PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: August 10, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 4B
BYLINE: Bill Brown
DATELINE: Batavia, New York
The Buffalo News reports that the city council of Buffalo, New York has passed an amended noise ordinance that toughens its previously vague nature.
The article reports that the city council of Buffalo, New York has passed an amended noise ordinance that toughens its previously vague nature. The new ordinance goes into effect in a month, and adds more specific language barring "unreasonable noise up to 10 p.m.," and penalizing dog owners for dogs that bark for more than 30 minutes in the daytime and 15 minutes of "frequent noise" at night.
PUBLICATION: Central Maine Morning Sentinel
DATE: August 10, 1999
SECTION: Local; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Larry Grard
DATELINE: Pittsfield, Maine
The Central Maine Morning Sentinel reports that residents near a metal-fabrication plant in Pittsfield, Maine are opposing expansions there. The local planning board approved the expansion, which includes noise-reduction plans, but residents note that past expansions have turned a quiet, small facility into a facility with 'uncontrolled noise.' The plant hopes to keep 20 new workers on through the winter now that the extension is approved.
The article reports that residents near a metal-fabrication plant in Pittsfield, Maine are opposing expansions at the facility. The local planning board approved the expansion, which includes a special building designed to house noisy equipment and muffle the noise.
The article notes that residents want existing restrictions -- such as closing all bay doors by 8 p.m. -- enforced. They also note that past expansions have turned a quiet, small facility of sixteen years ago into a facility with 'uncontrolled noise.'
The article concludes, noting that the plant hopes to keep 20 new workers on through the winter now that the extension is approved. The expansion consists of a storage shed and another building.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette
DATE: August 10, 1999
SECTION: News; A6
BYLINE: Darren Becker
DATELINE: Montreal, Canada
The Gazette reports that residents near expressway construction in Westmount -- near Canada's Montreal -- feel ignored by officials as noise forces them to lose sleep. Officials have measured sound peaks of up to 98 decibels, when the limit is 65 at night and 75 during the day. The expressway will be under construction until November. Residents took a petition to Transport Quebec offices when they learned that community police had no jurisdiction in the matter.
The article reports that residents near expressway construction in Westmount -- near Canada's Montreal -- feel ignored by officials as noise forces them to camp out elsewhere or sleep in their relatively quiet bathrooms. Contractors have already been fined $2,500 on fifteen separate occasions for violating noise regulations. Officials have measured sound peaks of up to 98 decibels, when the limit is 65 at night and 75 during the day.
The article notes that transportation officials don't send enforcement officers each time there is a complaint because they are "monitoring the situation" continuously. Complaints have resulted from excessive noise and also noise at all hours of the night.
The article goes on to say that the expressway is currently undergoing demolition as part of a $54-million project, and is scheduled to be finished in November. Residents took a petition with 120 signatures to Transport Quebec offices when they learned that community police had no jurisdiction in the matter.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette
DATE: August 10, 1999
SECTION: News; A6
BYLINE: Darren Becker
DATELINE: Cote St. Luc, Canada
The Gazette reports that city officials in Cote St. Luc, Canada are worried that noise from a new train-maintenance shop will cause complaints from residents. The mayor is scheduled to meet with the railroad companies to discuss potential noise impacts. Rail officials say the facility will not be any louder due to the repair shop.
The article reports that city officials in Cote St. Luc, Canada are worried that noise from a new train-maintenance shop will cause complaints from residents. The mayor is scheduled to meet with the railroad companies to discuss potential noise impacts; he will also ask whether activity will increase at the rail yards, and whether a 'temporary' commuter train will continue to run though the city.
The article notes that rail officials say the facility will not be any louder due to the repair shop. An American company will be leasing the maintenance shop, and will employ thirty workers.
PUBLICATION: Press Journal
DATE: August 10, 1999
SECTION: Letters To The Editor; Pg. A9
BYLINE: Mary Jane Martin
DATELINE: Vero Beach, Florida
The Press Journal prints a letter to the editor which criticizes Flight Safety International's noisy touch and go flights. The author says that the company has done nothing to mitigate noise, and praises the mayor for instituting a noise-measurement program at the airport.
"Cartoonist James Casciari's depiction of what is happening to our lovely city is right on the money. The almost non-stop noise created by FlightSafety International's training flights, particularly their "touch and go" flights from 7 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. is beyond being a nuisance.
FlightSafety hasn't implemented any effective noise -reduction procedures, such as using quieter planes, significantly reducing the touch-and-go maneuvers, altering approach procedures, etc.
Recent press reports of numerous small-plane crashes nationwide have revealed this is a real safety issue.
The Airport Commission, composed of ex-pilots and/or ex-associated industry members, has chosen to ignore the problem. It has not sought to implement the necessary scientific procedures (not Federal Aviation Administration estimates) for monitoring noise levels.
Mayor Art Neuberger, to his credit, has taken a bold step by planning to strategically locate noise monitoring devices using borrowed equipment.
Our elected officials must take the necessary remedial action to ensure a balance is drawn between corporate profit and the well-being of citizens."
PUBLICATION: The Press-Enterprise
DATE: August 10, 1999
SECTION: Local; Pg. B03
BYLINE: The Press-Enterprise
DATELINE: Banning, California
The Press-Enterprise reports that Banning, California's City Council will be voting tonight on the adoption of a new noise ordinance.
The article reports that Banning, California's City Council will be voting tonight on the adoption of a new noise ordinance. The ordinance would make noise offenses a misdemeanor. Police would also have new ways to determine violations, such as hearing a car stereo from 25 feet away.
PUBLICATION: The Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: August 10, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Tiffany Bartish
DATELINE: Charlestown, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that the Charlestown, Rhode Island Town Council is considering amendments to the local noise ordinance. Fines and jail terms would be increased, and enforcement would be based on an officer's judgment.
The article reports that the Charlestown, Rhode Island Town Council is considering amendments to the local noise ordinance. The amendments would allow a fine of $500 and a jail term of 30 days. It would also allow police to decide on excessive noise using their judgment instead of decibel meters.
The article notes that "radios, televisions [and] musical instruments" can not disturb people across property lines, and noise from vehicles may not be audible 50 feet away. Also, construction noise would be forbidden between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. in response to complaints that construction disturbed residents as early as 4:30 a.m.
PUBLICATION: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
DATE: August 9, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Neil Modie P-I Reporter
DATELINE: Auburn, Washington
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that a $30-million amphitheater near Auburn, Washington has earned a favorable environmental impact statement. A community group says that the impact report is a joke that "damages the credibility of the government agencies that oversaw it." The group claims that the rural character of the area will be ruined by the theater, and plans to attempt to block further construction through legal means.
The article reports that a $30-million amphitheater near Auburn, Washington -- being built by the Muckleshoot Native American Tribe -- has earned a favorable environmental impact statement that says "amphitheater traffic and noise would have low impacts on nearby farms and livestock, partly because of the infrequency of major events." Officials say that outgoing deliveries of milk and incoming deliveries of feed to area dairy farms would not be drastically effected. Farmers worried about traffic that would disrupt deliveries, but the tribe promises to fund a road widening that would create turning lanes to pull theater traffic out of the way of through-traffic.
The article notes that the environmental impact statement was forced -- after construction was underway -- by legal action from a community group called Citizens for Safety and the Environment. Now, the community group says that the impact report is a joke that "damages the credibility of the government agencies that oversaw it."
The article notes that the community group believes that traffic, noise, and pollution in the rural area along highway 146 will increase if the theater opens; they plan to take further legal action in an attempt to halt construction permanently. The group claims that the rural character of the area will be ruined by the theater. The tribe has already stopped construction voluntarily.
The article goes on to say that the building is being built on reservation land. The impact statement was required to allow certain key aspects of the project to continue: "a wetlands permit sought from the Army Corps of Engineers; a highway-access permit needed from the state Department of Transportation; and the tribe's request that the tribe-owned project site be transferred to federal trust status."
The article concludes, noting that a public hearing will be held before the final environmental impact statement is finished.
PUBLICATION: Aviation Week and Space Technology
DATE: August 9, 1999
SECTION: Air Transport; Vol. 151, No. 6; Pg. 66
BYLINE: James Ott
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that the 450-family community of Minor Lane Heights, with help from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Kentucky's Legislature, and Louisville International Airport, will relocate their entire city for noise mitigation purposes. The efforts that led to this innovative approach to noise mitigation are detailed below.
The article reports that the 450-family community of Minor Lane Heights, with help from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Kentucky's Legislature, and Louisville International Airport, will relocate their entire city for noise mitigation purposes.
The article notes that when the airport offered in 1995 to buyout the residents of Minor Lane Heights, since aircraft noise had increased to such an extent over the community, residents expressed a desire to keep the community together. Although several state and federal agencies first told them they could not relocate, they pressed on.
The article goes on to say that a state legislator successfully pushed a bill that would "allows a city to relocate and annex property in an unincorporated area. A second bill last year cleared up ambiguities and allowed a city to jointly operate in two locations until 90% of the residential properties are located in the new town." With that obstacle out of the way, the Airport began favoring the plan and successfully applied to the FAA for a grant to help finance the move.
The article notes that because of the difficulty of finding comparable housing in the Louisville area for residents, the relocation options is actually proving to be cheaper. The airport authority will create a housing development at a cost of $50-60-million. Houses are on plots that are larger on average than the residents' old plots, and moves will begin in the fall.
The article concludes by noting that the relocation of an entire town is a first in the nation. The approach has been recognized as innovative by the FAA. In addition, it is clear that by valuing and preserving neighborhoods and communities, airport authorities can reduce the bitterness that will be felt by those who have to move.
PUBLICATION: Aviation Week and Space Technology
DATE: August 9, 1999
SECTION: Filter Center; Vol. 151, No. 6; Pg. 71
Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that Cooper Tire and Rubber Company has developed a new electronic noise reduction system for airplane cockpits and cabins.
The article reports that Cooper Tire and Rubber Company has developed a new noise reduction system for airplane cockpits and cabins. The new system gathers noise with microphones, and broadcasts noise of opposite wavelengths to cancel out the original sound. The system differs from other systems in part because it doesn't require headsets.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: August 9, 1999
SECTION: St. Charles County Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Dave Dorr
DATELINE: O'Fallon, Missouri
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the mayor of O'Fallon, Missouri admitted he purchased an inappropriately-loud sound-system for the "Little Rascals" baseball stadium. The system has caused noise complaints from residents around the stadium, and the mayor asked the aldermen to fund a new system; converting to the new system could cost $30,000-$100,000. Since the loud system was installed, the city has hired "a sound consultant, changed positions of the speakers and enacted a noise ordinance."
The article reports that the mayor of O'Fallon, Missouri admitted he purchased an inappropriate sound system for the "Little Rascals" baseball stadium. The mayor said he bought a cheaper system -- about $25,000 -- because he was committed to only using private, not taxpayer, money. The system has caused noise complaints from residents around the stadium, and the baseball team "twice [has] exceeded the ordinance levels for periods as long as 15 minutes and possibly face punitive action."
The article notes that the system is "directed", meaning all the sound comes from speakers in the outfield; an appropriate replacement would be a "distributive" system that uses speakers around the stadium at a lower volume. The mayor asked the aldermen to fund a new system; converting to the new system could cost $30,000-$100,000.
The article goes on to say that since the loud system was installed, the city has tried to mitigate the sound by hiring "a sound consultant, [changing] positions of the speakers and [enacting] a noise ordinance that established permissible levels."
PUBLICATION: Traffic World
DATE: August 9, 1999
SECTION: Air; Pg. 34
BYLINE: Kristin S. Krause
DATELINE: Burbank, California
Traffic World prints an article suggesting that Burbank, California has been unreasonable in its fight against terminal construction and expansion at Burbank Airport. It criticizes anti-noise efforts as an extension of the "not in my backyard" philosophy, and said a proposed night-time ban, and another proposed ban on engine hush-kits, would be a scary, first example of unreasonable restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft. Industry representatives claim that an informal curfew has encouraged 95% compliance, but don't discuss how much less disruptive it is to have your sleep interrupted by 5% of planes as opposed to a larger percentage.
The article suggests that Burbank, California has been unreasonable in its fight against terminal construction and expansion at Burbank Airport. It criticizes anti-noise efforts as an extension of the "not in my backyard" philosophy, claiming that any air traffic not accepted at Burbank Airport will simply be shunted to other regional airports where other residents will have to accept the noise.
The article notes that a new, larger terminal -- which is being built farther away from an active runway for safety reasons -- has been in the works for over twenty years and is long overdue. The airport authority was so worried that the city council would oppose the construction, they withheld payment on the plot of land almost to the point of losing it.
The article notes that the city council wants an official ban -- approved by the FAA -- to go into effect before any additional gates are added to the new terminal. An official from the Cargo Airline Association said the ban, and another proposed ban on engine hush-kits, would be a scary, first example of unreasonable restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft.
The article notes that only one carrier operates at night, and notes that the banking industry which it serves would suffer if the airport could not operate between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Industry representatives claim that an informal curfew has encouraged 95% compliance, but don't discuss how much less disruptive it is to have your sleep interrupted by one plane as opposed to two or more.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: August 8, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 14; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Richard W. Lee
DATELINE: Sherman Oaks, California
The Los Angeles Times prints a letter to the editor from a Sherman Oaks, California resident. The author abruptly and concisely trashes the Los Angeles airport commissioners for ignoring resident protests over noise.
" Re "Airport Panel OKs Noise Reduction Plan," July 30.
On July 28, I attended a 2 1/2-hour farce put on (and it was a put-on) by the Los Angeles city airport commissioners. Many speakers complained about the obnoxious noises from the Van Nuys Airport's jets. When two speakers, representing different groups, reported that the commissioners had refused their phone calls and ignored their letters, the final decision became only too apparent. The legitimacy of the complaints was clear when a low-flying jet made conversation impossible.
Undeterred, the commissioners voted to bury the San Fernando Valley in noise and pollution."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: August 8, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
The Los Angeles Times reports that the nighttime closure of the terminal at California's Burbank Airport was designed by city officials attempting to sidestep federal requirements for a nighttime flight curfew; the nighttime closure is part of a deal to build a new terminal at the airport. Airline industry officials claim the closure is not legal, but airport officials say they've done it before; the FAA has not commented. One anti-noise activist says the effective curfew would only push nighttime flights into the daytime, increasing noise. Also, general aviation flights will not be affected by the terminal closure.
The article reports that the closure of the terminal at California's Burbank Airport -- which would be enforced between 11 p.m and 6 a.m. -- was designed by city officials attempting to sidestep federal requirements for a nighttime flight curfew. A ban on night flights would require lengthy FAA approval, but city officials are hoping that a terminal closure -- which would discourage flights by denying passengers access to the gates -- stands as legal.
The article notes that federal laws have said that local communities can't interfere with airline operations, and have set bureaucratic processes that must be undertaken to establish a flight curfew. Airline industry officials say the "backdoor curfew" should not be legal.
The article notes that airport officials have closed the terminal at night before; they are simply trying to make the closure permanent. They note that the terminal could be re-opened in emergency situations, although a significant cost for doing so -- passed on to the airlines -- would prevent misuse of the exception.
The article notes that one anti-noise activist -- a former council member -- believes that the effective curfew would only make things worse by pushing nighttime flights into the daytime and increasing noise. Also, general aviation flights will not be affected by the terminal closure.
The article notes that the city of Burbank only agreed to the new terminal based on this 'backdoor curfew', and if it is judged illegal the deal may be jeopardized.
PUBLICATION: Newsday
DATE: August 8, 1999
SECTION: LI Life; Page G19
BYLINE: Seth Stern
DATELINE: Melville, New York
Newsday reports that residents and businesses in Melville, New York oppose a proposed senior citizen housing development in a busy industrial zone. They say that traffic, noise, and dust from the nearby businesses would irritate seniors as well as put them in danger. Developers claim that trees and earthen berms will protect the development from noise, but critics say that noise will get through and so will dust and sand that regularly clog air conditioners in the area. The developers will need 4 out of 5 council votes, since so many area residents oppose the rezoning. The article reports that residents and businesses in Melville, New York oppose a proposed senior citizen housing development in a busy industrial zone. They say that traffic, noise, and dust from the nearby businesses would irritate seniors as well as put them in danger.
The article notes that developers claim that trees and earthen berms will protect the development from noise, but critics say that noise will get through and so will dust and sand that regularly clog air conditioners in the area. One business noted that condominium owners already complain about the noise from truck backup alarms. Developers also tastelessly noted that the residential area will bring in more tax dollars.
The articles goes on to say that nearby businesses include a firing range and an asphalt plant. The 12-acre development site would be home to 173 apartments in an area where commercial developers have not expressed interest in building. Critics of the development also point out that seniors would be far from shopping facilities.
The article notes that the town council will have to approve the development with four out of five votes instead of a simple majority, since 20% of residents around the development oppose the rezoning request. The council will vote within 90 days after a pending environmental impact statement is submitted.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: August 8, 1999
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. B7; Letters To The Editor
BYLINE: Cathryn Vandenbrink
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Cathryn Vandenbrink, chair of Sound Rights
The Seattle Times prints a letter to the editor written by a noise activist in Seattle, Washington. She writes that nightclubs in the area need to learn to be good neighbors who operate within noise limits.
"I am compelled to respond to an aspect of Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata's guest commentary regarding nightclubs ("Nightclubs need new tools to be successful and safe," July 29).
He neglected to discuss the need for nightclubs to be good neighbors in the communities in which they do business by conforming to the limits set forth in the city's noise ordinance.
As chair of Sound Rights, I am painfully aware of how many residents in various Seattle neighborhoods are suffering from the assault of illegal noise levels generated from within nightclubs.
The noise ordinance is not something that was invented to curb freedom of speech or expression. It came about when we learned that noise pollution, a byproduct of a variety of sources (airport, industry, entertainment, vehicle, etc.) is a health hazard no less dangerous than air pollution or water pollution. No one has the right to pollute the commons.
As our community becomes more densely populated, we must understand that entertainment is for those who choose to experience it. A responsible nightclub can operate reasonably by either investing in appropriate sound insulation or controlling the noise level within the club to be within the legal limits outside the club.
Are there limits to free expression? Freedom of expression is no longer the issue when the volume of the message creates a byproduct that negatively impacts unintended recipients, i.e. unsafe decibel levels.
In his commentary, Licata proposed that nightclubs be allowed to hire police officers to provide security services.
If a nightclub hires an off-duty officer to patrol inside or outside of the establishment to protect the safety of the patrons, how will that same officer respond when he/she is on duty and receives a complaint about the club where he/she works off-duty? Obviously, we have a serious conflict of interest here.
What will be the nature of the interaction between an off-duty officer, working for a club, when an on-duty officer responds to a citizen's complaint about that club?
As much as we need to honor freedom of speech and expression, nightclubs, as a part of the cityscape, have a responsibility to respect the social contract that allows them to operate."
PUBLICATION: The Sunday Star-Times
DATE: August 8, 1999
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 11
BYLINE: Newth Kim
DATELINE: Franz Josef, New Zealand
The Sunday Star-Times reports that residents in Franz Josef, New Zealand want a noisy helicopter base -- which serves mainly to shuttle tourists to and from the Franz Josef glacier -- to relocate. Some say helicopters bring in tourists, others say noise drives them away. Operators say they don't want to move their operation too far out of town, but are open to moving further down the river. Health reports and local officials have also supported a relocation.
The article reports that residents in Franz Josef, New Zealand want a noisy helicopter base -- which serves mainly to shuttle tourists to and from the Franz Josef glacier -- to relocate. Operators of the base say that they would have to buy vehicles to transport tourists to one suggested location which is 4.5 km out of town; they also note that helicopters in the town are good 'visual marketing.'
The article notes that some business owners -- including a hotel owner who just spent $2-million on construction just across the street -- believe the helicopter base brings in tourists, but officials have said -- based on comments at the visitor center -- that helicopter noise actually turns off many would-be tourists. A nearby town is becoming increasingly popular as a more relaxed destination for tourists.
The article goes on to say that the district council has established a working group on the question of moving the base. Helicopter operators have tentatively agreed to relocate a short distance down-river. Pressure has also come from a public health report that recommended relocation before "the health of residents [is] affected in the long term."
Previous week: August 1, 1999
Next week: August 15, 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