afterward. We have proposed to the European Commission that the United States and the Union sit down together to agree on tough new noise standards. Only through cooperation and coordination can we succeed on a multilateral basis. It should not matter where a jet or hush kit comes from, so long as it meets the noise standard. That standard ought to be applied fairly and squarely, not exempting some and prohibiting others, based solely on origin. We are offering European capitals a partnership this week that really will reduce aircraft noise. We hope Europe will accept our offer and not go it alone. Mr. Slater is U.S. secretary of transportation, Mr. Aaron is U.S. undersecretary of commerce and Mr. Eizenstat is U.S. undersecretary of state.
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Sun
DATE: April 21, 1999
SECTION: Sports, Pg. 65
DATELINE: Vancouver, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pauline Buck, Citygate Residents Association
The Ottawa Sun reports that a group of citizens in Vancouver, B.C. want the Molson Indy Car Race to leave their neighborhood despite race organizer's attempts to placate them with offers of free hotel rooms, field trips for children, and earplugs.
The article starts out by stating that the Molson Indy Car race may be offering free hotel rooms for shift workers who need to sleep during the day and people with health problems, field trips for kids, and ear plugs all around but Citygate residents, angry with the ear-piercing noise from the temporary race track are not accepting. According to Pauline Buck, a spokesman for the Citygate Residents Association, all residents should be given temporary hotel rooms in which to escape the noise during the three-day race held in September. "We're asking for mitigation for all the residents because we feel that everybody who lives there is vulnerable to the noise, not just people with a pre-existing condition," said Buck. "We would like to see all the residents who don't want to be there given the choice of not having to be there without having to experience out-of-pocket expenses on their own."
The article continues by explaining that Citygate consists of approximately 1,500 people living near the track. All was well until last year when the CART race's course was altered so that it looped through the residential area. Data gathered from noise monitors placed along the course resulted in a health board report stating that noise exposure of approximately 600 units facing the track far exceeded Workers' Compensation Board standards which are based on hearing protection. The report stressed "special concern" for children who are exposed to the excessive noise.
The article then states that to help absorb the impacts of the report, race organizers are offering the following to Citygate residents for this year's Sept. 3-5 race: hotel day rooms for shift workers; hotel day rooms for residents with serious health problems; temporary office space for home-based businesses; a field trip for area children; a race weekend barbecue; and ear plugs and head sets for all residents. Stuart Ballantyne, the Molson Indy general manager, says that the package is going to cost race organizers up to $50,000. "We want to be good neighbors," said Ballantyne. "We think the mitigation plan that is proposed goes a long ways to answering (the problems). It's never going to be a quiet event."
The article concludes by stating that last year the race attracted 165,000 people and brought in about $26 million to the Vancouver economy. Ballantyne also said that more than 1,000 people watched the race from balconies scattered around Citygate. Despite the race official's claims, however, Citygate residents are still frustrated they were never "adequately consulted" about the event which allows cars that can reach speeds of 240 km/h to roar by their homes. "It's good for tourism, it's good for the city," conceded Buck, but her group is still putting pressure on the city council not to renew the race's contract for the present course when it expires in 2001.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: April 21, 1999
SECTION: B Section, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Dale White
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joyce Edick, Al Davis, residents
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports that the Manatee County has had so many noise complaints from residents that they have decided to crack down on offenders by giving the existing noise ordinance more of a bite.
The article states that Manatee County commissioners are under pressure by residents to make the existing noise ordinance more enforceable so as to deal with complaints about airboats, nightclubs, boomboxes and other nuisances. In an attempt to make the law stricter, commissioners are exploring the possibilities of issuing tickets that are similar to traffic citations. But in the meantime, they are pushing to adopt an updated law right away. "The bottom line is the ordinance we have in front of us is better than what we have on the books," Commissioner Jon Bruce said. Once the new ordinance is filed with the state, it will take effect.
The article continues that the new ordinance, like the old version, calls "noise pollution" a crime and says it is punishable by either a fine of up to $500 or a jail sentence of up to 60 days. But now the new ordinance gives deputies discretion in deciding if the law has been broken. Deputies will be able to use a sound meter in determining if someone is making too much noise by taking a measurement "at the property line of the noise source." If the level exceeds 55 decibels after 7 a.m. or 50 decibels after 10 p.m., an infraction has occurred.
The other part of the ordinance allows deputies who do not have a sound meter or are not certified to use one to instead issue citations based on "the reasonable person standard", according to the article. These citation are often upheld by the courts. By taking into consideration factors that include volume, intensity, zoning, duration, the time of day and proximity to homes, deputies are qualified to make the determination that the law is being broken.
Joyce Edick, who resides near the OuterLimits nightclub located on U.S. 41, is hopeful that the law will finally allow her and her disabled husband to get to bed at a reasonable hour, according to the article. "We've changed our bedtime to 2:30 because that's when we're allowed to go to sleep," Edick said. Currently, the county is suing OuterLimits for breaking an agreement with the city to try and control its noise.
The article continues with the example of Al Davis who is hoping that the ordinance will help reduce airboat noise on Sarasota Bay. "The airboats are even more intrusive than the noise of the airplanes" from nearby Sarasota- Bradenton International Airport, he said.
During daytime or standard business hours certain activities such as construction, church bells, sporting events, tree trimming and lawn mowing will be exempt, according to the article. "I don't want this to be misconstrued in the community that the County Commission is trying to ban boomboxes," Bruce said. "The message is: 'Just turn it down.' "
PUBLICATION: The Times Union
DATE: April 21, 1999
SECTION: CAPITAL Region, Pg. F1
BYLINE: Kenneth C. Crowe II
DATELINE: Malta, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cassandra Dooley, The Concerned Citizens of Malta
The Times Union reports that a citizen group in Malta, New York is accusing town officials of having special interests when it comes to regulating the Albany-Saratoga speedway.
The article states that Malta Town Officials have conflicts of interests with regards to enforcing regulations at Albany-Saratoga Speedway, says a newly formed grass-roots group who is seeking to have limits established on racing at the 58-acre stock car track. The Concerned Citizens of Malta has turned to the residents of Luther Park and other communities that live near the racetrack located on Route 9, just north of Northway Exit 12. So far they have gathered over 100 signatures and enough support to let racetrack officials know that they are bothered by the noise of summer races. "We have a problem that has to be resolved," said Cassandra Dooley, one of the group's organizers. "We're left with the situation that is very bleak. One company, one business is controlling the town of Malta."
The article continues with Dooley stating that "the overseeing bodies are not doing their jobs. They have personal business relationships with the track. Bernie Heald (the town building inspector) has been the track manager for years." Yet town officials do not agree with the claims of conflict of interest. "We have Bob Gizzi do the enforcement there. That was to avoid any conflict of interest," said Supervisor David R. Meager regarding Heald's position at the track, a job which he held prior to working for the town. Gizzi, who is the town code enforcement officer, is responsible for making sure that the racetrack obeys town ordinances. "We're always willing to listen to our citizens. This issue has been researched three times by three different town attorneys. The last time in 1995," Meager said. Meager was also not too happy with a press release issued by the concerned citizen group alleging that Meager had known that a go-kart track located at the speedway was illegally built. "As supervisor, I have a responsibility to take action on any information that comes to my knowledge," Meager said.
The article then states that the concerned citizens will appear before the Town Board on May 3 in order to have their issues heard with the goal of restricting racing. "We would like the codes and rules of the town of Malta to be enforced for everyone," Dooley said. "We want the closing down of the go-kart track. Racing only on Fridays and no other activities," she said, giving the example of the track operating on days other than Fridays and being in the process of planning a concert. "We're willing to listen," Meager said. "It's almost a rite of spring. (Opposition has) been dormant for a few years."
The article concludes by mentioning that the town may have its hands tied regarding the track since it was built in the early 1960s, prior to the enacting of zoning in 1968. Meager points out that the three earlier studies demonstrate that the town is facing legal constraints in deciding what to do. "It's not the type of thing I would have put on our economic development committee wish list. I hear it down at Exit 11," said Meager. The owner of the speedway, Bruce Richards, was not available for comment.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: April 21, 1999
SECTION: Trib West; Pg. 11; Zone: Dn
BYLINE: by Ann Brack-Johnson
Chicago Tribune reports that club owners showed up at a village board meeting armed with radios in order to demonstrate that the allowable noise levels aren't all that loud.
The article states that Sue Wackerlin, manager of Oswego Family Sports Club, and Dan Wong, a partner in Bogey's, brought rock'n'roll to a village board meeting in order to show the trustees how quiet proposed noise limits would be. Village Officials are debating a noise-control ordinance that would make loud music illegal. The measuring point would be the property line of the complaining party, with levels not exceeding 55 decibels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and 60 decibels the rest of the day.
Using a noise meter and a radio, Wackerlin demonstrated for trustees and attendees of Monday's Village Board meeting just how loud the proposed limit is.
The article concludes by stating that Wackerlin and Wong, the object of complaints from residents living near their establishment, are asking trustees to extend hours on weekends for the 60-decibel level. Village President Budd Bieber mentioned that many of the complaints have come from families with children or people who work on Saturday.
PUBLICATION: Wisconsin State Journal
DATE: April 20, 1999
SECTION: Local/Wisconsin, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Dee J. Hall
Wisconsin State Journal reports that Madison, Wisconsin residents have received $3.7 million worth of sound barriers complements of the state government in order to quiet the noise arising from expansion of Interstate 90-94.
The article states that East Side residents who live along Interstate 90 have received sound barriers, complements of the state government who sponsored the $3.7 million project as part of a $30 million expansion budget in order to widen Interstate 90-94 from four to six lanes as it passes through Madison. State law requires that the DOT attempt to mitigate noise above 67 decibels whenever a road is expanded, according to Skip Schneider of the Department of Transportation.
According to the article, some homeowners along the Interstate were already being subjected to road noise above the 67-decibel cutoff before the road widening began, says Munzer Haidar, a DOT project development supervisor. Three years ago, state officials queried residents about whether they wanted the DOT to do something about the noise. Of the 200 that responded, 87 percent said they wanted sound barriers built to help with the traffic noise. The DOT has also conducted a series of neighborhood meetings to help inform residents about the barriers. "We found out that the people wanted it, and we could build it for a reasonable price," Haidar said. "The majority wanted it -- that's for sure."
The article states that the state pays up to $30,000 to soundproof each home at which point local subsidies are required for higher amounts. After that, local governments must make up the difference, he said. In this instance, however, no subsidies were required. But due to a Madison city ordinance, developers must pay for and build their along this particular stretch of Interstate, Haidar said.
The article concludes by explaining that the barriers are made of concrete and wood which helps to absorb unwanted sounds. The sound barriers on West Beltline are made from the same materials. Depending on how high the nearest houses are, the sound barriers range in height from 8 to 20 feet, said Haidar, who hopes to complete the project sometime this summer.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: April 20, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Stephen Kiehl
DATELINE: Stuart, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Witham Field Airport Watch Committee, Sandy Mieloch and Bill Shader, residents
The Palm Beach Post reports that residents who live near Witham Field in Stuart, Florida gathered at a public meeting to hear airport officials and experts address their concerns regarding noise and air pollution created by the huge jets taking off and landing at the airport.
The article states that residents finally had the chance to tell airport officials how they feel about the airport noise and pollution coming from Witham Field at a two hour public Monday night. Experts and officials had center stage as more than 300 people questioned them on noise, safety, and pollution. "We want to vent," they shouted. For two hours, the more than 300 people gathered at the Blake Library questioned officials on noise, safety and pollution although they were often unsatisfied with the answers. For example when Witham Field Airport Director Michael Moon rambled on about fuel costs and radar, he was quieted with shouts of "We don't care about radar! We care about noise!"
"Here's your data - the noise is too loud!" and "No more jets!" were the replies to County Commissioner Dennis Armstrong - only one of five commissioners to attend the meeting - when he mentioned that a noise study was needed, according to the article. The meeting, organized by the Witham Field Airport Watch Committee in an attempt to rally the community and address concerns, will be summarized by the committee today in a hearing on airport noise, the article reports.
The article states that the committee was formed to address noise and pollution problems at Witham Field. Currently, the group is calling for the following: a mandatory noise-abatement program, an airport economic analysis, and a halt to the airports growth. Armstrong claims that the county is moving toward the implementation of noise rules, and that noise levels will start to be monitored in November, the results of which will be presented in January to the county commission who will then decide whether or not to continue the noise study. Ultimately, the study could lead to the Federal Aviation Administration setting noise rules for Witham, such as the ones already in place at Palm Beach International Airport. "All the commissioners are ready to go through with this process, so that when we get to the FAA, there's no question that we have a problem," Armstrong said.
The article concludes with airport neighbors claiming that immediate action is needed. Sandy Mieloch, who lives near the airport, said that only a few weeks ago, a landing jet plane "came within six feet of the top of the palm trees in my back yard." She also added "There are mini-tornados in my back yard because of these jets." Bill Shader, a resident of the Conquistador development, claims that his dining room table was covered in black soot after he left his door open for several days. "My neighbor has a black film on his swimming pool all the time," said Shader, 74. "He has to take a shower after he swims just to get the black exhaust off of him."
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: April 20, 1999
SECTION: Opinion, Pg. 15A
BYLINE: John Decker
The Palm Beach Post printed a letter to the editor from John Decker stating that the expansion of Witham airport in Stuart, Florida is causing pollution and health problems for those living near the airport, and that something has to be done to address these concerns.
In 1970, Witham Field airport saw a total of 14,000 flight operations. By 1990, the figure had ballooned to 60,000, and now the planned capacity as the result of ongoing expansion is 140,000 flight operations yearly.
Any expanding airport that is centered among a large and growing population will cause serious problems of noise, land and air pollution, human stress and concerns for safety. Witham airport is no exception. Regardless of who was there first, airport or residents, areas change and solutions to serious problems must be found before it is too late.
No one is against the airport as it once was but only as what it has become. The doctrine that "expansion is progress" and "big is best" is understandable for institutions that serve and promote the welfare of the people, but Witham Field serves a small minority, including wealthy jet and large aircraft owners, who are the primary noise polluters.
Unless the voters act together to resolve the serious environmental problems created by Witham airport, quality of life for Stuart residents will continue to diminish, and at an alarming rate.
John Decker
Stuart NOTES: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
PUBLICATION: San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: APRIL 20, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. A13
BYLINE: Marshall Wilson
DATELINE: Redwood Shores, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Green Fliers, Nicholas Lavroff, Frank Deighan, Redwood Shores residents
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the proposition to expand the runway at San Carlos Airport in California is meeting with opposition from residents who say that the noise is already bad enough, and that a bigger runway will mean bigger planes and more noise.
The article states that the proposed extension of the runway at San Carlos Airport has caused many residents in Redwood Shores and Foster City to complain that the noise from small planes already shatters the peace and that a longer airstrip may attract larger and noisier planes, especially more corporate aircraft. But airport backers claim that the 600 foot proposed extension would only be used by planes with engine or brake trouble and would provide an important service for recreational and commercial planes as well as a staging area for emergencies.
The article then mentions that the San Mateo County supervisors will consider whether or not to include the 600-foot runway extension in the airport's master plan, which is a blueprint for future development. Several hundred critics and supporters are expected to attend the hearing which will be held in Redwood City and is expected to bring up more than just the runway. "There are folks who would like the airport to go away," said Supervisor Rich Gordon, who is caught in the middle of the debate.
The article states that San Carlos Airport has about 150,000 takeoffs and landings a year, a number which is expected to increase over the next 20 years. Currently, about 500 aircraft are based there. In addition to the proposed runway extension, airport officials want to meet expected demand by repairing and building new hangars and tie-downs, as well as implementing other improvements. Last year, officials proposed extending the runway 400 feet but the outcry raised by residents made them cancel their plans. At tonight's meeting, Supervisors will discuss a plan for a 300-foot safety zone at each end of the runway and decide whether to fine pilots who land planes above the current allowed weight of 2,500 pounds. County officials want to assure residents that they do not intend to allow bigger planes, but opponents of the plan fear that the longer runway will lead to larger planes, especially from airlines and corporations based in Redwood Shores. "If you have two 300-foot safety overruns built to runway strength striped with paint so pilots know it's not part of the runway, then all you need is a can of paint remover and you've got a longer runway," said Nicholas Lavroff, a Redwood Shores resident and editor of a new Redwood Shores newsletter that splintered off from another airport group regarding the airport controversies.
The articles continues with residents expressing concerns over planes someday being diverted from San Francisco International Airport to San Carlos Airport in order to relieve congestion. "Put another 600 feet on the runway and you're home free," said Frank Deighan, a member of Green Fliers, a group that is against the runway expansion. "That's a neighborhood airport. To change it would change the character of the Peninsula." Carol Ford, who is a pilot and board member of the Redwood Shores Homeowners Association, said that the noise complaints come as a surprise since the number of flights is down from ten years ago. She also points out that the airport has been there long before there were any houses in Redwood Shores. "Having two paved stopways has nothing to do with noise. It only has to do with safety," she said.
Dueling sides on the issue have each taken out community newspaper advertisements to get their point across to the public, according to the article. The debate has resulted in dueling advertisements in a community newspaper. One side suggests that the county should turn the 160-acre airport into more homes as well as a convention center, golf course or park. The other side claims that the airport is actually a buffer against development and that opponents of the expansion are guilty of spreading information. "What we realized is that nothing is satisfactory. This is being driven by people who want the airport to go away," said Gary Petersen, the airport director. He claims that airport officials have tried to install safeguards against larger planes ever landing there.
The article states that predictions for topics to be discussed at the meeting tonight include curfews for takeoffs and landings as well as the possibility of restricting flight school students from looping out over Redwood Shores while practicing their takeoffs and landings. These options will be offered as alternatives instead of closing the airport. Another topic sure to be discussed is whether the airport operates at a profit or loss, already the subject of many studies. Although County officials say that the Airport Enterprise Fund has been operating at a loss for five of the past six years, they are quick to point out that no funds have come from the county's general fund, which pays for services such as libraries and health care, to keep the airport afloat.
The article concludes with a quote from Supervisor Jerry Hill who says he understands the distrust among airport opponents. "The county has done a terrible -- that's not strong enough -- a horrendous job of dealing with the issue of San Carlos Airport and the relations of the airport and the surrounding community," he said. "My goal is that we involve the community more in the operation of San Carlos Airport. They need to be a partner with us." The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. in the San Mateo County Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, Redwood City.
PUBLICATION: San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: APRIL 20, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. A14
BYLINE: Edward Epstein
DATELINE: San Francisco, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Meko, SoMa Residents Association
San Francisco Chronicle reports that despite Supervisor Gavin Newsom's determination to make a safety zone for nightclub owners in his district, residents are speaking out in opposition to the proposed legislature which they say will create nothing but hassles. Meanwhile Newsom argues that the ordinance is necessary to preserve the feel of San Francisco's SoMa area which he says is being overrun by loft dwellers.
The article says that Supervisor Gavin Newsom is determined to create San Francisco's first ever nightclub-protection zone. His introduction of amended legislation that would preserve nighttime entertainment and other small businesses in an area that is being replaced by urban loft dwellers who want to live where they work created an uproar from residents who live South of Market area.
The article states that even though Newsom first met with neighbors, club owners, builders and others who live and work in the SoMa area before proposing his ordinance last summer, opponents are upset because the legislation still allows for loud music. Newsom says that he has amended the legislature based on neighbor concerns. Neighbors who object say that resulting noise, trash and crime from the clubs is making their life miserable and that, with backing from Mayor Willie Brown, Newsom is providing unfair protection to the club owners. Newsom's staff claims that the amended ordinance has actually made the proposed district smaller, making it harder for clubs to operate (and open) outside the proposed area. His staff also says that strict noise-resistance standards will effect only new residential construction, and not existing lofts. Enforcement of noise laws will rest with the police department.
Newsom has even changed the name of the legislation from the South of Market Nighttime Entertainment District to the Small Business, Arts and Entertainment Preservation District, according to the article. "The point is to preserve ground-floor uses from live-work, so small businesses can remain in the area," said Newsom's aide Kathleen Haviland. (The legislation was introduced on Newsom's behalf, as he was out of town yesterday.) But Jim Meko, a member of the 10-month-old SoMa Residents Association, said the revised ordinance is still unworkable. Under Newsom's legislation, nightclubs do not have to obey the existing good-neighbor laws. "Newsom is just playing games. . . . We want to get to the heart of the matter. Why is an entertainment district being imposed on us?" Meko asked.
The article then states that residents who oppose the proposed ordinance will have several opportunities to fight back, since the legislation must wind its way through a minimum of two city commissions before winning the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The process could take months.
Despite the changes in the ordinance, the proposed core area remains the same, running from around 11th Street between Harrison and Folsom streets and on Folsom between 11th and 12th streets. Currently, clubs such as Slim's, DNA and Holy Cow, would be considered "license use" under current planning laws. In the zone stretching from Seventh to 12th streets along Folsom and Harrison, clubs would have to obtain a conditional use permit, which is more difficult to do. It is the wider district has been made smaller. Newsom's original ordinance contained a clause that said establishments within the core could blare music at 85 decibels, a level at which normal conversation is impossible. But now he wants to call in an independent sound consultant before making a decision. "Without this legislation, we'll continue to lose the industrial, commercial and retail mix South of Market," Newsom said last night in an interview from New York. "I believe the legislation accounts for everyone's point of view." But Meko claims that the proposed sound study will fail to take into account the bass sounds that will be pumped out into the surrounding neighborhood.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: April 20, 1999
SECTION: B Section, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Tom Bayles
DATELINE: Palmetto, Florida
Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports that a stricter noise ordinance has been passed in Palmetto, Florida which gives the City Council more authority in determining what "too loud" really means.
The article states that the Palmetto, Florida City Council has unanimously agreed to adopt a stricter noise ordinance. "It went right through," Mayor Pat Whitesel said. "That's great." The new ordinance will do away with several exemptions in the existing ordinance making it tougher on noise offenders. The City Council will now have more control over events that have the potential of becoming too loud, and will have the authority to direct the police department to shut an event down if necessary.
The new ordinance came about after recent events at the new arena at the Manatee County Fairground, 1303 17th St. W., Palmetto, according to the article. Residents living up to a half-mile away lodged complaints that the late-night noise kept them up and even made their windows rattle. Yet some exemptions will remain, like special permits that allow for evening events such as high school sports.
PUBLICATION: The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News
DATE: April 20, 1999
SECTION: Local; Pg. C1
BYLINE: Dan Mccue
DATELINE: Stuart, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Witham Field Airport Watch Committee, Don Winer, County Commissioner, Jay Matheson, Sandy Fogt, residents
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News reports that there was a huge turnout for a community meeting held to discuss the future of Witham Field in Stuart, Florida. Residents have become increasingly concerned over the growing number of landings and takeoffs, as well as the increase in noise from large jets.
The article states that there was not an empty seat in the house Monday night as concerned citizens turned out to discuss the future of Witham Field. "It just goes to show a lot of people are interested in what's going on," said Sandy Fogt. "Don't get me wrong, my husband and I knew the airport was there when we bought our house 10 years ago," she said. "And we're not against the airport - in fact we kind of like it. She continued. "But it's the change in the airport that bothers us," she said. "There comes a point when you just get tired of holding your ears and praying your windows don't blow in the next time a plane passes."
According to the article, Michael C. Moon, the airport's director of operations, says that despite all the increases, Witham Field is only operating at about a third of its maximum capacity. He also predicts that landings and takeoffs will exceed 145,000 by 2012. Moon will be delivering a report on airport noise and similar issues at 9:30 a.m. today in the library's Armstrong Room.
Then article continues with some concerns expressed by Jay Matheson of Stuart. His family's main concern is the fact that a class of jets notorious for the amount of noise they produce are allowed to land at Witham, although they are banned from Palm Beach International Airport. In fact, pilots of these jets are attracted to Witham because of the inexpensive fuel there. "People always say, "Well, you should have known better than to move next to an airport,' but the thing is, you never expect the kind of growth we've seen at Witham Field over the past few years," he said. Matheson, who happens to be a pilot, supports his parents' stance that airport traffic should be monitored and limited. He also believes that the community meeting is a step in the right direction. "I think it really does represent a tremendous show of support with people of shared beliefs," he said. "Any group of people, if you can get enough of them, can change things."
The article concludes with a warning from Sewall's Point Commissioner Don Winer to Martin County commissioners who he says should sit up and take notice of the large turnout of concerned residents. "After all, there's an election coming up next year and these people represent a lot of votes," he said. "That should definitely mean something." He paused. "Obviously, the increase in jet traffic and the hours of operation are things that need to be looked at," Winer said. "Whatever commissioners decide to do, it has to be evenhanded. They can't come down harder on one side or the other.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: April 20, 1999
SECTION: National; Pg. A1
BYLINE: by Charlie Chapple
DATELINE: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune reports that a rooster who couldn't keep quiet has caused a noise nuisance ordinance to be changed so that barnyard animals are exempt from being cited in rural areas of St. Tammany Parish in Louisiana.
The article states that the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury has exempted the sounds of barnyard animals from the parish's noise nuisance ordinance after a woman was ticketed because her rooster crowed too loudly. "How would you like your fate left up to a chicken," said Juror Kerry Harwell of Bush. "If the rooster crows again, she's in the coop."
Farm animal noises can no loner be considered a nuisance in areas of the parish that are still unincorporated and zoned R-rural, according to an amendment sponsored by Harwell states the article. Although St. Tammany is almost half rural, an annoying animal in the other part of the parish can still earn a person a citation. "This lady came to me in tears," Harwell said. "The lady had seven hens and a rooster, and her neighbor was upset because the rooster was crowing . . . People move to the country next door to a bunch of chickens and then complain about the noise." The neighbor's complaints earned the woman a ticket which could possibly lead to a fine of up to $500 or 30 days in jail, according to parish misdemeanor law. "I really thought that was chicken," Harwell said.
The chicken owner, who asked to remain anonymous, says she was amazed when the police came to her door, photographed the bird in question, and then fined her, according to the article. The woman, who says she was unaware of the law, "thought it was stupid. I can sit on the front porch and hear (other) roosters crow and birds sing. (The law's) like telling your neighbor he can't listen to the birds." Although Harwell contested the ticket, the District Attorney's Office refused to dismiss it because, they say, a crowing rooster can definitely be a nuisance. According to Department of Planning and Permits Director Sidney Fontenot, law enforcement officials are the ones who can determine what a nuisance is.
According to the article, the chicken owner is now on probation through May or until the citation is dropped. Meanwhile her and the chicken have to stay out of trouble. But she has since given the rooster to her sister and, sadly, it has since been killed by an unknown attacker, probably a fox, weasel, or dog. The woman has also moved her chicken coop further away from her neighbor's house. And "I have another rooster now," she said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: April 20, 1999
SECTION: Metro Lake; Pg. 1; Zone: L
BYLINE: by John Flink
DATELINE: Waukegan, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lawrence Sweda,
Chicago Tribune reports that the propane cannons used to frighten nesting gulls away from the Waukegan, Illinois lakefront have one man fighting mad over the incessant noise.
The article states that the noise cannons used to frighten seagulls away from the Waukegan lakefront have Lawrence Sweda up in arms. He says that the intermittent booms from the cannons are illegal and are ruining the serenity of his neighborhood. Sweda has brought his complaints that the propane cannons at the Outboard Marine Corp., located about a mile southeast of his home, are ruining his life to the Illinois Pollution Control Board. During a 70 day period, from March to May of last year, Sweda claims that the harmless but noisy cannons were fired more than 13 hours per day
Over the course of 70 days from March to May of last year, Sweda claims, the cannons fired for more than 13 hours each day, from sunrise to sunset. The cannons began firing again in March of 1999, and even operated for 24 hours straight from April 1 to 2. "The thing it reminded me of was the city of Waukegan's 4th of July fireworks display," said Sweda. The noise keeps him from enjoying his yard as well as other outdoor activities.
The three propane cannons were installed by the city and OMC last year near the OMC complex and the city's water plant to frighten away the estimated 5,000 seagulls who return to the spot each year to nest, according to the article. OMC decided to do something about all the gulls after buildings and cars became covered with droppings, and employees were attacked by gulls protecting their nests. As of 1997, the colony was too big for the local food source and birds began to starve to death which resulted in the smell of decaying corpses. The original plan was for policemen to shoot some of the birds, so that they would associate the gunfire with danger. But neighbors complained, so the cannons were implemented, a solution which city officials admit could be improved upon.
The article then states that attorneys working for the city and OMC did not deny Sweda's claims, but instead called to the stand an ecological consultant who had come up with the cannon plan in the first place. William Southern, a consultant with a PhD in animal behavior, specifically birds, said that gulls do often clash with humans and that the plan he devised has worked reasonably well. According to Southern, the birds have begun to go elsewhere to nest, but unless the cannon is fired for three years, they will keep coming back. "If they ceased using the pyrotechnics (propane cannons) today, I think you'd have gulls setting up nests there again by about tomorrow," he said.
the issue now goes to the Illinois Pollution Control Board, said John Knittle, the officer presiding over the OMC case. He does not expect the board to rule on Sweda's request that the cannons be stopped before June.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: April 19, 1999
SECTION: A Section, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Daryl Lease
DATELINE: Sarasota, Florida
Sarasota Herald-Tribune recently printed Daryl Lease's editorial on his reaction to and encounters with people who seem to thrive on noise.
Are you addicted to noise?
I didn't know such a thing was possible until a few days ago, when I read about a study under way at Northeastern University in Boston.
It seems that researchers have found that some people who listen to loud music experience some of the same troubles as people who are hooked on drugs, alcohol or tobacco.
The study is focusing on 90 people who like to crank up the volume. Eight exhibit symptoms such as craving, depression, lethargy and loss of control when they are forced to live in a lower decibel range.
This is enlightening, I suppose, but I shudder to think of where it might lead. Best-selling books with titles like "Fingers in Your Ears: 10 Easy Ways to Live with Noisy People." Support groups for people who spend more money on car stereos than rent. Bumper stickers that declare, "I'm Loud and I'm Proud."
This study is timely news because - it turns out - April 21 is International Noise Awareness Day. I'm not sure if Hallmark has a card to commemorate the occasion, but if it does, I want to send one to some old neighbors of mine.
Now, I like to think I'm generally tolerant of other people's idiosyncrasies, that I'm able to detect the artistry in even the most obnoxious floats in the human parade.
But these guys - well, they were in a league of their own. Had Mr. Rogers made the mistake of asking them to be his neighbors, I have no doubt he and his little puppet friends would have eventually stormed their house with a torch and rescinded the offer.
You, no doubt, have had similar neighbors at one time or another. In my case, there were four, maybe five, of them - it was hard to tell, really - and they lived in what was commonly known as the Mensa House. We called it that because, collectively, the occupants had the IQ of a genius.
They first drew my attention shortly after I moved into my old neighborhood. I looked out my front door one evening and saw them lighting a full-size charcoal grill on their front porch. They must have poured in the entire can of lighter fluid; the flames were licking the side railing and dancing along the porch ceiling. As I stepped quickly away from my door, I wondered if they'd know the number to 911 if I spotted them a '9.'
The house survived, and so, ingloriously, did my neighbors.
I soon saw, or heard, much more of them. Each afternoon, when they woke up and/or got home from work, they'd begin marathon games of horseshoes.
At first, it was difficult to dislike them. It was clear they thoroughly enjoyed the game, the loud music and the camraderie. What the hey, I thought, it's not as if I'd never irritated anyone while I was having fun.
But as the weeks rolled by, their fun got uglier. My waking hours - and some of my sleeping hours - were consumed by the sounds of horseshoes hitting the stake, by the Rebel Yells they let loose after each successful throw.
Clink. Yee-hawwwaaah! Clink. Yoooo-eeee! This went on for hours, pretty much uninterrupted. Oh, there were occasional breaks in the routine. One fellow was quite adept at emitting a block-wide belch. Another had a staccato laugh that called to mind Woody Woodpecker on a bender. And, at times, the reverie would be interrupted by the sound of fist hitting flesh.
Our neighborhood complained to them. Some of us called the cops. All to no avail. I plotted to sneak into their yard one night, after they'd all passed out, to steal the horsehoe stake. I hoped they'd stagger outside one afternoon, notice the stake missing and find something else to do, like barbecue.
After a few summers, the games began to fade. There were rumors of an arrest. There was even talk of one of the guys managing, somehow, to attract a girlfriend, who - we assumed - pulled up the stake herself.
I now live in a much quieter neighborhood, but I still think of them from time to time - when, say, a car backfires or a siren pierces the night - and I wonder how they're doing.
If, as this study indicates, they are addicted to noise, I sincerely hope they get the help they need. If you should encounter them before then, though, I can offer only one word of advice: "Yee-hawwwaaah!"
Daryl Lease is an editorial writer at the Herald-Tribune. Contact him at 742-6174.
PUBLICATION: The Pasco Times
DATE: April 19, 1999
SECTION: Pasco TIMES; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Chase Squires
DATELINE: Dade City, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Blair Clark, resident
The Pasco Times reports that the neighbors of a professional motorcycle racer want him to stop practicing on his private track located on his property. So far they haven't gotten anywhere, so they are taking their complaint to the County Commissioner.
The noise from Tim Ferry's motorcycle has prompted Blair Clark to file a complaint with the Pasco County Commissioner's office, according to the article. Ferry,24, a professional motocross rider known as "Red Dog" who lives in Largo, says that he has the right to do whatever he wants on his own property. This includes building a giant practice motorcycle course on his 20-acre property between Fort King Road and State Road. He someday plans to build his home here, as well, he says. But Clark, who is ready to retire on his newly purchased 80 acres near Red Dog, says his plans to build homes for his family and then develop the rest is being threatened by the noise emanating from the motocross track. Clark is adamant that he and his neighbors want the noise out of their neighborhood, even though Ferry says he doesn't want trouble and only practices on weekdays when most people are at work. So far twenty neighbors have signed a petition to get Red Dog out of their hair.
The article says that Clark claims Ferry holds motocross classes at the track, while Ferry maintains that he doesn't have the time to train anyone but himself as he gears up for his national touring schedule, according to the article. Ferry claims that he is considerate of his neighbors while Clark argues that he operates up to ten motorcycles per day. "It's a steady "whup, whup, whup' noise all day, every day," Clark complained. "You've heard of Chinese water torture? This is Chinese water torture." But the county says that Ferry isn't doing anything wrong. "If he builds his house there, this is an acceptable secondary use," county Zoning Administrator Fred Lowndes said. "It's his own private property. He can do what he wants."
The article concludes with Lowndes saying that some people may not approve of Ferry's use of his land, but that it is equivalent to people training race horses on their own property. "Wherever there's any vagueness in the law, I am always very, very careful before I even consider taking someone's property rights," he said. What Clark can do, according to Lowndes, is ask the Sheriff's Office to come out in order to measure the decibel level and see if it is above the levels stated in the County's noise ordinance. Or he can ask the County Commission for help, which is what he will be doing Tuesday morning at the downtown courthouse.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: April 19, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: by Matt Scallan
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune reports that Kenner, Louisiana homeowners, sick and tired of noisy jets, are getting ready to sue airline pilots and airports at New Orleans International Airport for punitive damage under a bill sponsored by state Reps. Glenn Ansardi and Danny Martiny of Kenner.
The article states that pilots have been flying too low over neighborhoods near New Orleans International Airport, according to Kenner officials who say that House Bill 533 is necessary to stop the low-flying pilots. But airport officials have countered, stating that the will hamper their own efforts to prevent neighbors from excess noise. The bill only affects airports that are not located in the political jurisdictions that own them as is the case with the New Orleans-owned airport in Kenner. The bill, which has not yet been heard in committee, states that it is necessary because there is little political incentive for a government to control airport noise if the airport is in another community.
If the bill is approved, it will require New Orleans International to come up with a noise mitigation plan by October 1999 or risk losing state funds, according to the article. If the plan is approved by the Kenner, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes, residents would be able to sue airlines and pilots who violate the policy for damages. Repeat offenders could be fined up to $10,000 under local laws that the bill would help nearby communities to enact. Councilwoman Jeannie Black of Kenner said that the city needs to take a stand against those who would violate the airport rules that govern which runways pilots should use. "Safety comes first, obviously. But I object to violating the flight rules because of convenience, or because they can save a couple of hundred dollars in fuel," she said.
The article states that Ansardi, a Democrat, and Martiny, a Republican, are dealing with the bill by request of the Kenner City Council. Ansardi believes that the legislation will give Kenner, St. Charles and New Orleans a chance to work together. "This is an opportunity to develop cooperation on a regional basis," he said. New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial hopes to cut down on the airport noise, perhaps by rerouting them to land from the west, where there are less homes. However, airport officials say wind conditions often require pilots to use the airport's north-south runway at night in order to make a safe landing.
The article continues with Paul Mirable, an attorney for the New Orleans Aviation Board, stating that the bill is a waste of time since the airport is already responsible for any noise it makes. He uses the example of a class-action lawsuit that caused the airport to buyout hundreds of nearby properties and to enact a sound insulation program at some homes around the airport. HB533 also proscribes pilots who violate existing flight pattern rules submit a sworn statement explaining why they did so.
The debate between Kenner and New Orleans regarding noise at the airport is not a new one, and the airport's plan to expand with a new runway in St. Charles Parish has just made things worse. So far, the airport has disregarded Kenner and St. Charles residents who claim that the expanded airport will just bring more noise and is moving ahead with the $450 million runway. An environmental impact study, expected to take two years, has just been launched and will include opportunity for public comment. The Ansardi-Martiny bill would halt the airport from building the runway unless they were to adopt the noise mitigation laws. Airport officials claim that the bill gives Kenner and St. Charles Parish the right to veto how the airport plans to deal with noise by requiring approval of any plan the airport may come up with. The airport already has a FAA approved noise mitigation plan, but if citizens of Kenner, Jefferson and St. Charles don't approve, the airport would then become ineligible for state funding, according to the bill. Mirable is also concerned that the bill could cause the airport to lose federal funding as well, if they change their rules too quickly, just as the second phase of the project is ready to begin.
The article concludes by stating that the airport is currently revising its study on how airport noise affects nearby residents, which should take about a year. "If this bill is adopted, it might place the airport in a position of losing its federal dollars on the one hand or losing its state dollars on the other," Mirable said. Despite all of the controversy, New Orleans Council Chairman Jim Singleton isn't discouraged. He is trying to make Kenner and St. Charles Parish residents more at ease with the idea of the new runway. "As long as we're still talking, I'm willing to commit my time to this," Singleton said. "At least they showed (the bill) to us beforehand instead of just having it introduced. Maybe we'll get to the point where we can't agree and minds can't be changed, but we're not there yet. There's still an open dialogue."
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: April 18, 1999
SECTION: Northwest Weekly; Pg. 3
BYLINE: Alan Lupo
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
The Boston Globe reports a third Massachusetts congressman, citing noise pollution, recently joined the opposition of a new runway at Boston's Logan Airport.
The article reports US Representative Edward J. Markey, predicting increased "noise pollution and other adverse environmental impacts," has urged both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration to block Massport's plans. "I am firmly convinced that we must examine closely the status of our regional aviation transportation system before we implement any new structural changes at Logan International Airport," he said in letters to John P. DeVillars, the EPA's New England regional administrator, and Jane Garvey, the FAA chief. "It is projected that the Route 128 and I-495 corridors will experience this commonwealth's greatest population increases as we approach the new millennium. It is the responsibility of both the federal and state governments to devise a strategy that ensures that some of the burden at Logan is relieved by those regional commercial airports that would welcome increases in regularly scheduled passenger service. I agree with Boston Mayor Tom Menino that a blue-ribbon panel should be established to devise such a regional aviation transportation strategy."
The article states an important phrase in Markey's letter is "airports that would welcome increases." His 7th Congressional District includes not only communities directly affected by Logan, such as Winthrop, Revere, Melrose, Malden, Medford and Everett, but also Lexington and Lincoln, which abut Massport's Hanscom Field. Hanscom neighbors oppose demands that the Bedford air field, now a general aviation facility, be expanded to accommodate commercial and cargo flights.
According to the article, Markey of Malden, joins two other Democratic congressmen, Michael Capuano of Somerville and J. Joseph Moakley of South Boston, whose districts include many neighborhoods burdened by airport noise and related traffic. Massport contends Runway 14/32 would help reduce delays and more fairly spread airplane noise throughout the area. Opponents counter that the new runway would increase noise and add to Logan's adverse impact on Greater Boston.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 18, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 7
BYLINE: Marie-Anne Hogarth
DATELINE: Elk Grove Village, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports trustees in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, have approved a plan to select houses for soundproofing this year although it doesn't please everyone.
According to the article, when a 1997 noise map was released last December, Elk Grove Village became eligible for up to $4.6 million in soundproofing funds from the city of Chicago. Village officials had to choose which 141 of 376 homes that measured above the 70 decibel day-night noise level would be soundproofed this year. The DNL level measures the average noise inside a home over the course of a year, day and night. Chicago will soundproof only 141 homes this year, even if funds are left over from the $4.6 million allocation, Elk Grove Village President Craig Johnson said. Ultimately, village trustees decided to give priority to homes in the highest noise contours, and those closest to the airport, Johnson said. Trustees agreed not to split blocks, to avoid tension between neighbors. "This is by no means a fair representation of where Elk Grove Village is impacted," said Johnson, who feels Chicago should pay for soundproofing for many more of the community's homes.
The article reports the situation is even more complicated in neighboring Des Plaines. Des Plaines is negotiating with the city of Chicago's Department of Aviation and the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission over whether it will be able to continue allocating soundproofing money to houses selected in a lottery system three years ago. The city must select 13 homes for soundproofing this year. In the past had selected eligible homes through a lottery using the 1993 contour map. However, with the new 1997 map, about 13 or 14 homes no longer will be eligible for soundproofing, although they were under the 1993 map, Des Plaines City Manager Wally Douthwaite said. A new 2000 contour map is scheduled to be released in 2001 and could include further changes. In the wake of a court settlement with Bensenville, soundproofing work must be done on those home that are in the most noise-impacted areas first, Chicago Department of Aviation Assistant Commissioner Chris Arman said. That leaves Des Plaines officials in a quandary over 60 households picked for soundproofing in the lottery but still waiting for their turn to have the work done. Seventy-eight homes, selected using the lottery system, have been soundproofed since 1996. "That's our problem, we have people who've been waiting patiently for two or three years to have work done," Douthwaite said. "Now we might have to tell them that thanks to Chicago it won't happen." Arman said the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission will consider the case of Des Plaines residents once they have reviewed a formal request from village officials. "Our position is just let us finish our lottery," Douthwaite said.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: April 18, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Stephen Kiehl and Howie Paul Hartnett
DATELINE: Stuart, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dave Twitchell, resident; Colleen Weston, resident; Bill Shanley, resident; John Decker, resident
The Palm Beach Post reports residents of nearby communities are protesting noise and increased air traffic at Witham Field in Stuart, Florida.
According to the article, Colleen Weston sometimes cannot conduct a telephone conversation because the noise from jet planes is so loud; John Decker was in his pool one recent afternoon when he saw a stunt pilot doing loops and rolls overhead; and many residents are tired of watching black smoke pour from Cessnas and Lear jets. Ever since Witham Field was built in 1943, the people who live near it have complained about noise and environmental impacts. Every time a proposal for expansion at the general aviation airport comes up, residents have staged a spirited fight. Airport administrators respond with studies that show positive impact the airport has on the local economy and promises to adopt and enforce noise abatement rules. It's an old dance, but this time, residents say, is different.
The article reports in the past six months, Witham Field airport has experienced a sharp increase in the level and frequency of noise from airplanes using the airport. Residents worry not only about their quality of life, but also about their safety and the environmental impact of the increased air traffic. "It's a community problem," said Dave Twitchell. "It's not just a bunch of whiners and complainers whose houses are being rattled. A great big airport in the heart of a little city raises some serious health and safety concerns. "I've lived here 18 years, and we didn't have any problems until 18 months ago," he said. Weston said she loves Stuart, but isn't sure how much more she can take. "I don't want to have to move," the 68-year-old said. "But if the noise gets much worse, I won't be able to stay here." But residents worry that they could have trouble selling their homes if the noise does not lessen. Resident Bill Shanley believes airport noise and pollution has lowered property values. "It's impacting real estate and that's a big fear," he said.
The article states the bigger worry in the community is airport expansion. Airport officials deny the rumor, but residents point to a number of signs. A new $850,000 control tower and a $470,000 administration building will open this fall. The airport's primary runway was lengthened by 460 feet last year. And the Martin County Commission last week took steps that will eventually lead to the leasing of six acres near Dixie Highway for commercial use. To organize the community's thoughts before the county commission holds a noise workshop Tuesday, Witham Field neighbors have organized a meeting on Monday.
According to the article, Witham Field administrators acknowledge that complaints about noise have increased recently. The reason is that more planes and more jets are using the airport. "The planes coming in aren't getting any bigger - we're just getting more of them," said Airport Director Michael Moon. How many more is an unanswered question. The number of annual operations - a takeoff, landing, or when a plane is at a low altitude within 4 miles of the airport - has slowly increased to 100,150 last year. So far, this year's numbers are above those from 1998. But it's not so much the quantity as the types of planes coming in, residents said. Jets using Witham increased from 235 in 1976 to 2,615 in 1993. In 1994, Martin County took control of the airport and stopped keeping a separate count for jets. "This is not a commercial airport, yet jets come in at all hours of the night," said Decker, 74. "We can't get a decent night's sleep." Apparently, the situation could be worse. Moon said the airport is running at about a third of its maximum capacity, 336,000 operations. By 2012, the number is projected to reach 145,000. Even if Moon wanted to reduce operations, he couldn't. The FAA determines the number of planes allowed to fly into and out of airports.
The article reports it's the responsibility of local officials to adopt noise-abatement policies. Former airport manager Brian Weiler proposed some rules in 1995, but they were never formally adopted. Pilots who use Witham Field are given a brochure with nine noise-abatement procedures. Most pilots follow the guidelines, Moon said, but there are always some who don't. Moon said he averages about one noise complaint per day. He tries to figure out the specific plane that caused the complaint, then he sends a copy of the noise guidelines to the plane's owner. One way to classify aircraft is the amount of noise their engines produce. A Stage 1 plane is the loudest. These are mostly older planes, including some Lear and Gulfstream models. Stage 3 planes, which include newer planes and most commercial jets, are the quietest. At some airports, including Palm Beach International Airport, restrictions are placed on the types of planes that can land and take off. At PBIA, Stage 1 planes have been banned since 1985. And effective Jan. 1, 2000, Stage 2 aircraft also will be banned. There are no bans at Witham Field other than on overnight mail delivery service and commercial airlines. The older planes that use PBIA are outfitted with "hush kits" that keep noise down. But hush kits can cost up to $1 million - a lot more than most pilots who use Witham can afford, Moon said. "It's like putting a set of $10,000 tires on your Dodge Neon," he said.
The article states residents have also raised concerns that there is no radar in the control tower. They say the number of flights has gotten so high that without radar, a disaster is just waiting to happen. "They don't even have a crash team on site," said Ron Taylor, a former air-traffic controller at PBIA who lives in Stuart. "There's no fire truck out there." Moon says such safety equipment is only required for commercial airports. He said the Stuart and Martin County fire department units close to the airport provide adequate coverage. The last serious accident at Witham Field was in 1989, when an 18-year-old pilot died when he nose-dived his plane into the runway while practicing takeoffs and landings. Air-traffic controllers monitor and guide planes that use Witham Field. Last month, the hours those controllers work was increased by two hours daily. Planes can still take off and land 24 hours a day, but the overnight traffic is so light that controllers aren't needed, Moon said. Moon is considering installing a basic form of radar in the new control tower that would be able to locate planes but not show their altitude.
The article goes on to say radar might satisfy Taylor, but not the airport's neighbors. Short of moving the entire airport, residents said they want the county to scale back operations. "I would like to see the touch-and-go and small businesses moved to a safer location," Shanley said, referring to the flight schools based at the airport. Residents also want a full economic analysis of the airport and a mandatory noise-abatement program. "That's where I see us heading," County Commissioner Dennis Armstrong said of the latter demand. "We need to address the noise issue, but the airport was there long before they came there and some would argue you knew what you were getting into." Moon participates in the county's citizen education program. "We want to work with the citizens so they understand aviation and so we understand their concerns," he said.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: April 18, 1999
SECTION: Picayune; Pg. 6F
BYLINE: Tom Deall
DATELINE: Belle Chasse, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune published the following article from Maj. Tom Deall, a public affairs officer for the Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. In his article, Maj. Deall addresses complaints from homeowners who live in the take-off or landing paths of military airplanes:
In a recent editorial in the San Diego Tribune, a Marine Corps pilot, Capt. John Peterson, reacted to a letter from a local resident who was upset about the increased noise generated by Marine Corps helicopters. The following is an excerpt of Peterson's rebuttal:
'Responding to Maura Harvey's letter wondering if the Marine helicopter training flights that passed above her Del Mar home were simply to harass residents, I can say, yes, our mission is to harass residents, specifically Mrs. Harvey.
'We do not train 24-hours a day, seven days a week to provide freedom and security to all residents of the United States. We exist only to annoy the very people we are sworn to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
'We spend months and years overseas, away from our families and loved ones, in some cases making less than minimum wage, choosing to live a life in which many qualify for food stamps, just to have the chance, one day, to annoy people like Mrs. Harvey.
'There is no more sought-after position in the military than the Maura Harvey Annoyance Task Force. As a matter of fact, the Marines who spent Christmas dug into fighting positions in northern Kuwait, and their brothers in the sky, braving anti-aircraft missiles and artillery, were just training to come back to the United States and fly missions over Mrs. Harvey's house.
'It has nothing to do with the security of the nation. It has no impact on our ability to carry out our missions in Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, and it has no bearing on Mrs. Harvey's ability to enjoy 'nature and peaceful, quiet living.'
'The strange, almost science fiction war scene she described was put on solely to make noise and to destroy her 'scenic view corridors' in Del Mar Terrace. It certainly was not valuable and necessary training to help sustain the lives of those who ensure this nation's freedom, should they ever be sent into harm's way.
'The next time you want to look upon those loud machines and think about the men and women who fly, ride in and maintain them, ponder the sacrifices they make in providing this nation with the warm blanket of freedom we all enjoy.
'Perhaps a better way to view those machines is to imagine, as the refugees in the former Yugoslavia, how much more disturbing it would be if you were not sure what country the helicopters were from or whether they were going to attack your beautiful neighborhood. But you shouldn't worry too much about that because we will not let it happen.'"
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger
DATE: April 23, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 12
BYLINE: Tom Walsh, The Patriot Ledger
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bernice Mader, 20-year Logan expansion opponent and resident of Quincy
The Patriot Ledger reports that John P. DeVillars, the Environmental Protection Agency's regional administrator, wrote a 16-page letter to the FAA saying that a proposed new mile-long runway at Boston's Logan Airport is not justified. He discussed problems such as increased noise, pollution, and environmental injustice, and emphasized the need to encourage a more regional approach to transportation. This approach would include encouraging the use of other regional airports, and promoting the increased use of Amtrak and its soon to be introduced high-speed line between Boston and New York.
The article continues, noting that while the EPA can advise the FAA, it can't block the runway. The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) was not surprised by the letter. Massport maintains that the runway will help distribute air traffic more evenly over the city, reducing noise in some areas and increasing it in others. Massport plans to consider the EPA's comments and produce a final Environmental Impact Statement for the FAA.
The article concluded, noting that opponents to the runway are numerous. The Quincy City Council oppose the expansion, although the runway would reduce traffic over their community. State Senate President Thomas Birmingham called for a year-long study before Massport moves ahead. Hull's Town Manager also opposes the runway, since his community would get more air traffic.
PUBLICATION: The Tennessean
DATE: April 23, 1999
SECTION: Williamson, Pg. 3W
BYLINE: >Mrs. J. D. Patrick
DATELINE: Brentwood, Tennessee
The Tennessean prints this letter to the editor written by the mother of a Brentwood, Tennessee resident. When she recently visited her children, the noise from Interstate 65 was too loud to allow conversations. She feels that this unmitigated problem is a disgrace to the community and to the state.
To the Editor:
I recently visited in Brentwood, Tenn. One of my children lives in Brentwood, on Lipscomb Drive. The back of their yard borders on Interstate 65. The noise is unbearable day and night. You cannot talk to them or the children if you are in the back yard. This noise of trucks and cars is heard in the house all day and night.
I think it is disgraceful that the town of Brentwood, Nashville and the state of Tennessee have not had barriers built to keep down and help eliminate a lot of this terrible noise.
With the wealth of Tennessee, it is a disgrace that the Department of Transportation has not allotted the money or gotten a grant from the United States to take care of this problem. These people work and spend their money there and also pay a very high sales tax.
I will never spend one dime of money in your state again and discourage my friends from doing so.
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press
DATE: April 20, 1999
SECTION: A, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Margaret F. Bonafide
DATELINE: Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jack Pasola, Councilman
Asbury Park Press reports that landlords in Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey are being held responsible for noise citations issued to their tenants. Five landlords appeared in court yesterday to face charges, despite claims that the 1994 ordinance does not alert landowners of their tenant's citations until it is too late to evict them.
The article begins by stating that if you're a landlord in Pleasant Beach, New Jersey, it doesn't pay to lease to noisy tenants. Hearings against two landlords, who face the possibility of being barred from renting in the future, were postponed yesterday so that more charges of violating a "noisy renter" ordinance could be brought against them. Special prosecutor for the borough, John Peterson, and its hearing officer, Brian Rumpf, did manage to resolve three of the five cases against landlords charged at the hearing in Borough Hall.
The article states that the noisy renter ordinance, adopted in February 1998, states that a landlord is likely to lose his license for renting property after two convictions or guilty pleas by his tenants for any ordinance violation. The ordinance also contains a $50 licensing fee meant for yearly renewals on seasonal rentals. The hearing held yesterday was the first legal test of the ordinance. Representative for three of the landlords cited, Attorney John P. Brennan Jr., Spring Lake, claims that the ordinance is unconstitutional. Other critics who attended the hearing included three real estate agents. "They cannot hold landlords responsible for their tenants," said Audrey Tesauro, a rental broker for one of the properties in question. "The landlords are responsible for the physical condition of their home. It is the town's responsibility to notify a homeowner of everything on their property."
On the opposing side is Councilman Jack Pasola, who devised the ordinance with the idea of "zero tolerance" for loud renters, saying that while the ordinance may need some details changed, it is good for the borough, states the article. According to Peterson, three of the cases against landlords - Vincent Tomasso, owner of a rental property on Atlantic Avenue; Vincent McCarthy, Washington Avenue, and Frank Storino, Parkway - were settled yesterday. But for Robert Veras, Riverside Place, and Robert VanNostrand, Parkway things are just beginning to heat up. They each had tenants last summer who received three code violations, not the minimum of two. These cases were adjourned so that additional charges could be added. The 1994 ordinance does require hearings and bond postings for landlords after three convictions are reached. The borough can charge Veras and VanNostrand with a bond of $500 to $5,000 if they are found guilty under the noise ordinance. Brennan, the lawyer for Veras, VanNostrand and Tomasso, objected to the adjournment, but was overruled.
The article continues that at the request of Peterson, Tomasso's case was dismissed since the two cases he was charged with occurred the same night at the same party. "In the interest of justice and because it was a minor situation to begin with," said Peterson in his move to dismiss the charges. But Brennan objected to charges being withdrawn against Tomasso, saying that since Peterson was special prosecutor he did not have the proper authority to dismiss the charges. McCarthy, who was not at the hearing, agreed through his lawyer to post a $250 bond as did Storino, who agreed not to rent to the 16 tenants who caused the violations at his rental property in the first place.
The article continues with Veras starting that because the ordinance does not clearly define how the landlords are to be notified of the summonses issued by the code enforcement officer and the Police Department it is unfair. Veras, VanNostrand and Tomasso said that the first they heard of the summonses was two weeks ago when they were ordered to come to the hearing. Up until then they had not heard that their tenants had been issued citations. Veras claimed that his Riverside Place property renters could have been evicted if he had known of the infractions.
The article concludes with Peterson stating that the borough was initially only aware of two violations on Veras' and VanNostrand's property. It was only after Veras submitted a list of discovery requests that borough officials learned of the additional offenses. Veras allegedly had knowledge of two violations on his property -- one for a noise violation at about 4 a.m. on June 27 and another noise violation at 2:30 a.m. on May 31. Veras claims he is fighting the ordinance because it is unfair to property owners who do not receive notice until it is too late. He wants the town "incorporate a mechanism into the ordinance to notify the homeowner." Brennan also called the addition of a third charge "retaliatory" and "capricious" and challenged Rumpf on his credentials as a hearing officer for the borough.
Previous week: April 11, 1999
Next week: April 25, 1999
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index