PUBLICATION: The San Diego Union-Tribune
DATE: February 27, 1999
SECTION: Opinion Pg. B-6:7; B-8:1; B-10:3,5,6; B-12:2,4
DATELINE: Miramar, California
The San Diego Union-Tribune published an editorial lamenting the absence of clear winners in the recent settlement over Marine helicopters at Miramar Air Station in California.
According to the editorial, "this week's settlement over the Marine helicopters at Miramar is either more of a sad commentary on the way our government functions or on the way our society functions." The settlement hardly changes the status quo. The helicopters will continue to fly, "though perhaps a bit higher and a bit less often for the time being; the noise will continue; the problem will continue to be studied."
The editorial states this isn't a victory for the MARCH (Move Against Relocating Helicopters Here) coalition, whose goal was to drive the helicopters into someone else's sky. Furthermore, it really wasn't that much of a victory for the Marines. There never was any possibility that the helicopter training missions, vital to the nation's military preparedness, would be eliminated. The Corps will continue to study flight paths, noise and air quality, but now under MARCH monitors. "Anyone calling that a victory might consider Gettysburg an 'incomplete Confederate success,'" the editorial states.
The editorial goes on to say the taxpayers didn't win either, since they'll foot the $680,000 bill the Marines agreed to pay for MARCH's legal fees in filing a suit that never had a chance of succeeding. Neither will this settlement end the saga. If the flight paths are changed, a different coalition of residents is likely to sue. If they don't, MARCH will be back in court. "That means the only sure victors are the lawyers. And that may be the saddest commentary of all."
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: February 27, 1999
SECTION: B Section, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Tom Bayles
DATELINE: Palmetto, Florida
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports noise complaints from a new arena has prompted the city of Palmetto, Florida, to rewrite their noise ordinance.
According to the article, "Our current ordinance isn't worth the paper that it's written on," Public Works Director Carl Taylor said. "There's no decibel limits to enforce, there are so many exceptions it covers everything we have that produces lots of noise. " Palmetto's leaders began to focus on the noise ordinance Feb. 19 after Mayor Pat Whitesel cited it in directing the city's police department to shut down a rodeo at the new arena at the Manatee County Fairgrounds an hour early. The recently completed $1.3 million arena at the Manatee County Fairgrounds in Palmetto is drawing complaints from residents who object to the noise during weekend events. City leaders learned the current ordinance contains a number of exemptions including for arenas, events held by nonprofit groups and churches, noise emitted from emergency vehicles and other forms of transportation such as airplanes, daytime construction and burglar alarms, among others.
The article reports City Clerk Linda Sterns spent Friday morning reviewing ordinances from other cities. Taylor and police Chief Jay Ridings met Friday afternoon to discuss Stearns' findings and other information the two had gathered concerning what is allowable in municipal noise ordinances. "We hope to have an ordinance to present to council that will have some bite in it," Taylor said. Noise ordinances are not common in Florida, according to Robert Roundtree, a staff attorney with the Florida League of Cities in Tallahassee. In November, a Sarasota County judge ruled that a city law prohibiting businesses from playing amplified music late at night with open windows or doors is "overly broad" and, therefore, unconstitutional. Earlier in 1998, the Sarasota City Commission adopted the multilayered noise ordinance after homeowners complained about loud music. Part of the new law prohibited noise that "annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensibilities." And ordinances designed to stem "noise from a county arena is a unique situation," Roundtree said, "and a new area of the law." The matter is expected to be discussed at the City Council meeting on Monday.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: February 26, 1999
SECTION: Tempe/Ahwatukee Foothills Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Betty Beard
DATELINE: Tempe, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Duane Cresse, resident
The Arizona Republic reports after re-conducting sound tests, the DOT ruled that Arizona residents in the Ahwatukee Foothills will get a sound wall to mitigate noise from Warner Road.
According to the article, the Arizona Department of Transportation plans to build the wall, although the agency is unsure exactly where it will get the estimated $1 million in federal funds to pay for it, spokesman Bill Rawson said. "It will be built. We made the commitment," he said. Previously, the area south of Warner Road did not qualify for a noise buffer wall because tests showed the freeway traffic wasn't loud enough. However, an ADOT planner who spent several evenings taking more tests changed all that. Over the past two weeks, Fred Garcia found readings of 67 decibels and higher between 6 and 10 p.m. At 67 decibels, it is ADOT's policy to do something to reduce the sound, Rawson said.
The article reports Rep. Lori Daniels, R-Chandler, said that if the department had not agreed to build the wall, she was going to submit a bill today to get $400,000 in state funds to build a wall next to the homes. ADOT is planning to build a Warner Road-freeway wall that would go south to Mountain Vista Park near Ray Road. Daniels called it "amazing for government" to move so quickly, only days after the higher readings were taken. "You don't expect this," she said. "It's too bad we can't do this all the time." Rawson said the real hero of the story is Garcia, "one of these guys who does his work quietly and doesn't always get credit. He was willing to go the extra mile." It could be a year before the wall is actually in place. It needs to be designed, and the existing subdivision wall behind the homes will have to be torn down. Residents also must approve plans for the wall.
The article states Duane Cresse, who used to sleep with his radio on at night to drown out the freeway noise, was one of the residents who had complained that the noise seemed to get worse late at night, well after the time ADOT usually took such readings. So he wasn't surprised that Garcia's readings supported residents. "No kidding?" he said. "So it's not just my imagination that was keeping me awake at night."
PUBLICATION: Asheville Citizen-Times (Asheville, NC)
DATE: February 26, 1999
SECTION: State/Regional; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Jenn Burleson
DATELINE: Henderson, North Carolina
The Asheville Citizen-Times reports Henderson County, North Carolina, has adopted a new noise ordinance, effective July 1, 1999.
According to the article, the new ordinance, which was approved Thursday by Henderson County Board of Commissioners, restricts sound levels from exceeding 80 decibels during daytime hours and 60 decibels during night hours. The sound of a sewing machine or typewriter is roughly the equivalent of 60 decibels. The ordinance forbids possessing an animal that make noise incessantly for a period of 10 minutes, the shouting of peddlers and vendors, loud parties, and use of automobiles that create unnecessary noise.
The article reports some exceptions to the ordinance include non-amplified crowd noises resulting from camps, schools and governmental activities. Safety signals and sounds from an authorized emergency vehicle are also exempt, as well as noise connected with the official training of law enforcement officers. Commissioner Bill Moyer said kennels would not be exempt from the ordinance. Permits for special events can be issued by the board of commissioners, but must be submitted at least four weeks before the scheduled event.
The article states more Henderson County people may be heading to court after July 1, with the adoption of the noise ordinance. "When it starts, I do expect there will be a rash of calls," Commissioner Renee Kumor said. If a complaint is filed, the noise level will be measured at the complainant's property line.
PUBLICATION: City News Service
DATE: February 26, 1999
DATELINE: Burbank, California
City News Service reports the city of Burbank, California, accused the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority today of "massive violations" of noise regulations over the last three years, a charge the airport vigorously denied.
According to the article, Burbank says the airport falsely claims to be an all-Stage 3 facility, meaning planes that takeoff and land there employ technology designed to reduce noise. Mayor Dave Golonski said the city's analysis of airport data from September 1995 to October 1998 show more than 3,500 violations by Stage 2-level jets, or roughly three a day. "These figures point to the fact that the Airport Authority is making no real attempt to control noisy flights at the very same time that it asks us to trust their interest in solving the airport noise problem," Golonski said.
The article reports Airport Executive Director Tom Greer said Burbank's calculations of the three violations per day are correct, but he pointed out that is a relatively small number. He called Burbank's accusations "a complete distortion of the truth and a disingenuous attempt to mislead, confuse and manipulate the public." Greer called the latest findings by Burbank "a sorry attempt to divert attention from the fact that (Burbank) city lawyers and public relations consultants are squandering millions of dollars (to fight airport expansion), with no end in sight." Greer continued, "Let's get the facts straight. The Airport Authority banned the noisier Stage 2 commercial airline jets from the airport in 1987. But as the city's documents released today clearly state an exception was made allowing the airlines to bring in a Stage 2 aircraft as an emergency substitute when the scheduled Stage 3 aircraft is unable to fly for safety reasons." Greer said the number of Stage 2-level flights at the airport over the three-year period amounts to less than 2 percent of total traffic, which amounts to a compliance rate of more than 98 percent.
According to the article, the two sides have been battling for several years over the Airport Authority's plans to build an expanded terminal. The plan is supported by airport commissioners from Glendale and Pasadena, but is opposed by those from Burbank, who say the existing airport is already too noisy.
PUBLICATION: The Forth Worth Star-Telegram
DATE: February 26, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Bill Teeter
DATELINE: Fort Worth, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Regina Payton, resident
The Forth Worth Star-Telegram reports a gun club in Fort Worth, Texas, closed yesterday after a number of lawsuits and noise complaints from nearby residents.
According to the article, after 77 years, the Fort Worth Rifle and Pistol Club closed after a barrage of lawsuits, political maneuvering and complaints about noise and safety from nearby residents. Ultimately the city's refusal to renew the $2,000-a-year lease on the land meant the club's closure. The city offered a new lease, but with restrictive terms that would have been impossible to meet, including an expensive clean-up of lead from the range, the club said.
The article reports Griffin Murphey was one of a few longtime gun club members who attended the club's last day of business yesterday. Murphey said the range's closing was unwarranted and sad. There was no safety issue, he said. Residents from nearby developments worried about stray bullets and noise, but Murphey said the jets from the Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base will still make plenty of noise in the area.
The article states Regina Payton, a nearby resident, said she was thrilled about the closing of the 71-acre range. "We're ecstatic," Payton said. "I felt like we tried to work with them for quite a while, but you can't make that kind of noise in the neighborhood and subject people to that kind of danger."
According to the article, club president B.J. Clark said they're looking for another site. Clark said the gun ranges were a place of friendship, fellowship and sportsmanship. "Now, we don't have a safe place to shoot. I made a lot of friends out there," he said.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 26, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports the city of Burbank, California, claims the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport frequently violates the nighttime noise ban by flying older, Stage 2 aircraft.
According to the article, in an effort to sway public opinion in the long-running dispute over Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, Burbank city leaders have scheduled a news conference today to complain that aircraft have frequently violated the facility's nighttime noise ban on older jet aircraft. using the operational logs of the Airport Authority, the city asserts commercial and private aircraft failed to comply with the airport's voluntary curfew 4,200 times between September 1995 and October 1998. More than 80% were commercial flights, according to a prepared statement. The news conference is to be the first step in a detailed "attack on airport authority credibility," as described in a confidential document given to city officials. A copy of the memo--written by the council's legal advisors, sources said--was obtained by The Times. The memo also proposed an advertising campaign based on curfew violation charges and suggested news releases to announce future court actions.
The article reports the main message of today's conference is that commercial and private aircraft repeatedly violated a mandatory nighttime curfew imposed on older, noisier jets, classified as Stage 2 planes. "These new figures make a mockery of the airport authority's numerous public statements that Burbank Airport is an all-Stage 3 quieter airport," said Peter Kirsch, special counsel for Burbank on airport issues, in a statement prepared for release at the news conference today. "It's outrageous not only that this has been going on so long, but also that it has been occurring at the very time that the authority keeps insisting there are no such operations," Kirsch said. "Unfortunately, the conclusion we must reach is that the authority cannot be trusted."
The article states Burbank Airport spokesman Victor Gill refuted Burbank's claims of massive violations of airport noise policies. Airport officials said the only aircraft covered by the voluntary restrictions are commercial airliners, Gill said. "The vast majority of airplanes flying at night are not commercial airliners," he said. "The real meat of the Burbank Airport curfew is the ban on Stage 2 jets, which is rigidly enforced," Gill said. "Over 50% of all nighttime operations are by a local company that is enthusiastically supported by the city of Burbank, and that firm is Ameriflight." Ameriflight, which carries checks and bank documents, uses "state-of-the-art" Stage 3 Lear 35 jets as well as several propeller planes quiet enough to fly at night without violating the curfew provisions, Gill said. Gill said most nighttime operations do not violate the curfew because the ban does not apply to general aviation and private aircraft classified by federal aviation authorities as having quieter engines, Gill said. About 17% are commercial airliners, which are covered by the curfew but forced to ignore it for such reasons as weather or mechanical delays, he said. "No commercial airline flights are scheduled to take off overnight," he said, adding, "Those that do are delayed from earlier in the evening because of a mechanical, air traffic or weather delays. And Burbank has always said, that's OK."
According to the article, for years, the airport authority has been involved in a contentious battle with the city of Burbank over aircraft noise. The legal and political fight has focused on the airport authority's desire to build a larger terminal, which anti- noise forces claim would increase ground traffic and aircraft noise. Airport officials maintain they should comply with the urging of the Federal Aviation Administration to replace the current terminal because it does not meet modern safety requirements. Airport officials add they have never been opposed to a curfew or other noise cap, but say federal law prevents them from acting unilaterally. After airlines using the airport refused to accept as mandatory the current voluntary noise limits, the airport authority voted in October to initiate a so-called Part 161 study, a federal review needed to convert the voluntary curfew into a true ban. But Burbank, which was invited to take part in the study, reserved the right to oppose the study's conclusions if they support the airport's plans for the new terminal.
The article reports interest in this quarrel increased in August when Rep. Howard Berman (D--Mission Hills) appeared in Burbank with FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, promising to work with local officials to end the feud. Since then, Garvey has expressed her reluctance to make any pronouncements on a curfew, drawing criticism from, among others, Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale). Rogan has entered the fight by inviting Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, to meet with local officials April 8. Next, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank)--rumored to be considering a run for Rogan's seat in Congress--called for his own airport summit March 18, to be attended by state legislators, professional mediators and specialists in mediation law. The credibility attack document expresses skepticism over the Schiff summit. "We oppose the proposed meeting, but if he insists . . . we strongly push for the participation of the Glendale and Pasadena city councils, while discouraging the anticipated participation by 'mediators' and 'legal experts,'" the document reads. The document also recommended making "every effort to minimize the importance of the impact of this meeting, without taking sides in the politics between Schiff and Rogan."
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown)
DATE: February 26, 1999
SECTION: Bethlehem, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Matt Assad
DATELINE: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Beverly Bruck, resident; Donald R. MacRae, resident; Liddy Cook, resident
The Morning Call reports the City Council of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is set to approve a new noise ordinance after residents complained of loud music and the noise from car alarms.
According to the article, blaring a high-wattage stereo or repeatedly testing a new car alarm will soon be illegal in Bethlehem. The City Council's Public Safety Committee's voted to recommend the proposal to the City Council after a group of frustrated residents complained of shaking windows and sleepless nights created by neighbors who have been able to circumvent the city's current laws. "Why must I look for another place in my house to get a night's sleep?" asked Beverly Bruck, who lives across the street from a bar. "It's so loud that it creates a vibration that penetrates your house. It's like thunder." Resident Liddy Cook told the council, "Around 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. there is screaming, yelling, whistling and cars going by slamming their brakes. The sooner you pass this law, the sooner I can get some sleep."
The article reports Mayor Don Cunningham first proposed a new city noise law in December. Several hours of complaints from residents have led to some revisions. The proposed law states that any noise from a building, car or portable radio that can be heard from 40 feet away can bring fines of up to $300 and jail time of up to 90 days. Repeated false alarms by car security systems also would bring the same penalties. The city currently has a nuisance ordinance that prohibits "unnecessary noise," but police say it is too vague to enforce and too easy to fight. using Philadelphia's 1993 noise law as a guide, the Bethlehem legislation would give city police more power to cite noise -makers without having to rely on testimony or signed complaints from a resident.
The article states that comes as welcome news to residents dealing with noisy neighbors. "Noise today has really become a public health hazard," said resident Donald R. MacRae. "It causes high blood pressure, stress and is debilitating to some. We are living in a surround-sound culture." Since Cunningham proposed the ordinance, the council has made a few changes. The proposed 15-foot sound limit has been extended to 40 feet, but portable radios and buildings such as bars and lounges have been added to provisions that before only covered homes. Some of the people who appeared before council Thursday would like a more restrictive noise law. MacRae wants it to regulate such things as lawn mowers and leaf blowers, and others wanted the distance limit kept at 15 feet. But Councilman James Delgrosso said, "I fear if we get too constricting, we're going to ruin something good." The full council will make a final vote March 16.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 26, 1999
SECTION: Metro Lake; Pg. 1; Zone: L
BYLINE: Jennifer Vigil
DATELINE: Bannockburn, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports the town of Bannockburn, Illinois, has challenged the state highway authority over noise standards in an effort to get a sound wall built between the community and the highway.
According to the article, Federal Highway Administration guidelines dictate when traffic sounds reach 67 decibels, authorities must consider building a protective wall to shield nearby residents from the noise. But some think that standard is too high, and the subject is now facing the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority and the village of Bannockburn. The tollway says that noise produced by the Tri-State Tollway in Bannockburn does not exceed the 67-decibel mark. Tollway officials have measured the decibel level at between 51 and 60 in Bannockburn. But a sound consultant hired by the village says that base line does not make for "a quiet neighborhood." The US Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has set the base line for "discomfort" levels at 55 decibels. Traffic noise in Bannockburn does fall below 67 decibels, acknowledges the consultant, Champaign engineer Paul Schomer. But he believes several factors, including a wall being erected this year to protect nearby Riverwoods, will cause the level to increase enough in the near future to justify the second barrier. Village residents contend that the tollway is unfairly constructing a sound wall to protect Riverwoods, to the west, and, in doing so, is creating a barrier off which more noise will be bounced into their community. "You put up a vertical wall, it's just like putting up a mirror to light," said Schomer, who cited a 1998 International Institute of Noise Control Engineering report that indicates sound can increase from 2 to 7 decibels off a barrier. Tollway officials say that research is not definitive. Scott Dworschak, a community affairs manager with the tollway, said there is no proof that the sound reflected from a wall will cross six lanes of traffic and go to the other side.
The article reports Bannockburn officials say they are relying on Schomer's evaluation and a recent successful battle against the tollway by another southern Lake County community to bolster their fight to win a sound wall. "Common sense, application of appropriate scientific studies and equitable treatment for every community affected by the tollway's expansion all dictate the tollway authority's obligation to provide a sound wall," read a recent statement released by the village to announce formation of a citizens committee to lobby for the barrier. Residents also contend that the tollway authority is using less accurate computer-generated evaluations rather than tests taken under actual traffic conditions to determine whether the village qualifies for a sound wall. But Dworschak said computer testing is the industry standard. Schomer, who has spent 30 years studying sound, says real-time tests can take into account contributing noise factors, such as prevailing winds, that computer tests are not sensitive enough to gauge.
The article states Dworschak said that sound walls, which line about 35 miles of the tollway's 270 miles of roadway, cost about $1 million a mile to construct, and that the authority generally pays for the project without help from municipalities. Schomer admits the budget is a factor when determining what amount of noise is tolerable. The American National Standards Institute, a New York-based organization that polls businesses to set industry base lines, also supports 55 decibels as a preferred noise level. "These (lower) levels are established without a view of cost," Schomer said. "What's more appropriate depending upon cost is hard to say certainly."
According to the article, though more meetings are planned with Bannockburn officials, including one set for Tuesday, Dworschak said that after two years of reviewing the subject, the tollway authority is not prepared to change its position. Barbara VanderKloot, the citizens committee co-chairwoman, isn't ready to give up, noting Deerfield residents' recent victory in persuading the tollway to cease construction on an elevated exit ramp. "People will listen," she said, "and Deerfield is a perfect example of the appropriate people listening to the residents and taking action."
PUBLICATION: Financial Times (London)
DATE: February 25, 1999
SECTION: Back Page - First Section; Pg. 16
DATELINE: London, England
The Financial Times reports the U.S. is considering a ban of its own if the European Union goes forward with a ban on older hush-kitted aircraft.
According to the article, two U.S. congressmen have started the legislative steps that could result in the Concorde being banned at U.S. airports, owing to the supersonic airliner's noise levels. Congressman James Oberstar told the U.S. House of Representatives this month: "The Concorde aircraft has enjoyed a waiver from noise standards for over 20 years . . . When the US has been very tolerant of and co-operative with the Concorde. I am willing to continue co-operating and allow continuation of this waiver, but only if the EU drops this outrageous proposal." However, industry observers believe the U.S. would rather avoid calling a halt to British Airways' and Air France's Concorde services - and not just because Washington fears the anger of globe-trotting Americans. The U.S. is concerned that a ban on Concorde could lead to unpredictable European retaliation.
The article reports in 1990, the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency, called for the phasing out of noisier, older aircraft such as the Boeing 727, the DC-9 and earlier versions of the Boeing 737, by 2002. In the U.S. not all airlines are retiring their older aircraft. Many are being fitted with hush-kits, or engine mufflers. The U.S. says this makes them quiet enough to meet the new requirements. But the European Commission disagrees. Last year, it proposed that no new hush-kitted aircraft be allowed to operate in European Union countries after April 1, 2002 unless it had already been flying to Europe before April 1 this year. This would in effect freeze the number of hush-kitted aircraft at existing levels.
The article states U.S. outrage over this proposal may be connected to the fact that only U.S. aircraft companies make the older, noisier aircraft. Mr. Oberstar remarked: "The administration has seen though this thinly veiled attempt to give a competitive advantage to EU aircraft and engine manufacturers." All aircraft manufactured by Airbus Industrie, the European consortium, meet the new noise requirements. The hush-kit manufacturers are all American too. Washington says if the EU insists on maintaining its freeze the resale value of about 1,600 older us aircraft could plummet as wary airlines avoid buying them on the second-hand market. In a letter to European transport ministers last week, Rodney Slater, U.S. transportation secretary, asked the EU to reconsider its proposed legislation. "If enacted, it could result in over $1bn of economic harm, including lost aviation product sales, and disrupt transatlantic trade in aircraft, aircraft engines, and air transportation services," he said. He added that the U.S. objected to the EU's proposed legislation because it concentrated on the design of an aircraft rather than how noisy it was. The hush-kitted aircraft met the new noise restrictions, he insisted.
According to the article, the EU has refused to budge. The hush-kitted aircraft might meet the legal requirements, Brussels says, but they sound noisier to people living under their flight paths. Many more people live around airports in densely populated European cities than in the U.S. The hush-kitted aircraft also cause more pollution, the Commission contends. The European parliament this month approved the new rules. EU transport ministers are scheduled to endorse them in the next few weeks. In response, Oberstar introduced a bill directing Slater to ban Concorde from the U.S. if the EU ministers approve the proposed noise regulations. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both have been referred to congressional committees, but could be enacted at short notice by attaching them as amendments to other legislation going though Congress. However, the U.S. administration is thought to be reluctant to change the Concorde's noise exemption. Instead, if the EU persists, observers believe the U.S. will pursue its complaints with the World Trade Organization. Slater has asked EU ministers to postpone a final decision in order that further consultations might be allowed to take place. Last night the Commission said it would talk to the U.S. although it was not backing down.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 25, 1999
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 1; Zone: D
BYLINE: Denise Linke
DATELINE: Bensenville, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports the town Bensenville, Illinois, believes it will lose soundproofing funds to mitigate noise from O'Hare International Airport due to political maneuvering.
According to the article, Bensenville's share of the O'Hare International Airport residential soundproofing program will shrink this year, Village President John Geils predicted a week before the announcement of the 1999 fund allotments on Tuesday. City sound-reduction funds, which come from a tax levied on airline passengers embarking from O'Hare, are disbursed each year to soundproof homes in the areas most affected by airport noise as measured by the Federal Aviation Administration. Soundproofing measures range from adding insulation to replacing doors and windows, installing central air conditioning to replacing furnaces, said Bensenville program coordinator Arnold Germain. To date, 285 homes in Bensenville have been soundproofed through the program at a total cost of $7.15 million, about $25,000 per house, he said.
The article reports Geils predicted that the Bensenville program will be slowed down this year. "They're going to shrink the 70 DNL (day-night level) zone on the contour map in our town and expand it in towns that belong to the city's airport noise group," Geils said during a review of the 3-year-old program, which is funded by the Chicago Department of Aviation and administered by the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. The newest sound contour map issued by the Department of Aviation shows the 70 DNL zone--the minimum impact zone to be eligible for soundproofing funds--is moving northward in Bensenville with some neighborhoods in the southwest section of the village to be removed. The map also marks large gains in 70 DNL territory for Norridge, Palatine and Arlington Heights, all members of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. That will entitle those towns to a larger share of the annual soundproofing pot, Geils said. "There's no way Palatine and Arlington Heights have more airport noise than we do," he asserted. Chicago aviation officials are "using the map like an amoebae to reward their political allies and punish their opponents," he said. Aviation Department spokesman Dennis Culloton called Geils' charge "completely ridiculous. The contour maps are objectively developed using mathematical models from the FAA and checked by an independent expert selected by the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission," Culloton said. "It's physically impossible to gerrymander them." He said the 70 DNL zone shifted to a more east-west configuration because of runway renovations in 1997, when data for the contour map was gathered, forced air traffic into east-west approaches to the airport.
According to the article, Geils added that the way the FAA measures noise levels also will cut the amount of soundproofing money Bensenville gets from Chicago. Federal officials use a 24-hour average noise level to draw sound contour maps instead of using the highest noise level in any 24-hour period, he said. "The method they're using is totally flawed," said Geils. "You could be bombarded by airport noise in your home for three hours straight, but if the other 21 hours of that day are quiet, the FAA will average it out and say you don't have a problem. That issue will certainly be tested in the courts, either by individual homeowners or by the municipalities affected." Culloton responded, "That's the way we've always done it because that's the way the FAA demands that we do it." Noise levels at schools are averaged over the course of an eight-hour school day rather than a 24-hour day, he added.
The article goes on to report Germain said the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission will announce the home quotas for the 1999 soundproofing program on Tuesday. The Department of Aviation will soundproof about 860 houses surrounding the airport, Culloton said. After 2000, a new sound contour map will determine whether the program continues, he added. "On Jan. 1, 2000, all airlines will be required to use only Stage 3 aircraft, which are much quieter," he said. "That may negate the need for this kind of program in the future."
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: February 24, 1999
SECTION: Tempe/Ahwatukee Foothills Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Betty Beard
DATELINE: Tempe, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Michael Foster, member of the village planning committee and noise subcommittee
The Arizona Republic reports Ahwatukee Foothills residents who live near Interstate 10 in Arizona may be getting a new noise wall after citizens complained and one DOT worker recorded new noise level readings.
According to the article, residents have been complaining for years that Interstate 10 was too noisy, but tests showed it wasn't bad enough for a noise reducing wall. Up to now, Ahwatukee Foothills hasn't been eligible for federal funds because noise readings consistently came in at 60 to 64 decibels, just under the federal standards. Now they've been vindicated. New tests taken this week and last week show that at times, the noise measured 67 decibels and above, well above the 65-decibel limit that would make residents eligible for a federally funded wall, said Fred Garcia, a transportation planner with the state Department of Transportation. While it's too early to tell if or when a wall would be built, Garcia said, "I'm starting to feel a little optimistic."
The article states the customary practice is to take noise tests midafternoon, when there's a lot of traffic that still moves at a good speed. The faster vehicles go, the more noise they make, so tests are not taken during rush hour. But residents south of Warner Road, who only have a standard backyard wall separating them from the freeway, kept complaining that the noise got worse later in the night. Garcia heard their appeals twice at meetings of the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee. "At the last meeting, some people said it's so loud in the evening they can't get to sleep. . . . A couple of people were very emotional. They said it was very bad in the evening," Garcia said. "I began thinking about it on my way home and decided to go back and see. . . . I'm glad I did because it was an eye opener."
The article goes on to say Garcia set up his noise meter on a tripod in back yards on several days from 6 to 10 p.m. and discovered that it did get noisier later in the evening. "My meter kept getting constant whining from traffic noise, " he said. Garcia reasons the increased noise is because of large trucks, which probably avoid the congested metro area in the day so they can cruise through at night. Or there could be more truck traffic because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which encourages more trade between the United States and Mexico. "On I-10 there seems to be more trucks than what was predicted. There's less traffic, but they're going faster. I noticed some trucks really hauling at 70 to 75 mph," Garcia said. He said it wasn't noisy enough to drown out a conversation, but that the noise was still a nuisance. "It's just annoying."
According to the article, Michael Foster, a member of the village planning committee and head of a subcommittee to deal with the noise problem, said he was "cautiously optimistic" that a noise wall could be built. He met Tuesday with ADOT officials and said the department has already started looking for funds. "ADOT has listened to the community, and Fred Garcia personally went the extra mile. . . . We passed one hurdle, and that's to the credit of the community that came out and let their voices be heard. And ADOT listened," Foster said. A noise mitigation wall could cost between $400,000 and $1 million, depending how far south it goes. Phoenix has offered $135,000. With the new readings, Garcia said he has just begun talking to federal officials to see if there's money available. "We're trying to get some help from Washington, DC. I think the people out there have been patient. We'll do whatever we can."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: February 24, 1999
SECTION: Neighbor; Village Board Notes; Pg. 1
DATELINE: Vernon Hills, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports residents in Vernon Hills, Illinois, annoyed by the sound of train whistles late at night, plan to join other towns in asking railroads to stop the noise.
According to the article, with Vernon Hills residents continuing to complain about late-night train whistles, the village is planning to meet with the Wisconsin Central and the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern railroads. A village ordinance adopted in 1988 bans train whistle blowing, except in emergencies, between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. However, the railroads say the law is superseded by the Illinois Commerce Commission, which allows whistle blowing for safety.
The article states Vernon Hills plans to join with Mundelein and Buffalo Grove in asking the railroads to change its policies on the horns. Freight train engineers traveling through the area at night often hold down the horn excessively as they approach crossings that are protected by automatic gates, village officials say.
The article reports in other noise-related business in Vernon Hills, weekend hours have been approved for a building project. Construction crews building the American Hotel Register corporate headquarters may now work on Sundays and start work earlier on Saturday mornings. Vernon Hills trustees have voted to allow workers to begin at 7 a.m. Saturdays instead of the usual 8:30 a.m. start time in village ordinances. Village President Roger Byrne broke a tie vote to allow work on Sundays between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Sunday work is not otherwise allowed under village ordinances. Trustees Richard Emery, Cynthia Hebda and Cassie Black voted against the Sunday hours. "(The site) is about as far away as you can be, but the noise does travel in the still of the morning," Emery said. Village trustees said they would reevaluate the special permission for the extended hours if residents complained about the noise.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: February 24, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. N8
BYLINE: Lee Condon
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports U.S. Rep. James E. Rogan, from Pasadena, California, has asked the head of the Federal Aviation Administration to declare her opinion on whether Burbank Airport needs federal approval for flight restrictions.
According to the article, Rogan made the request Tuesday after FAA Administrator Jane Garvey last month declined to say whether she believes Burbank Airport is eligible for an exemption to the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. The law made it illegal for airports to impose any new noise rules. Garvey said she felt her interpretation might hinder local efforts to reach a compromise. But Rogan wrote that the city of Burbank and airport officials are not negotiating at all, and he said they need to know where the FAA stands on whether the exemption is possible. "A simple regulatory interpretation will not create a mandate. It will create movement," Rogan wrote. "The parties involved will not negotiate with each other because each has interpreted the (noise act) law in totally different ways and neither appears likely to move from its position until a determination is made by your agency. Only after such a determination is made will the conflicting parties be motivated to sit down and work toward a common solution." Garvey could not be reached for comment.
The article states Burbank officials are determined to block plans to move and expand the Burbank Airport terminal unless night flight curfews and other noise restrictions are adopted. An exemption to the noise act would be a way to obtain noise restrictions without having to go through a lengthy and unpredictable federal approval process. Burbank and airport officials expressed disappointment that Garvey chose not to give her opinion on the noise act exemption issue. Still, officials with both sides have said they are willing to talk about the noise act issue together as Garvey suggested.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: February 24, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. N8
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports the California Supreme Court has declined to review a case about noise impact area at Burbank Airport.
According to the article, the case focuses on whether Burbank Airport can ever expand its official "noise impact area," officials said Tuesday. The case will now be sent back to a local trial court, where city of Burbank and airport officials will argue how large the noise impact area is now and how much it could grow in the future. In November, a California Court of Appeal held that the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority is required to ensure that its noise impact area never exceed 369 acres, the limit set when the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena bought the airport together in 1977. The Court of Appeal then sent the issue back to the trial court so it could determine whether the Airport Authority has exceeded the 369-acre limit or if they will in the future.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 24, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports the California Supreme Court has upheld a ruling permitting the city of Burbank to argue that terminal expansion at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport will increase noise in neighborhoods.
According to the article, rejecting an appeal by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, the California Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court ruling allowing the city of Burbank to argue that the authority's plans for an expanded terminal will increase noise in residential areas. Under state rules, no more than 370 acres around Burbank Airport can fall within the airport's " noise impact area." The impact area is determined by using aircraft noise level measurements in different neighborhoods to arrive at an abstract, statistically based depiction of an area most heavily affected.
The article reports in 1997, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge rejected the city of Burbank's claims that the Burbank Airport Authority's proposed 19-gate terminal would increased aircraft noise in adjacent residential areas. A three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeals, however, reversed the ruling last November, saying that the matter should go back to Los Angeles Superior Court to determine the size of that impact area for this year and future years.
The article states that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court Monday and applauded by Burbank officials, who called the ruling a victory for voters from Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena who set noise limits when the airport was created in 1977. "What this means is that there is a meaningful limit on how much noise this airport can ever produce," said Peter Kirsch, an attorney representing the city of Burbank. "The only issue for trial is whether the airport is exceeding that limit and their own figures show they may have exceeded them already." But airport attorney Richard Simon denies that claim. "The bottom line is very simple," said Simon. "The airport is not in violation of any standard and will not be in violation of any standard based on any aircraft operations."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 24, 1999
SECTION: Part A; Page 18; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Tony Perry
DATELINE: San Diego, California
The Los Angeles Times reports in response to California residents' complaints about noise, Marine Corps officials said Tuesday they will shift the main helicopter flight path a mile south to avoid Del Mar and other suburbs.
According to the article, the Marine Corps is altering its main east-west route away from homes and closer to the Torrey Pines golf course. The route is used by helicopters approaching or departing Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. The new route is possible because of rule changes about altitudes being made by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Maj. Gen. Robert Magnus, commanding general at Miramar. The route change was revealed at the same time that an out-of-court settlement was announced in a lawsuit filed against the Marine Corps by the city of Del Mar and a homeowner group alleging that the helicopters spew noxious fumes. Without admitting fault, the Marine Corps agreed to pay $680,000 in legal fees and court costs for the plaintiffs and to conduct a study to see if the giant helicopters are violating the federal Clean Air Act. If so, the Marines promised to take unspecified action.
The article reports the complaints over the helicopters began with a post-Cold War decision to close two Marine Corps bases in Orange County and transfer 112 Super Stallions and Sea Knights to Miramar. Miramar is the most heavily used Marine air station in the world, with 250 craft and 10,000 personnel. Almost from the beginning, residents have complained about noise and pollution and expressed concern over possible crashes. Although jets have taken off from the Miramar runways for years, the huge helicopters spew a noise that is both longer in duration and stronger in vibration.
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: February 24, 1999
SECTION: News; 2 Star B, Also In, 2 Star P; Pg. A04
DATELINE: Newark, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise
The Record (Bergen County, NJ) reports a New York lawmaker has introduced a bill to reduce aircraft noise from Newark International Airport.
According to the article, the latest legislative effort to reduce aircraft noise from Newark International Airport, came Tuesday when New York Congressman Vito Fossella introduced a bill he says would make the skies above Staten Island quieter. Fossella, a Republican, said the "straight-out" departure air route would also be safer than the current takeoff pattern, which involves "zigzag" turns. Residents in Staten Island and central New Jersey have complained for years about noise from Newark Airport, one of the busiest and fastest-growing in the nation. A spokesman for Fossella said he had no immediate estimate of how the "straight-out" departures would affect New Jersey residents.
The article reports the Federal Aviation Administration is evaluating a number of options for reducing aircraft noise as part of a redesign of air routes for Newark and the other New York-area airports. That effort, which involves coordinating flight patterns along the East Coast, could take five years. Earlier this month, Rep. Bob Franks, R-Berkeley Heights, proposed legislation requiring the FAA to test ocean routes as a method of reducing Newark aircraft noise. That bill has the backing of a citizens group, the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise, as well as other members of the state's congressional delegation. Fossella criticized the ocean route, but the FAA's Eastern region air traffic manager, Frank Hatfield, has said it would be considered as part of the redesign.
The article states in September, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., failed to get Senate support to give the Environmental Protection Agency responsibility for regulating air noise. Meanwhile, the FAA is evaluating a six-month test that ended in September of the "260-degree turn" route, which routed 200 planes daily from the airport over central New Jersey. Residents of Union and Middlesex counties said the experimental route was noisier, claiming the flight path simply rerouted flights away from Staten Island, NY, and to New Jersey neighborhoods.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: February 23, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Rutland, Vermont
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports Jet Skis and other brands of the popular motorized water scooters may be banned on all but Vermont's four largest lakes.
According to the article, a group of Vermont lawmakers has introduced a bill that would end the use of the personal watercraft on 29 lakes where they're currently permitted. The state Water Resources Board recently banned the craft from Lakes Morey and Fairlee. Rep. Michael Vinton, D-Colchester, is the lead sponsor of a bill that would permit the water scooters only on Lakes Bomoseen, Champlain, Seymour and Memphremagog. "They have a place on the larger lakes in this state," Vinton said. "They are very intrusive and noisy. ... I cannot in good conscience ban them from every lake."
The article report the bill came in response to concerns expressed to Vinton by constituents, camp owners and others, he said. The ban would apply to lakes of less than 300 acres. Among popular lakes and ponds where the scooters would be banned include Arrowhead Mountain Lake in Milton and Georgia, Lake Carmi in Franklin, Caspian Lake in Greensboro and Crystal Lake in Bartlett. William Bartlett, executive director of the Water Resources Board, said if the bill passes, legislators would have to decide how to regulate personal watercraft on the Connecticut River, where they are not authorized on the Vermont side.
According to the article, the board decided that outlawing the craft was the best way to prevent conflict with other recreational uses of Lake Morey. The board said the mountains that rise on either side of that lake amplified the noise of the machines. When considering a similar ban for Lake Bomoseen in 1995, the board ruled that those who wanted the ban had not demonstrated sufficient conflict among lake users. However, board members concluded that there were conflicts on Lake Fairlee between personal watercraft users and others, such as canoeists and swimmers.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: February 23, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: San Diego, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jerry Hartgarten, founder of The Move Against Relocating Choppers Here (MARCH); Richard Hertzberg, resident
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports the U.S. Marines announced Tuesday an agreement to conduct air pollution studies and pay legal fees to settle a California lawsuit over the transfer of hundreds military helicopters to Miramar Marine Corps Air Station.
According to the article, a lawsuit filed two years ago by the city of Del Mar and residents claimed the military ignored federal environmental laws when ordering the transfer and that the helicopters would create pollution, noise and safety problems. Miramar currently is the base for Marine F/A-18 Hornet jet planes. Seven Marine Corps helicopters were transferred to the base in September, and more than 250 aircraft will arrive by April; 165 are heavy- and medium-lift helicopters.
The article reports the settlement requires the Marines to conduct an air pollution study to determine the impacts of jets, helicopters and increased traffic at Miramar, located about 13 miles north of downtown San Diego. That study includes an air quality analysis and an air traffic control study by the Federal Aviation Administration. Major General Robert Magnus, commanding general at Miramar, said the studies and a possible shift in flight patterns over less-populated areas east of the base show a commitment at reaching a compromise. "We are examining reasonable methods to further lessen our impact on our neighbors without jeopardizing our operational readiness and mission-essential training," he said. Results of the study could potentially require the Marines to reduce the number of aircraft flying at Miramar. Marine officials say they have already raised and altered flight paths in hopes of reducing noise complaints from Del Mar, a coastal community west of the base.
The article states the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were the city of Del Mar; a group called The Move Against Relocating Choppers Here (MARCH) and its founder Jerry Hartgarten; and San Diego resident Richard Hertzberg, a former Energy Department and White House official during the Ford and Carter administrations. They will help monitor the pollution study and the implementation of any mitigation measures. Before filing the lawsuit, MARCH attempted to get the helicopters moved to the more remote March Air Reserve Base in Riverside County. But Marine officials argued that they could safely operate helicopters and jets at Miramar, which is closer to the San Diego-based fleet and fixed-wing aircraft. The Marines took control of the base in October 1997 from the Navy.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: February 23, 1999
SECTION: Local ,3B
BYLINE: Cheryl Lu-Lien Tan
DATELINE: Annapolis, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: W. Minor Carter, president of the Ward One Residents Association; Lise DeLeon, resident; Louise Hammond, Ward One Democratic Alderman
The Baltimore Sun reports Annapolis, Maryland, residents seek an ordinance that will provide them with peace and quiet during the night.
According to the article, downtown Annapolis residents urged the city council last night to pass a public disturbance ordinance to deliver their neighborhood from bar- hoppers whose rowdy behavior robs the peace. The ordinance, sponsored by Mayor Dean L. Johnson and Ward One Democratic Alderman Louise Hammond, would tighten public disturbance laws by making a misdemeanor the acts of: "yelling, shouting, hooting, making rude remarks, whistling or singing on or near the public streets so as to unreasonably disturb the peace." The ordinance also addresses noise from car alarms, motorcycles and blaring radios. Hammond said police officers believe that the new ordinance is worded in a way that will help them curb the noise that often spills onto the streets when bars close. She said the current law is too vague. "The constant barrage of noise has been wearing citizens down," said W. Minor Carter, president of the Ward One Residents Association. "We strongly support this ordinance." To illustrate how disruptive noise from the street can be, Carter ran outside City Hall to blast an air horn as discussion of the ordinance began.
The article reports some aldermen expressed concern over the new law. Alderman Samuel Gilmer, a Ward 3 Democrat, questioned whether the ordinance should specify a decibel level at which a person can be considered a public disturbance. "There are problems with using decibel meters," Hammond responded. "The buildings and the water change the readings you get; they can be challenged in court." Alderman Cynthia A. Carter, a Ward 6 Democrat, was skeptical of having police officers decide the definition of rowdy behavior. W. Minor Carter pointed out that police officers use discretion to enforce many laws today. Said Carter: "Who knows what reckless driving is? They don't say you have to change lanes three times in two miles or anything like that. Police make those discretionary decisions all the time. What we want is civility returned downtown and noise control."
According to the article, resident Lise DeLeon suggested the city also work with the Naval Academy on keeping city streets quiet on weekend nights. "Most of the hooting and loud noises and obnoxious language is done by our midshipmen," DeLeon said. "If academy officials could just be informed of the disturbance that they're causing, that would quiet down my street tremendously."
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: February 23, 1999
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A10
DATELINE: Volusia County, Florida
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune published an editorial supporting the adoption of a noise ordinance to quell loud beach music in Volusia County, Florida.
According to the editorial, the teenagers and young adults who head for Volusia County beaches are partial to bone-shaking beats from their boomboxes. "Each to his own, but when noise bounces off the sand and starts shaking the windows of nearby houses, somebody should reach for the volume dial. It's a simple matter of respect." Not that anyone should be prevented from listening to the music of his or her choice - but neither should anyone be forced to listen to sounds that offend. "How would teens feel if beachside residents threw open their windows and blared out bagpipe wails? Or if other beachgoers blasted their CD players with recordings of Maria Callas hitting the high notes in Bizet's Carmen?"
The editorial goes on to say County Council members want to adopt an ordinance that's easier to enforce so that beach-control officers can ticket noisy offenders. Beachside residents and other visitors just want a little peace and quiet. The editorial concludes with a plea for civility: "Have a heart, boombox lovers. Give others' ears a rest. Your own will thank you."
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: February 23, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. A17
BYLINE: Edward Epstein
DATELINE: San Francisco, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Betty Miller, resident
The San Francisco Chronicle reports a San Francisco city supervisor wants to create a city policy prohibiting noise from San Francisco International Airport to exceed current levels.
According to the article, San Francisco Supervisor Michael Yaki's resolution, introduced at a special Board of Supervisors meeting, was intended particularly to appease residents who live west of Twin Peaks. They fear that the airport's plan to expand its runways could divert noise now heard in such communities as Pacifica and South San Francisco to their neighborhoods. Yaki proposed creating a city policy that would prohibit airport-created noise from exceeding today's levels even if runways are expanded and reconfigured. Yaki and a groups of residents from west of Twin Peaks made it clear last night they don't want the city to endure more noise from jet planes. Yaki lives in the Richmond District and plans to run for supervisor from that area when district elections take effect next year. "The key is by extending runways into the bay, landing approaches will be taken away from populated areas," Yaki contended. "It can be a win-win situation." Yaki's stand backs the unanimous opinion of the city Airport Commission, which promised recently that its $2.4 billion runway plan will not transfer noise from Peninsula towns into the city.
The article reports that was a major concern last night when Mayor Willie Brown made an appearance at a community meeting of the West of Twin Peaks Center Council. The mayor listened to a number of residents' complaints. "The noise starts at 6:15 a.m." and continues all day long, complained resident Betty Miller. "Why are we getting all this airplane noise now?" More than 100 neighborhood residents have complained about increased airport noise in their neighborhood, she said, noting that a recent airport study found that 150 flights per day fly over the two-mile radius of the West-of-Twin-Peaks neighborhood. That means one flight every six to 10 minutes -- all day. Brown theorized that more people are moving into the Bay Area, increasing airport use. "We've obviously got a problem, and we've got to find a way to address it," Brown said.
PUBLICATION: The Christian Science Monitor
DATE: February 22, 1999
SECTION: USA; Mad At McCain; Pg. 3
BYLINE: James N. Thurman
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Barbara Favola, Arlington County Board member and chair of an airport noise abatement committee
The Christian Science Monitor reports Arizona Senator John McCain(R) is proposing to increase the number of flights in and out of Reagan National Airport and to lift the 1,250-mile limit on outbound aircraft from the Washington DC airport.
According to the article, McCain's effort to rewrite the airport's flight schedule would create direct flights to his home state, prohibited under current rules. The proposal represents only a portion of a larger bill that must be passed by the end of March to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration. The measure also allocates billions of dollars for airport improvements across the nation. But to many residents concerned about more air traffic and noise, McCain's effort is an example of the way Washington really works. At best, they say, it is a shameless member perk. At worst, it's the kind of congressional tampering and superseding of authority that makes residents feel they live in a colony run by congressional whims. "DC really should stand for 'Doesn't Count,' " complains Mark Plotkin, a political commentator for local public radio station WAMU. "It's not only another example, it's the latest example of how DC residents aren't treated as full-fledged citizens."
The article reports key local concerns over expanding the flight schedule are safety and the noise that would be added to the already loud existing air traffic. The noise from more than 900 flights a day echoes off the banks of the Potomac. Five miles from the airport, jets begin to drop landing gear, and screaming engines rattle china cabinets and shake window panes. In addition to those 900 flights, the airspace is also used by military aircraft and commercial helicopters that often fly below tree-top level. And add to that mix the Marine Corps' HMX helicopters that ferry the president to the nearby Andrews Air Force Base, which make up to six training runs at low level each day.
The article states Barbara Favola says of her constituency, "Ohhh ... they are very angry!" Ms. Favola is an Arlington County Board member from northern Virginia and chair of a committee on airport noise abatement. Favola suggests McCain is playing the role of slot buster, not only for his personal convenience, but to appease a major campaign donor. "He is really trying to take care of his home base," she says, adding that analysts found the four airlines helped most by the bill are Reno Air, Air Alaska, Frontier, and [Phoenix-based] America West. McCain insists his airport-reform measures are based solely on improving competition for smaller airlines into airports where they are currently restricted. He claims the result would be lower fares into Reagan, which are some of the most expensive in the country. The legislation would also affect Chicago's O'Hare and New York's LaGuardia and JFK.
The article goes on to say even opponents of expanded airport service admit that besides the issue of overstepping local control, changes in the aviation industry alleviate many of the concerns raised against the pending FAA legislation. For example, the slotting system used to be a way to reduce congestion and spread airport commerce to the other two nearby airports. But today, with nationally coordinated flow-controlled air traffic, the slot system is considered generally obsolete. "The underpinnings of ... slot limitations just aren't there anymore," says Air Travelers Association president David Stempler. As far as the jet noise problem, that too has been improving as a result of a congressional mandate to convert the nation's jets to quieter aircraft. By 2000, all US aircraft will either be significantly quieter or retrofitted with jet mufflers called "hush-kits." "It should be noticeably more quiet, and the 757s and more modern 737s climb faster," Stempler says. Moreover, say the experts, expanded flights do not represent a safety issue. "It's not even a question," says FAA spokesman Hank Price. "If the FAA were not fully convinced that the airport could handle the [additional] traffic safely, it would not allow the flights." McCain is also on the record stating that direct flights to Phoenix are not for him personally, and that he would never take one of them "if there ever is one."
PUBLICATION: Journal of Commerce
DATE: February 22, 1999
SECTION: World Trade; Pg. 3A
DATELINE: Washington, DC
The Journal of Commerce reports the Undersecretary of Commerce, David Aaron, called the European Union's plan to prohibit hush-kitted planes in European skies pointless and biased.
According to the article, Mr. Aaron said, "It has no real meaning except to exclude US hush-kitted aircraft and re- engined aircraft. That's the point of this regulation. It has no other point." Mr. Aaron called the rule ineffective and discriminatory because it sets standards by design rather than by noise or pollution output. The rule would exclude aircraft fitted with "hush kits" made mostly by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp., but would allow noisier aircraft fitted with Rolls-Royce engines to escape the rule, Mr. Aaron said at a news conference.
The article states Mr. Aaron declined to say what action, if any, the United States would take against the rule.
PUBLICATION: Leicester Mercury
DATE: February 22, 1999
SECTION: Transport: Air, Pg.5
BYLINE: Lizz Brain
DATELINE: Leicestershire, England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: WINGS
The Leicester Mercury reports activists in Leicester, England, are pressuring their district council to reject an environmental impact statement addressing expansion at a nearby airport on the basis that it's too limited in scope.
According to the article, activists against a proposed runway extension at East Midlands Airport are calling on North West Leicestershire District Council to dismiss a report looking at the environmental impact of the development. Activist group WINGS claims the airport's Environmental Impact Statement is "significantly flawed" because it focuses on the area only within 500 meters of the active runway.
PUBLICATION: St. Petersburg Times
DATE: February 22, 1999
SECTION: Hernando Times; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Scott Calvert
DATELINE: Spring Lake, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: W.E. and Sylvia Whitney, residents Kenneth Gragert; resident
The Petersburg Times reports the noise from a dog kennel has pitted neighbors against the dogs' owner in Spring Lake, Florida.
According to the article, the noise from the dogs next door regularly drives W.E. Whitney and his wife, Sylvia, inside from their porch and dominates their evening conversations. "Our solitude and serenity are constantly being disturbed," Whitney says of the nearby kennel. The more than two dozen dogs produce enough racket from 1,000 feet away to consume the quiet that attracted the Whitneys to the land, they say. But the kennel owner, Carol Cansler, says she's following the rules. Cansler denies that the 30 or so cocker spaniels at her new kennel yap night and day. Besides, she said, she obtained written approval from the county to house dogs before she moved from Tampa in October.
The article reports the dispute between Cansler and some of her neighbors came to light at Tuesday's County Commission meeting, as both sides traded emotional accusations and were represented by lawyers. The County Commission is staying out of the situation, saying the matter is one for private litigation, not public action. Because the area is in an agricultural district, dog kennels are permitted. And Cansler obtained from the county both an occupational license and a kennel license. "She has done everything correct as far as being sure she was going to be in a place where she would be allowed to do what she's doing," said Jim Varn, the county's supervisor of animal services. Varn's trips to the 15-acre Cansler property have convinced him that the dogs do not bark incessantly. According to county officials, Cansler's kennel complies with the noise ordinance.
The article states Sylvia Whitney cannot believe Florida's right-to-farm law can apply to dogs, in addition to cattle and chickens, as county officials have interpreted it. "There is a difference between the bark of a tree and the bark of a dog," she said, "and somebody doesn't understand this." If Cansler is complying with the rules, then the rules should be changed, said Kenneth Gragert, whose home sits about 1,400 feet from Cansler's dog enclosure. "If the county is going to allow this type of enterprise, which is perfectly legal, they need to come up with rules and regulations that soften its impact on the neighborhood," he said.
According to the article, Cansler, meanwhile, considers herself the victim of "a lynch-mob mentality." Neighbors passed around a petition asking commissioners to revoke her kennel license. And air horn blasts have emanated from the Whitneys' land. "They're the ones who say they want peace and quiet," Cansler said. W.E. Whitney acknowledged tooting the horn to let her know the dogs were bothering him again. Cansler keeps the dogs for a variety of purposes. She trains some for American Kennel Club shows; others have been rescued from unsuitable homes and are awaiting a new owner. Some are her own pets. Currently, the dogs live in a pen that rings a camper Cansler has parked on the property while she builds a house. From the edge of the Whitneys' land, where woods turn to grass, the dogs are barely noticeable - until they get agitated. Early Thursday evening, something apparently set the dogs off. A mass of fur suddenly shot across the ground and an energetic group bark filled the air. "I promise you, it is much, much, much worse," Sylvia Whitney said. When the wind shifts, the noise is greatly amplified, her husband said. In fact, Thursday evening he called a reporter to report a fresh outbreak of barking. "You should hear them now," he said.
The article reports some noise relief may be on the way. Cansler said her new house will include an air-conditioned garage where the dogs will live. Nine "doggie-doors" will let them move freely between the inside and outside. Cansler is determined to stay put with her dogs. She said she moved to Hernando County to start a dog kennel. "I'm not leaving. I'm here. This is where home's at, and this is where the dogs are going to be."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 22, 1999
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 3; Zone: D
BYLINE: Warren Moulds
DATELINE: Winfield, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports late last week, the village board of Winfield, Illinois, voted to reject a proposed noise ordinance that many residents argued was unnecessary and too broad.
According to the article, Winfield trustees drew the line when proposals for a noise -pollution ordinance threatened to encroach on the right to scream at outdoor sporting events. One resident asked at a recent Village Board meeting, "How can kids have fun and not yell a little?" Opponents of the plan maintained that the proposal would have been too restrictive, encroached on people's rights and would have been unenforceable. Resident Ed Forman said, "I like chipping wood on Sundays and I don't want to be looking over my shoulder." Clearly defining such words as "annoying," "loud," "excessive," "disturbing," was among the problems facing village trustees in crafting an ordinance. Without specific language, horns, revving of car engines, loudspeakers, amplifiers, yelling, shouting, whistling and singing all carried potential for being offenses.
The article reports the issue had been discussed for weeks as village officials investigated how the issue is handled in other communities. Barry Moss, village attorney, said noise problems usually fall under "nuisance" ordinances and do not require a separate ordinance. John Kirschbaum, village president, said the ordinance issue arose about seven months ago over barking dogs. That discussion, he said, expanded to include cars, loud radios and noisy kids in the park. A number of parents objected to that inclusion: "A lot of us are here as it relates to sporting events," said resident Dan Barry at a recent meeting. "Soccer games--we would like them exempted." Amidst the dissension, Trustee Tom McClow said it was "time to be proactive," but a majority of board members didn't agree. Trustee Stan Zegel concluded that "this is over-regulation, and I will not vote for it." The Village Board voted down the proposal, 4-3.
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: February 21, 1999
SECTION: South Weekly; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Alan Lupo
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Antonia Lyman, Jamaica Plain representative and cochairwoman of the Massport Community Advisory Committee; Phil Lemnios, Hull representative to the Massport Community Advisory Committee; Bill Bailey, president of the South Boston Residents Group
The Boston Globe reports critics ask tough questions of Massport's plans to new runway at Logan Airport. Residents on the Community Advisory Committee, who represent towns affected by Logan, want answers about airport capacity, long-range planning, equity, and value of residents' quality of life.
According to the article, Massport says it needs a new runway and taxiway to relieve Logan Airport congestion. But critics from places as diverse as Roxbury, Winthrop, Melrose, and Quincy keep asking, "When is enough enough?" At a recent meeting between Massport officials and the Community Advisory Committee, whose members represent 25 cities, towns, and Boston neighborhoods affected by Logan operations, Winthrop Selectman Robert Driscoll Jr. said, "It strikes me that Logan has reached its capacity." A few moments later, Dovi Abbey of Roxbury insisted, "The airport has reached its capacity, is saturated, and must look elsewhere." Later in the somewhat contentious meeting, Joseph Gulino of Melrose contended, "Most people sitting here believe this is not about reducing delays but about expanding Logan's capacity." Bernice Mader of Quincy kept pressing Peter Blute, Massport's executive director: "When are you at capacity?" Finally, Massport's aviation director, Thomas Kinton, acknowledged, "We don't have an answer to that."
The article reports, ten years ago, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission recommended that a new, major airport be built by the year 2010. There are, however, no plans for a second large airport. This inability to deal with Logan's long-range future is a source of great concern for those fighting Massport's current plans. Those plans purport to relieve delays at Logan and, in Massport's words, spread the airplane noise more equitably throughout affected neighborhoods. To do this, Massport wishes to build a 5,000-foot runway, Runway 14/32, that would handle the departure and arrival of small planes, but only over water, and to build a new taxiway and reconfigure others. Last Tuesday Massport submitted to state officials an environmental-impact study that it hopes will be used to lift a court order banning the runway.
The article states the plan has been greeted warmly by business interests, Governor Paul Cellucci, and some residents who see it bringing relief, but it has prompted angry opposition from most affected neighborhoods and some politicians. Supporters believe delays "cost airlines and passengers over $300 million in 1998," and agency officials have predicted that the proposed changes will significantly reduce those delays and enable an added 75,000 flights to travel over water rather than populated areas. Critics contend Massport is trying to "divide and conquer" neighborhoods, has downplayed the increased noise that some areas will experience, will end up attracting even more flights to an already busy airport, and has historically failed to produce a long-range strategy that could accommodate the business community, travelers, and neighborhoods alike. Massport spokesman Jeremy Crockford denies assertions that the agency has tried to divide the opposition. He says trying to plan much beyond the year 2010 is academic, because "the numbers become suspect."
According to the article, Antonia Lyman of Jamaica Plain, cochairwoman of the Community Advisory Committee, disagrees with Crockford. "Airports have to know when they get to a point where it makes business impossible," countered Lyman. "Massport is not forthcoming with that. If they don't have a plan telling them when things will fall apart, there is something wrong with them as a business. If they don't have a long-range plan, why should we trust their short-range plan?" Massport officials say they have a mandate to promote air travel, which, in turn, helps fuel the economy, but are also trying to be sensitive to neighborhood concerns. So, they argue, their runway-taxiway plans, combined with increased use of regional airports in Providence and Manchester, NH, the prospect of high-speed rail to New York, and Cellucci's directive that Massport work with Worcester airport officials to increase business there should all help alleviate the noise problem.
The article states what Massport officials fail to address is Hanscom Field in Bedford. Whenever angry Community Advisory Committee representatives from Greater Boston or the North or South shores ask why Massport cannot shift more flights from Logan to Hanscom, Massport officials stress that the Bedford facility does play a major role in relieving Logan of thousands of small planes and that the agency plans to expand Hanscom's capacity for general aviation. "Why do you continue to dismiss Hanscom?" Lyman asked at a recent meeting. "It can be used for the jets you want to put on Runway 14/32," which are the smaller jets. Blute again stressed Hanscom's current role, but that did not appease critics who believe residents in Lincoln, Lexington, Concord, Bedford, and beyond have the economic and political clout to prevent more aircraft operations than they think their environment can handle. Opponents argue Massport should delay building the runway to see if its alternatives sufficiently relieve Logan congestion. Massport counters its computer-model studies show the runway is needed now.
The article states as Massport officials point to their draft Environmental Impact Report, with its references to computerized models, opponents raise what they call the "equity" issue. At one recent meeting, Phil Lemnios, the Hull representative to the Massport Community Advisory Committee, said he wanted more from the agency's computer modeling. He wanted to know the number of passengers affected by delays compared to the number of residents affected by increased flights and noise. "Come up with a computer model for the money value of our quality of life," Lyman challenged Massport officials at one meeting. "You have the cost to passengers and the cost to airlines and nothing about the cost to community. Be a leader in the country on this issue, on what the quality of life is worth." That challenge is only one of many obstacles facing Massport's opponents. The opposition seems less united than it was years ago, when, for example, activists from Boston's black community joined East Bostonians in acts of civil disobedience on Massport property. The Milton representative to the Community Advisory Committee, for example, favors the runway plan because it means less noise for that community. The Somerville representative opposes it because it means more noise for that city. Part of South Boston may benefit from the new runway, another part may experience more noise, and the same is true for East Boston.
According to the article, however, not all the factions are taking sides according to short-term noise relief. While Massport says South Boston is one of the neighborhoods that would benefit most from Runway 14/32, Bill Bailey, president of the South Boston Residents Group, said he wasn't accepting Massport's plan at a recent a meeting between Massport and the Airside Review Committee, which includes both opponents and supporters. Bailey said, "You can put in soundproof windows, and you sponsor sports teams, but I will not be bought." The room erupted in loud applause.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 21, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 14; Zones Desk
DATELINE: North Hills, California
The Los Angeles Times published a letter from Charles Mark-Walker, a resident of North Hills, California. Mr. Walker suggests a noise relief plan for nearby residents of the Van Nuys Airport. Walker writes:
"I knew my house was in the landing path of the Van Nuys Airport when I bought it. Since then noise from the airport has become significantly worse. I run my business out of my home and am disturbed by the noise every day. The reason is that there were at least 1,259 more takeoffs of Stage 2 (older and noisier) aircraft from 1995 to 1997. The Times editorial Feb. 14 ("Limit Noisiest Jets"), applauds the motion by Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski and Councilman Mike Feuer. I believe the motion has severe problems.
"The cap on 'based' planes at the current 53 is good, but the number of flights can increase and the unacceptable noise levels will continue. There is no incentive for based carriers to upgrade to quieter planes or to install hush kits or other noise -reduction retrofits. After three years, non-addition is inconsistent: Many based operators could suddenly leave, creating a problem for the airport; or if only a few left, the noise could continue at the same levels for years, meaning no relief for residents. The Times suggests that thousands of residents in the landing and takeoff paths should be glad of anything . . . even if it takes 10 to 15 years and by no means has a certain outcome. Although I support the airport businesses and do not wish to see them suffer hardship, this direction favors the airport and operators at a high cost to the residents.
"This is what a proposal to provide real noise relief for residents might look like: Starting in January 2000, the number of Stage 2 takeoffs, based and non-based aircraft, would be reduced by 20% of the number in 1998. This reduction of 1,100 to 1,200 flights per year--reversing the buildup we have seen in recent years--would eliminate Stage 2 takeoffs in five years. This would allow the airport to plan with a set timetable, create incentives to upgrade equipment and would bar expansion of Stage 2 operations."
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
DATE: February 21, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Dan Wascoe Jr.
DATELINE: Houston, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peggy Hausman, president of the Woodlands Community Association
The Star Tribune reports in its bid to build an amphitheater, the Minnesota Orchestra has studied similar amphitheaters for ways to be a harmonious neighbor while achieving financial and artistic success. Topics included noise control and community relations.
According to the article, as officials and residents consider a proposal from the Minnesota Orchestra for a 19,000-seat amphitheater in Brooklyn Park, planners are looking at theaters in Houston, Columbus, Cleveland and Denver for suggestions on how to do it right. The proposal is being reviewed by city and state governments. Unless rejected because of noise or land-use issues or reconsidered because of competing proposals, it could receive final approval in March and open next year. Experience elsewhere suggests that community trade-offs are unavoidable in fitting an amphitheater to its surroundings. "You have to weigh [problems such as noise] against the overall good that having such an amphitheater can do for the community," said Gary Bongiovanni, editor of Pollstar, a national music trade publication. Interviews with amphitheater managers in Texas, Ohio and Colorado suggest that there are ways for a Minnesota amphitheater to be a good, if not perfect, neighbor and be profitable at the same time. Amphitheater managers passed on these tips to create harmony in the neighborhoods: "Book a broad variety of performers and insist on a contractual right to reject unsuitable acts; use that leverage when appropriate. Distribute plenty of free tickets and schedule community events at low or no charge. Respond quickly to all complaints. Solicit substantial contributions and negotiate smart sponsorships to reduce the pressure to book only high-decibel, high-turnout acts. Hope for good weather." David Hyslop, president of the Minnesota Orchestral Association, said last week that he would likely adopt many of these techniques. For example, he said that for nonorchestra bookings, the association would insist on a right of refusal. "An act can't even be presented to us unless it has performed in at least two of four or five comparable amphitheaters." Among those amphitheaters are the Mitchell Pavilion in Texas and the Blossom Music Center in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
The article reports variety is essential in making the amphitheaters work. This is evident in Texas, for example, where The Mitchell Pavilion sits in a pine-forested private development called the Woodlands, home to nearly 50,000 residents. Last year's diverse schedule at the Mitchell pavilion included a free Easter service for 10,456 worshipers and a Rod Stewart concert charging as much as $125 that drew 11,173. The Houston Symphony played "Peter and the Wolf," while Janet Jackson performed on two nights. James Taylor, Phish, Lilith Fair and Metallica took to the stage. So did the Houston Ballet's "Swan Lake" and the Houston Grand Opera's "Carmen." Other bookings included Christian music concerts, a free July 4th salute and singers such as Michael Bolton and Wynonna. Booth, the pavilion's manager, said that although promoters "twist our arms on some things," the pavilion is "very fortunate - we can say no" to certain acts. For example, he said he was "fairly shocked" by a Marilyn Manson performance he saw and hasn't booked the act at the Mitchell amphitheater. Booth considers performers' use of profanity. Although Booth said, "We're not censors," he acknowledged that "we're in a sensitive area because of a nearby shopping mall, movie theaters, businesses and homes."
The article states not everything is perfect at these amphitheaters. In Texas, sheriff's deputy Rudy Segundo said officers typically arrest one or two people at the Mitchell pavilion's larger rock concerts, usually for alcohol-induced fights. In general, however, most events are "pretty calm," he said. Through experience, the sheriff's department knows what to expect, and it schedules enough officers to handle crowds and traffic. The pavilion also has an 11 p.m. curfew, which has been violated three or four times in nine years, Booth said. To smooth community relations, Mitchell's managers schedule free events and dispense thousands of free tickets to students, teachers, a senior citizens center near the pavilion and assorted civic groups.
The article reports while sound levels usually are controlled by performers' technical crews, amphitheaters can use internal controls. The pavilion places a decibel measurement device at the sound mixing control panel about 100 feet from the stage beneath the roof. Music or crowd noise that reaches 99 decibels activates a yellow light. If noise hits the pavilion's recommended maximum of 102, it triggers a red light. "We don't want that red light to go on," Booth said, but sometimes it does. Noise readings in the closest neighborhoods, ranging from three-quarters of a mile to a mile and three quarters, "are never more than 65" decibels, he said. (Loud conversation can register 65 decibels; thunder often is in the 90-110-decibel range. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration says people exposed to 110 decibels for an hour daily without ear protection may suffer permanent hearing loss.) People who work near the pavilion said noise comes not only from evening concerts but also from rehearsals and sound checks in the afternoon. Most amphitheater operators say that atmospheric conditions are important for both audiences and their neighbors. Booth said temperature inversions and low clouds can cause concert sounds to bounce and carry farther than during clear weather. Billie Koplin, who lives about a mile from the pavilion, said that she can hear rock music "once in a great while" but that it isn't loud: "It doesn't interfere with conversation."
The article states in Texas, Peggy Hausman, president of the Woodlands Community Association, said there has "never been a controversy [over the Mitchell pavilion] that has gotten the community riled." Her association, an elective body in the privately developed community, is not shy about defending residents, she said, but she praised Woodlands planners for working with home builders to recommend double-paned windows and other measures to reduce potential noise impact. At the Blossom Music Center in Ohio, a citizens advisory committee meets quarterly to discuss local issues, said David Carlucci, general manager. He works for Universal Concerts, which would manage the Minnesota amphitheater. Universal also issues a neighborhood newsletter and gives free community events.
The article goes on to say pressure to maximize profits can influence amphitheater owners' bookings. But upfront contributions and nonprofit owners can relieve the push to schedule only the highest-drawing acts. The Minnesota Orchestra would be delighted if it found a benefactor such as Texas' George Mitchell. His contributions meant that the pavilion didn't have to pay debt service, making it easier for event revenues to exceed costs. Hyslop said potential Twin Cities-area contributors already have been contacted.
According to the article, whether it's capricious weather or the spontaneity of live performances, it's important for communities and amphitheater owners to cooperate, said Dallas Easterly, operations director of Fiddler's Green amphitheater in Denver. "Everyone gets very excited when you have 17,000 or 18,000 people coming into your back yard," he said. "I can understand. But if the management and the community work together . . . They have to work together. It doesn't have to be a big, bad, evil thing."
The article lists data on amphitheaters similar to the one proposed by the Minnesota Orchestra:
Polaris Amphitheater - Location: 12 miles north of Columbus, Ohio. - Opened: 1994. - Capacity: 20,000, including 6,500 reserved seats, most of them covered. - Nearest houses: Between one-quarter and one-half mile. - Decibel limit: 100 decibels 96 feet from stage. 65 decibels at property line. - Curfew: 11 p.m. - Number of performances, 1998: 26, with three sellouts. - Average attendance: 10,000. - Performers include: Yanni, Boyz II Men, Dan Fogelberg, B-52s, Shania Twain, Ozzfest, Van Halen, H.O.R.D.E. Festival, Smokin' Grooves, Jimmy Buffett, Dave Matthews Band, Rod Stewart, Bonnie Raitt, Aerosmith, Janet Jackson.
Fiddler's Green Amphitheater - Location: Greenwood Village, south of downtown Denver. - Opened: 1982. - Capacity: 17,000, including 7,000 fixed seats, none covered. - Nearest houses: Half-mile. Most nearby structures are offices. - Decibel limit: 65 decibels in neighborhood near amphitheater. - Curfew: 10 p.m. and can't start before 6 p.m. without permission. - Number of performances: 1998: 32, with five sellouts. - Average attendance: 12,000 to 13,000. - Performers include: Hanson, Santana, Back Street Boys, Elton John, Spice Girls, James Taylor, Beastie Boys, Jimmy Buffett, B.B. King, Chicago, Michael Crawford, Easter services, and Peter, Paul & Mary.
Blossom Music Center - Location: Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, 25 miles south of Cleveland. - Opened: 1969. - Capacity: 18,445, including 4,945 covered. - Nearest houses: 1.5 miles (rural setting). - Decibel limit: 105 decibels, 175 feet from stage. - Curfew: 11:30 p.m. - Number of performances: 1998: 51 (including 26 by Cleveland Orchestra), with seven sellouts. - Average attendance: 9,000 to 13,000. - Performers include: Cleveland Orchestra, Stevie Nicks, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Moody Blues, Metallica, Garrison Keillor, Culture Club, Randy Newman, Frederica Von Stade, Pearl Jam, Cincinnati Pops.
Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion - Location: The Woodlands, Texas, 27 miles north of downtown Houston. - Opened: 1990. - Capacity: 13,000, including 4,900 reserved (3,000 covered) and 8,100 on the lawn. - Curfew: 11 p.m. - Nearest houses: Three-quarters of a mile. - Decibel limit: 102 decibels about 100 feet from stage. - Number of performances, 1998: 70. - Average attendance: 6,000 to 7,000. - Performers include: Houston Symphony, Janet Jackson, Lilith Fair, James Taylor, Michael W. Smith, Van Halen, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Backstreet Boys, Houston Grand Opera, Third Eye Blind, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Spice Girls.
Proposed Minnesota Orchestra Amphitheater - Proposed location: Northern Brooklyn Park, north of 93rd Avenue N. and east of Hwy. 169. - Proposed opening: Summer 2000. - Proposed capacity: 19,000; 5,000 covered, 14,000 on sloping lawn. - Nearest houses: Half-mile. - Decibel limit: Not established. - Curfew: About 11:30 p.m. - Proposed number of performances: 45 to 50 between Memorial Day and Labor Day. - Expected average attendance: 8,500, including three or four sellouts. - Proposed performers: Up to 18 performances per season by Minnesota Orchestra, the rest by a wide variety of rock, country and classical acts.
Previous week: February 14, 1999
Next week: February 28, 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