PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: March 6, 1999
BYLINE: Robert Weller
DATELINE: Fort Lupton, Colorado
The Associated Press reports the town of Fort Lupton, Colorado, has devised a unique and effective penalty for those who violate the noise ordinance by blasting music from their cars.
According to the article, employing something like the aversion therapy in the movie "A Clockwork Orange," Municipal Judge Paul Sacco requires people convicted of violating the city's noise ordinance to listen to music they don't like. Offenders, most of whom got in trouble for playing their stereos too loud, gather once a month, on a weekend night, to listen to court-selected songs. The offenders are mostly young, so there is a heavy dose of lounge music, including Wayne Newton and Dean Martin, plus some John Denver songs. Seventeen-year-old David Mascarenas was apparently scared straight. "I'm not going to jam no more," he said. "I took my stereo out already. I don't want to be hassled no more."
The article reports court coordinator Patrice Redearth, who suggested the one-hour music treatment, said she got her first playlist by asking her 17-year-old "what the kids would hate." The worst selection was the "Barney" theme song, said Ryan Bowles, 21, adding, "If you laugh they cite you for contempt." Redearth said, "If they fall asleep their eyes will be pried open," in a joking reference to "A Clockwork Orange." The DJ policeman, Joe Morales, said there's something annoying for everyone, and it works. He recalled having problems "with one kid three or four times. He came here once and he hasn't been back."
The article states Sacco's program began Dec. 5 in this agricultural and industrial town of 5, 200 people 30 miles north of Denver. The sessions are held in City Hall. Most of the offenders are rap-loving teens. But not all. "There was a guy who was 45 who got a ticket for listening to Bob Seger," the judge said. Sacco, who is 45 himself and has been playing blues guitar since he was 10, said the point he is trying to make is that "it's wrong to impose your music or style on someone else. You've got guys going around now with 15-inch speakers in a small car with a 1,000-watt amplifier," the judge said. "Maybe the ordinance will help them save their ears."
The article goes on to list the selections for the most recent music punishment session. Included were: Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, Moonlight Sonata and Fuer Elise; Wayne Newton's "Danke Schoen" and "Bill Bailey Won't You Please Come Home;" Disney's "This Old Man;" Judge Paul Sacco, "Sleepin' in My Car;" Dean Martin's "One Cup of Happiness" and "It's Cryin' Time;" Tony Orlando and Dawn, "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ol' Oak Tree;" Jerry Vail, "Volare;" Henry Mancini, "Love Theme from Romeo and Juliet;" John Denver, "Sunshine on My Shoulders;" Roy Rogers and Dale Evans, "Happy Trails to You;" and Roger Whitaker, "I'm Going to Leave Old Durham Town."
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: March 4, 1999
SECTION: Mesa/Apache Junction Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Robbie Sherwood
DATELINE: Mesa, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Carolyn Riedl, resident
The Arizona Republic reports a federally funded noise study will be undertaken and a noise map reconfiguration to answer Arizona residents' concerns in wake of growth at Williams Gateway Airport.
According to the article, the federally funded noise study that could determine Williams Gateway Airport's future flight lines is set to begin. Also, officials want to shrink the proposed airport influence area, designed primarily to notify potential home buyers about the properties' proximity to the airfield. Both steps are essential in easing the tension between the developing airport and its thousands of southeast Mesa, Gilbert and Queen Creek neighbors, officials said.
The article reports the Federal Aviation Administration last week gave Williams a $227,000 grant to conduct a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. Any change in flight patterns and altitudes to avoid residential areas will be based on the findings of this yearlong study, said Mary Baldwin, airport spokeswoman. "This is the first step," Baldwin said. "Area residents, airport users, city planning and zoning officials, air-traffic controllers and aviation industry officials will be involved as part of a planning advisory committee." A local aviation consulting firm will conduct the study.
The article states at the same time, Mesa Mayor Wayne Brown will be lobbying to limit the airport influence area, (AIA), a 62-square-mile ring around the airport that defines the area where residents can expect at least periodic overflights and noise. Since the idea was introduced last April, airport neighbors have lived in fear of inclusion in the influence area, which they fear will sink their property values. Under the plan, which has not been adopted by the Williams Gateway Authority, notification of the airport's proximity would automatically come up during a title search on any property within the influence area. Brown wants that automatic notification omitted for all except those properties next to the airport and along its flight line. "It will be like a long, narrow strip rather than this wide, gargantuan thing that sprawls all over the countryside," Brown said. Brown suggests one condition: Any new developments in the old proposed influence area must tell their customers that there is a large, growing airport nearby. Lack of this type of notification has led to the current neighborhood unrest, Brown said. "We're going to concentrate on subdivisions that haven't been built yet," Brown said. "The developer will have to agree to legally inform buyers; however, I don't think that will show up on their title. I think this compromise will protect the airport, yet make it more acceptable to the homeowners." Brown said he plans to bring the proposal to a vote at a meeting of the Authority Board later this month.
The article goes on to say it's not clear how much relief Brown's proposal will bring to residents in the area. Carolyn Riedl, who lives near Superstition Springs, says disclosure on the title will not have little effect unless Williams scales back its plans to become a commercial reliever airport for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. "Whether or not we have a piece of paper that says we are in the AIA boundary or not is irrelevant," Riedl said. "If you are trying to sell your house and a jumbo jet comes over the top of your roof tile, a prospective buyer won't need a piece of paper." Beverly Selvage said the influence area has been a major concern of many of her neighbors in Sunland Village East, but not for her. "To a lot of people, this title tagging has been a big thing," Selvage said. "But when you get 300,000 airplanes out here (about the number of yearly flights Williams officials predict by the year 2015), you are not going to have to tag properties to know there's an airport out here."
PUBLICATION: USA Today
DATE: March 4, 1999
SECTION: Money; Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Jessica Lee
DATELINE: Washington, DC
USA Today reports the United States threatened the European Union with a retaliatory aircraft ban if Europe follows through with prohibiting some US aircraft from Europe's skies.
According to the article, the Concorde, which travels as fast as the speed of sound and is the pride of European aviation, would be banned from US skies under a bill passed Wednesday by the House of Representatives. But whether the ban -- an act of retaliation for Europe's threats to bar some US aircraft from Europe's skies -- will go into effect remains unclear. The measure, approved on a voice vote, must be approved by the Senate. And it's likely that that chamber will wait to see whether the European Union follows through with its threat.
The article reports the EU, pressured by environmentally minded members, is considering a new set of aircraft noise restrictions that could be approved this month. Under the proposed rules, flights of Boeing 727s and McDonnell-Douglas DC-9s manufactured 20 or 30 years ago would be banned. The US-built aircraft would be outlawed even if they were modified with mufflers or quieter engines to meet the latest noise limits set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Rep. Bud Shuster, R-Pa., House Transportation Committee chairman, says the EU plan is "blatant, outrageous discrimination" against the US aviation industry. He vows the United States will respond in kind.
The article states the EU says the House's action isn't warranted. "There is no justification for the measure," EU spokeswoman Ella Krucoff says, especially because the EU proposal won't be acted on until March 29. But Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., says taking steps to ban Concorde flights, which he called "a mark of pride in Europe," will send a clear message about how negatively the plan is viewed in the USA.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 4, 1999
SECTION: Metro Lake; Pg. 2; Zone: L; Lake Overnight.
BYLINE: Ted Kleine
DATELINE: Bannockburn, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Agi Cibon, resident
The Chicago Tribune reports a group of Bannockburn, Illinois, residents will petition the Governor for a noise wall to block traffic noise from the Tri-State Tollway.
According to the article, Bannockburn seeks a wall because one is being built in Riverwoods on the other side of the tollway, and that wall, some residents believe, will reflect sound back to Bannockburn. The reflected sound will be "the same as if you doubled the cars and trucks," said Champaign-based engineer Paul Schomer. "You get the sound for each car twice--once this way and once reflected." On Wednesday night, Bannockburn residents decided to use a letter-writing and petition campaign to ask Gov. George Ryan and state legislators to persuade the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority to build a wall to block noise from the Tri-State Tollway.
The article reports village officials met Tuesday with tollway engineers and were told "they feel that Bannockburn does not have the criteria for a sound wall," said Agi Cibon, a Bannockburn resident who helped organize the campaign.
PUBLICATION: AP Online
DATE: March 3, 1999
SECTION: Washington - General News
BYLINE: Glen Johnson
DATELINE: Washington, DC
AP Online reports the United States House of Representative is considering a bill that could ban the Concorde from American skies if the European Union follows through with its plans to prohibit hush-kitted US planes from flying over Europe.
According to the article, European authorities face the prospect of having their supersonic Concorde banned from US skies. The House was expected to debate a bill today that would bar the Concorde if the European Union proceeds with plans to prohibit hush-kitted American aircraft from flying over Europe. As the House Rules Committee approved the bill Tuesday, members didn't try to hide their eye-for-an-eye approach. "It's a straight sort of rattling of swords back and forth, but I think that the timing of this is very important, to let them know that just because they've rattled their sword, we're not going away on the hush kits," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., a member of the committee.
The article reports urged by environmentalists, the European Parliament voted last month to adopt a new set of aircraft engine rules. One would prohibit registration of hush-kitted aircraft in Europe after April 1. Another would ban hush-kitted aircraft registered elsewhere from flying in European skies as of April 1, 2002, unless they were operating there before the start of next month. EU officials admit that hush kits reduce noise pollution, but they claim they are ineffective at controlling air pollution since they are used on old engines. The Europeans prefer planes with completely new engines. Final action on the rules is scheduled March 29.
The article states US officials contend the rules are arbitrary, because hush-kitted airplanes meet new noise limits, known as Stage 3, established by the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization. A Commerce Department official said last month the rules could have a $1 billion effect on the United States by devaluing airplanes in the US fleet, which are often resold in Europe, and harming hush-kit makers, all US companies.
According to the article, the Concorde legislation is the idea of Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who serves on the House Transportation Committee. The needle-nosed plane, famous for hurtling through the sky at more than twice the speed of sound, is also known as a fuel hog and a noise polluter. Oberstar's bill reads if the EU adopts the hush-kit rules, any supersonic jet that does not meet Stage 3 engine noise requirements will be banned from US skies. The Concorde doesn't even meet the current standard, Stage 2.
The article reports Air France and British Airways are the only scheduled airlines flying the Concorde in the United States. Air France makes a daily round trip between Paris and New York, while British Airways flies two daily round trips between London and New York. A flight takes 3 1/2 hours, about half the time of a conventional jetliner. Dean Breest, an Air France spokesman, said, "If it's banned, it's going to inconvenience a lot of business travelers traveling to Europe who need the timesaving." John Lampl, a British Airways spokesman, added: "We feel that British Airways and ultimately the Concorde is not an appropriate target for sanctions in a purely trade dispute."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: March 3, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Amy Mclaughlin
DATELINE: Mt. Prospect, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Daniel Nocchi, Mount Prospect trustee
The Chicago Daily Herald reports trustees of Mt. Prospect, Illinois, are debating whether to oppose new runways at O'Hare International Airport.
According to the article, Mount Prospect Trustee Daniel Nocchi believes after a $1 billion modernization of O'Hare International Airport, more runways will be built. His suggestion Tuesday that the village take a stand in opposing new runways at O'Hare met with a mixed reception. Nocchi said he'd like to see trustees act on a resolution at the March 16 village board meeting opposing new runways and supporting quiet communities. He said Mount Prospect should join neighboring communities including Arlington Heights in working to lessen the noise from planes flying to and from O'Hare. "While it would be a symbolic gesture, it would send a clear message to the powers that be," Nocchi said.
The article states Wednesday's debate showed the trustees' opinions are decidedly mixed. Trustee Paul W. Hoefert said homes may have been built after O'Hare, but the airfield was much different then from what it is today. "I think we owe it to the community," Hoefert said. Trustee Timothy Corcoran disagreed, saying the airport is just as busy as it was when the suburbs were growing. He said the voters should have a say in the village's position on O'Hare through an advisory referendum. "The noise issue should not be a surprise to anybody in the community," Corcoran said. Trustee Irvana Wilks noted Chicago officials have said the $1 billion plan for O'Hare doesn't include new runways. Therefore, if the village takes a stand opposing new runways it shouldn't affect the airport modernization plan.
The article reports Nocchi's proposal to adopt resolutions regarding the airport later this month was ultimately rejected by Village President Gerald L. "Skip" Farley, who said March 16 doesn't allow enough time to study the issue. Other trustees agreed village officials should revisit the issue or runways and noise. "There is more than one side of the question," said Farley, who criticized Nocchi for not attending O'Hare Compatibility Commission meetings with him. Trustees favored revisiting the issue of noise at O'Hare at a future board committee meeting.
PUBLICATION: Journal of Commerce
DATE: March 3, 1999
SECTION: Special Report; Pg. 7A
BYLINE: Amy Zuckerman
DATELINE: Europe
The Journal of Commerce reports at least one United States commerce official sees new European Union aircraft standards as a way to control the aircraft market.
According to the article, the EU wants to phase-out of aircraft utilizing hush kits only, as stated in a Feb. 9 release from the EU Mission to the United States. European officials say they aren't "shutting out" foreign aircraft. Aircraft registered in the EU by April 1 that employ the ""hush kit" option to decrease noise will be allowed to operate. Willy Helin, public relations director of the EU Mission, said, "We aren't slamming the door in anyone's face. We could have been tougher," Mr. Helin says. "We are under continual pressure by citizens who are fed up with noise levels at airports, which is the same for (the United States at) Reagan-National (in Washington, DC) or LaGuardia (in New York)."
The article reports at least one US government official believes the new noise standard is a blatant attempt to hurt U. S. manufacturers and to boost their own Airbus Industrie. The EU denies these charges and claims the United States has "been informed" all along as to its intent to control aircraft noise. Europeans say the hush kit option backed by the United States is an unsafe solution to stopping aircraft noise, an accusation the US government refutes.
The article poses the question, "In the world of strategic standardization management, the first question is, what players participated in standards development and who benefits from it?" Standards are traditionally industry-driven, and when connected to design, they can dictate who enters a market and who does not. Those who control the standards often control markets. For the last ten years, both the United States and the EU participated in the development of the international aircraft noise standard under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The ICAO standard is mandated worldwide for April 1, 2002. The US government has chosen to adopt the tougher standard two years earlier, reportedly to appease residents who live close to urban airports. From a standards viewpoint, the question is whose market share benefits from this shift in deadline? With airline companies rushing to purchase aircraft, engines and hush kits, it would seem manufacturers are beneficiaries, as well. According to US government sources, not just American aircraft manufacturers benefited from the new US deadline. Airbus Industrie, the European aircraft manufacturing consortium, may have sold planes to US airlines concerned with meeting the early standards deadline.
The article poses the question, "Could this be why Noel Forgeard, managing director of Airbus, issued a Nov. 12 letter to EU Transport Commissioner Neil Kinnock complaining of the EC's decision to mandate its own standard for air noise?" A US Commerce Department official released this letter to The Journal of Commerce with the permission of Airbus Industries' US operation. In his letter, Mr. Forgeard raises concerns about the "proposal for a council regulation on the registration and use within the community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and re-certified, otherwise known as the 'hush-kit' proposal." If enacted, he says this action "will set a precedent which not only impacts on existing clients by (but) may also lead to future measures which could disadvantage the European aviation industry." Mr. Forgeard goes on to recommend that the European Commission consider the "global nature of the aerospace industry" and that this industry "requires global solutions...I believe that the commission's policy should be based on setting new noise and emission standards through ICAO... Unilateral actions at the regional level may compromise this activity and may appear as trade barrier, which will risk damage to the European industry, either directly or through retaliatory measures...As such, Airbus Industries does not support this hush-kit proposal and we request that the matter be referred to ICAO for review."
According to the article, if the EU has used a consensual standards process - pooling design and technologies from worldwide manufacturers - the US government doesn't have a strong trade-barrier case. However, if the EU has been acting on its own, that lends credence to US accusations that the new standard has been developed to promote European manufacturers. A top Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said the United States "was not at the table and not invited. The EU rulemaking process is closed," according to the spokesman. He adds that by the time the United States learned of the EU's decision to develop its own standard, "it was too late for us to have much, if any, impact. We prefer ICAO as a central place (to develop standards). We do support development of the next level of (aircraft noise) standards, Stage Four." No one from the EU could be reached for comment.
According to the article, "the question to keep asking as this dispute continues is who gets the market benefit?" If the EU standard is voted as expected, the prime market beneficiary would be Airbus Industrie. Airbus will be able to continue selling products worldwide, but have the leg up on competition in Europe. This is the contention of David Aaron, US undersecretary of Commerce for international trade. Time will tell if he's right.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown)
DATE: March 3, 1999
SECTION: Bethlehem, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Matt Assad
DATELINE: Bethlehem, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Donald R. MacRae, resident
The Morning Call reports the Bethlehem, New Jersey, City Council Tuesday rejected suggestions to create a broad noise ordinance in favor of passing an uncomplicated noise law that targets the most frequent offenders.
According to the article, the council gave preliminary approval to an ordinance targeting blaring stereos and screaming car alarms, despite pleas from residents calling for a tougher and ultimately more complicated law. "This ordinance is narrowly focused on amplified sound systems," said High Street resident Donald R. MacRae. "The ordinance does not include ... the inefficient gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers, leaf suckers, hedge trimmers and weed whackers used by homeowners." Police Commissioner Eugene Learn responded, "I don't see how we can possibly regulate every scenario in society. It's just not possible."
The article reports some noise -weary residents asked council to use decibel levels rather than distance to regulate sound, while others argued that the 40-foot limit be reduced to as little as 15 feet which would give noise relief even for row-home owners with rowdy neighbors. Councilwomen Magdalena Szabo and Jean Belinski agreed. Both supported the law but voted against it in protest of the 40-foot limit, but they were overruled by colleagues more intent on keeping the law consistent with those in Easton and Allentown. "If we're going to make this cover people in half-doubles, then we may as well make the distance the thickness of a wall," said Councilman Michael Schweder. "I don't think that's our intent here."
The article states by a 5-2 vote, the council settled on a law that imposes fines of up to $300 for any noise from a building, car or portable radio that can be heard from 40 feet away. More than one false car alarm in any 24-hour period can bring the same fine. Currently, the city has a nuisance ordinance regulating "unnecessary noise," but police say it is too vague to enforce and too easy to fight. using Philadelphia's 1993 noise law as a base, Bethlehem's proposed ordinance will give city police more power to cite noisemakers without having to rely on testimony or signed complaints from residents. Council will take a second vote on the issue March 16.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: March 3, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Tony De Paul
DATELINE: Warwick, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports the final draft of Rhode Island's Airport Corporation's Part 51 noise study on T.F. Green Airport in Warwick arrived this week, giving residents a month to study it before a public hearing set for March 31.
According to the article, Elaine Roberts, executive director of the Airport Corporation, said yesterday, "I would encourage everybody who has an interest or a question to attend the workshop and public hearing. This is their final opportunity to go on record with any comments on the Part 150 plan." The study proposes to control noise by creating a series of flight tracks that would redistribute the worst of the noise from jet takeoffs. Some Warwick residents would hear more, some less, but the flight tracks would show a net decrease in the number of households tormented by jet noise, according to Landrum & Brown, the consulting firm that performed the year-long study.
The article reports the study predicts that even if the proposed noise controls are rejected by the Federal Aviation Administration, the number of houses in the current high- noise zone would decreased over the next five years, from 3,342 to 1,986. That effect is a result of the December 1999 phase-out of noisy Stage 2 jets. If the Part 150 study is adopted by the FAA, Landrum & Brown predicts the number of households would drop even further, to 1,319. For every house excluded as the zone shrinks, the FAA and the Airport Corporation save $25,000 in home-insulation costs. The number of households could be lowered to 807 - but at "enormous cost, financial and social." That could be accomplished, the study says, by lengthening the shorter of the two jet runways at Green, informally called the "crosswinds runway."
But Landrum & Brown does not support lengthening the "crosswinds runway," suggested last year by people who live off both ends of the main runway. Landrum & Brown modeled the option on a scenario that would lengthen the crosswinds runway by 2,100 feet, to 8,081 feet. Predictably, the model shows a dramatic decrease in noise for neighborhoods in line with today's main runway and a corresponding increase for those in line with the crosswinds runway. Toward the northwest, the high- noise zone would extend deep into Cranston, mainly over the state institutions between Pontiac Avenue and Route 2. However, toward the southeast, the results are much different. The high- noise zone barely reaches Sandy Lane today, but if the crosswinds runway were lengthened it would reach as far as the intersection of West Shore Road and Oakland Beach Avenue. Mark Perryman, who is managing the study for Landrum & Brown, said yesterday that the runway extension is "the single most beneficial" option for reducing noise to the greatest number of households, but "the cost isn't overcome by the benefits gained." Landrum & Brown estimated it would cost $58 million to build the additional 2,100 feet of runway. In addition, a great number of properties would have to be condemned, including the entire Lincoln Park neighborhood. Perryman said, the consultants stopped counting the cost of the project when it reached $200 million. "It is not cost-effective today," Perryman said. He added, "That doesn't mean it won't be five years from now," but he predicted Green would need an "operational" reason for extending the runway before such a project could get the green light from the FAA. "We couldn't justify it solely on noise, " he said.
The article states although the study does not advocate extending the crosswinds runway, it does suggest putting more traffic on it - specifically, traffic that takes off toward the northwest, the direction of travel that designates the crosswinds runway as Runway 34. (When approached from the northwest, it's called Runway 16.) More traffic on Runway 34 would relieve noise in the neighborhoods in line with the main runway - Cowesett to the southwest, Spring Green and Pawtuxet to the northeast. This would require the pilots' cooperation, because under federal law the choice of runway belongs to them. In fact, without FAA approval of the Part 150 study, controllers cannot even advise a pilot that the crosswinds runway is "preferred."
According to the article, the main runway currently handles 80 percent of the approximately 400 daily takeoffs and landings at Green. Perryman said the noise study can meet its objectives if 10 to 15 percent of that traffic can be re-routed onto Runway 34. Landrum & Brown contends that designating Runway 34 as the "preferred departure runway" would remove a significant amount of noise from neighborhoods and sent it over industrial corridors, the state institutions in Cranston and Route 95, Route 37 and Route 295. Other departure turns listed in the study would try to get jet traffic over the Providence River, Greenwich Bay and Narragansett Bay.
The article reports typically, pilots don't use Runway 34, even when winds are favorable. At 6,081 feet, the runway is long enough to safely lift most passenger, fuel and cargo loads - especially on short flights into New York and Baltimore - but most pilots want the 7,166-foot main runway. Yesterday Perryman said, "Today would be a good day to use Runway 34, but the procedure's not in place yet. We have to go through this Part 150 process to get it put in place. If we had been through the process and the FAA had approved it, you would have seen Runway 34 departures on a day like today." Roberts said the Airport Corporation plans to put on "an aggressive educational campaign" for pilots if the study is adopted by the FAA, publishing a "fly quiet" brochure aimed at persuading pilots to voluntarily use the crosswinds runway more often. "That will help educate the users of this airport about the Part 150 measures and new flight procedures, things we're trying to implement to make sure the program is successful," she said. "I think we just need to get the word out, to get the final noise -abatement procedures in writing." Perryman said the Part 150 study his firm compiled for O'Hare International, in Chicago, was successful in persuading pilots to voluntarily comply with that airport's "fly quiet" rules. "Literally overnight, the citizens saw a difference," he said. "That's what we want to achieve here. It's going to take education. It's going to take getting out there, talking to the pilots and telling them why we're asking them to use Runway 34." The public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 31, at Warwick Veterans Memorial High School.
PUBLICATION: Asheville Citizen-Times (Asheville, NC)
DATE: March 2, 1999
SECTION: National; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Quintin Ellison
DATELINE: Canton, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Norman Medford, spokesman for Citizens for Improving Mountain Living; Jerry Wright, resident
The Asheville Citizen-Times reports a 90-day racetrack moratorium in Haywood County may end plans for a new speedway in Western North Carolina.
According to the article, "I may just pull out of Western North Carolina completely and not build in that area at all," developer John Huffman told the Citizen-Times. Huffman's proposed Haywood County racetrack would have replaced Asheville Motor Speedway, which was closed last year. Drivers and fans will have one final season of racing there beginning this spring. But despite the interest of two developers to build a new track, proposed sites in Buncombe, Henderson and now Haywood counties have drawn opposition. Huffman wanted to build a half-mile paved racetrack and 10,000-seat motorsports complex on a 600-acre tract east of Canton. He said the proposal is now dead unless Haywood County commissioners reverse their vote within two weeks. "Let the citizens and county vote and see how it comes out - I think we'd get our racetrack," said Becky Queen, who lives in Haywood County's Cruso community. But Haywood County Commissioner Robert Forga defended the moratorium. "If (Huffman) can't answer the questions we need to have answered, so be it," Forga said. In a 4-1 vote, Haywood County's commissioners imposed the moratorium to give them time to consider amending the county's noise ordinance, which contains no measurable limits; ask the Haywood County Economic Development Commission to study the potential economic impact of the racetrack; and look at other areas of concern.
The article reports the moratorium was proposed by Norman Medford, spokesman for Citizens for Improving Mountain Living, a group of speedway opponents primarily made up of people who live near the proposed site. "This thing is being pushed and hurried along without study," said Medford. Opponents' concerns have included noise, environmental damage, traffic congestion, the possibility of alcoholic beverage sales eroding the community's sense of peacefulness, and declining property values. About 50 speedway opponents came out to urge county commissioners to pass the moratorium. The vote was greeted with applause. "I have three children and I don't need that in my backdoor," said Jerry Wright, who lives near the proposed site. "Obviously Buncombe County doesn't want it and Henderson County doesn't want it - that should speak something right there." A proposed site in the Naples area of Henderson County drew citizen opposition and the possibility of regulations from county officials, so the property owner withdrew the site from consideration in January. Huffman later withdrew from a possible site in Swannanoa because of citizen reaction there.
The article states Buncombe County resident Jack Ingram, a retired racer who was recently named one of the 50 greatest NASCAR drivers of all time, said he doesn't blame Huffman for pulling out. "You can't continue to have obstacles that make it a go-nowhere deal," he said. Ingram said the apparent loss of the racetrack - and possibly the end of NASCAR racing in WNC - will hurt young drivers the most. "They won't have a way to perfect their skills," he said. "I could never have had that opportunity if I hadn't had a local racetrack to compete on."
According to the article, Huffman said he was shocked by Monday's commission action. "I really thought we had the support for it," he said. "I'm very disappointed and devastated." Just two weeks ago, about 700 speedway supporters attended an informational meeting in Canton. Huffman announced then that he would move ahead with the racetrack, news that brought a standing ovation from the racing fans. Huffman said he can't wait 90 days, and that the commissioners' vote indicates he doesn't have the support needed. "I'm not willing to spend that kind of money to go forward," he said.
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: March 2, 1999
SECTION: Metro/Region; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Stephanie Ebbert
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Scott Beebe, resident; Bob Driscoll Sr., resident; Claudia Clifford, resident
The Boston Globe reports critics contend Massport's tactic to win support for a new runway plan at Logan Airport by promising that flights will decrease over the neighborhoods hardest-hit by noise has backfired.
According to the article, in the neighborhoods of the South End and parts of Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, and South Boston, the Massport plan threatens to increase traffic on Runway 27 by 22,410 flights per year, sending an estimated 41,919 flights overhead annually by 2001. The increase in Runway 27 use is part of the master plan that includes the new Runway 14/32, which would allow Logan to handle more flights per hour during certain wind conditions. Airport officials say the plan would let them reduce use of some other runways, easing noise over Winthrop, East Boston, South Boston, Quincy, and Milton.
The article reports though flights are at higher altitudes and therefore create less noise than they do right next to Logan, residents in the South End and parts of Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, and South Boston already feel besieged by the roar. Scott Beebe wakes up on weekends at 6:02 a.m. to the sound of a roaring jet. Later flights interrupt his conversations. Beebe and his family live nowhere near Logan Airport. They live in the South End, which pilots fly over as they depart Logan's Runway 27. That area could see far more traffic if Massport builds another runway and shifts more flights to Runway 27, as proposed. "When you live in the city, you have to be willing to put up with a certain amount of noise, " said Beebe. "But the noise we get from planes taking off from Logan is way beyond what most people would say is a reasonable amount of noise. "
The article states Mayor Thomas M. Menino yesterday criticized the airport planners for not taking a more regional approach. "There's no reason to support this plan," he said. "What they've done is just move the problems around from one neighborhood to another." Critics contend if Massport hoped to use a divide-and-conquer tactic to win support for the plan - by promising that flights will decrease over the hardest-hit neighborhoods - it has backfired. So many neighborhoods are wary that most of the Boston area appears united in opposition. "This is not just a single-town issue," said Bob Driscoll Sr. of Winthrop. "This is a regional issue." Winthrop residents might have reason to support the plan because projections show that flights over parts of Winthrop could drop from 70,449 in 1997 to 55,892 in 2001 with a new runway. Without it, Massport says, flights will increase to 80,693. But to Driscoll, the new runway and concurrent flight changes offer a temporary reprieve, at best. Massport says only that the plan will help through 2010. Rather than build a new airport, Massport seems intent on expanding Logan, Driscoll said, raising the possibility of future struggles.
The article goes on to say communities like Winthrop that stand to gain from the plan have a hard time backing it - because of their distrust of Massport, or because another part of the neighborhood would suffer. In one section of Milton, flights could decrease from 49,398 in 1997 to 25,422, but there would be corresponding increases over another section of Milton because of Runway 27. "I think it's pretty complicated, and it's going to be more than just saying we're going to be on one side or the other," said Claudia Clifford, who represents Milton on a panel of communities studying the issue. "A larger number of people may benefit from the runway than would be hurt. But I can't make a decision based on numbers alone."
According to the article, some of the current noise problems stem from changes made to accommodate Jamaica Plain and Brookline residents who sued the Federal Aviation Administration a number of years ago. In October 1996, the flight track was shifted south, said Betty Desrosiers of Massport, but pilots are unable to stick to the strict curve so soon after takeoff. "Consequently, the old communities are not getting the volume of relief they expected, and new communities are being impacted," she said. "So now [ the FAA has] everybody unhappy."
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: March 2, 1999
SECTION: Economy; Pg. D4
BYLINE: Robert A. Jordan
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
The Boston Globe published an editorial suggesting it is time for Governor Paul Cellucci's administration, and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, to reconsider plans to build a new runway for Logan Airport.
According to the editorial, when East Boston and Winthrop residents learned a new 5,000-foot runway will result in more planes flying over their homes and schools, thereby further threatening the stability of their diverse neighborhoods, they began to mobilize against these plans. While Massport argues the new runway is for smaller planes that will fly over the ocean, opponents contend that a new runway will free up more of the larger planes to fly over their communities. Community opposition to the Massachusetts Port Authority's planned new runway grows daily, with residents from Charlestown, Chelsea, Roxbury and other communities joining in "another classic battle between powerful corporate and government interests vs. small, feisty working-class neighborhoods." While the victor in these battles almost always is the powerful interests, history has shown that victory is not guaranteed. Thirty years ago community groups from Cambridge and Boston joined together to fight state plans to build an Inner Belt through Cambridge and Somerville, and to extend Interstate 95 through Boston's Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods. With the sympathies of then-Governor Francis Sargent and then-Mayor Kevin H. White, the communities won the battle.
The editorial states, "Today, the issue is whether the opponents will have the same clout to stop this runway as community groups had in the early to mid 1970s when they stopped highway expansion through their neighborhoods. One problem the current opposition faces is the apparent lack of sensitivity toward neighborhood residents from elected officials, from state representatives, to state senators, right up to the mayor and the governor." East Boston and adjacent residents suggest there are other alternatives to reducing Logan's current capacity and flight delay problems other than sending more planes over an already noise -congested neighborhood. One suggestion from some neighborhood activists is to expand Hanscom Field in Bedford to accommodate the growing air traffic in Greater Boston. Some activists suggest working with Rhode Island to have T.F. Green Airport coordinate with Logan in handling the area's air traffic needs.
According to the editorial, what the concerned residents of East Boston and their neighbors say they need immediately is expanded media coverage. And, they add, "they need a governor and a mayor with the sensitivity, will, and courage of a former governor and mayor to really hear what they have to say and act accordingly." If not, the incumbents will have to face the consequences of an angry electorate who may have to vote accordingly.
PUBLICATION: Journal of Commerce
DATE: March 2, 1999
SECTION: World Trade; Pg. 3A
BYLINE: Chris Johnstone
DATELINE: Brussels, Belgium
The Journal of Commerce reports Undersecretary of State of Economics, Business and Agricultural Affairs Stuart Eizenstat said in Brussels Friday there were signs that European governments would postpone new rules that would ban some US aircraft from their airspace.
According to the article, Eizenstat said, " 'I cannot certainly say there will be a postponement (on the hush-kit rules) but there are indications of that.'" European governments this month are due to implement rules that say hush kits produced in the United States are inadequate to meet their standards. Hush kits are used to muffle the engine noise from aircraft, allowing some older aircraft to meet strict international requirements, but the EU governments have said these kitted planes are still too noisy. If implemented in their current form, the European rules would remove one major market for secondhand hush-kitted aircraft and represent a considerable blow to airlines owning them, say US trade officials. The Europeans argue that the rules are environmentally motivated. However, Washington has denounced the unilateral move by Brussels as a blatant trade barrier.
The article states Washington is already drawing up retaliatory measures if Europe goes ahead with the legislation, including a ban on Concord aircraft landing at Kennedy International Airport. Almost all the world's hush kits are manufactured in the United States. Some technical aspects of the European noise rules also appear to have been drawn up in a way that will encourage airlines to buy British manufactured Rolls-Royce aircraft engines instead of US-made Pratt and Whitney products, say trade officials.
The article reports Washington is also angry that Europe unilaterally adopted the noise rules, sidelining the International Civil Aviation Organization, the international body charged with designing worldwide aviation rules. "'There is a troubling tendency of the EU to act unilaterally before negotiating solutions,'" Mr. Eizenstat said.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, NJ)
DATE: March 2, 1999
SECTION: Bethlehem, Pg. B4
BYLINE: Daryl Nerl
DATELINE: Hanover, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joan Illigasch, resident
The Morning Call reports a plan to expand a Walgreen Co. distribution center in Hanover, Township, New Jersey, was rejected for failing to address neighbors' concerns, including noise and light pollution.
According to the article, a plan to more than double the size of Walgreen Co.'s distribution center in Lehigh Valley Industrial Park IV was unanimously rejected by the Hanover Township, Northampton County, Planning Commission Monday night. Commission members said the company failed to address many issues in accommodating residential neighbors near the northeast corner of the industrial park. Chairman Thomas Jacob ordered Walgreen to seek a noise pollution study that monitors at least six hours -- three hours during the day and three hours at night -- of activity at the distribution center daily. He said the company also needs to address issues of light pollution.
The article reports Joan Illigasch who lives just to the west of the Walgreen warehouse, told the commission she feared the dust and anticipated blasting from construction would sicken her 9-year-old asthmatic daughter Jessi. She also voiced concerns expressed by other neighbors at the last supervisors' meeting that rock blasting at the construction site would cause the collapse of neighborhood wells and leave homes without water. The expansion would place the west wall of the warehouse just 156 feet from her house, she said.
The article states Walgreen plans to expand its warehouse to nearly 570,000 square feet. The addition would double the warehouse's docking capacity. If the expansion is allowed, the warehouse would be able to supply 530 stores instead of the current 265. The distribution center, which employs 300, would add between 250 and 300 employees. The project requires a variance because the plans call for the addition to be 57 feet high, 19 feet higher than the township's limit.
The Planning Commission is concerned with how the expanded warehouse will affect sight lines in the neighborhood because of the height. The building would become the tallest in the township. Walgreen received a variance for the original warehouse, built more than five years ago, because it is 43 feet high. Tom Bergseth, director of facilities planning for Walgreen, said the additional height is necessary to provide the warehouse with the storage space the company is seeking. Walgreen also requires variances for the number of parking spaces and docking bays. The final decision rests with township supervisors.
PUBLICATION: The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
DATE: March 2, 1999
SECTION: Local; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Jeremy Berzon
DATELINE: Calimesa, California
The Press-Enterprise reports the City Council in Calimesa, California, is considering adopting an off-road vehicle ordinance in response to residents' complaints of noise and other related disturbances.
According to the article, off-road vehicles increasingly are becoming a nuisance, property owners in Calimesa say. City officials say that more and more off-road enthusiasts have been riding their two-, three- and four-wheeled vehicles on the hilly terrain in the southeastern part of town. "If we don't do something to control it, it will get worse," said Mayor Greg Schook. The Calimesa City Council requested Monday that city staff at a future meeting review the off-road vehicle ordinance in neighboring Yucaipa.
The article states Schook said off-road vehicles used to ride on his 16-acre property until he began shutting the gates a couple of years ago. Last month, Schook said, he heard a number of off-road vehicles riding on land about a quarter-mile from his home. He said he saw about 30 people, children and adults, on various types of vehicles. The drivers all left when he asked them to, Schook said. He said he has received numerous complaints about the vehicles from residents, which are not only noisy but cause soil erosion cause liability problems for landowners. "I have a real problem living in a rural area and having an off-road vehicle track across from me," he said. Susan Perisits, one of the owners of the Perisits Egg Farm on County Line Road, said off-road vehicle drivers have long used her 250 acres but recently the problem has gotten worse. "It's reached the saturation point," she said. A number of the drivers, Perisits said, have recently been getting too close to a building that houses baby chickens. The noise has scared the chicks, causing them to get too close to each other and suffocate, she said.
The article reports City Manager Alan Kapanicas told the council Monday that Calimesa soon will begin posting signs on city property that say off-road vehicles are not permitted. A city ordinance bans off-road vehicles on city property. Kapanicas said enforcement of city noise and trespassing laws will be stepped up. Fines can be imposed for offenses. The noise from most off-road vehicles, he said, exceeds city standards. City officials believe off-road vehicle use has increased in Calimesa because neighboring cities have made efforts to eliminate it.
According to the article, about two years ago, Yucaipa passed a city ordinance that prohibited the use of off-road vehicles within 200 yards of homes, businesses and other structures. Yucaipa Community Development Director John McMains said the tougher code virtually eliminated any place where the vehicles could be used. "We don't get nearly the amount of complaints that we used to," McMains said. Stacey Blodgett, a Yucaipa resident who owns Blodgett's Bug Barn in San Bernardino which sells several different kinds of off-road vehicles, said the area where people are using the vehicles in Calimesa is popular with off-road users because it provides challenging climbs and good jumps. Blodgett said he can understand why homeowners don't want the vehicles on their property. Off-road vehicle drivers, he said, can buy a permit to use an area near Mill Creek Road and Bryant Street in unincorporated San Bernardino County.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: March 2, 1999
SECTION: B Section, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Tom Bayles
DATELINE: Palmetto, Florida
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports spurred by noise from the Manatee County Fairgrounds, the Palmetto, Florida, City Council plans to tighten the town's noise ordinance, eliminating a number of exemptions.
According to the article, the Palmetto City Council told City Attorney Alan Prather Monday night to fix the city's ineffective noise ordinance. "The issue is the exemptions," Prather said. "I would suggest we amend the ordinance in that manner and see if that solves the problem." The recently completed arena at the Manatee County Fairgrounds in Palmetto is drawing criticism from residents who complain of excessive noise during weekend events. Mayor Pat Whitesel cited the noise ordinance Feb. 19 when ordering the police department to shut down a rodeo at the new arena an hour early. However, the current ordinance contains exemptions for arenas, events held by nonprofit groups and noise from daytime construction and burglar alarms, among others. The council discussed buying a decibel meter to test the level of the sounds coming from events but opted instead to amend the ordinance.
The article reports Prather will work to strengthen the ordinance by eliminating some exemptions and adding language that will limit how late loud events can be held while still allowing special exceptions for events such as high school football games. In November, a Sarasota County judge ruled that a city ordinance barring businesses from playing amplified music late at night with open windows or doors was "overly broad" and, therefore, unconstitutional.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)
DATE: March 2, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Jill Rosen
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports noise from Florida's Boca Raton Airport is the issue to debate with local elections a week away.
According to the article, the debate became lively between City Council candidates Monday night at a forum before residents of Boca Teeca, the city's most powerful voting block. When it came to airport noise, the two mayoral candidates and four hopefuls for two council seats let loose. The sarcasm and sniping elicited oohs and aahs from the audience of about 200 senior citizens.
The article reports Barry Scholnik, the attorney trying to oust Carol Hanson from her mayor's seat, set the tone while answering an airport question. "The mayor thinks everything will run its course, but Boca Teeca, I think you've been patient enough -- the time to do something is now," Scholnik said. After the business-backed team of incumbent Susan Whelchel and political novice Ben Kennedy spoke with similar indignation, Hanson took the defensive. She focused on their promises to fight for a curfew to ground noisy jets while people sleep. "Let me tell you something about political pandering," she said. "You're seeing it tonight in its finest form. Do you not think if this city could put on a curfew we'd do it? Hello! It cannot be done. Until the FAA says so, you ain't gonna get 'em." Whelchel and Kennedy's opponents, stockbroker Dave Freudenberg and Jo-Ann Landon, a Realtor and activist, defended Hanson, saying the Airport Authority is doing all it can to keep noise down. "Forget an empty promise of curfews," Freudenberg said. "We must follow the law."
The article states while the candidates touched on other topics, including term limits, traffic and the installation of speed bumps, the discussion kept returning to the Boca Raton Airport. "Some say things cannot get done," Whelchel said, as soon as she got the chance. "I don't believe that, and I'm not going to accept that," Whelchel said. Candidates will debate again on Wednesday at the Boca Raton Community Center.
PUBLICATION: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: March 1, 1999
SECTION: Aukesha Pg. 2
BYLINE: Sam Mart Ino
DATELINE: Town of Eagle, Wisconsin
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill and Jan Grotjan, residents
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources has developed a long-range plan for improving the McMiller Sports Center, including seeking ways to reduce gunfire noise, but nearby residents say more focus should have been placed on mitigating noise.
According to the article, the DNR report and long-range plan calls for expanding shooting and recreation opportunities at the site for cross-country skiers and other sportsmen. Residents who live near the McMiller Sports Center are not happy with the report. Neighbors have complained for years about noise from the center's clay pigeon shooting range. "The noise is so tremendous. It is something we don't want to hear when you are listening to a Beethoven symphony in your house," said Jan Grotjan, a resident of the area since 1958. She said the state forest should be a "quiet place where you don't hear gunshots all the time." Bill Grotjan, a retired Milwaukee school teacher and a member of the citizens advisory committee, echoed his wife's complaint. "The report doesn't make the noise go away," he said. Regardless of the report's promise to reduce noise at the center, which includes gun ranges for rifle and small firearms, Bill Grotjan predicted there still would be "grumbling about the noise. "
The article states while gunfire noise complaints triggered the study, the DNR has aimed its report at making the McMiller Sports Center more environmentally friendly to neighbors and cross-country skiers. The report calls for the superintendent of the Southern Unit of the forest to explore expanding the cross-country ski area into a biathlon loop to combine cross-country skiing with targeting shooting. New shooting platforms in the archery range also would be constructed. The report also calls for the periodic collection of lead shot from the soil by raking the topsoil and removing the lead. As for the neighbors' noise concerns, "This report recommends that noise (reduction) measures be incorporated, where feasible, into the design and construction of projects" at the center, the DNR says in the report. Those steps include building new berms for sound reduction and the planting of rows of pine trees adjacent to the gun ranges for noise reduction.
According to the article, the report was compiled after months of meetings by a citizens advisory committee. Hunters, neighbors, hikers, skiers and law enforcement personnel served on the committee. The McMiller Sports Center is in the Southern Unit of the Kettle Moraine State Forest west of Eagle and includes sites for archery, cross-country skiing, rifle and pistol shooting and clay pigeon shooting. Town of Eagle supervisors closed the portion of the center housing the sporting clay range in 1997 following complaints about the noise. In February 1998, however, a Waukesha County circuit judge overruled the town's decision. And three months later the Legislature passed a "range protection bill" that prohibits local governments from using noise as an issue to regulate existing shooting ranges. The range was reopened in mid-1998.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: March 1, 1999
SECTION: A Section, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: John Hielscher
DATELINE: Longboat Key, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Russell Reed, resident; D.M. Williams, condominium manager; Crome Dollase, resident; John Fielder, resident; Dale Shields, resident
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports while the plan is temporarily on hold, the debate continues about a controversial diversion of airport noise from Florida's Mainland to a section of Longboat Key. Population, economics, justice, and environmental concerns pepper the debate.
According to the article, noise reduction can't come too soon for airport neighbors on the Mainland. They say they put up with a constant cacophony from jet aircraft - departures start as early as 6 a.m., and landings come as late as 12:45 a.m. "The landings are worse than the takeoffs," said John Fielder, a resident of El Conquistador. "There's nothing much we can do about the landings; I know we've got to live with that. But if we get the 270-turn, it will be some help with the takeoffs." Russell Reed still isn't used to the roar of jet engines from takeoffs and landings at the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport . He is periodically awakened by the rumble of jets taking off. "It really rattles things around," said Reed, a resident of the Trailer Estates mobile home park northwest of the airport. He says other homeowners experience the same noise in the 1,291-unit park, which is home to 3,000 residents during the winter season. "You have to stop your conversation with someone or if you're talking on the phone," he said. "At church services in the auditorium, the pastors even have to stop their sermons because of the noise. We feel we deserve to get some relief from the takeoffs," he said. Residents of the Whitfield, Bayshore, El Conquistador and other nearby neighborhoods feel the same way.
The article reports the airport's proposal - called the 270-degree turn - would send the aircraft over the center of Longboat Key, where residents, vacationers and business owners currently enjoy quiet skies. "If it's as bad as they say it is, they've made us more determined that we don't want it here," said D.M. Williams, general manager of the Casa Del Mar condominium on Longboat. "Our property owners did not buy into the flight patterns, and they paid top dollar for their property here. People who bought homes in places like Bayshore Gardens bought them knowing that planes fly close by," he said. The economic contrast can be sharp between the mainland neighborhoods and the wealthier barrier island. Mobile homes at Trailer Estates start at about $ 20,000. Units at Casa Del Mar on Longboat Key range from $225,000 to $380,000, for example, and homes and condos valued at $1 million and more could be affected by the new jet path. Reed said neighborhood property values shouldn't be part of the debate. "We're not just poor trash over here," he said. "We pay taxes just as anyone else and maintain our homes." Furthermore, it's not all poor on the mainland. The Esplanade on the Bay, a new project near El Conquistador, is near the current flight path. That 37-lot gated community features homes ranging from the mid-$300,000s to more than $1 million.
The article states some Longboat Key residents didn't realize until just recently that the 270-turn was actually going to happen, said Crome Dollase, a resident of Sutton Place. He and others have been holding informational meetings with condo residents to spearhead a letter-writing campaign to elected federal officials, the FAA and the airlines. "It's obvious the airport is intent on shifting its problems in one community to a new community, and for a number of reasons that's neither reasonable nor equitable," Dollase said. Airport officials planned to implement the controversial 270-turn in March. But the Federal Aviation Administration, which had approved the procedure, backed off last month and called for more study on the potential environmental impacts. That decision delayed the new turn for at least six months. The FAA canceled a public meeting on the turn in January and has yet to reschedule it.
The article goes on to say opponents of the 270-turn fear they will lose the fight because of population. There are more people on the mainland in favor of the turn than there are people on Longboat challenging it. According to airport officials, the proposed turn will reduce takeoff noise for several thousand more people than those who will suffer increased noise. Williams said many of the Casa Del Mar owners live here only part time and rent out to vacationers. "If they don't live here full time, they aren't being considered," he said. "They say we only have a few hundred residents at mid-key. But we have thousands and thousands of guests." The Longboat Key Town Commission argues that its residents shouldn't have to take on the Mainland's burden. It has spent some $100,000 with a Washington, DC, law firm to challenge the FAA's approval of the turn. At least 1,000 central island residences will experience louder aircraft noise from the new takeoff path. On average, half the daily departures will use Runway 32 and will make the 270-turn. While that may be only 15 to 20 takeoffs currently, the airport has projected as many as 66 daily departures by the year 2000. Wind conditions determine which runway is used for takeoffs and landings. Some days, Runway 32 may be used all day, so all flights would take off over mid-key. The FAA concluded that the noise impact will be "not significant" because the planes should be at least 3,000 feet high when they pass the key. Longboat's attorneys say that won't always be the case, and some areas, like Joan Durante Park, will experience much higher levels of noise.
The article reports the two sides also disagree on the issue of safety. Supporters of the turn say flying over the bay is less risky should a plane go down. Opponents say the turn is not as safe as a straight-out departure, and planes flying over the water run the risk of pelicans being sucked into engines. The FAA found no safety risk in its previous studies, but 270-turn opponents say the agency gave only a cursory review to bird sanctuaries in the flight path. Even "Pelican Man" Dale Shields has weighed in against the 270-turn because it could disturb nesting areas.
The article reports opponents of the turn also say the FAA failed to consider the potential economic impact to the island. The town's attorneys say that some 38,000 tourists annually visit the one-mile area of Longboat Key the jets will fly over. "Rather than vacation in the flight path of a major airport, many of these visitors will go to other, quieter barrier islands on the Gulf Coast," attorneys Duane A. Siler and Carolina L. Mederis told the FAA. "Any decline in tourism would reduce local employment, spending and tourist-based tax revenues." Property values in the mid-key also could be lowered, residents will seek reduced assessments and the town will lose tax revenue, the lawyers argued. "The island is inhabited by many retirees who own property and pay sizable taxes here," Dollase said. "Based on common sense economics, we know that property values would fall." Opponents also argue that the airport has failed to enforce its existing departure path. If pilots maintained a strict 295-degree heading as now required on Runway 32 takeoffs, noise would be reduced for both mainland and Longboat neighborhoods.
The article states the proposed flight path is part of the airport's overall noise mitigation plan, which has been in effect for years. The airport purchased, tore down and resodded 110 properties in the highest noise zone. It also has bought 20 homes in which the airport plans to install sound insulation and then resell them. The buyers must agree to "avigation" easements, which give the airport the right to send planes over their property. "The easements provide some legal shelter for the airport from noise lawsuits," said Noah Lagos, senior director of aviation at Sarasota- Bradenton. The airport also has bought 175 avigation easements, for $2,400 each, from homeowners in Tri Par Estates whose mobile homes can't be effectively soundproofed.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: March 6, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Chris Fusco
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Arlene Mulder, Arlington Heights Village president and chair of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission; Craig Johnson, Elk Grove Village president
The Chicago Daily Herald reports the city of Chicago has updated its soundproofing plan to include homes located just west of O'Hare International Airport previously considered ineligible. Chicago will now soundproof homes in eight communities surrounding the airport.
According to the article, for the first time, contractors for the city of Chicago will soundproof 141 homes on the village's north side, including Elk Grove Village. "Finally, Chicago has recognized we're truly impacted by noise," Elk Grove Village President Craig Johnson said. "It's a start." Elk Grove Village was not considered for soundproofing dollars in the past because Chicago based its allocations on 1993 noise readings. Previously, the Northwest suburb just west of O'Hare did not rate as noisy enough in those calculations. The city in December updated its soundproofing plan to reflect 1997 noise readings, and Elk Grove Village showed significant increases in noise. In addition, the city will install sound-resistant windows, doors and other materials at 63 homes in Wood Dale and 13 in Des Plaines. The towns are part of a $28 million plan to soundproof a total of 850 homes in eight communities around O'Hare this year. Elk Grove Village and a small part of Chicago are the only new additions to the plan, announced Friday by the Chicago-created O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission.
The article reports soundproofing has been a contentious issue between Chicago and the suburbs since it began in 1995. Bensenville sued Chicago in 1997, claiming the city wasn't soundproofing homes in the west suburb because it belonged to the Suburban O'Hare Commission, an anti-O'Hare expansion group. A settlement reached two months later required Chicago to soundproof at least 38 1/2 percent of the homes deemed noisy within each community. A noisy community is one where sound levels are 70 decibels or greater - equivalent to carrying on a conversation outside with background noise. Like Bensenville, Elk Grove Village and Wood Dale are members of the Suburban O'Hare Commission. This year's work will bring all three communities up to the 38 1/2 percent level. Although he is still leery of potential runway expansion at O'Hare, Wood Dale Mayor Ken Johnson is pleased with the soundproofing plans for his community. "We're very thankful for the funds we've gotten," Johnson said. "We would certainly hope to expand the program to include additional houses." Besides houses, 15 schools surrounding O'Hare, including six from Elk Grove Village and nine from Des Plaines, are under consideration for soundproofing. A decision on those, however, will not be announced until fall because the city is gathering more noise data.
The article states the soundproofing announcement comes as congressional leaders are considering several plans to relax or abolish hourly flight caps at O'Hare. Though noise -weary residents say otherwise, many leaders claim getting rid of the caps would allow more flights to take off and land during the day instead of at night, when people are more noise sensitive. Arlington Heights Village President Arlene Mulder, who chairs the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, said she is planning a trip to Washington, DC, to lobby on her village's behalf against removing flight caps. She also asked city aviation officials to keep members updated of any new proposals that come on the table. Mulder also appointed a four-member committee to study whether planned terminal expansion at O'Hare would have any effect on noise.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: March 6, 1999
SECTION: Opinion, Pg. 18A
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Palm Beach Post published an editorial giving the newspaper's endorsement of a YES vote on the question of whether Boca Raton Airport should expand the authority to seven members in give more voice to city residents.
According to the editorial, the straw vote on Tuesday's city ballot in Boca Raton "has little relation to proposed changes in the Boca Raton Airport Authority, which in turn have little relation to any real or perceived noise problems." The airport is owned by the state but operated by a five-member authority that the Legislature created in 1982. The City Council appoints four members, with one at large and one each nominated by the pilots' association, the Federation of Homeowners Associations and the Chamber of Commerce. The fifth member, a resident of the unincorporated area west of the city, is appointed by the county commission. The goal of requiring representatives from different interest groups was to insulate airport operations from politics, according to Airport Director Nelson Rhodes. "A better way to accomplish that would have been to turn the airport over to the county, but Boca Raton wanted no part of that," according to the editorial.
The editorial states in response to noise complaints from people outside the city, Sen. Ron Klein and Rep. Curt Levine, both Boca Raton Democrats, have introduced legislation to expand the authority to seven members. The bill gives the city five appointments and the county two. One of the five city appointees would have to live west of the airport, the same side on which county residents live. Sen. Klein points to the tremendous growth of western areas since 1982 as justification for the change. In the newspaper's opinion, "The bill, however, would do no good and might do some harm, in politicizing the board. Only the Federal Aviation Administration can approve noise restrictions, and the FAA is reluctant to restrict any aircraft other than the noisiest older jets, few of which use the Boca airport. The legislation ought to be dropped."
The editorial notes, "But that is not what Boca voters are asked. They are asked if legislation should give more seats to city residents, 'including those residing within the area affected by airport noise.' The change in the bill makes the question moot, but a YES vote at least says residents care."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)
DATE: March 6, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Jill Rosen
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill Busch, founder of Citizens for Control of Airport Noise; Barry Horowitz, founder of Boca Raton Airport Action Group (BRAAG)
The Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale) reports Naples Airport, Florida, is the first in the United States to receive Federal Aviation Administration approval to ban noisy Stage 1 jets.
According to the article, Boca Raton homeowners and airport officials would like to follow Naples' success. Like Boca Raton, the community of Naples has banded together over airport noise, and while it has earned nationwide respect for its efforts, the people who live there are not resting on their laurels. Naples Airport Executive Director Ted Soliday said Friday people already are pressuring him to get rid of Stage 2s, the next noisiest plane classification. "Now Stage 2 is the bad guy," Soliday sighed. "To some people, it always looks like we're dragging our feet when we're running as hard as we can." Aircraft are separated into three federally designated categories of noise levels, called stages. Stage 1 jets, most built in the early 1970s, are the noisiest, while newer Stage 3 jets are the quietest.
The article reports Naples' ban is the result of years of lobbying the FAA and spending nearly $ 600,000 on studies, consultants and legal fees. Unrelenting complaints from homeowners launched the efforts and assured that Naples Airport officials stayed on course. Naples residents banded together three years ago into a group that eventually gelled into a well-oiled political machine. Citizens for Control of Airport Noise, a coalition of about 400 dues-paying members, takes some credit for first getting a nighttime ban on Stage 1 aircraft. More recently, the group focused on a municipal election and elected three noise sympathizers on the City Council. Bill Busch, a retiree and the group's founder, said without such political muscle, Boca Raton's noise-activists can forget about their airport becoming a Naples. "If you don't get a citizens group organized and literally raise hell, you'll find the people running the airports will never do anything," Busch said.
The article states noise complaints about Boca Raton Airport have risen to the forefront lately, with almost every candidate in the City Council race vowing to push the Airport Authority into action. One of Boca Raton's anti-noise leaders, Barry Horowitz, said Friday that his group, which has already staged protests and letter-writing campaigns, is on the verge of more substantive action. "We're investigating what Naples is doing, and we're going to use them as a benchmark," said Horowitz, founder of Boca Raton Airport Action Group, or BRAAG. First, Boca Raton must do what's called a Part 150 noise study, without which the FAA won't grant any sort of ban. FAA officials said Friday they are "optimistic" that grant money sought by Boca for the study will come through soon. But they can't say when it's coming, and a Part 150 study takes at least a year to complete. The Boca Raton Airport Authority blames bad luck for not having the study under way already. Last fall, when the FAA was about to pay for the study, Congress froze FAA's grant funds. But critics say the authority waited too long to apply for the grant.
According to the article, hindsight aside, Boca Raton Airport Director Nelson Rhodes said he's encouraged to see the Naples ban. "If Naples has been able to get it, it would be fairly reasonable to assume Boca can do it," he said. Rhodes, however, said that with fewer than 40 Stage 1 aircraft in use around the country, "I'm not sure people should get too excited about it." Meanwhile, Naples hopes to ban Stage Two aircraft by next year. "We'll try to move on that as soon as possible," Soliday said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 6, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 5; Zone: Nw
BYLINE: Dimitra Defotis
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission
The Chicago Tribune reports Chicago announced its annual soundproofing plan to insulate homes against noise from jets at O'Hare International Airport, officials announced Friday. Meanwhile, activists question the accuracy of noise contour maps used to determine the allocation of soundproofing funds.
According to the article, Norridge has 211 houses slated for insulation, new roofs and central air conditioning. In Northlake, 196 houses will be soundproofed, and in Elk Grove Village, 141 houses will receive renovations. The project also calls for soundproofing 104 houses on Chicago's Northwest Side, 84 in Bensenville, 63 in Wood Dale, 38 in Rosemont and 13 in Des Plaines. The work was announced by the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, a group of suburban mayors and school officials working with the city to reduce the impact of O'Hare noise on surrounding communities. The group was formed in 1997 by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and gets its money from city sources. The soundproofing funds come from a $3 tax added to tickets of all passengers taking off and landing at O'Hare. The soundproofing work matches last year's level, when the commission also financed the insulation of 850 homes. Since 1995, Chicago has soundproofed 2,175 homes near O'Hare. With this year's work, Chicago will have soundproofed almost half the nearly 7,000 homes most affected by airplane noise, city officials said. While the Noise Compatibility Commission decided which areas around the airport are hardest hit by jet noise, officials in each community will interpret commission noise maps and choose which houses will get work.
The article reports critics of O'Hare noise claim the noise contour map, updated in 1997, underestimates the impact of plane noise in the suburbs. "There are vast areas outside the contours shown that suffer severe noise, " said Joe Karaganis, a lawyer who represented Bensenville in a lawsuit alleging unfair distribution of soundproofing dollars. The noise map will be updated again in 2000 after federal requirements for quieter planes take effect. With more new jets in the air, city officials have predicted that noise levels will decrease, but some suburban officials fear noise could increase if Chicago and federal officials succeed in adding flights at O'Hare. In separate action Friday, the commission appointed a committee to study the noise impact of Daley's proposed $1 billion terminal expansion at O'Hare.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: March 5, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 7
BYLINE: Chris Fusco
DATELINE: Washington, DC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Suburban O'Hare Commission
The Chicago Daily Herald reports the most drastic proposal yet to ease flight caps at O'Hare International Airport will go through U.S. House committee discussions next week. Chicago area noise activists call the proposal "an accident waiting to happen" if it becomes reality.
According to the article, the House bill, whose crafters include Chicago Democratic Rep. William O. Lipinski, would open O'Hare to as many take-offs and landings as controllers consider possible by March 2000. Currently, the O'Hare cap limits the airport to 155 scheduled take-offs and landings per hour between 6:45 a.m. and 9:15 p.m. Eliminating the cap, which has been in place since 1968, would allow more flights to be scheduled during those times. The bill, which also would eliminate caps at New York's Kennedy and LaGuardia airports, likely has bipartisan support to pass through committee discussions next week, said Colleen Corr, Lipinski's chief of staff. It likely will go to the floor with bipartisan support the week after. An executive assistant to GOP Congressman Henry Hyde of Wood Dale said Hyde would fight the bill. A spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Yorkville Republican, did not return phone calls Thursday.
The article reports suburban leaders and lawmakers decried the bill because of noise concerns. The bill goes even further than a proposal by President Clinton, which would eliminate flight caps over four years, and another by the Senate Commerce Committee, which would increase the number of take-offs and landings at O'Hare by 30 per day. "It sounds like the worst of the bunch from anybody's position," said Joseph Karaganis, an attorney representing the Suburban O'Hare Commission. "It's an accident waiting to happen." Although O'Hare-area residents say lifting cap limits would make noise worse, Chicago aviation officials claim the proposal would allow flights to be moved out of night-time hours, when they are less prone to bother people who live near O'Hare.
PUBLICATION: The Dayton Daily News
DATE: March 5, 1999
SECTION: Metro Today, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Katherine Ullmer
DATELINE: Centerville-Washington Townships, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John MacAulay, resident; Aircraft Noise Task Force
The Dayton Daily News reports residents of Centerville-Washington Townships, Ohio, told FAA officials they want relief from night-time cargo plane noise.
According to the article, Federal Aviation Administration officials from Dayton and Indianapolis on Thursday told members of the Aircraft Noise Task Force of Centerville-Washington Townships they will investigate a number of options to alleviate aircraft noise from cargo planes that disturb area residents at night. But a group of area citizens and government officials at the meeting said they are tired of waiting and want solutions. Washington Township resident John MacAulay said Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and Emery Worldwide have added to air traffic congestion. Cargo planes and huge military C-141s from the facilities fly over his house a dozen times a day, he said. If they took a northern route from the base, they would run into traffic from the Dayton International Airport, he said, so they fly a southern pattern.
The article reports Gregory Clatterbuck, assistant manager of operations for the FAA at the Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower said FAA officials have been looking at the possibility of diverting toward Springfield at least half the 24 Airborne Express cargo planes that fly daily from Wilmington and over Centerville-Washington Townships. "I think we'd like to stay east of Springfield," Clatterbuck said. "We don't want to fly over the city but over a more rural area." He said he hopes to report to the task force within 90 days whether such a move is possible. Thomas Kovacinski, FAA Department of Transportation Operation Manager at the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center, said he will look into if air traffic controllers can "tweak" the pilots' night routes. But Douglas Nastally, air space specialist at the Indianapolis Center, said the current routes make up a tightly woven traffic pattern that's difficult to change because of safety concerns. Bob Gray, Airborne Express corporate director, said as a company replaces its DC-8s with more full-bodied 767s, which are quieter and can carry more weight, residents should see fewer and quieter flights. Admittedly, he said that still might not solve the problem.
PUBLICATION: Farming News
DATE: March 5, 1999
SECTION: Pg. 2
DATELINE: Carmarthenshire, Wales, UK
Farming News reports a local planning authority in Wales has placed noise restrictions on a herd of cows as a condition of a permit for a new diary building.
According to the article, in order to protect a nearby residence from disturbance, noise restrictions have been placed by planners on a new dairy unit requested by a Carmarthenshire farmer. Tenant farmer Keith Hughes is fighting the five decibel limit above normal background noise levels imposed on the unit between 10pm and 7am as a condition of planning consent. Hughes has launched an appeal because he says it would jeopardize the efficient operation of the new building.
The article reports CLA president, Ian MacNicol, during a visit to the farm, said: "We urge the planning authority to reconsider its decision to impose the noise restriction as a condition of consent for the new dairy unit." He said the restriction was another example of red tape and bureaucracy burdening farm and non-farm operations in the countryside.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: March 4, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Alison Grant
DATELINE: Cleveland, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Michael A. Dolan and Martin J. Sweeney, Cleveland city councilmen
The Plain Dealer reports Cleveland homes on perimeter of a new airport noise zone will receive sound insulation through grandfathering.
According to the article, although jets flying in and out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport are quieter, the city has pledged free sound insulation for homes that might otherwise have lost their eligibility. Updated sound-monitoring tests that reflect a new generation of quieter jets threatened to pare the number of Cleveland homes that qualify for noise -buffering improvements such as better windows, doors, attic insulation and heating and air conditioning systems. Despite the new sound tests, Mayor Michael R. White said Cleveland will continue to offer insulation to homes on the perimeter of the zone, as well as homes at the core of the zone that continue to be hit with at least 65 decibels of jet noise. "Anyone who has applied should get insulation," White said.
The article reports White's announcement was welcomed by Councilmen Michael A. Dolan and Martin J. Sweeney, who represent neighborhoods near Hopkins. "That is most gratifying to hear," Dolan told the mayor. The White administration previously warned that some homes that now qualify for sound insulation would lose their eligibility in mid-1999 because of the redrawn "noise contours." White's chief of staff said in December that Federal Aviation Administration funding would change with the new noise boundaries, so the city could not guarantee that all homeowners who waited for the improvements would receive them. Dolan and Sweeney lobbied to have all homeowners who had registered for the program "grandfathered in." Some sought the help as long as eight years ago. "Grandfathering has been a concern of mine since I've become a councilman of Ward 20, and I'm glad it's finally become a reality," Sweeney said.
The article states Sweeney said he would like White's pledge to be accompanied by an administration push to advertise the free noise insulation. "There's never been an aggressive effort on the administration's part to identify each and every household," Sweeney said. "I've been doing that rather diligently, but I would sleep better at night if the administration took the initiative." Dolan, while praising White's initiative, said he wanted reassurance that the city was working aggressively to insulate the registered households. Cleveland intended to insulate 350 homes last year, but instead did 100, he said. "What I didn't hear was a time frame with respect to retiring the list," Dolan said. Airport officials have set a goal of renovating 350 homes this year.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: March 4, 1999
SECTION: A Section, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Matthew Henry
DATELINE: Punta Gorda, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Adele and Art McDonnel, residents; Eddie Fischer, resident
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports Punta Gorda, Florida, residents who say they're disturbed by music from Fishermen's Village, a complex of bars, restaurants and shops, aren't getting any help from their city council.
According to the article, residents hoped the city would intervene on their behalf, but their hopes were crushed Wednesday when the council said its powers are limited and suggested they continue trying to work with Village management. But residents were skeptical. Eddie Fischer said he repeatedly asked Barry Wilhite, general manager of Fisherman's Village, to experiment with turning down the noise, arguing that his customers wouldn't notice. But he's refused, Fischer said. Adele McDonnel said she had lost faith that Wilhite wants to appease his neighbors. After she complained to him numerous times about the noise problem, his wife stopped taking her calls, she said. "You've been promising for years that you would try to do something," she told Wilhite. Her husband, Art McDonnell, said he was "all worn out" from trying to work out a compromise with Wilhite. On Friday night, McDonnel said she couldn't hear her own music above the noise from next door. And she said that on a recent afternoon when she tried to read a newspaper on her patio, the music drove her inside. "It's a sad way to have to live," she said.
The article reports city attorney Rob Berntsson told residents that the city's lease contract with the popular complex of bars, restaurants and shops doesn't specifically give the city power to limit noise. In fact, the 50-year contract obligates the city to provide the Village quiet enjoyment, but not vice versa, he noted. Berntsson said passing a noise ordinance or trying to enforce zoning restrictions would be expensive gambles. Instead, council members suggested that residents try to work out a compromise with Village management. Wilhite said he would continue trying to solve the problem. Wilhite reasserted his willingness to work with neighboring residents. "We are monitoring what we're doing, we're trying to be responsible and we will continue to do that," Wilhite said. He said he would explore putting in baffles, devices that dampen or deflect noise. Another option, but an expensive one, would be building new walls or windows to contain the noise. That would be hard to do because of the amount of open space around the center court area where musicians play. The council agreed with Councilman Bill Gorvine's suggestion that Wilhite report back to the council in a month to discuss what attempts he's made to reduce the noise.
The article states complicating the issue is that some nearby residents haven't objected to the noise. In fact, Councilman Bill Richards said he's received letters from people who say they enjoy it. And Mayor Robert Shedd made the point that waves, wind and other ambient noise sometimes drown out the music. Last Friday and Sunday nights, he stood near the closest condos and couldn't hear the music, Shedd said. But a frustrated Art McDonnell said the noise is often all too easy to hear and has been for the past two years. "It's annoying," he said. "It's a real pain in the butt."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 28, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Metro Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times published a series of letters from residents about the impact of noise on residents from proposed jet operations from El Toro airport near Los Angeles, California. Reacting to a previously published article about noise complaints from residents who live in an area deemed a "Quiet Zone," opinions varied. The first letter is from Edward F. Gogin Jr. of Trabuco Canyon, California. Grogin writes:
"The county has provided a report regarding the noise to be experienced by the residents of Orange County from proposed El Toro jet plane operations. This report was prepared with the assistance of the county's own noise consultant, Vince Mestre. According to the county, the noise to be experienced by the residents living near the proposed El Toro airport "won't be a problem." However, this report is certainly in question after the Feb. 18 article, " 'Quiet' Zones Home to Jet- Noise Complaints," in which Newport Beach residents miles away from John Wayne Airport account for over 60% of the noise complaints.
"Mestre might be an expert in noise, but somehow all the noise must have arrested his eyesight and thinking. Did he purposely ignore the information reported in your article when advising the county? Mestre said that Rancho Santa Margarita would be the first neighborhood to the east to hear departing jets. What about Lake Forest, Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills? Pursuant to the county's environmental impact report, these communities are much closer and are only one to three miles from the eastern runway departure. The county's own initial environmental impact report even indicates the noise levels in these communities will be much greater than at Rancho Santa Margarita.
"The county and the wealthy developers who control it will do whatever they can to distort the information, hide the truth and, most of all, mislead the public."
The second letter published in this series is written by C. Flint of Newport Beach, California. Flint writes:
"Was the reason to incite South County residents even more than they have been or to gain stronger support for the new initiative? I live approximately three miles from John Wayne Airport and never even hear the noise, whether I am inside or outside of my home. That is because the planes do not go over my house. Living just a few miles from their traffic pattern makes all the difference. It is my understanding there are no homes that will be directly under the El Toro airport's flight path. Therefore, I must assume South County residents are going to an awful lot of trouble to fight El Toro when they most likely will not be nearly as impacted as they have been led to believe."
The third letter published comes from Norm Ewers of Irvine, California:
"Not only can one chronic complainer skew the complaint numbers, there is also a direct correlation between household income and propensity to complain. Santa Ana Heights residents, who suffer the most from John Wayne Airport noise and complain the least, live in homes that cost about $150,000. Upper Newport Bay and Balboa Island residents, who suffer the least from airport noise and complain the most, live in homes that cost from $348,000 to $1,600,000.
"Not mentioned in the article is another related fact: Affluent Upper Bay and Balboa residents are much more likely than Santa Ana Heights residents to be passengers in the planes creating the noise they complain so vigorously about. The same will also be true of South County residents of El Toro airport: Those who will use it the most will also complain the most."
Del John of Santa Ana Heights writes:
"The story would imply based on complaints that the most disturbing noise from the John Wayne Airport would be on Balboa Island, 50%. The least disturbing would be at Santa Ana Heights, 2%. Going by this theory, the county could reduce the noise level of the airport by 40% in general and on Balboa Island by 80% by paying the Smoots who accounted for about 40% of last year's noise complaints to move."
This last letter comes from Thomas A. Butterworth of Balboa Island. Butterworth writes:
"Some 50% of all airport noise complaints come from Balboa Island, triggering fears among El Toro conversion opponents that their distance from the proposed facility will actually make matters worse. This report is a statistical anomaly: Take away the complaints generated by one Balboa Island family and that figure drops to about 16%, in line with the rest of Newport Beach if you account for population density. Why are there so few complaints from noisier areas like Santa Ana Heights? To call in a complaint you need to have something to say other than, "An airplane just flew over my house."
"Farther down the flight path, aircraft go off course, fly unusually low or restore full power too soon. This is not following the rules established for the "quiet" areas and is logically why residents of these areas would complain. Would people living down the flight path of El Toro complain about the noise even if it is far less than the military jets and less than that currently experienced at John Wayne Airport? Yes, but they should consult a map and stop whining."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: February 28, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. 8; Zone: C
BYLINE: Karen Brandon
DATELINE: Yellowstone National Park, Montana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Corey Wortley, resident; Robert Ekey, Northern Rockies regional director of The Wilderness Society; Bluewater Network; Scott Carsley, resident
The Chicago Tribune reports the snowmobile's noise and pollution in Yellowstone National Park is the latest topic in a larger debate of how to appreciate nature on public lands in the United States.
According to the article, environmentalists believe that with Jet Skis, all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles everywhere, it is impossible to get away from it all. Fans of these devices believe the opposite to be true: More people can escape into the back country because they have transportation to get there. Bitter disputes have pitted cross-country skier versus snowmobiler; hiker versus all-terrain vehicle driver; canoer versus Jet Ski rider. Even mountain bikers on nature trails has been questioned by startled people on foot and horseback. A bill before the us Senate seeks to "restore the natural quiet" by regulating scenic air tours of all national parks.
The article reports last month, the San Francisco-based Bluewater Network, a coalition of environmental groups, petitioned the National Park Service to ban snowmobiles from all parks. Currently about one-tenth of the 378 national parks allow the vehicles. Bluewater also asked various agencies to consider new emission standards for snowmobiles because of the effect of their exhaust on the environment and human health. The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing the first emission standards for snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles; the new rules are due in September 2000.
The article states nowhere is the snowmobile issue more sensitive than at Yellowstone, the world's oldest national park. In wintertime Yellowstone, the snowmobile is more ubiquitous than the buffalo. Along the highways just outside Yellowstone, home to a large concentration of wildlife, yellow diamond-shaped warning signs feature snowmobiles. Nearly two-thirds of Yellowstone's winter visitors enter on snowmobiles. On a typical day 800 snowmobiles travel through the park, and the number soars to 2,000 on weekends. Nature enthusiasts complain that the whine of the snowmobiles is inescapable. Scott Carsley, who leads cross-country ski tours through the park, said, "We ski into the back country 3 miles, and you can still hear snowmobiles. People on the tours ask me, 'Gee, can we ever get away from the noise? '" Prompted by a lawsuit from environmentalists nearly two years ago, the park is conducting studies of snowmobiles' impact. The studies will be used to make a new winter-use plan, due in August. "Our goal will be to have cleaner and quieter modes of transportation in the future in Yellowstone under any alternative," John Sacklin, Yellowstone's chief of planning and compliance, said. "If snowmobiles can be made significantly cleaner and significantly quieter, they'll have a role in Yellowstone's future." Environmentalists believe the machines make it impossible to enjoy the qualities of the disappearing wilderness. "Wildness, natural sounds and the solitude of some of these places are important resources, every bit as important as clean water and clean air," said Robert Ekey, Northern Rockies regional director of The Wilderness Society. "That is seriously compromised by snowmobiles." The other side of the issue is expressed by Clark Collins, executive director of the BlueRibbon Coalition, a non-profit organization based in Pocatello, Idaho. "I'm very opposed to calling these people environmentalists," countered Collins. The BlueRibbon Coalition says its mission is "Preserving Our Natural Resources FOR The Public Instead Of FROM The Public." Collins added, "They're anti-recreation. They won't share nature. They don't want people enjoying these lands at all."
According to the article, environmental activists say pollution is another powerful reason to ban snowmobiles. Preliminary studies in Yellowstone have detected elevated levels of ammonia and sulfates in the snow along the trails, although the environmental consequences are unknown. In 1997, the Bluewater Network contends, the highest carbon monoxide levels in the nation were recorded at Yellowstone's West Entrance, where snowmobile riders wait in line to pay their entry fees. Park rangers complained of nausea and headaches and other symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning, and new systems to pump clean air to them have since been installed at the entry huts. On calm winter days, a blue haze hangs over the town of West Yellowstone, Mont., at the park's western edge. The town, home to 913 residents, has 1,400 snowmobiles available to rent or buy. Brad Schmier, owner of Yellowstone Adventures, a store that rents snowmobiles, said that without snowmobiling in Yellowstone, "We'd be out of business. If people couldn't go into the park, they wouldn't come. There is really no reason why there shouldn't be snowmobiles in Yellowstone." But some residents are tired of snowmobiles. "People here almost worship snowmobiles," complained Corey Wortley, who likes to snowshoe through the park. "You can't get away from them in this area. I didn't come here to walk through the park and breathe exhaust and get run over by snowmobiles."
Previous week: February 21, 1999
Next week: March 7, 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