PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: April 9, 1999
SECTION: Section A; Page 14; Column 1; National Desk
BYLINE: Michael Janofsky
DATELINE: Minor Lane Heights, Kentucky
The New York Times reports a Kentucky town near the Louisville International Airport agreed to an airport buy-out only if the entire town could be moved together. FAA officials consented to the request, the first of its kind in the United States.
According to the article, when Louisville International Airport opened the first of two new parallel runways four years ago, residents of Minor Lane Heights, five miles from the airport, were offered a buy-out funded by state and Federal grants that would allow property owners to purchase houses in quieter places. But residents of Minor Lane Heights made a demand so unusual that Federal Aviation Administration officials now say it could be a model for other communities caught in the noisy path of expanding airports. Rather than break up lifelong friends and neighbors, Minor Lane Heights officials told the airport authorities that residents would agree to move only if they could stay together. That meant moving everything, including the 552 households and the 9-member police department. "We've never encountered this big a deal, a community making a decision to move this way," said Stan Lou, an FAA official.
The article reports "For a lot of people, noise wasn't the biggest problem," said Carole Cantrall, a City Council member who is credited with proposing the idea of keeping the city together. "The major problem was living in limbo, losing their house and losing their neighbors. Now, they're thrilled. They get to keep everything that's important to them, plus they have a new home." While some residents of Minor Lane Heights have already taken buyouts and moved elsewhere, many more of the residents are waiting for construction of their houses. Some residents like David Weedman and three of his neighbors have selected lots in almost the same relation to where they live now.
The article goes on to say each year, the aviation industry spends millions of dollars to ease the exposure of residents near airports to the roar of jet engines. The 1998 budget for the program was $200 million, a 28 percent increase over 1995. In some places, the money is used to soundproof houses. In others, houses are bought and razed. Tests in Minor Lane Heights showed that soundproofing would have been inadequate. The community will not be restricted to former Minor Lane Heights residents. The airport, which needed the runways to accommodate the growing fleet of United Parcel Service jets that are based in Louisville, plans to recoup some of its investment by razing the abandoned town and reselling land to businesses that need to be near the airport for shipping.
The article states to honor the residents' request to stay together, the aviation agency set up a program with a $10 million grant, which the airport matched, to help pay for a new site for the city. This arrangement allowed the airport to buy 287 acres of farmland 10 miles southeast of here and hire five house builders. By this fall, the first 50 families are scheduled to move to their new community, Heritage Creek, which planners say will include 351 new houses in the first phase of construction. More houses are planned over the next few years. But not all the residents of Minor Lane Heights like the plan. James Roeder, who has lives with his mother, said they were not moving to Heritage Creek. Roeder said his mother would move in with her mother, who lives nearby but outside of the area affected by noise. Roeder intends to move to Alabama. "For my mom, this had been a real hardship," he said . "She is hating this. But you've got to do what you've got to do."
According to the article, residents living near the new community have concerns. Some have hired lawyers to investigate ways to stop the move, fearing that their rural ways would be forever changed with traffic and noise. "The traffic alone is going to be an astronomical problem," said Richard Vreeland, a real estate agent who lives beside Heritage Creek on a two-lane road, the widest in the area. "Having them here is going to mean no more deer, no more wildlife, no more peacefulness." But efforts to halt construction have all but stopped. Ground-breaking ceremonies for the model homes were held two weeks ago, and Colleen McKinley, a Louisville lawyer representing the resistance group, said her clients had determined they could not match the relocation program's financial resources in a legal challenge. But Minor Lane Heights Mayor Fred Williams dismissed the grousing. Standing in fields where houses will soon be built, said: "Look at this place. Isn't it beautiful?" A plane flew high overhead. It passed by in silence.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: April 8, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Waterloo, Iowa
The Associated Press reports a proposal to bring stock car racing to Waterloo Greyhound Park has been put on hold after zoning commissioners raised concern over noise.
According to the article, members of the National Cattle Congress board have proposed racing stock cars around a 3/8-mile asphalt track at the former dog track beginning next year. Members of the Waterloo Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission on Tuesday voted to table the proposal indefinitely, but said they'd resurrect the plan when the NCC provides harder information about noise levels and economic impacts. Owners of upscale homes south of Highway 20 - within two miles of the WGP - have complained of increased noise and declining property values that racing would bring to their neighborhoods.
The article states police conducted noise tests March 27 while a handful of drivers raced around a simulated 3/8-mile track in the WGP parking lot. The cars exceeded the 80-decibel maximum under city law only once. "You had only approximately 11 stock cars present for the test. A normal race would have had twice that number," Police Chief Bernal Koehrsen wrote in a letter to project organizers. He also cited weather conditions in judging the noise test inconclusive.
The article states the track proposal was spearheaded by NCC board member Richard Klingaman, who would assemble a local consortium of business representatives to raise the $400,000 to convert the dog track to stock car racing. NCC owns the greyhound park and fairgrounds. The Planning Programming and Zoning Commission is scheduled to meet again May 4.
PUBLICATION: The Boston Herald
DATE: April 8, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 025
BYLINE: Laura Brown
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bernice Mader, resident and former chairwoman of the Community Advisory Committee to Logan
The Boston Herald reports Boston business leaders last night stated their support for a new runway at Logan Airport along with Gov. Paul Cellucci and Logan Airport officials while Mayor Thomas M. Menino and some members of the state's congressional delegation strongly opposed the addition.
According to the article, the two sides of the runway battle passionately made their case at the first of two public hearings on the Massachusetts Port Authority's draft environmental impact statement for the project at the State Transportation Building. "If we do not act on this now, we will be making a multi-billion dollar mistake (for) Boston's future," said Tom Kershaw, chairman of the Greater Boston Convention and Visitors Bureau. That group and seven other major business organizations formed a coalition to back the runway, saying continued delays at Logan would hurt the local economy. But the coalition also called for greater use of regional airports. Massport has argued that the new runway - known as 14-32 for its compass headings of 140 and 320 - would dramatically reduce delays in certain weather conditions. The proposed runway on the southwest corner of the airport would only be used for landings and take-offs over the water, Massport has insisted.
The article reports airport officials admit that some neighborhoods would be hit with much worse airport noise if the new runway is built, but say that some of the residential areas that now bear the brunt of overhead flights will get less noise, as the burden is "more equitably distributed." Residents from Quincy to Melrose have attacked the plan as a short-sighted, temporary solution arguing that state officials should encourage growth at other airports in Worcester, Manchester, NH, and Providence, RI, as well as at Hanscom Field in Bedford. Bernice Mader of Quincy, former chairwoman of the 25-member Community Advisory Committee to Logan, says the airport has reached its limit. "This postage stamp-size major commercial airport is trying to squeeze in another runway to overcome its inadequate size," Mader said. "Massport wants the shoe to fit, no matter how they have to cram the foot into the glass slipper." Mayor Menino has argued that Boston's roads will be jammed with traffic if Logan is allowed to grow in the way Massport has predicted, and has pressed Cellucci to shift air traffic to other airports. U.S. Reps. Joseph Moakley (D-South Boston) and Michael E. Capuano (D-Somerville) also have spoken out against the runway, saying it unfairly hits low-income and minority neighborhoods with worse noise. Yesterday, U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Malden) joined the opposition. The second public hearing will be held this evening in East Boston.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: April 8, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. B3; Wake County Briefs
DATELINE: Raleigh, North Carolina
The News and Observer reports in attempt to regulate noise from high-powered car stereos, the Raleigh, North Carolina, City Council unanimously approved an automobile noise ordinance Tuesday.
According to the article, the ordinance, which would monitor music that is audible at least 50 feet away from a vehicle, passed in the Law and Public Safety committee two weeks ago. Fines for violating the ordinance run up to $500 or 30 days in jail. Durham and Cary currently have ordinances restricting music from automobiles.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: April 7, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
BYLINE: Chris Newton
DATELINE: Snyder, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rich Anderson, resident; Heritage Environmental Protection Agency ;John Oudt, resident; former Air Force Col. William Weida, resident
The Associated Press reports a large group of West Texas ranchers and farmers have joined together to voice their opposition to Air Force bombing practice that they say will bring noise to ruin their way of life and spook their animals.
According to the article, many of the 350 West Texas ranchers and farmers vehemently complained to Air Force officials Wednesday that planned low-level bombing practice will spook cattle, pollute their land, and ruin their peace. "This is going to ruin the way of life out here and we're not going to receive a bit of compensation," rancher Rich Anderson said during a public hearing in Snyder. "If someone drills a hole on my land and finds oil thousands of feet under, it's still my oil ... I'm willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court to fight this. This is my land and if you violate it we're going to find out how much of the air I own." Anderson's complaints were echoed among those in attendance Wednesday night. Many of the ranchers are members of the Heritage Environmental Protection Agency, an organization formed to fight the Air Force plan. The group, whose members wore stickers with a crossed-out bomber silhouette, has threatened to sue if the Air Force goes ahead with the plan.
The article reports the Air Force wants to use the open West Texas plains in ground-skimming training missions for B-1 bombers. The jets, from Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, would fly as low as 200 feet in simulated exercises that include aiming harmless lasers at computer scoring targets. But the military must first hold public hearings, and officials have said public sentiment could influence them. Before the hearing, Air Force officials set out informational displays to persuade landowners that the bombers wouldn't cause excessive noise. "There is a lot of misinformation out there," said Lt. Don Kerr, who said the Air Force plans to fly only as low as 3,000 feet in the areas surrounding Snyder. "People might notice planes overhead but there is not going to be enough noise to interrupt a conversation. We're talking about a large area - you could go weeks without seeing a flight." Officials also said a draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposal indicated minimal impact on everything from soil to wildlife.
The article states the Air Force's information seemed poorly received. "There is very little keeping the Air Force from saying tomorrow that they will fly at 200 feet," said rancher John Oudt. "Once they get approval, what they want to do can change and there is very little anyone can do about it." Former Air Force Col. William Weida accused the Air Force of misrepresenting data on how much noise the jets would create. "This entire environmental noise study came from an Air Force model based on studies done over Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen and Chicago," Weida said, claiming the Air Force estimates of the noise level should be effectively doubled. "There is not a single bit of rural study in their analysis."
According to the article, not all landowners in the area are against the plan. Residents near Dyess spoke in favor of the plan at a public hearing in Abilene on Tuesday. "We want Dyess to be a place where the Air Force can do what it needs to do to make sure they are prepared to defend the country," farmer Victor Marsh said. "Why should we give another base the job when our base can do the job?" The Air Force is traveling to various cities in West Texas to elicit citizens' comment. Officials must receive Federal Aviation Administration approval before implementing the plan.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: April 7, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Joanna Kakissis
DATELINE: Raleigh, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: David O'Loughlin, resident
The News and Observer reports the Raleigh, North Carolina, City Council approved a new noise ordinance Tuesday that will govern business where amplified music is played.
According to the article, supporters say the ordinance strengthens the city's ability to punish rowdy bars and clubs without hurting entertainment establishments that operate quietly. The ordinance will allow the city to monitor the most common noise complaint-low-frequency bass vibes-as well as the noise in parking lots outside of the establishments. Fines for violating the ordinance run up to $5,000. The law "was revamped and rewritten because it didn't work," said Councilman Kieran Shanahan, chairman of the council's Law and Public Safety Committee.
The article reports the new ordinance has a controversial revision: City officials approved a 500-foot distance requirement between homes and music-playing businesses. The requirement in the previous ordinance was 1,000 feet. The 1,000 feet requirement, despite homeowners' opposition, was removed from the version of the ordinance passed out of committee two weeks ago. Shanahan argued that the distance requirement did little to alleviate noise problems in neighborhoods, especially when boisterous crowds spilled onto the parking lot after hours and fanned out around residential areas. Nevertheless, neighbors wanted the distance requirement because it wouldn't mix music and mayhem into home life. Councilman Brad Thompson made the temporary distance recommendation, which will expire May 1, 2000 - a year after the law is enacted next month.
The article states Councilwoman Stephanie Fanjul cast the lone vote against the law because she doesn't think it can be adequately enforced. While they say the ordinance has been strengthened in language, some residents also doubt the city has enough police and zoning inspectors to enforce it. "I think it's a good compromise. I think it's the best we could get," said David O'Loughlin, who lives in a neighborhood that has been battling a nearby billiards club that some say is too noisy. "It has all the components, but we still wonder about the enforcement."
The council also unanimously passed a resolution asking City Manager Dempsey Benton to investigate purchasing noise-measuring instruments to help police enforce the ordinance. City councilwoman Julie Shea Graw also proposed a substitute resolution that would have required music-playing businesses near residential areas to apply for special-use permits that would have to be renewed annually by the council. Her goal was to keep a tab on rowdy businesses and deny them the permits if they violated the laws. The council did not vote on Graw's amendment.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: April 7, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Vicki Hyman
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune reports a proposed new runway at New Orleans International Airport has the support of the Louisiana Governor but the strong opposition of a nearby town that fears increased noise from roaring jets.
According to the article, Governor Foster says he hopes to find $100 million in the state budget to help build the new runway while Kenner City Council members are gearing up to fight the runway plan. But first, however, the Federal Aviation Administration must approve it, a decision that will take at least two years. The FAA is about to begin a lengthy feasibility study on building the proposed 8,000-foot runway in the swamps of St. Charles Parish, just outside Kenner, FAA spokesman Roland Herwig said. The FAA will analyze the impact of a new runway on air and water quality, wetlands, compatible land use, and noise and socioeconomic factors. It will also consider nearby residents' comments at two public hearings to be scheduled this summer, Herwig said.
The article reports even if the FAA approves the runway and the Aviation Board comes up with funding, the airport faces opposition from Kenner, which two years ago passed legislation that prohibits the airport from moving forward with any major project without Kenner City Council approval. Although airport officials have claimed that Kenner cannot legally stop expansion at the airport, they have not yet challenged it in court. While the new runway would lie entirely in St. Charles Parish, the airport would have to build taxiways to the new runway within Kenner, which would require the Kenner council's approval. A new runway, Kenner officials say, would put planes over homes in northwest Kenner, one of the few areas of the city relatively untouched by jet noise and vibration. When the FAA first considered the runway issue in 1991, hundreds of Kenner residents, mainly concerned about noise from roaring jets, packed a hearing, chanting "No new runway." Hostility reigned again at more recent hearings held by the New Orleans Aviation Board about a smaller runway conversion project. City officials and residents said they would fight against any expansion at the south Kenner airstrip.
The article states St. Charles Parish also has much to lose: The runway would displace two St. Rose subdivisions as well as the James Business Park off Airline Drive. Neighborhoods in Ama and Destrehan might be affected because of new air traffic patterns. St. Charles Parish officials, who have not been as absolute as the Kenner City Council in its opposition to the expansion, recently extended a moratorium on airport construction and hired a company to conduct a study on the economic impact of the runway.
According to the article, in an attempt to ease Kenner noise concerns, the FAA studied the possibility of slanting the runway about 8 degrees out of parallel with the existing north-south runway -- and 8 degrees away from north Kenner homes. Although aviation experts said that a near-parallel runway could not handle as much air traffic as a truly parallel strip, the study showed that with minor adjustments to the instrument landing system controls, a canted runway could handle the same number of planes and make the project just as cost-effective. A new north-south runway, part of the airport's master plan since 1980, would increase capacity by allowing simultaneous takeoffs and landings, not possible with the airport's current L-shaped configuration of its two runways. Airport officials say New Orleans International will near full capacity in the next few years, and Gov. Foster says a new runway will keep the airport from becoming an aviation "backwater." They say a healthy airport is vital to economic growth in New Orleans, and adding a runway at a cost of $400 million is much cheaper than building an airport from scratch elsewhere in the state.
PUBLICATION: The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC)
DATE: April 6, 1999
SECTION: Durham; Pg. C1;
BYLINE: Ronnie Glassberg
DATELINE: Durham County, North Carolina
The Herald-Sun reports Durham County, North Carolina, in an effort to make its noise ordinance for enforceable, is considering revising the standards by which it measures noise.
According to the article, to make its noise ordinance comply with court rulings, Durham County is considering a revised regulation officials say would make enforcement easier. The proposal, which the County Commissioners will review Wednesday, would no longer list loud sounds. Gone would be limits on blowing horns, shouting ,or racing an engine. Gone also would be the maximum threshold for nighttime radio music: 60 decibels. In its place, the proposal would make it unlawful to make "any unreasonably loud and disturbing noise." "Unreasonably loud" is defined as a noise that is "substantially incompatible with the time and location where created to the extent that it creates ... interference with peace or good order." "Disturbing" is defined as " noise which is perceived by a person of ordinary sensibilities as interrupting the normal peace ... of the area." In Durham County's proposal, officers would consider factors such as the time of day, proximity to homes, the volume and intensity, and whether the noise is constant to determine violations. "You have to look at the totality of circumstances," said Deputy County Attorney Lowell Siler. "Sometimes something may be more of a problem late at night or early in the morning as opposed to during the day."
The article reports Durham County' s proposed revision has not gone unnoticed by the American Civil Liberties Union because it would give officers more discretion in enforcement. Deborah Ross, the ACLU's executive director in North Carolina, questioned the proposed removal of the decibel level. The current ordinance only sets a decibel limit on amplified sound. But by not using a decibel threshold, "it gives unbridled discretion to those who enforce it," she said, "so you want to have some kind of objective measure. The objective measure also gives notice to people of what they should do and what they shouldn't do."
The article states the change in the noise ordinance is an effort to comply with a court ruling that struck down a portion of a Jackson County noise ordinance that prohibited singing, yelling or playing of music in a public place regardless of volume or the effect on others. But the court also upheld a provision that banned "loud, raucous and disturbing noises. " Sheriff's Maj. Lucy Zastrow said the decibel levels in Durham County's existing law are too high. "Nobody uses it because it's ineffective," she said. Without a decibel measure, "the criteria that we would apply to any new law or ordinance is still the same. And that criteria is probable cause. You have to use reasonableness and common sense in applying that." The county has lost every legal challenge to a noise violation, Zastrow said. "It's basically worthless," she said. The proposed regulation only would apply to areas outside of the city limits, but the city also is reviewing its noise ordinance. In the city -- where most complaints are about construction noise -- officials also are considering eliminating a decibel measure, said Patrick Baker, assistant city attorney, and moving to a reasonableness standard. "A big problem with the decibel reading," he said, "is that it's going to pick up a lot of background noise, and it's almost impossible to get an accurate reading." However Commission Chairwoman MaryAnn E. Black said the changes could make enforcement more difficult by moving the criteria for violations.
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: April 6, 1999
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. A10
BYLINE: Ray Rimmer
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
The News & Record published an editorial from resident Ray Rimmer of Greensboro, North Carolina, who says noise, not economics, is the issue of debate in considering FedEx development. Rimmer writes:
"The Bryan Fund again serves us well by studying FedEx's economic impact. But I can't see how cost-benefit studies are going to add much to this debate. William Maready should have won his Winston-Salem incentives case. The ruling judge ignored state law and pretended to be a business economist - another example of what is wrong with electing judges. If a state referendum were held on incentives, rather than on a lottery, you can "bet" that plenty of tax money would be freed up for education.
"Robert Wall's idea (letter, March 26) is a winner: trial 4 a.m. flights by a FedEx jet to assess noise. Noise was the first and remains the main objection. Subsequent arguments against tax subsidies, traffic problems, and part-time jobs mainly serve to shore up that original objection - noise pollution.
"Surely, FedEx has a large enough fleet to commit one jet for trials. At least one takeoff should be on a rainy night, when clouds reverberate sound. Homeowners could record decibel levels, and actual sound, inside homes, in back yards.
"The effects of nighttime jet noise would move from theoretical to actual. This could benefit either side. Many would object, on both sides. Which is why it is a good idea. Inject some reality, some light (OK, sound), into a heated debate over other issues - a climate where minds never change, or remain undecided.
"I look forward to the response of FedEx and the Airport Authority."
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: April 6, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Tony De Paul
DATELINE: Warwick, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dan Murphy, vice president of the Oakland Beach Neighborhood Watch; Mark Jaquith, resident; Chris Dacey, resident
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports some Rhode Island residents who will likely hear more noise if proposed new flight paths become a realty at Warwick's T.F. Green Airport questioned last night the justice of such noise distribution.
According to the article, last night Rhode Island's Airport Corporation invited city residents to comment on the corporation's plan for reducing noise from the airport, or at least moving it around. The study includes 48 recommendations for controlling noise in the air and on the ground, but most residents have focused on the ones that map out new flight tracks in the skies over the city. The Airport Corporation says its "Part 150" noise study, if adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration, will give the greatest possible relief to the greatest number of people, moving noise out of neighborhoods and putting it over industrial and highway corridors and the Bay. But last night, most airport critics saw a study aimed at ending complaints from well-to-do Cowesett at the expense of working-class and middle-class neighborhoods. Elaine Roberts, executive director of the Airport Corporation, said, "This is one of those studies, unfortunately, where you can't make everyone happy. If there's a magic answer that does, we're still looking for it."
The article reports Democratic Rep. Joseph McNamara found little to like in the $500,000 study last night, while Democratic Councilman Carlo Pisaturo advocated for its adoption as written. McNamara said it was unfair for the corporation to give seats on its Part 150 Technical Advisory Committee to some neighborhoods but not others. He wanted to amend the study to include many controls that the committee had rejected when advocated by some of its neighborhood representatives. Among them: a longer overnight curfew, a faster home-soundproofing program, and a redefinition and expansion of the high- noise zone, adding areas currently ineligible for soundproofing. Pisaturo said he saw no need for such changes and commented, after his public testimony, "A lot of thought went into this study. Let's give it a try and see what happens. The airport is here, it is not going to Quonset. Why fight them? Let's work together and do the best we can for everybody."
The article states it seemed most members of the audience agreed with McNamara. That was how Dan Murphy, vice president of the Oakland Beach Neighborhood Watch, saw it. "I know Oakland Beach will support McNamara in this," Murphy said. Mark Jaquith, who lives in Gaspee, said, "It seems that the folks in Cowesett got together and had the study written to suit their needs. There are definitely winners and losers in this plan, and, in Gaspee, we're the losers. We got absolutely creamed in this new deal." But Jaquith pointed to a map, first indicating Cowesett to the south of Green, then Gaspee to the north. "There's a lot of money down here, but there's a lot of voters up here," he said. His neighbor, Chris Dacey, said of the new flight tracks, "This is total politics, that's all it is. I'll write a check tonight if someone wants to hire a lawyer and start a class-action suit."
According to the article, with the public hearing complete, air traffic controllers and pilots will begin testing the new flight tracks to judge whether they are safe for the kinds of aircraft and passenger loads that typically fly out of Green. This summer, the flight tracks and some of the other recommendations will be studied from an environmental point of view, and a public hearing - strictly limited to technical environmental issues - will be held in the fall. Then, with the Part 150 study complete, the Airport Corporation's board of directors will vote on sending the plan to the FAA for final approval.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: April 6, 1999
SECTION: B Section, Pg. 1B
DATELINE: Palmetto, Florida
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports Palmetto, Florida, officials will seek public input on the city's proposed noise-control ordinance amendments at a hearing scheduled for May 3.
According to the article, the amendments would require organizations and groups such as the Palmetto High School football team to obtain special permission to use loudspeakers, public address systems, and other sound systems after 10 p.m. Users of the Manatee County Civic Center also would need special-use permits for loud events, such as dances or concerts, that last past 10 p.m. Requests for the special permits would have to be made at least 30 days before the event date. No blanket permits would be granted. The City Council scheduled its first reading of the amendments for April 19.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: April 5, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Saginaw Township, Michigan
The Associated Press reports some residents of Saginaw Township, Michigan, want to see a change in a local noise ordinance that would focus on noisy car stereos.
According to the article, the township has a general noise ordinance - punishable by 90 days in jail or a $500 fine - but it doesn't adequately specify car stereos, said Township Police Chief Stephen C. Renico, who wants to see that changed. "One man's music is another man's torture," he told The Saginaw News. Of the sounds that can emanate from a powerful car stereo, Township Clerk Timothy J. Braun said, "It will shake your house, it will shake your windows." Braun recently heard a complaint from a neighbor and brought the issue to the forefront. "I know from my own experience it's a very penetrating, deep bass sound."
The article reports people tend to notice Jason Weil as he drives around town in his 1987 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. The 21-year-old loves rap, and he loves it loud. And he has a $2,000 stereo that allows him to play it that way. Weil said police have warned him once before to lower the sound. Although he said he tries to show courtesy by turning it down while driving through neighborhoods, he doesn't see the problem in letting it blare while driving busy roads. His mother, Connie Weil, said she is concerned about the danger of not being able hear a horn, train whistle ,or traffic noise. And others said it could damage hearing for someone too close to the speaker.
The article states city spokesman William Bailey said of Saginaw's current noise ordinance: "It has had modest success. We've really tried to have our officers sensitive to noise violations." The ordinance doesn't establish a decibel threshold, but lets a police officer decide if a noise is "jarring, disturbing or a nuisance" more than 50 feet away, Bailey said. A first offense can bring a fine of $95 that increases to $145 the second time around. A judge can impose a fine and jail sentence for a third offense. The ordinance carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail. Braun acknowledged that police might have a difficult time enforcing a lower volume law in Saginaw Township. "Government shouldn't exceed its role in anything that we do," he said. "On the other hand, government needs to be responsive to the needs of its citizens."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: April 5, 1999
SECTION: Nws; Pg. 8
BYLINE: Becky Beaupre
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jack Saporito, resident; Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder, chair of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission
The Chicago Sun-Times reports summer maintenance projects at O'Hare Airport are expected to create noise shifts over Chicago area communities.
According to the article, summer maintenance work at the airport will create increased nighttime noise over Arlington Heights in July and over Bensenville from August through mid-October. These are among the warnings included in a town-by-town brochure that will be distributed to 31 O'Hare area communities later this week. The flier was produced by the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission to prepare residents for when runways are closed for resurfacing or other projects this summer. "We want residents to know that July might not be a good month to plan an outdoor barbecue," said Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder, who chairs the noise commission.
The article reports although closing runways for maintenance is not a new practice at O'Hare, this is only the second year that a guide has been distributed to tell residents how it might affect their town. "I think the bottom line is to give people as much information as possible," said Mark Fowler, executive director of the commission, which includes Chicago and more than a dozen suburbs. "If they perceive a change in air traffic, they can at least understand it's not permanent." Anti-noise activist Jack Saporito said publicizing such information is important. But he said that doesn't make the extra noise any less annoying. "It's hard to forgive anything when you're being woken up at 3 a.m.," said Saporito, who lives in Arlington Heights.
The article states each of the 31 communities closest to O'Hare, including Chicago, will receive about 100 copies of a pamphlet explaining how the maintenance projects are expected to affect flight activity over their town. It will be the leaders' responsibility in each municipality to distribute the pamphlets to local groups, residents and others, Fowler said. Residents interested in obtaining a copy of their community's brochure should contact their village or city hall, he said.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: April 5, 1999
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Paul Marks
DATELINE: Suffield, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Edward Kenney, resident
The Hartford Courant reports the results of a mini-study show reducing noise in one part of Suffield, Connecticut, will only increase noise in another section of town.
According to the article, noise specialists trying to come up with ways to minimize the noise and annoyance from planes leaving Bradley International Airport knew their preliminary recommendations, made public last week, wouldn't please everyone. And they didn't. For Suffield, where the majority of airport noise complaints originate, the choices quantify a dilemma that has long been known: Moving noise from one part of town would only increase it in another part. Specifically, the three alternatives examined by the consultants for northbound flights show that the interests of South Main Street residents run counter to those of people living to the east on Diane Lane and Alexander Lane.
The article reports one option the consultants hired by the state Department of Transportation considered would have departing planes turn sharply right or left as soon as possible upon takeoff. That would cut the average noise level on Diane Lane from almost 68 decibels to about 62. It would drop readings on Alexander Lane from 58.4 decibels to 50. But the sharp-turn option was ruled out because it would drive up noise levels elsewhere. For instance, readings at 451 S. Main St. would jump from 61 decibels to 67. Under federal rules, any increase beyond 1.5 decibels constitutes a "significant" impact, which cannot be allowed unless a full environmental impact statement has been done.
The article states Edward Kenney, who has led the protests from Diane Lane about almost constant air traffic from Runway 6, was outraged Tuesday night when consultants said the current takeoff path won out as "preferred alternative" among three tested. By seeking to have departing flights adhere more closely to that track, the airport actually would raise noise levels at Kenney's house slightly. Not surprisingly, South Main Street residents were happier. Bob Frasco and Priscilla Viets said they both are convinced the consultants are being fair and objective. Viets said she is encouraged because "it appears there is a progressive effort to find solutions . . . and they are putting some serious money into it."
According to the article , during June, the consultants are to conduct detailed tests of the two preferred takeoff paths, prior to settling on their choices. Results are due by late that month or early July. A study of noise levels from takeoffs on the main runway at Bradley International Airport has produced two tentative preferred alternative flight paths - one for each direction- which are to be tested further in June by consultants. For Runway 6, the existing flight path (Alternative Path B) calls for planes to make a 15 degree right turn upon takeoff. It has been designated the preferred route. Path A would have departing planes fly a straight heading. Path C calls for a sharp turn to the east or west upon takeoff. For Runway 24, the other end of Runway 6, the tentative preferred choice is Alternative Path A, which calls for planes to make an earlier turn to the west than does Path B, the route currently in use.
The article reports a much more comprehensive noise study is just underway and will build on the findings of the eight-month mini-study. In the meantime, officials are recommending stricter adherence to the existing flight paths to reduce noise level slightly.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: April 5, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Doug Allan
DATELINE: Seekonk, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Glenn Morin, resident; Lisa Trahan, resident
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports the Zoning Board of Appeals in Seekonk, Massachusetts, agreed with residents' noise concerns and denied a permit for a parcel-distribution center in a residential neighborhood.
According to the article, noise and increased traffic have been cited by people living in the area as reason enough to block plans by RPS Inc. for a parcel-distribution center on Newman Avenue. The company wants to move from its existing location to an eight-acre site in an industrial zone grandfathered into the town's groundwater-protection district. But round-the-clock whining of diesel engines is not what they want to hear in their suburban neighborhood, Ellis Street residents told the board. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered neighbors' objections in weighing the merits of authorizing additional black topping for the terminal's parking lot. Selectmen Lauren Leonard and Lawrence Havrylik voiced concerns about the noise that would be generated by delivery trucks and its effects on the quality of life for the neighbors. Leonard said she also felt that the increased traffic could be an obstacle for the state's plans to improve the nearby intersection of Newman Avenue and Brook Street. The possibility of delivery trucks coming and going both day and night put nearby residents on the defensive. Glenn Morin, of Newman Ave., said, "I don't think it's fair" to have to be subjected to that kind of traffic. And from Ellis Street, Lisa Trahan said increased noise from diesels that would be parked near her home would reduce property values on the street. In a unanimous opinion, all five members last week sided with the residents in turning down the request for a special permit that would have allowed RPS to have paved 60 percent of the site, three times the amount permitted by the town. Zoning board members were in agreement that noise pollution for people living in the area was a factor that could not be overlooked.
The article reports company representatives were unhappy with the decision but did not say whether they would appeal to Superior Court. Anthony Caputo, an engineer for the project, said a parcel business is allowed in an industrial zone, and that the site proposal had been approved by the Planning Board. The plans also had been submitted to the Conservation Commission, he said. Although the property sits within the Seekonk Water District's recharge zone, Caputo said drainage improvements proposed by the company would create additional protection for the town's water supply. Member Edward Grourke said that while the drainage plans to protect the water district were more than adequate, "you can't get away from the noise problem." Because of that, it would probably be better if RPS selected a location in the industrial zones in the town's south end, member Donald Robillard said.
PUBLICATION: The Vancouver Sun
DATE: April 5, 1999
SECTION: News; B1 / Front
BYLINE: Doug Ward
DATELINE: Richmond, British Columbia CANADA
The Vancouver Sun reports the town of Richmond, British Columbia, has drafted a bylaw that will restrict all night dance parties, known as raves, in response to residents' noise complaints and criticisms of other kinds.
According to the article, the rave bylaw, which has been deferred to a May council meeting, would eliminate raves by requiring "social gathering businesses" like banquet halls to be closed between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. The all-night noise has caused sleepless nights for many residents. One rave last year drew more than 70 complaints from people kept awake by the music. The bylaw could affect a variety of events at such venues, including wedding receptions, but was drafted to deal with raves.
The article reports the proposed bylaw designed to eliminate raves in Richmond will push the all-night, high-decibel dance party scene underground, says a rave promoter. "The bylaw is unreasonable because it will push raves underground to places which may not be safe and which the police might not know about," said Bobby Ghirra. Most raves in Richmond occur at the Riverside Banquet Hall, owned by Ghirra. Ghirra's hall has been hosting monthly raves that begin late Saturday night and last until 8 a.m. Sunday. Between 800 and 1,000 people typically pay $25 to $40 to attend. The bylaw makes no sense, said Ghirra. "The raves provide a safe space for young people to dance and have a good time." He said his banquet hall conforms to building, fire and health rules, unlike many warehouses that previously hosted raves in Richmond. Ghirra said he has installed a $40,000 sound system in the hall that should reduce the noise heard in south Vancouver. Ghirra said most of the noise complaints arose because of speakers outside the building. "We don't allow that anymore. It should alleviate a lot of complaints."
The article states Richmond Councilor Malcolm Brodie said given the large number of people who attend, raves are a security headache for police. Police regularly monitor the raves at the Riverside Banquet Hall. Business owners in the industrial area near the banquet hall have suffered minor vandalism on the nights of the raves. "We've got nothing against the raves. They seem to be a good outlet for the energy of young people," said Brodie. "And we don't want to drive them underground. But the people who live or have businesses nearby also have rights to safety and security as well as peace and quiet."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: April 5, 1999
SECTION: Mchenry County; Pg. 1; Zone: Mc
BYLINE: Anthony Burke Boylan
DATELINE: Fox Lake, Illinois
Chicago Tribune reports a powerboater association will ask for a repeal of a new boating noise ordinance enacted by a waterway authority in Wisconsin.
According to the article, members of the Chain o' Lakes Powerboat Association plan to make noise at a meeting Thursday regarding how loud their boats can be while cruising the Fox River and the Chain o' Lakes. The boaters are asking for the repeal of the boating noise ordinance recently enacted by the Fox Waterway Agency. "We came to an agreement as an association," said Mike Lovergine, head of the newly formed powerboat association. "The people want us to go back to the waterway and say we want to police this ourselves for a year and let's see what happens." Lovergine said the policy is based on only a handful of complaints, and boaters fear the enforcement will be too subjective. Agency officials arranged the meeting for Thursday at their headquarters in Fox Lake, to get reaction from boaters and residents. The Fox Waterway Agency was created by the state to regulate the Fox River and Chain o' Lakes from the Wisconsin border to the Algonquin Dam for recreational use and to restore environmental quality.
The article reports while Fox Waterway officials had expected boaters to address the technical issues of noise-control equipment and enforcement, they will listen to the argument for repeal of the ordinance. "That's interesting to know where they went," Ryckman said. "We asked for their input, so if that's what they're going to give us, that's fine." The ordinance says a boat should not produce "excessive or unusual noise, " but does not have a specific decibel level as does the state law, which limits engine noise to 90 decibels. The Fox Waterway ordinance also regulates cutoff switches, devices that allow a boater to switch between two different exhaust systems. With a cutoff switch, for example, a boater could muffle the engine in a crowded area or when a law official is nearby, then let the engines roar unmuffled when the coast is clear. "The boaters have been playing a cat-and-mouse game with their cutoff switches," said Linda Adams Ryckman, a spokeswoman for the Fox Waterway Authority. The ordinance probably will allow cutoff switches only if both exhausts meet the ordinance requirements. The drivers of high-speed boats prefer to have unmuffled engines, which operate more efficiently for greater boat speed. The ordinance requires that the boat exhaust be directed underwater--which naturally dampens the sound--or through an above-board muffler.
The article states members of the Powerboat Association gathered last week in Wonder Lake to plan their strategy. They considered asking that the ordinance be enforced only after 10 p.m., but decided not to accept what they consider an unfair law. Lovergine said at least one boater is ready to get a noise ticket to fight the ordinance in court. An attorney advised the group that tickets under the ordinance would not stand up in court because the enforcement does not involve an objective decibel meter test.
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: April 4, 1999
SECTION: North Weekly; Pg. 5
BYLINE: Alan Lupo
DATELINE: Chelsea, Massachusetts
The Boston Globe reports a US Congressman representing districts near Logan Airport has objected to Massport's plan for a third runway on grounds of "environmental injustice," saying noise will be unequally distributed over poor, minority communities.
According to the article, when US Representative J. Joseph Moakley, whose district includes communities affected by Logan such as South Boston, Dorchester, Braintree and Milton, joined runway opponents, he charged Massport had violated a presidential executive order by failing to identify minority and low-income populations affected by Massport's proposals. Moakley made his claim in a letter to Jane Garvey, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, when he asked her to withdraw the FAA's support for Massport's plans.
Part of what formed Moakley's opinion was the work done by Chelsea City Councilor Preston G. Galarneau Jr., who had taken Massport's predictions of increased airplane noise over his city and part of East Boston and tracked the proposed routes of those planes over census tracts. "The areas that are most negatively impacted by the new runway," Galarneau concluded, "are the densely packed, poor, minority communities of parts of East Boston and Chelsea." That, he contended, was "environmental injustice," precisely the opposite of what President Clinton intended in his Feb. 11, 1994 executive order, which, as Moakley pointed out in his letter to the FAA's Garvey, "directs all federal agencies to identify and address all disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on low-income and minority populations."
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: April 4, 1999
SECTION: Section 14; Page 8; Column 1; The City Weekly Desk
BYLINE: Richard Weir
DATELINE: Queens, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joseph Fabio, a founder of Sane Aviation for Everyone (SAFE); Rose Marie Poveromo, leader of a civic group
The New York Times reports New York residents have a hard time believing "The skies will be getting quieter" as the Federal Government considers eliminating flight caps at La Guardia and JFK Airports.
According to the article, upset by a Federal plan to eliminate a rule that limits the number of flights out of La Guardia and John F. Kennedy Airports, residents from both shores of Queens claimed last week that the proposal would erode the few respites they get from the roar of jets over their homes. "You can't get a good night's sleep anymore," said Joseph Fabio of northern Flushing, a founder of a Queens airport watchdog group called Sane Aviation for Everyone, or SAFE. Fabio was among some 100 people who attended a public forum sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration in Queens on Tuesday. Coming from neighborhoods like Howard Beach and College Point, Maspeth and Rockaway Park, which border the airports or lie under their flight paths, residents told of how their dishes rattled when the jets took off and how they must keep triple-paned windows sealed shut even in good weather to block out noise and fumes from the 2,400 planes that land or take off in Queens each day. Now, they say, they are worried that the Government's plan to allow more planes to use the airports will worsen the problems.
The article reports the Department of Transportation, which oversees the FAA, is asking Congress to repeal the high-density rule which restricts the number of planes landing and taking off each minute at four major airports -- La Guardia, J.F.K., O'Hare in Chicago and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. At La Guardia, the number of commercial aircraft slots -- designated times when a plane can take off or land -- is limited to 48 per hour from 6 A.M. to midnight. Rose Marie Poveromo, the leader of a civic group in Astoria and Jackson Heights, said, "If the rule is weakened or phased out by Congress, Queens will be deluged by unlimited new flights." But the Government claims that eliminating slots, which airlines own, would increase competition by allowing newer carriers more access to runways. Patrick Murphy, the Transportation Department's deputy assistant secretary, said the 1968 rule that created the slots was aimed at reducing delays from congestion, which are now managed with computer tracking systems. "It was never intended for noise purposes," Mr. Murphy said.
The article goes on to report some measures have been taken to reduce the effects of airplane noise. The Port Authority, which operates the two New York City airports, said it has spent $52 million since 1983 to soundproof Queens, Bronx and Nassau County schools, and $2 million on a sound barrier along La Guardia's western edge. Federal officials said more noise reduction measures are planned. The FAA's regional administrator, Arlene Feldman, said the agency would soon begin a five-year study of the country's air space. Though the primary goal is safety, she said, planners will consider the concerns of communities near airports. And Murphy said that by the end of the year, the Government would require airlines to either stop using noisier older planes, like the Boeing 727 and the McDonnell Douglas DC-9, or fit them with hush kits, which consist of mufflers and other devices. "The skies will be getting quieter," he said.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star
DATE: April 4, 1999
SECTION: Columns; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Colleen Cason
DATELINE: Ventura County, California
The Ventura County Star published a column in which the author tells of a recent vacation across Coconino National Forest of northern Arizona, where she rediscovered the sounds of silence. But in her attempt to embrace it, she notes the pervasive lack of silence in our modern world.
The column says of silence: "The hush startled me at first, but I began to make friends with it. Then I embraced it with a convert's zeal. I imagined this was the solitude that would have blanketed our planet before man invented the wheel and the weed whacker. On this Easter Sunday, I make a plea for peace. Not just in Kosovo. But here in Ventura County. In war-torn Yugoslavia, allied bombings are a blessing to refugees' ears. But on the home front, I fear our din-witted ways are killing us loudly. Can you remember the last time you heard nothing? Even high in the Santa Monicas and the Sierras, aircraft engines grind overheard."
The column notes that even in our sacred places, there is little peace. "Look at the little Santa Clara Chapel in Oxnard. The 120-year-old church has been swallowed by Highway 101. The devil must have made Caltrans wrap an onramp around a house of worship. One good backfire from a '73 Plymouth Barracuda could drown out God's word. Imagine the Rev. John Higson delivering his homily: "Thou shalt not " Boom. Bang, Bam." The author goes on to say, "It's enough to wake the dead at Pierce Brothers Valley Oaks Memorial Park in Westlake Village. For a couple of years now, a Costco has cast its big-box shadow over the graveyard, where people of all faiths are buried. And a sign advertises the cemetery's frontage as a future restaurant or hotel site. How are the whirring blenders of happy hour compatible with a graveside service? And you can forget about as silent as a tomb at Ivy Lawn Memorial Park in Ventura. With the rerouting of the Victoria Avenue offramp of Highway 101, a freeway all but runs through it."
The author goes on to say, "As I lie in bed at night in our home a half mile from Highway 101, I hear the endless whoosh of tires echoing through the sound-wall canyon. And beyond is greater Los Angeles -- surrounded by a wall of sound made from wailing sirens, searing car alarms, jetliners on approach, police helicopters in pursuit, leaf blowers, jackhammers and nuclear-powered boom boxes. In my childhood, signs warned 'Quiet. Hospital Zone.' What a concept. The sick might heal faster if their eardrums weren't pounding. I remember when people whispered in libraries. As if a person might absorb knowledge better in solitude."
The essay concludes, "I know noise is the price we pay for progress. We need it to keep our economy humming. But is nothing sacred? What kind of people fail to protect the solitude of the places where they worship and visit their dead? These days, it seems in the battle between God and progress over noise, progress rules. But hear me out. God will have the last word. He owns thunder."
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: April 10, 1999
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Bob Petrie
DATELINE: Mesa, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tina St. Pierre, resident; Dennis Kavanaugh, councilman;
The Arizona Republic reports the Arizona Department of Transportation has decided to "wait and see" about a section of sound wall Mesa residents insist is needed to muffle noise from the Price Freeway.
According to the article, Tina St. Pierre is concerned about traffic noise because she can already pick out the voices of freeway construction workers from her back yard. "I can hear those guys talking at my house all day long," the resident of Carriage Lane in southwest Mesa said. "Usually you can hear it in my dining room." In less than two years, the St. Pierres' dinner conversations will be competing with traffic noise from the Price Freeway, roaring through a gap in the noise walls into Carriage Lane Park, behind their home. "It's going to carry all through my neighborhood," she said.
The article reports the Park will be the one gap in neighborhood noise protection along the entire eastern frontage road for the Price Freeway scheduled to open in early 2000. Noise walls are being built to the south, but the state Department of Transportation says they're not needed along Price Road between Guadalupe Road to the Western Canal. Cost is one factor; the walls to cover the area cost about $600,000. The second factor, according to a letter from ADOT to Mesa, says noise studies predict the levels aren't high enough to justify the sound barrier. The state promised Mesa officials they'll retest when the road is finished. "The best alternative when you have a difference of arguments is to wait until the actual freeway is built," said Ron Krosting, Mesa transportation director. That's what happened recently in Colony on the Green, a northwest Mesa subdivision near the Red Mountain Freeway and Alma School Road. After two years of neighborhood complaints of road noise, ADOT conducted new tests which showed walls are needed. "It turned out they (the neighbors) were right," ADOT spokesman Bill Rawson said.
The article states Mesa doesn't have the money to build the Price wall, Krosting said, nor "15, 16 or 17" other walls that will likely need to be put up to protect other neighborhoods facing freeway noise in the future, as the Red Mountain is built along the city's northeastern fringe. "Noise walls are the obligation of ADOT," Krosting said. Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh lives in neighboring Dobson Ranch and has dealt with freeway noise and construction for years. He said he sometimes wonders how ADOT does its testing. "I can't believe the (freeway) sound magically diminishes when it hits that little strip there (along the Price)," Kavanaugh said.
PUBLICATION: Birmingham Post (England)
DATE: April 10, 1999
SECTION: Pg. 5
DATELINE: North Warwickshire, England
The Birmingham Post reports the Defense Estates Organization has requested approval to build a sound wall at a rifle range near a nature conservation area in North Warwickshire, England.
According to the article, local environment groups have welcomed proposals by the Defense Estates Organization to reduce noise and improve a nature conservation area at Kingsbury Rifle Range, near Tamworth Defense chiefs have asked for planning approval to build a 12ft high noise barrier at a rifle range.. The application to construct the barrier will be recommended for approval at a meeting of North Warwickshire Borough Council's planning committee on Tuesday night. A report to the committee said: "The rifle range and associated land has been identified as a site of importance for nature conservation. It is one of the most important in North Warwickshire because of the mosaic of habitats present and the number of unusual species." The report said the planned embankment would act as a noise barrier during shooting and would also aid site drainage and improve the conservation value of the area.
PUBLICATION: The Indianapolis Star
DATE: April 9, 1999
SECTION: Metro West; Pg. W01
BYLINE: Bruce C. Smith
DATELINE: Plainfield, Indiana
The Indianapolis Star reports work will begin soon to insulate hundreds of Hendricks County homes from the noise of jets from Indianapolis International Airport.
According to the article, construction contractors are expected to bid in May for the work on the first 45 houses. Workshops have been held this week for local remodeling contractors interested in bidding on a piece of the projected $8 million project. "We're just trying to explain what it takes to work on this project. It will be a lot more than just hanging new windows and doors," said Wayne Peterson of Jones Payne Architects & Planners. The Boston-based firm was hired by the Indianapolis Airport Authority. It is a nationally known manager of noise abatement and mitigation projects. "We want to let the contractors know that we are trying to hire as many local companies as possible," Peterson said. "We explain the kinds of materials, workmanship, the (paperwork) submittals we require and how to interface with the homeowners. We require the work to be neat and clean, respectful of the whole house. Everything must end up tight and secure," he said. The goal is to reduce the amount of noise entering a home by 25 percent to 50 percent, he said. Every house is treated as a custom job. The work on several historically significant houses is planned in consultation with preservation experts.
The article reports the work is the newest phase in a series of programs by the airport to reduce the effect of jet noise on neighbors. During the past decade, the Airport Authority has spent about $100 million buying about 1,000 homes in Marion and Hendricks counties, moving the residents, then demolishing the houses. In this phase - affecting about 356 houses in the Plainfield area - some houses will be purchased by the Airport Authority at fair market prices, remodeled and resold. In other cases, the owners may get a free package of acoustical windows, wood doors, insulation and other sound reductions. Peterson said each house is carefully inspected for the possibility of using a wide range of sound-reducing techniques. Some may get a second layer of drywall, for example. After structural upgrades, remodeling is completed with new paint, wood trim and wallpaper. He said they are looking closely at the bedrooms, where people sleep and are bothered by low-flying freight planes at night.
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: April 9, 1999
SECTION: Section A; Page 14; Column 1; National Desk
BYLINE: Michael Janofsky
DATELINE: Minor Lane Heights, Kentucky
The New York Times reports in the wake of a relocation effort by the Louisville International Airport, a Kentucky town has made a demand so unusual that that Federal Aviation Administration officials now say it could be a model for other communities.
According to the article, when Louisville International Airport opened the first of two new parallel runways four years ago, residents of Minor Lane Heights were invited, along with other nearby residents, to take part one of the country's most ambitious relocation efforts: a $285 million program in state and Federal grants to buy out 3,760 property owners so they could purchase houses in quieter places. But town officials told airport authorities that the 1,700 Minor Lane Heights residents would agree to move only if they could stay together. "We've never encountered this big a deal, a community making a decision to move this way," said Stan Lou, an FAA official.
The article reports noise is a constant challenge for the aviation agency. Each year, it spends millions of dollars to ease the exposure of residents near airports to the roar of jet engines. The 1998 budget for the program was $200 million, a 28 percent increase over 1995. In some places, the money is used to soundproof houses. In others, houses are bought and razed. Tests in Minor Lane Heights showed that soundproofing would have been inadequate. To grant the residents' request to stay together, the aviation agency set up a program with a $10 million grant, which the airport matched, to help pay for a new site for the city. This arrangement enabled the airport to buy 287 acres of farmland 10 miles southeast of here and hire five house builders. By this fall, the first 50 families are scheduled to move to their new community, Heritage Creek, which planners say will include 351 new houses in the first phase of construction. More houses are planned over the next few years. The community will not be restricted to former Minor Lane Heights residents. "For a lot of people, noise wasn't the biggest problem," said Carole Cantrall, a City Council member who is credited with proposing the idea of keeping the city together. "The major problem was living in limbo, losing their house and losing their neighbors. Now, they're thrilled. They get to keep everything that's important to them, plus they have a new home."
The article states not all the residents of Minor Lane Heights or the families living near Heritage Creek are in favor of the plan. James Roeder, a plumber who has lives here with his mother, said they were not moving to Heritage Creek. Roeder said his mother would move in with her ailing 74-year-old mother, who lives nearby but outside of the area affected by noise. Roeder intends to move to Alabama. "For my mom, this had been a real hardship," he said. "She is hating this. But you've got to do what you've got to do." The Rev. David Price, pastor of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Church, and his wife expect to move to Heritage Creek by 2001, but only if he can find a way to move the church, too. If he cannot, he might move elsewhere. "Everybody I talk to is going," he said. "I'd just as soon stay. But we'd be foolish not to move. What would we do for police protection? What about vandalism? It leaves you open for too many things."
According to the article, residents near the new community have noise concerns of their own. Some have hired lawyers to try to stop the town's relocation, fearing that their rural life would be forever changed with traffic and noise. "The traffic alone is going to be an astronomical problem," said Richard Vreeland, a real estate agent who lives beside Heritage Creek on a two-lane road, the widest in the area. "Having them here is going to mean no more deer, no more wildlife, no more peacefulness." But attempts to halt construction have all but stopped. Ground-breaking ceremonies for the model homes were held two weeks ago, and Colleen McKinley, a Louisville lawyer representing the resistance group, said her clients could not match the relocation program's financial resources in a legal challenge. Once Jefferson County approved sewer lines for the new community, Ms. McKinley said: "That was the final blow. It was inevitable."
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: April 9, 1999
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. A12
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
The News & Record (Greensboro, NC) published a letter from Diane Warren of Greensboro, North Carolina. In her letter, Ms. Warren defends arguments made by critics of the FedEx hub at the Triad Airport.
"In the March 27 article 'FedEx backers defend project,' Dan Lynch took issue with estimates by a homeowners group that 4,000 homes near the airport would be adversely affected by noise from the FedEx hub. That number is actually very conservative.
"At a minimum, 4,884 homes will be directly affected. This number was determined by studying patterns from other airports experiencing similar expansion and overlaying those patterns on the communities surrounding the Triad airport.
"However, everyone in the northwest corridor of Greensboro will be adversely affected by additional noise in the middle of the night.
"I also take issue with Lynch's assertion that giving FedEx $38.6 million in county property tax breaks is not giving public money to the FedEx project, and does not come out of taxpayers' pockets. It certainly does come out of taxpayers' pockets.
"FedEx will receive services like everyone else, but we'll be paying for them with a higher tax burden because FedEx is exempted from paying.
"But I especially take issue with Ted Johnson's comments that the airport and FedEx have evaluated an option proposed by homeowners to eliminate the third runway. Johnson also said that FedEx insists that it needs a new, parallel runway to operate planes at the same time. Both of these statements are hogwash.
"The airport never considered the option proposed by homeowners because it does not include Johnson's tragic legacy to Greensboro - the third runway. And FedEx has stated it does not need two parallel runways, just two runways, which the airport already has."
PUBLICATION: The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News (Stuart, FL)
DATE: April 9, 1999
SECTION: Letters To The Editor; Pg. A9
DATELINE: Stuart, Florida
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News published a letter from Mary Warren of Stuart, Florida. In her letter, Ms. Warren details how noise from Witham Field Airport destroys her quality of life:
"Editor:
"It is now 6:10 a.m. - why am I awake and writing to you? Because, approximately 20 minutes ago, I was blasted out of a sound sleep by the sound of a jet screaming overhead. Even the birds were startled awake and started chattering in protest before settling into earlier-than-usual song.
"What noise abatement!
"Last night, a beautiful moonlit spring night around 10 p.m., I was reading to the delightful background noises of the insects - not for long! I counted eight planes passing, four of them passing it seemed right above my roof. Need I say more?
"In the last year the noise has more than doubled from that airport. And what do we hear from our elected officials: Oh no, no need to worry; oh no, it won't become a commercial airport; oh no, we will not let the expansion intrude on the residents - we just want to give approval to build a few more buildings, not add to the level of traffic through these residential neighborhoods. Sounds a bit like Washington talking. Who was watching when they added that new runway, and what did we think that was going to be for - the migrating birds?
"The quality of life around Stuart really needs to be addressed, and quickly. You can stop buildings being erected and spend millions on new bridge studies, but you must not ignore the very things that most impact our everyday lifestyle. Well, when I have to actually stop a phone conversation or miss dialog on television because of planes roaring above my home, to say nothing of being roused from a sound sleep, I say spend some money to stop the noise!"
Previous week: March 28, 1999
Next week: April 11, 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