PUBLICATION: The Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Jamie Sotonoff
DATELINE: Elgin, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that a decision is expected today on whether Elgin Area Unit School District 46 in Elgin, Illinois can continue to operate its power plant next to Bartlett High School. The cogeneration facility saves the school about $1,000 per day on electricity bills, but also creates noise.
The report says the machine, which runs from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., produces electricity that is cheaper than the daytime rates charged by Commonwealth Edison Co. District 46's construction coordinator, Bob Kellen, said it saves the district about $1,000 per day on electric bills. The school district purchases power from ComEd between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. When Bartlett trustees approved a site plan for the high school, it showed the cogenerator within the building's footprint. Then in August, the district built the cogenerator on the side of the building, changing the parking and landscaping configurations and making it necessary for the district to get an amendment to the site plan.
According to the article, Bartlett trustees are expected to vote tonight on the site plan amendment for the school, on the southeast corner of Schick and Petersdorf roads. "It's sort of after the fact," said Bartlett Community Development Director Jim Plonczynski. "It's being done in the spirit of cooperation." The cogenerator has been criticized by nearby homeowners for being too noisy. The school district installed sound walls this fall to absorb some of the noise, Kellen said that was going to be done anyway as part of the district's "fine-tuning" process. A sound engineer recently studied the decibel levels of the cogenerator and found them to meet the state standards for noise pollution. "The school district has gone the extra mile to make sure the facility complies with the noise standards," Plonczynski said. The latest debate over the cogenerator is whether it should be allowed to run until 10 p.m. The school district wants the option of running the machine late in the event that ComEd changes its rates. If the rates stay the same, Kellen said, the cogenerator would continue to shut down at 7 p.m. However, Bartlett trustees are insisting the school district get village approval before using the cogenerator after 7 p.m.
PUBLICATION: Business First-Louisville
DATE: November 17, 1997
SECTION: Vol 14; No 15; Pg 1
BYLINE: Rachael Kamuf
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
Business First-Louisville reports that the Jefferson County (Kentucky) Judge-Executive David Armstrong's chief wish from the 1998 General Assembly is approval of a $20 million bond issue to help speed up the relocation of residents in 1,600 homes near Louisville International Airport at Standiford Field.
According to the article, there are dual benefits for hastening the relocations. It will allow the residents to move from the flight paths and noise levels resulting from increasing air traffic at the airport, where the second parallel runway is set to open Dec. 1. (See related story on runway below right.) And it would provide land needed for development of manufacturing, distribution and warehouse space close to the airport to draw businesses wanting such proximity to United Parcel Service Inc.'s international air hub.
The article describes how Armstrong is asking the state to float a $20 million bond issue to help foot the bill for the estimated $130 million cost of moving families from the Minor Lane Heights, Edgewood, Ashton-Adair, Melrose, Lupina and Jefferson Court neighborhoods. Armstrong was unsuccessful in 1996 as long-promised appropriations for a University of Louisville medical research building and an addition to the county courts complex were given higher priority by the Jefferson County legislative delegation and the Patton administration. Gov. Paul Patton has hinted he would endorse the relocation project this time. Armstrong will reinforce that support with an independent economic impact analysis showing that the project would be a financial boon for the city and state to the tune of about $24,000 an acre.
According to the article, the recently completed study was done by Paul Coomes, a University of Louisville associate professor of economics. Besides the economic-impact data presented in Coomes' report, Armstrong also has the backing of the Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce, the Kentucky State Fair Board and, perhaps most important of all, key legislative leaders. "Personally, I'm for it," said Senate President Larry Saunders, a Democrat from Louisville's South End. "I think it has an excellent chance of passing the Senate. The state will get something for its $20 million." Doug Cobb, president and chief executive officer of the chamber, said the financing is at the top of his organization's wish list. "It will be No. 1," Cobb said. "We've got to move those people away from that noise. Then that land turns into a terrific resource for economic development efforts related to the airport moving forward."
The report says Armstrong, who could not be reached for comment, was scheduled to meet with Patton Thursday afternoon after Business First's deadline to present his case for putting the $ 20 million in the new biennial budget that will be adopted during the session beginning in January. Alicia Sells, Armstrong's press secretary, said Armstrong is motivated primarily by concern for home owners who have had to contend with the sounds of the increased air traffic that has accompanied the $700 million airport expansion. "We have asked residents in those neighborhoods to live with unbearable noise in the name of progress for the good of the community," she said. Armstrong also is excited about the prospects for new jobs that would result from converting the 1,000 acres in the affected neighborhoods to use for light manufacturing, warehouse and distribution facilities, she said. "The state would make money in the end," said Sells, referring to Coomes' study.
According to the article, Coomes reached that conclusion because moving residents would create a demand for new housing while making raw land near the airport available for expanding the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center and increasing the local inventory of much-needed sites for distribution and warehouse space. Coomes estimated that collectively local and state governments would realize a net revenue gain of about $24,000 a year per acre from increases in property, sales and income tax receipts because of new employers moving into Louisville to be closer to the UPS hub. "From an industrial development standpoint, the overall airport site is perhaps the best location in Kentucky," Coomes said in the report, which was conducted for the economic development branch of the chamber. "The area is emerging as one of the prime distribution points in the United States. "It is almost a no-brainer," Coomes said in an interview. "You have 1,000 acres near the fourth-largest (air) freight operation in the world and at the crossroads of three major highways."
The report says using Jefferson Riverport International as a model, Coomes predicted an airport industrial park would fill up with manufacturing plants and warehouse-and-distribution centers employing 7,400 people within 10 years. He valued the investment in land at an average of $50,000 per acre and buildings and equipment at $500 million and the annual payroll at $150 million. Without more industrial space coming on line, Armstrong, Mayor Jerry Abram son and local economic development leaders are fearful that Louisville will not be able to compete with other cities in the region. Coomes noted that Louisville's 2 percent vacancy rate in industrial space is one of the lowest rates in the country. But Coomes and others pointed out that figure indicates there is comparatively less available space than in other markets. Memphis - home of Federal Express' air hub - for example, has 13 industrial parks in the vicinity of its airport and absorbs 4 million to 6 million square feet of space annually. In Louisville, the annual average absorption rate is 2 million square feet. In Memphis, buildings ready for industrial use have been built in anticipation of drawing new business. When prospects visit the city, they are shown space they can move into - not just land where buildings can be built, as is the case here.
The article says the problem is not severe yet, Coomes said in his report, because Louisville's prices are comparable to its prime competitors: Memphis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Nashville and Columbus. Sells and Larry McFall, president of Jefferson Riverport International, said Louisville may be reaching the critical stage in terms of available industrial space. Both referred to Harley-Davidson's decision not to locate here last year because there wasn't enough land in a single spot to meet the company's needs. "We need more speculative building," McFall said. "In today's economy, by the time companies make up their minds, they are ready to take the keys and move in."
According to the article, the subject of who would take on the task of financing and committing to an expensive building with no guarantees of a tenant have not been addressed yet. "Our focus has been building a case," said airport consultant Doug Stern, a principal of the Corradino Group. Every acre at the airport that is redeveloped would lead to another 24.7 jobs elsewhere in the metropolitan area, according to the Coomes report. In Jefferson County alone, as each of the 1,000 acres are turned into industrial use, the overall payroll would increase by $209,568, Coomes concluded. "Airport land could become more valuable than the river-port - maybe double. But that is really conjecture at this point," Coomes said. McFall said 75 companies have invested more than $300 million in land and 6.5 million square feet of space in the river-port since the late 1980s. In 1990, there were 350 people working there; today employment stands at 4,500.
The report says Coomes did not factor in the expense of buying houses, relocating residents and clearing land for new uses in his report. But he said the price tag could be at the high end of the $10,000 to $25,000 an acre spent to develop the recently expanded river-port because of the presence of so many houses and other structures. The river-port, by comparison, was developed on what primarily had been farmland. Just as the original price quotes on the airport expansion have doubled in the last decade, cost estimates for the relocation of 1,600 residents in the targeted neighborhoods have increased by about $60 million. Stern attributed the higher figure to a widening of the targeted area to work out a land swap with the fairgrounds and to address more complaints about noise. The original schedule called for moving people away from noise - found to reach unacceptable levels by the Federal Aviation Administration - over a 10-year period. In 1995, Armstrong proposed reducing the time to four years as stopgap measures recommended by the FAA - such as government-financed installation of soundproofing material - failed to remedy the situation. It's expected only to worsen as a second runway opens to jets next month.
According to the report, in addition to the $20 million sought from the state, Stern said, the $130 million cost would be met, in part, through federal grants and income generated by a passenger fee paid by travelers out of Louisville International Airport. Armstrong also has proposed earmarking a percentage of the city's share of occupational taxes to the project in his recommendations for extending the Louisville-Jefferson County Compact, an agreement between the city and county for sharing costs and benefits of consolidating specific programs. If approved, that could generate $2 million to $2.5 million a year for the relocation fund, Sells said. Armstrong's idea on use of the occupational tax is included in a broader proposal suggesting how public works projects could be financed. Abramson, who is going into his last year as mayor, has said he does not want to force such a major budget issue on future city leaders.
To date,the report elaborates, 525 of the 1,600 homeowners have signed contracts to sell their homes and move: 69 in Minor Lane Heights, 285 in Edgewood, and 171 in the Ashton-Adair area. Stern said only a handful of Ashton-Adair residents have yet to complete the paperwork. "For all intent and purposes, we are finished there," he said. County government and the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County have an option on 287 acres near McNeely Lake where they are proposing to build moderately prices houses to market to residents wanting to escape the air traffic's noise. What will happen to the houses left behind is unknown. A number of houses in the path of the new runways were moved to the Nichols Meadows development several years ago under a program the nonprofit Housing Partnership administered. Sells said relocating houses as well as residents affected by noise has been discussed but no decisions have been made. "We are focusing on the $20 million," she said.
PUBLICATION: The Dominion (Wellington, New Zealand)
DATE: November 22, 1997
SECTION: Features; General; Pg. 19
BYLINE: Alan Samson
DATELINE: Wellington, New Zealand
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Maxine Harris, leader, Residents Airport Noise Action Group
The Dominion reports that a judge's ruling Thursday regarding building rules for new homes near the Wellington (New Zealand) airport ends a decade-long battle between airline and airport officials and residents. The article describes the long fight, focusing on the leader who organized residents and led a successful battle, Maxine Harris.
The article says that Maxine Harris, a resident of Strathmore, first moved into her home in 1963. Five years later, the jet noise started. But what prompted her and her neighbors to form the Residents Airport Noise Action Group was the night-time revving-up of National Airways airplane engines in the 1980s. Harris said, "It was a high-pitched whining. It would wake you up and you wouldn't get back to sleep." Each time Harris phoned the airport to complain, the article says, an airport official told her no one else had complained. But then, Harris said, she talked to a neighbor who said he had complained but was told that no one else had complained. The two neighbors responded by putting leaflets in other neighbors' mailboxes, asking them to call the airport if they were disturbed by the noise. According to Harris, the response from residents was overwhelming, and in 1986 the residents' group was formed to focus on two tasks: to stop night-time engine testing and to get the noise of the 737s reduced.
The article goes on to explain that the residents' group put on a determined front at its first meeting with the city council in 1986. "We said: It's a problem. Either you move all the houses, or you move the airport, or you reduce the noise at its source" Harris said. "Of course, our view was that the only logical thing was reducing the noise and we haven't changed that." The residents were successful in getting the city to pass its first engine-testing bylaw, which limited the times of testing of the National Airways Friendship fleet. However, the problem of the noisy Boeing 737s didn't go away.
Then, in 1987, Ansett Airlines entered the internal air service market, which in turn caused Air New Zealand to multiply its operation, the article says. Harris calls 1987 the year of the "big explosion." Residents, in response, proposed that all 737s be phased out by 1997. Within three months of the proposal, Ansett had replaced their fleet with quieter Whisper jets. The city council then drew up a proposed bylaw which would have required Air New Zealand to reduce its fleet by stages, the article explains. But whether under pressure from the airlines or under the waning interest of a new council that took office in 1989, the proposed bylaw never became law. Harris said, "After a fiery meeting, they passed a gutted bylaw. It set a finite date when the planes should be gone, but no phase-out."
The article goes on to say that in 1992, Air New Zealand announced that seven of its Boeing 737-200s would be hush-kitted by the next year, but said its fleet still would eventually be phased out for 737-300s. Residents then began a new line of argument. According to Harris, the hush-kitted planes were certified to meet international standards, but they only passed technically because of a standard that allows a trade-off, giving leeway if noise limits are exceeded in one of the measured areas. Harris admitted, "They were quieter. What was a very, very, VERY noisy aircraft became a very, very noisy aircraft." The fight went on, and even reached Parliament's select committees, but resolution of the issue was elusive.
Then, the council issued a proposed district plan, which residents objected to on several different grounds. In response to lawsuits filed against the plan, Environment Court Judge Shonagh Kenderdine in August ruled that the airport and airlines must abide by strict rules within an air noise boundary at which maximum noise levels will be set. The noise boundary is intended to shrink as the ability to control noise improves, the article reports. Other regulations in the ruling included a night curfew, and controls on ground-noise, engine-testing, and land-use. In addition, the Defense Ministry agreed to seek quieter aircraft within five years. However, the article says, Air New Zealand still was allowed to fly its hush-kitted Boeing 737 aircraft, apparently into the next century. Some "quiet" freight planes also were allowed to land during the night, prompting fears that regulations may erode.
This past Thursday's ruling was on the last remaining area of dispute -- setting construction limits on new residences built within the air noise boundary. The article says that Judge Kenderdine's ruling was made after two weeks of court sittings in an appeal filed by the residents' group against the city council's proposed district plan. The Board of Airline Representatives and Wellington Airport also appealed against details of the plan, the article notes. The judge had insisted that the parties continue to mediate outside the courtroom, which prompted a consent order agreed to by residents' groups. Still, the residents didn't get everything they wanted. "We didn't win," Harris said. "We didn't agree. We withdrew our appeal against having the 737s phased out. We withdrew on the understanding that the court may not have the ability to order Air New Zealand to change its aircraft. If we'd gone ahead, it might have taken months more and we'd have lost anyway." She said all parties know that the 737-200s have to go eventually, and that the new generation of jets will be quieter. The group's backdown, she said, was in response to reality.
Still, Harris said, the fact that the residents fought so long and hard resulted in something better than the council had decided. If the group hadn't appealed the noise environment, it would be far worse than it is now, she said.
The article goes on to say that included with the new rules is the establishment of a noise management plan group, which will control and monitor the new rules, and which will include ordinary residents. But Harris, who was the key figure in the fight for 11 years, said she's getting out of the fight after the transition period. "I've had enough," she said. "It's time for younger people now."
Harris went on to say that her stamina over the 11 years was a result of her stubbornness. She said, "I'm very stubborn. A Scorpio. I do not like seeing little guys pushed around by bullies. Quite frankly, I can be a bitch." She said she is proud that the airport and airlines came to take her seriously over the years. "We didn't always agree, but I gained their respect," she said.
PUBLICATION: The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
DATE: November 22, 1997
SECTION: Local; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Joe Strupp
DATELINE: Colton, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jo Godwin, Ralph Chapman, Michael Tea, Jerry Young, residents; Don Sanders, City Councilor
The Press-Enterprise reports that the Union Pacific Railroad has plans to expand business in Colton, California, but residents living near the train tracks are complaining that noise and air pollution already is too much of a nuisance. Meanwhile, some city officials say the railroad's expansion plans will benefit Colton's lagging economy.
According to the article, residents near the tracks that run along Hermosa Avenue, Sixth and Eighth streets, and La Cadena Drive have complained for years about late-night train whistles, blocked intersections, and trains that park near residential areas for days. But, they say, in recent months the problems have worsened. Resident Jo Godwin, who lives just yards from a Union Pacific Track on Hermosa Avenue, said, "It is worse than ever because we see more trains. It's impossible to live around that." Resident Ralph Chapman said the latest problem is that trains park near homes and idle for days. "We have a hard time breathing sometimes," he said. "They sit there, all night in some cases, spew smoke and make noise. We can't stand it." Many residents maintain that increasing train traffic will make live unbearable. Resident Michael Tea said, "We would have to have the windows closed the majority of the time. It wouldn't be easy to live with." Another resident, Jerry Young, who has lived near the tracks for 13 years, said he can barely stand the noise now. "It's so loud that you can't hear the TV or the radio, and it shakes the house," said Young.
The article goes on to say that the city's economy has been centered around railroad shipping and travel for 110 years. In fact, the article says, the city's history includes being a key railroad transfer point. The Union Pacific's 500-acre railroad yard dates back more than 100 years, and includes 64 different tracks with room for hundreds of rail-cars. The article notes that more than 200 trains travel through Colton each day. Railroad officials expect their expansion plans will increase those numbers. Gary Davidson, a Union Pacific division supervisor, said, "Colton is the only yard we have in this area outside of LA, so by default it will increase. We will do more business in the area." The company has hired 50 new workers for its 600-employee Colton operation since September, and plans to hire more people in the coming months, Davidson said. Mike Furtney, a spokesperson for Union Pacific, said company officials also are considering building a truck-to-rail transfer station to load and off-load freight. Currently, the article notes, the Colton rail-yard is used only as a switching point for train cars.
The article explains that some city officials are praising the railroad's expansion plans. Mayor Karl Gaytan said, "One of the foundations of our entire economy is railroad. I think it is a great thing for the city." City Councilor Betty Cook also welcomed the expansion. "This will help the city," she said. "More railroad activity will help the economy and our future." But Councilor Don Sanders believes the residents' concerns need addressing. He met recently with railroad officials to discuss the problem of trains that sit and idle for days. "The problem is the clanging and screeching and also that you don't know what is in those railroad cars when they are parked, and they might be something dangerous," said Sanders. "We don't know if there is a danger if there is an earthquake or an explosion." Councilor Cook, however, insisted that people living near railroad tracks should know what they're getting into when they choose to live there. "I have a problem with people who complain about the railroad because this is a railroad town," she said. "I think the railroad is trying to be a good neighbor."
The article also notes that Davidson, of Union Pacific, said he has told engineers to park railroad cars away from homes when they will have long layovers.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: November 22, 1997
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. 6A
DATELINE: Pompano Beach, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel printed an editorial which argues that that Pompano Air Park in Pompano Beach, Florida is a valuable asset to the community, and the Federal Aviation Administration is taking the correct action by refusing to close it. Despite residents' complaints about noise pollution, the editorial says, closing the airport would only increase noise for residents near other area airports.
The editorial states that the airport located on 945 acres west of U.S. 1 between Atlantic Boulevard and Copans Road. The land parcel occupied by the airport is prime real estate, the editorial says, and developers want to use it for residential and commercial development. The editorial admits that such development would increase the city's tax base, bring in revenue, and give Pompano an economic boost. In addition, the editorial says, many residents would love to see the airport close because of the noise from low-flying airplanes.
But, the editorial argues, the FAA must operate a safe, comprehensive air traffic network, and Pompano Air Park is a key element of that network. What would happen if the Florida Department of Transportation ordered the closing of State Road 84, the editorial asks. Additional traffic would be created on University Drive, Powerline, and other north-south thoroughfares, resulting in more traffic congestion, increased driver frustration, and probably an increase in accidents. Similarly, the editorial maintains, if Pompano Air Park were closed, air traffic would increase substantially at other airports, especially at Boca Raton and Executive, with a corresponding increase in noise pollution.
The editorial points out that FAA officials said they would not permit the closing of the airport unless the action was mitigated by expansion of other airports or construction of a new facility. And, the editorial says, that's not likely to happen soon -- new general aviation airports have been blocked in Parkland and Weston, and residents near Boca Raton and Executive airports would oppose expansions there.
The editorial concludes that closing Pompano Air Park might be a boon to Pompano Beach, but it would have negative impacts on pilots, and residents near other airports.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: November 22, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Vicki Hyman
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Albert Hartman, Wilbur Kinkade, Larry Juster, Joe Stagni, residents
The Times-Picayune reports that more than 400 residents from Kenner, Louisiana and the surrounding area attended a public hearing Friday to voice concerns about a proposed plan to convert a taxiway into a runway for small planes at the New Orleans International Airport. Residents vented pent-up frustration about a variety of airport issues, including noise pollution, and many said it was time for the airport to move.
According to the article, the Federal Aviation Administration must approve the proposal to convert the 6,700-foot east-west taxiway, still under construction, into a runway for private aircraft. If built, the runway would replace the 4,542-foot general aviation runway, which bisects the two major runways, the article says. Public hearings are required by the FAA before a decision is made, and Friday's hearing was organized by Kenner officials after residents complained that a forum Monday set up by airport officials diluted their input. At Friday's hearing, residents spoke for an hour and a half, the article notes.
The article goes on to report that residents were upset about several issues, including noise pollution, the airport's buyout and soundproofing programs, safety, flight paths, the depreciation of homes, air pollution, and even alleged political patronage by New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial. The 30 or so residents who spoke offered several suggestions to the problems, the article reports. Some residents thought the airport should be moved to a new sight. Albert Hartman of Metairie said, "This facility is now a white elephant. You have outgrown your usefulness here. True expansion? We all need it. You want it. You need a new facility elsewhere." Resident Wilbur Kinkade seconded that sentiment by saying, "The best thing you can do is move." Another idea voiced by residents was to expand the buyout program to include homes outside the airport's computer-generated noise boundaries but in the same neighborhood as other buyout homes. According to City Councilor John Lavarine III, neighborhoods east of the airport have been "butchered" by partial buyout programs. Resident Larry Juster said, "The airport has given me nothing but a better view of the airport." One idea was to levy a fine on airplane pilots who don't obey accepted flight paths. That idea was shot down by an airport official, who said the FAA doesn't allow the airport to fine airlines for flying outside flight paths. One resident thought decibel meters should be installed in every neighborhood to measure the true extent of noise pollution. Resident Joe Stagni said that the noise levels generated by computers "do not jibe with those pictures falling off my walls." Other suggestions included making the city of New Orleans share ownership of the airport with Jefferson Parish and Kenner, and asking the region's congressional members to attend the public hearings and address the concerns in Washington.
The article notes that not everyone at the hearing opposed the expansion. Bob Thibodeaux, a member of the airport's noise abatement committee, said the proposed runway would be safer than the current one if all the planes took off and landed to the west because they wouldn't fly over homes as often. In addition, the article points out, a study of the proposed project found that the runway would lessen noise in residential areas east of the airport.
The article goes on to say that airport officials commented that the proposed project would bring $3 million to the city and as much as $8 million in indirect revenue. Officials also noted that the airport provides 1,300 jobs to Kenner residents and has an annual economic impact of $218 million.
Meanwhile, the article reports, the New Orleans City Council has asked officials of the New Orleans Aviation Board and the Federal Aviation Administration to attend its Dec. 4 meeting to discuss the expansion. In addition, the council has asked Kenner officials to hold a joint council meeting to discuss airport issues.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star
DATE: November 22, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A03
BYLINE: Kevin Smith
DATELINE: Simi Valley, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Steve and Denice Hessing, residents
The Ventura County Star reports that neighbors of the NewHeart Foursquare Church in Simi Valley, California are opposing a proposed expansion of the church, saying it would create more noise and traffic and would block their view. Officials from the church presented the expansion plan to the Planning Commission Wednesday, but commissioners postponed action and asked church officials to work with neighbors and rethink their design.
The article reports that church officials are proposing to build a 10,453-square-foot, two-story sanctuary and more administrative offices on their property. But residents Steve and Denice Hessing, who live behind the church, said they have endured loud music, trash thrown into their backyard, traffic, noise, and congestion from the church over the past nine years. Steve Hessing said, "I've had rocks thrown into my yard, and sometimes a pizza will even come flying over the wall. Other times, there's kids playing basketball out there until 11 p.m." Other neighbors complained that the poor drainage for rain water for the church has caused flooding on their properties, and that a new two-story building will block their view.
According to the article, Planning Commissioner Dean Kunicki said the Commission decided to ask the church to do outreach to the neighbors and to appoint city staff to facilitate the exchange. He said, "We've looked at a lot of church projects in the past, and we've always tried to bend over backward to accommodate them. But we've never seen so much opposition from neighbors before." Kunicki said the divide between the neighbors and the church is perplexing. "I just can't put my finger on why these two groups are in so much opposition," he said. "It's almost like we're not getting part of the story." A revised plan is expected to come before the commission again in February, the article notes.
The article says that according to Senior Pastor Paul Kuzma, there have been a few complaints to the church, but they perhaps were not taken seriously enough. He said, "In the past, we've made the mistake of not reaching out to our immediate neighborhood, and that has created a problem. But we exist to serve the community. That means we have to be proactive with our outreach. Building a new building certainly has to do with our outreach." Kuzma added that he did not know about some of the complaints until Wednesday's hearing. "Incidents were brought to our attention, but I think some of the neighbors expected us to react to them without even knowing about them," he said.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: November 21, 1997
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev10
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
The Arizona Republic printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Bob Ederer, a Tempe, Arizona resident, regarding the controversy over early morning marching band practice at the Mountain Pointe High School:
I am confused. The Mountain Pointe High School band director is openly and knowingly violating Phoenix city ordinances, which regulate noise between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. and in spite of citizen complaints, the police won't enforce the law? Sounds like lawsuit time to me.
Name as defendants the school, the Police Department, the band director and the city of Phoenix, and every single little kid with a horn or drum. Ask for compensatory damages for loss of property value and emotional stress. It's time we enforced the zero tolerance policy against violations of city ordinances, and that includes illegal noise from the school system. After all, don't they have zero tolerance rules, too? Didn't a group of educrats recently publish a letter extolling its responsibility to teach students that they had a duty to obey society's laws? Don't the city codes count as part of society's laws?
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: November 21, 1997
SECTION: Local (News), Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Del Quentin Wilber
DATELINE: Howard County, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Judith Haxton, resident
The Baltimore Sun reports that the Howard County (Maryland) Planning Board delayed a vote yesterday on whether to allow warehouses, truck terminals, and manufacturing centers in planned employment center zones. Members of the board said the proposal by the county administration to add the additional uses was too vague, and asked for clarification. Meanwhile, residents who attended the hearing opposed the changes, saying their neighborhoods would be hurt by the creation of more noise and traffic.
The article reports that the planned employment center (PEC) zone designation was introduced in 1985 to accomodate businesses that are not classified under retail or manufacturing zones, but it has been widely viewed as a flop. County officials said that little of the county's 1,200 to 1,400 acres of PEC-zoned land has been developed, and they hope that by making the proposed changes, more development would result.
But, the article explains, the timing of the proposed changes have been questioned by some, because Rouse Co. currently has a proposal before the county Zoning Board to re-zone a 517-acre land parcel in North Laurel from PEC to mixed use in order to build a mixed-use community. Critics have said that Rouse Co. officials will use the possibility of warehouses and trucking terminals to scare off opponents of the company's development plan.
According to the article, Planning Board members asked Planning Director Joseph Rutter for more details on the proposed PEC zone changes yesterday. Some members questioned whether the proposed additions would fit the original intent of PEC. Rutter said he would re-submit the proposal Dec. 3, with several possible changes, including: more specific wording about the additional manufacturing uses allowed, and more specific limitations for warehouses and trucking centers, requiring that they be clearly related to other manufacturing centers on-site.
Meanwhile, the article says, residents who attended the hearing said they believe trucking centers and warehouses allowed in PEC zones would hurt their neighborhoods by creating more noise and traffic. Resident Judith Haxton said, "The PEC district next to my property is surrounded by residential uses. While the ordinance addresses loading activity, it doesn't address outside storage and lighting, hours of operation."
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: November 21, 1997
SECTION: Forum Pg.14a
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Airport Neighbors' Alliance
The Courier-Journal printed an editorial which argues that Robert Michael, the manager of the Louisville (Kentucky) International Airport, has badly misjudged two recent situations in which the public wanted input into the airport expansion project and were denied. A residents group asked for representation on the Regional Airport Authority board, and were opposed by Michael. And, after residents worked for two years with a design firm on relocating their community due to aircraft noise, the firm was passed over for other companies when it came time to do the work. The editorial says that Michael is in the wrong and has offended residents.
The editorial reports that the residents group Airport Neighbors' Alliance Inc. mounted a highly charged effort to get representation on the Regional Airport Authority board. Residents want their concerns to be heard on the board, but Michael said, "Once you start putting on people who come with a specific point of view, that starts you down a slippery slope." The editorial points out that having a specific point of view didn't rule out allowing major developers, the mayor, and the county judge to serve on the board, and it shouldn't disqualify residents who live with aircraft noise either.
In the latest controversy, the editorial explains, residents of Minor Lane Heights worked for two years with a local firm, Design Engineering, Inc., on relocating their community, which is unlivable now due to airport noise. But, the editorial notes, when Michael and others present the airport board with a list of recommended designers to lead the relocation project, Design Engineering wasn't on it. Michael believed that the firm's work, experience, and relationship with Minor Lane Heights residents was not relevant. The editorial says that residents likely are offended by Michael's actions, and recommends that Michael see an eye doctor for myopia.
PUBLICATION: The Dominion (Wellington, New Zealand)
DATE: November 21, 1997
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 3
BYLINE: Samson Alan
DATELINE: Wellington, New Zealand
The Dominion reports that a ten-year fight over acceptable noise levels around the Wellington, New Zealand Airport ended with a ruling yesterday by an Environment Court judge which stipulates where and what kind of housing developments can be built near the airport. The court case involved four parties: the Residents Airport Noise Action Group, the Wellington International Airport, the Board of Airline Representatives, and the Wellington City Council.
According to the article, Judge Shonagh Kenderdine ruled that all new housing developments within the airport's air-noise boundary would be deemed "unrestricted discretionary activity." Under this designation, all permit applications in the area will be subject to resource consent by the Wellington City Council, meaning the council will be able to refuse consent on any detail of yet-to-be-set criteria in its district plan. Although the criteria is not yet set, they must be governed by an assessment contained in the ruling that requires new homes built inside the airport's air-noise boundary to meet noise reduction standards by using thicker gib boarding, thicker or double window glazing, and noise insulation. The judge's ruling mandates that the City Council apply stricter rules on new housing than the council had included in its district plan.
The article notes that the judge's decision came after an agreement was reached in August by the parties to the lawsuit on all other issues in the court case. As part of the agreement, an air-noise boundary was set, running at its eastern side along Hobart St. to Shelly Bay Rd., and along Kingsford Smith St. toward Salek St. on its western side. The agreement also stipulated that a limit be set on airport noise emissions in the council's plan, curfews be set on flights and engine-testing, a noise management plan be developed, and an agreement be sought within five years with the Defense Ministry on using quieter planes.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: November 21, 1997
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Paul Johnson
DATELINE: Simsbury, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark and Pam Greene, residents
The Hartford Courant reports that increasing air traffic at the Bradley Airport near Simsbury, Connecticut is creating escalating problems with jet noise for residents. In response to the problem, local officials are asking airport officials to perform a study to determine which parts of the town are experiencing noise. Meanwhile, a public forum on jet noise will be held tonight to detail how the airport measures noise and how residents can register complaints.
The article reports that officials at the airport said air traffic has risen 15% during the last year, leading to more noise complaints. In addition, the flight path of some planes has changed, bringing jet noise to residents who never experienced it before. Two such residents, Mark and Pam Greene who live off Firetown Road, said the number of aircraft flying over their house increased dramatically in June. Now, the Greenes said the hear airplanes every four or five minutes when they are home, and it is driving them crazy. "It's an extreme nuisance. We can't even stay in the house," Mike Greene said.
Meanwhile, according to First Selectwoman Mary Glassman, town officials want the airport to do a study to assess which parts of Simsbury are affected by airplane noise, in order to steer residential development away from areas with frequent airplane noise. Glassman encouraged residents to register complaints about jet noise with airport authorities. The article notes that the phone number for complaints is 860-294-2004.
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: November 21, 1997
SECTION: News; 4 Star, Also In, 3 Star Late, 3 Star, 1 Star; Pg. L01
BYLINE: Don Stancavish
DATELINE: South Hackensack, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Nick Brando, South Hackensack Township Committee member; Arline Bronzraft, noise expert; Alliance of Municipalities Concerning Air Traffic; William DeFabiis, school administrator in South Hackensack
The Record reports that officials of the South Hackensack (New Jersey) Township Committee and the Board of Education have called a public meeting for Tuesday night to discuss noise and air pollution from the Teterboro Airport. The meeting has been prompted by a sharp increase in complaints from residents.
The article reports that South Hackensack, as well as the neighboring towns of Little Ferry and Moonachie, are increasingly experiencing problems with the airport. Many of the problems have resulted from a recent increase in the number of larger cargo jets using Teterboro.
According to Nick Brando, a township committee member from South Hackensack, the meeting is intended to educate people about the airport and send a message that people are opposed to the noise and air pollution. He said, "Most of the residents are really fed up with the noise at crazy hours all day and night." In addition to noise pollution, Brando said the air pollution from the jets may also be discussed at the meeting. He added, "The fumes have just gotten devastating. Sometimes you need a mask when you go out to your car in the morning."
The article says that members of the Alliance of Municipalities Concerning Air Traffic, a citizens group fighting a prospective plan by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to reroute corporate jets from Newark International Airport to Teterboro, recruited Arline Bronzraft, an author, researcher, and noise expert, to speak at the meeting. Bronzraft will discuss the impact of aircraft noise on children who live or go to school in areas that get heavy air traffic, according to William DeFabiis, South Hackensack's chief school administrator. DeFabiis said that jet noise is more disruptive now to students in the area's schools than ever before. "A lot of times when I'm in a class observing, the teachers will actually have to stop teaching until the noise stops," he said. "It's worse and worse."
State legislators and officials from neighboring towns have also been invited to the meeting, the article notes.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev4
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
The Arizona Republic printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Christine Eaton, a Phoenix resident, regarding noise from early morning band practice by the Mountain Pointe High School marching band:
Finally, a name for the lone complainer who is whining about early morning marching-band practices at Mountain Pointe High School.
Julie Suchard, I have also called my city councilman and the mayor's office -- but in my case, it was to support the band. They are one of only two bands from Arizona invited to participate in the Hollywood Christmas Parade and Band Competition. They were invited because of their history of excellence. That excellence requires practice. My son is one of those band drummers that Ms. Suchard is complaining about. He is at band practice every morning at 6 a.m. He has a percussion class every day at Mountain Pointe, and percussion sectionals one evening a week. He has private lessons every month as well. Despite these incredible practice hours, he maintains a 4.0 GPA with three honors classes. These band kids are hard workers. When the student body had a day off for Veterans Day, the band marched in the Tempe Veterans Day Parade, got right onto buses and hurried over to Phoenix, and then marched in the Phoenix Veterans Day Parade. That evening, it had another performance. In the past month, the band students have spent their Saturdays at the University of Arizona in Tucson, at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff and at Mesa Community College in band competitions. The Mountain Pointe Marching Band earned excellent ratings at UA and MCC, and earned a superior rating at NAU and won every award (five caption awards) that the competition gave out.
Guess what, Ms. Suchard? This success all comes from putting time into practice! Your failure to completely research what kind of "noise" you would have to deal with living near a high school should not be taken out on our marching-band students. If they are breaking a law, we will work for an exemption for the marching-band kids. If that is not possible, we will work to repeal the law. As a resident of our community, you should be supporting these kids and this excellent program, not whining about losing an hour of sleep. Go to bed earlier or move; the high school was there before your house was built.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: News Pg. 02b
BYLINE: Darla Carter
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joe Neely, resident
The Courier-Journal reports that about 50 residents attended a meeting sponsored by the Regional Airport Authority last night in Louisville, Kentucky to discuss noise from planes at the Louisville International Airport. The meeting was held to play a simulation of the jet noise level that residents can expect after the new West Runway opens December 1 at the airport. But the simulation provoked residents, who said the noise level is already much greater than the simulation, and they are fed up with it. Meanwhile, airport officials told residents that the areas many of them live in are not eligible for assistance from noise problems because they are outside the boundary considered to be too noisy for daily living.
According to the article, the new runway will make it possible for two planes to take off or land at the same time. Residents in downtown Louisville, Germantown, and Shelby Park have already complained about noise from planes using the East Runway, which opened in 1995, and even more planes will be flying over those neighborhood when the West Runway opens. People who currently live south of the airport will be the hardest hit by the jet noise from the new runway, the article explains, but last night's meeting was held for people living north of the airport in the last of four information workshops about the new runway.
The article reports that after the jet noise simulations were played, a resident from Schnitzelburg got rousing applause when she said the simulations "don't even approach the noise of the planes coming over where we live." She added that jet noise has disrupted many aspects of her daily life, including talking on the telephone and watching TV.
Meanwhile, Bob Michael, general manager for the Regional Airport Authority, told residents that nothing can be done to help people in Schnitzelburg and other neighborhoods such as Old Louisville, because they live outside of the area considered by airport authorities to be too noisy for daily living. But several people said that a study conducted by the Regional Airport Authority and Federal Aviation Administration to determine which neighborhoods have unacceptable noise was not accurate. The study was used to determine which neighborhoods would be eligible for soundproofing or buyouts. Joe Neely, a resident living near Iroquois Park, said that the noise studies do not accurately reflect the impact noise is having on residents. He said airport officials look at what the noise level is over the course of a year. "They say you have to go by averages, but the human response is not based on averages," he said. ". . .It's those special occasions -- the things that happen five times a night -- that wake you up."
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: News Pg.1a
BYLINE: Nina Walfoort
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Fred Williams, Minor Lane Heights Mayor; Carole Cantrell, Minor Lane Heights council member
The Courier-Journal reports that the Regional Airport Authority in Louisville, Kentucky has ignored the recommendation of leaders in Minor Lane Heights for an engineering firm to design a new site for residents to move to because of intolerable jet noise from the Louisville International Airport. Minor Lane Heights residents had worked with the firm the town recommended for two years to come up with an acceptable residential development design. In response to the airport authority's decision, leaders of Minor Lane Heights are threatening to move without the airport's assistance, or even to stay put. Leaders also said residents might consider selling their property directly to a private developer or commercial interest and selecting their own relocation site. Minor Lane Heights Mayor Fred Williams said he will get more input from his constituents, but he added, "It would tickle me to death for everybody to tell them to stick it."
According to the article, the airport authority wants to use a federal grant to move residents in Minor Lane Heights who are affected by jet noise to 287 acres on Cedar Creek Road in southern Jefferson County. Yesterday the authority selected the firm of Birch, Trautwein & Mims to do preliminary work on the site. The firm Minor Lane Heights officials and residents had been working with for two years and had recommended for the job -- Design Engineering -- submitted a plan for the site and a letter explaining its record of working with the city's residents, but the firm didn't even make the short list of two firms that the airport authority considered yesterday. Doug Stern, a spokesperson for the project spokesman, said Design Engineering's work with Minor Lane Heights wasn't mentioned at the airport authority meeting because airport manager Robert Michael believed it was irrelevant. Carole Cantrell, a member of the Minor Lane Heights council, said the authority's action was typical of the arrogance airport officials have shown toward residents affected by airport noise. "We're expendable as far as those people are concerned," she said. "They think we're going to roll over and play dead."
The article goes on to explain that six engineering firms submitted "statements of qualifications" for about $50,000 worth of design work on the project. If the site later proved appropriate for the development, a larger contract was intended to be awarded later. According to Stern, the qualifications of the six firms were reviewed by the airport staff and narrowed to two finalists; those finalists made presentations to Michael and representatives of Louisville and Jefferson County, and Michael recommended the finalist to the board. Michael told the board the group who reviewed the firms decided that Birch, Trautwein & Mims had the best qualifications. "Their presentation was clearly superior," Michael said. The airport authority was not told that Minor Lane Heights has been working on its own for two years with Design Engineering to identify sites where the city might relocate, the article says.
Meanwhile, airport authority board member Ray McDonald, a retired developer, said last night after the meeting that he was unaware that Design Engineering had worked with Minor Lane Heights, but he wouldn't say whether that would have affected his decision. McDonald added that there were other communities besides Minor Lane Heights that are involved in the relocation project and that they wouldn't have anything to do with the project "until we get it done." J.D. Nichols, another board member and developer, said he has worked with and respects Birch, Trautwein & Mims, but added that the firm was not known for its residential work. However, Jim Birch, a partner in the firm, responded that roughly half of the company's business is residential.
The article notes that Design Engineering last year put an offer on the same land on Cedar Creek Road that the airport has optioned, and had already designed a plan for its development. But the plan was scuttled when the Metropolitan Sewer District rejected its proposal for sewage treatment.
The article goes on to say that last night, after the board's decision, Minor Lane Heights officials met with Phillip Gambrell, vice president of Design Engineering, to discuss the situation. Gambrell said he was disappointed the firm didn't even make the short list. "I'm upset we've done a lot of free work, and we've just been snubbed," he said. He added that he had worked closely with the residents to design not just a subdivision but a town, with a community building and possibly a school and churches. "The people of Minor Lane Heights have overwhelmingly said they want this to be a city. It's a lot more than just streets and houses."
Gambrell added that he was concerned that the town and other residents might not be as well represented by Birch, Trautwein & Mims because the firm has done work with United Parcel Service and Waste Management, two potential users of the land Minor Lane Heights is leaving. Birch confirmed that the firm works for UPS and Waste Management, but said it would have no bearing on his company's work on the airport project. The company has a "total division" devoted to the Waste Management work, he said, which is completely separate from the firm's residential work.
According to the article, Gambrell said he would like to continue his firm's involvement in the project, but said he didn't know how that would happen unless the airport authority decides to listen to what residents want or unless the town decides to proceed on its own. Burt Deutsch, project manager for The Corradino Group, said the project officials would be happy to have input from Minor Lane Heights or any representative, such as Design Engineering. But Mayor Williams laughed when he heard that comment. "They keep telling us we will be involved, but they haven't listened to us yet," he said.
PUBLICATION: Daily Mail (London)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 33
BYLINE: James Clark
DATELINE: Bournemouth, England
The Daily Mail reports that Jeanette King and her two children of Bournemouth, England have been evicted from their home after a 13-year-old neighbor complained that King's non-stop playing of Frank Sinatra and Dire Straits records were preventing him from doing his homework.
The article explains that neighbor Ashley Taylor wrote to Bournemouth Borough Council complaining about the noise. He wrote in his letter, "I find it very hard to concentrate on my homework and studies in my bedroom because of the loud and heavy bass music that booms through the walls from next door. I have had to suffer for two years now. I would like to do well in my exams in a couple of years so I can get a job which pays well." In response to the complaint, the council's environmental health department installed $6,000 worth of equipment in the Taylors' home to monitor the volume and duration of the music, the article says.
The article reports that King has lived in her mid-terrace house in Ensbury Park, Bournemouth, for two years with her 16-year-old son and four-year-old daughter. King admitted before magistrates that there was excessive noise, but she denied other nuisance allegations. She said, "They [the Taylors] make plenty of noise themselves by shouting late at night but I don't want to get into any fights, I just want to keep myself to myself." King's son defended his mother, saying, "Mum only played love songs by Frank Sinatra and stuff like Dire Straits. It is not exactly powerful stuff, is it? We are going to be slung out of our home just a few days before Christmas. We have no idea where we are going to go. It's a real nightmare."
PUBLICATION: The Evening Post (Wellington, New Zealand)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 3
BYLINE: Lidia Zatorski
DATELINE: Wellington, New Zealand
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Residents Airport Noise Action Group
The Evening Post reports that Environment Court Judge Kenderdine ruled yesterday that new housing developments on industrial or commercial land around the Wellington (New Zealand) Airport will have to meet new planning rules, including the use of noise insulation. The article says that the ruling is an attempt to end an 11-year battle over noise at Wellington Airport. Meanwhile, residents that have been fighting for stronger noise controls said that the ruling passes the problem back to the community instead of to the noise-makers.
According to the article, the ruling stipulates that new residential developments in industrial or commercial sites in Miramar, Maupuia, the southern end of Lyall Bay, and the northern end of the airport runway will be "discretionary activity." This means that resource consent applications for developments will have to be publicly notified, be open to comment from the airport company and airlines, and meet certain criteria set by the city council such as noise insulation. The sites in question could potentially be developed with 300 new houses.
The article reports that Maxine Harris, spokesperson of the Residents Airport Noise Action Group, said the ruling places restrictions on the people suffering from the noise, rather than on those creating the problem. "They are not dealing with the problem but allowing it to continue and increase," she said.
But officials of the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand (Barnz) has welcomed the decision, the article reports. John Webb, Barnz executive director, said the airlines would have liked stronger controls, but the ruling did impose some greater restrictions on future development. "We no longer face the prospect of homes being constructed without any consideration of whether they are in a suitable location with regard to the airport," he said. Webb added that the ruling places a lot of responsibility on the Wellington City Council to oversee the planning process.
PUBLICATION: The Herald (Rock Hill, SC)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: State; Pg. 14A
DATELINE: Charleston, South Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: National Audubon Society
The Herald reports that the South Carolina state Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management issued a decision Tuesday that plans for a racetrack near the old-growth Francis Beidler Forest comply with the state's Coastal Zone Management Act. The agency had ruled earlier that the project complied with the state rules, but reviewed its decision after the state Department of Archives and History raised concerns that noise from the track could affect the forest. Meanwhile, opponents led by the National Audubon Society have challenged several permits for the proposed track near Four Holes Swamp, just two miles from the forest.
The article reports that Michael Brown and Howard Tharp of Moncks Corner have been working for two years to get permission to build a $1.5 million, half-mile racetrack just off Interstate 26. The developers still need approval for a septic tank at the site, the article notes.
Opponents have challenged the prior approval of a septic tank permit by the Department of Health and Environmental Control, saying the agency did not follow proper procedures when it approved a permit. Ray Stevens, the Administrative Law Judge in the case, has upheld the state agency's procedures for making a decision on a septic tank, but has asked to see more information about the permit.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Art Desk
BYLINE: Lorenza Munoz
DATELINE: Costa Mesa, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Richard Dixon, chair, El Toro Reuse Planning Authority
The Los Angeles Times reports that a pro-airport group in Orange County, California, called Commercial Pilots for Airport Safety, said that the proposed east/west airport at the proposed El Toro Airport would be safe. This contradicts statements from the two U.S. pilot's unions for commercial airlines.
The article notes that the Air Line Pilots Association. and the Allied Pilots Association. have said the runway -- which would be used for 70 percent of takeoffs -- would not be safe because planes would be heading towards the mountains, where return to the airport would be difficult if there was any engine failure. Strong winds could also complicate such a maneuver.
The article notes that Commercial Pilots for Airport Safety, made up of ten current and former airline pilots from Orange County, say that safety risks could be mitigated 80 percent of the time by reducing the weight of airplanes when winds increase. This holds true for "wide-body 767's and narrow-body 757's". Takeoffs could also go to the north if there was too much wind.
The article notes that the El Toro Resuse Planning Authority, which wants to use the airport for non-aviation purposes, questions why the Orange County group is contradicting the two national unions. "If this information is so steadfast and rock-solid, why doesn't Air Line Pilots Association. come out and say exactly the same thing?"
The article goes on to explain that the two national airline associations are suggesting that the county make safety, not noise reduction, their top priority. Flights to the south would cause more noise problems and flights to the north would be closer to airspace for John Wayne and Los Angeles International airports, but both would be safer than takeoffs towards the east.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 5; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Barry Stavro
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California area
The Los Angeles Times reports that the county Regional Planning Commission in Los Angeles, California will being studying the feasibility of a proposed on-ramp at Universal Studios for the Hollywood Freeway. The ramp has been proposed by Universal Studios, which is undertaking a $1-billion expansion of their buildings. Residents say they haven't been involved in Universal's decisions, and a noise consultant admitted that Universal didn't give enough information about how noisy there facility can be.
The article reports that even after being reduced by 40 percent to accommodate upset neighbors, the expansion would increase Universal's building space by 60 percent, adding 3.3-million square feet to the complex, which includes studio space, a hotel, office space and stores. The current land owned by Universal includes 416 acres and is governed by laws of both the city and county.
The article goes on to say that Wednesday's 60-person audience at a public hearing was rowdy at times. One planner said that a permanent neighborhood committee should be established to be part of the expansion plan, which will span 15 years. The audience applauded his comment that "With a project of this size, we need to set up a formal mechanism for groups in the area . . . and have them be part of the formal process." Universal says existing procedures and meetings with community groups should be sufficient.
The article concluded with testimony from a noise consultant who said that to solve Universal's problem of not having enough noise data, it should hire an outside party to measure noise randomly several times each year. Commission members agreed that noise was an important part of the issue.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Alan Scher Zagier
DATELINE: Durham, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kathleen Jordan, Wexford resident; The Neighborhood Coalition Against the Proposed Sports Club and Shooting Ranges; MaryAnn Black, member, Joint City-County Planning Committee
The News and Observer reports that there is a growing battle in the Durham, North Carolina area between residents of new subdivisions and proponents of gun ranges. In one recent fight, Duncan Floyd, a property owner who wanted to expand his private shooting range, met with strong opposition from neighbors and dropped his request for a permit, the article says.
According to the article, Floyd lives on nearly 200 acres in eastern Durham County, an area which has become a rapidly growing bedroom community straddling the Durham-Wake County line. Floyd had planned to expand his pistol and rifle range to include an outdoor recreation center with skeet and trap shooting, archery, and ropes courses. He said he tried to compromise with neighbors who didn't like the proposal by offering to create a 35-acre buffer, a protected wildlife area, and other concessions, and he later agreed to give up the rifle and pistol range but keep skeet and trap shooting. But neighbors still opposed the idea, and Floyd dropped his permit request two weeks ago. Instead, Floyd said he will keep his small, private firing range open and will lease the land to hunters and target shooters, an option he says is protected by a recently approved state law. And, he has decided to sell about 60 acres of timber rights, which will bring bulldozers and logging trucks into the area which was to be the wooded buffer zone. "I think the neighborhood lost," he said. "The county lost. And I lost some." Floyd added, "People say they move to the country to get away from noise. Well, if they ever lived in the country, gunfire is a part of living there. Somebody comes in and buys an acre lot and thinks they rule the world."
Meanwhile, opponents of the proposal, mostly residents of subdivisions such as Wexford and Hunter Hills, were concerned about noise, safety, traffic, and plummeting property values and formed the Neighborhood Coalition Against the Proposed Sports Club and Shooting Ranges. Kathleen Jordan, a Wexford resident and member of the group, said, "This is not an anti-gun issue. It's an issue of noise and safety in residential neighborhoods." Jordan added that with neighbors like the Raleigh-Durham International Airport and the Wake County Wildlife Club, a private hunting organization that abuts Floyd's property, residents feel like they already have too much noise. Residents are so concerned about the issue, the article reports, that they have asked county officials to change a local ordinance and prohibit all new shooting ranges or the expansion of existing ranges that fall within two miles of residential subdivisions. The county currently is studying the idea, although county attorneys and planners have said the proposal is impractical and possibly illegal. MaryAnn Black, a member of the Joint City-County Planning Committee, said, "I would not want to see any gun ranges in any community close to where people live." The article notes that some committee members had considered a ban on outdoor shooting ranges, but were told that wasn't possible.
In a related matter, Wake County commissioners on Monday approved the construction of a public, indoor firing range in Holly Springs. Residents and town leaders had vigorously opposed the range, the article notes. In concessions to the residents, the county officials eliminated plans for a skeet and trap shooting area and partially enclosed the pistol and rifle range.
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A22
DATELINE: Orlando, Florida
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Len and Barbara Bergeson, residents of Merritt Island, Florida, regarding noise pollution at an Orlando Magic game:
My wife and I attended the recent Orlando Magic game against the Sacramento Kings. Not only was the caliber of the Magic team pathetic, but the noise level of the "music-rap" was enough to drive you out of the arena. Could it be that the noise level is affecting the play of the Magic?
In previous years irritating sound wasn't played during the play of the game -- just at timeouts and between quarters. That was bad enough. If the "boom box" sound level at the arena isn't lowered, we're convinced that there will be a great many young people now who will be deaf when they reach their 40s and 50s.
The air pollution problem was solved with no smoking in the arena. We think that many will agree that it's time to stop noise pollution also.
PUBLICATION: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. C-4, North Neighborhoods
DATELINE: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rudy Ringel, Milton Schaudt, residents
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that angry Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) area residents complained to county supervisors last night about noise from the Harmony Casting plant on Perry Highway. Their complaints come in the face of a proposed expansion at the plant. Meanwhile, the board of supervisors is considering passing a noise ordinance which, among other things, would require the plant to be properly insulated and inspected by the township engineer.
The article reports that within the last year, the plant upped its operation from 8 hours a day to 24 hours a day. In addition, Don Weil, president of Harmony Casting, recently submitted a preliminary sketch for an addition to the plant. Weil said the noise from the plant isn't that loud, and he hopes to submit a final plan for the plant addition in December.
Residents, however, said the noise is a problem. Rudy Ringel, a Victory Terrace resident, said the noise could be heard as far away as Lancaster Township. Milton Schaudt, whose home borders the plant, said, "Before this situation came about, we lived a peaceful life for years and years."
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Lifestyle; Pg. H06
BYLINE: Charles Fenyvesi
DATELINE: Bergen County, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Haskell Small, composer and concert pianist
The Record of Bergen County, New Jersey printed an editorial in which the columnist argues that the leaf blower should be banned. The writer says that the noise pollution caused by leaf blowers cannot be justified, and rakes are pleasant alternatives.
According to the editorial, leaf blowers make intense noise that reverberates in the head like a toothache or a dentist's drill. While the leaf blower operator often has ear plugs, everyone else does not, the writer points out. If you walk within 20 feet of a leaf blower going at full blast, the sound is earsplitting, and the noise makes your ears ring long after it has stopped.
The editorial goes on to say that the newest leaf blowers are a little quieter than they used to be, and they pollute less and are lighter-weight. However, the columnist argues, leaf blower operators always have a look of strain on their faces while using the machine, and some pets are terrified.
Haskell Small, a composer and a concert pianist living in Washington, D.C., says leaf blowers are "intolerable," particularly when he tries to write music. He said, "When I play music, I usually can drown out the sound of a leaf blower. But when I try to compose or write a letter, there is no way for me to listen to my inner voice, and the leaf blower blanks out all the harmonic combinations." Small added that the worst part is when several workers, as many as five, all attack a neighbor's yard with leaf blowers at the same time. He said, "Each blower has a different beat. They do not have the same tone. They sound terrible when they are together." According to the editorial, Small has talked to the workers about the noise, but they said this is how they make their living. He added, "They tell me to go away. But often they blow the leaves down to the street, and they do not seem to mind that little by little the wind picks up the pile and eventually blows back most of the leaves. It all seems so pointless."
The editorial writer points out that leaf blower proponents argue that the machine is a time-saving, labor-saving device. The columnist says this may be important for the commercial world, but he bets customers would be willing to pay a little extra for manual cleanup and a neighborhood's peace and quiet.
And, the writer asks, if you're doing your own yard maintenance, what's so bad about cleaning up the lawn with a rake and bagging the leaves or dumping them on a compost pile? We could all do far worse things with our time than gathering leaves on a fall afternoon and reflecting on the past summer, the writer concludes.
PUBLICATION: Sacramento Bee
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Neighbors; Pg. N1
BYLINE: Grace Karpa
DATELINE: Placer County, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill Santucci, County Supervisor
The Sacramento Bee reports that about 20 residents of Placer County, California met with Placer County Supervisor Bill Santucci about encroaching development in the county. While residents are fighting a Home Depot store permit in Auburn, Santucci is fighting the proposed Bill Graham Presents amphitheater in West Placer. Santucci said the amphitheater will have traffic and noise problems.
According to the article, Santucci said a noise test for the proposed amphitheater performed in July was inadequate. "It didn't include 12,000 people screaming," he said. In addition, he said that the inversion layer wasn't present during the time of the test, which increases the volume of sound. The Mountain View amphitheater, owned by the same company, generated 1,627 complaints about noise from neighboring Palo Alto residents to the city of Mountain View, Santucci said.
PUBLICATION: The Southland Times (New Zealand)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 9
DATELINE: Queenstown, New Zealand
The Southland Times reports that at a hearing in Queenstown, New Zealand yesterday, officials from the development company Remarkables Park argued that their proposed subdivision zoning near the Queenstown Airport should be allowed, in conjunction with acoustic insulation in the homes. The developer's comments came after two days of Queenstown Lakes District Council district plan hearings in which opponents of the proposed zoning change -- developer Terrace Tower and airlines Air New Zealand and the Mount Cook Group -- spoke.
According to the article, Laurie Newhook, attorney for Remarkables Park, said most of the opponents had a commercial axe to grind. Newhook said the company was proposing "limited" residential development in "outer control noise boundary" of the airport. No airport in the world banned housing in such a noise level area, Newhook said. He went on to argue that housing should be a permitted activity in the area as long as acoustic insulation is used.
The panel reserved its decision, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: November 20, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Karla Schuster
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports that the Airport Authority in Boca Raton, Florida on Wednesday voted unanimously to ban touch-and-go training maneuvers at night and on weekends from the Boca Raton Municipal Airport in an effort to reduce noise. Touch-and-go landings, which are repetitive landings and take-offs by student pilots for training purposes, will be limited to weekdays between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., to take effect on January 1. The ban was recommended by an airport noise committee created several months ago to suggest ways to curb noise at the growing airport. The Pompano Beach Air Park instituted a similar ban on touch-and-go maneuvers in the past year, and as a result, the maneuvers have increased at Boca Raton, the article explains.
According to the article, the new rules stipulate that pilots will be notified after one violation and can ask for a hearing before the Airport Authority to appeal. After two violations, pilots will be barred from using the airport for 30 days, and after three violations, pilots will be barred indefinitely. The maximum penalty is a lifetime ban for chronic violators. The Airport Authority also will be able to revoke any leases, licenses, or franchises a pilot has at the airport. Even harsher penalties were proposed, the article says, including a $500 fine and a 60-day jail sentence, but those measures were tabled until airport officials confer with city attorneys about whether the Police Department can enforce the touch-and-go ban.
The article explains that several authority members were hesitant to impose penalties such as fines and jail time. "I think we're biting off a very difficult chore here," Airport Authority Chair Phil Modder said. "This is really new territory for us. [The ban] is a little more onerous than I expected, so let's make sure we're not getting beyond our jurisdiction." But Airport Manager Nelson Rhodes argued for fines and jail times right away. He said, "I think we have the enforcement power to do this; and without penalties, the rules don't mean anything. I'm not saying we'll ever have to go that far, but I think we have to be able to say to people that if you violate the touch-and-go rules, there are consequences."
Rhodes also noted that the ban at Pompano has similar penalties, but has not been challenged by the Federal Aviation Administration. In 1990, the article explains, Congress passed a law that makes it nearly impossible for airports to imposing flight curfews. But Rhodes said so far, rules regarding touch-and-go landings haven't conflicted with the 1990 law.
PUBLICATION: The Evening Standard
DATE: November 19, 1997
SECTION: News; Local; Pg. 2
BYLINE: John Saunders
DATELINE: Palmerston North, New Zealand
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John MacAskill, resident
The Evening Standard reports that an Environment Court judge in New Zealand hinted yesterday that the use of the Turitea rifle range might have to be severely restricted in order to comply with the Resource Management Act. Judge John Treadwell made the comments at the conclusion of a hearing initiated by the Palmerston North City Council, which argues that the judge should grant a declaration stating that land owned by the rifle club is being used for activities contrary to the Act. The decision in the case was reserved, the article says. However, in closing, the judge said that any such declaration could be over-ridden by a section of the Act that stipulates that occupiers of such land must ensure that noise emissions don't exceed a reasonable level.
According to the article, John Maassen, an attorney for the city, said the Rifle, Rod and Gun Club Manawatu wanted to extend activities that were already legally uncertain. Discussion ensued on whether the club's original consent application was for both small-bore and large-bore rifles.
Meanwhile, neighbors of the gun club had complained about noise and safety issues. Neighbor and shift worker John Macaskill said the "intensive and invasive" weekday shooting operations disrupted his sleep.
The article notes that local regular police, the armed offenders squad, and the personal protection unit use the range for training as often as three days a week, and about 900 rounds a day are fired.
PUBLICATION: Knoxville News-Sentinel (Knoxville, TN)
DATE: November 19, 1997
SECTION: North Zone; Pg. N1
BYLINE: Mike Flannagan
DATELINE: Knoxville, Tennessee
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill McClain, president, Lonsdale Community Service neighborhood organization
The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports that in response to residents' complaints, the owners of the Ameristeel slag-processing operation run by Olympic Mill Service in Knoxville, Tennessee have agreed to make some changes to improve the noise and dust for neighbors in the Lonsdale community. Residents asked the city to get involved in their on-going problem with the plant owners after the company didn't cut back operations as promised.
According to the article, Mayor Victor Ashe led a walking tour of the Lonsdale community, which was attended by Bill McClain, president of the Lonsdale Community Service neighborhood organization, City Councilor Larry Cox, Ellen Adcock, city director of administration, city staff workers from Codes Enforcement, Public Service, and the Knoxville Police Department, and about 20 residents. The article says that residents have been trying to get the company to agree to make changes to reduce noise and dust for about two years, according to McClain of the neighborhood group. The operation involves dumping slag into loaders and grinding it. Neighbors say that the operation runs on weekends and weekdays, and that they were told by company officials that the activities would be cut back by the summer, which hasn't occurred. In response, the residents asked city officials to get involved in the dispute.
Adcock of the city met recently with Ameristeel and said they agreed to make some changes that she believes will bring relief, the article reports. Adcock said, "They really want to be good neighbors and they pledged to stay in contact with me."
The article goes on to say that Ameristeel officials agreed to move the grinder 200 yards farther back from the residential properties on Louisiana Avenue, Adcock said. The grinder is the source of the constant noise, according to residents. Adcock said, "They're going to put the slag itself between them and the houses. They think that's going to relieve the noise quite a bit." Mayor Ashe said that when mixed use industrial and residential areas are next to each other, the quality of life must be made better for residents. Ashe said, "We're going to do within the law all that we can do to make life more pleasant for the residents here in this neighborhood."
PUBLICATION: The Montgomery Advertiser
DATE: November 19, 1997
SECTION: Montgomery; Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Kim Chandler
DATELINE: Montgomery, Alabama
The Montgomery Advertiser reports that the Montgomery (Alabama) City Council on Tuesday warned owners of the Diamonds nightclub on Narrow Lane Road that there have been noise complaints about the establishment. However, nightclub owners insist they aren't causing the noise.
The article says that the nightclub owners said they had not been cited for a violation of the city's noise ordinance. Kent Crenshaw, owner of Diamonds, said, "I am willing to do what I have to, but I don't know if that is going to stop the calls." Crenshaw said he believes noise from the nightclub can't be heard outside the building, and has had security guards verify that. Joe Hardy, the owner of the company that provides security for the nightclub, said he thought the noise was coming from a nearby sorority house.
Meanwhile, Alice Reynolds, the City Council President, said she has had several telephone calls after 9:30 p.m. from residents complaining about noise levels. "We really cannot have people in their beds being disturbed by an establishment," she said.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: November 19, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. B4
BYLINE: Andrew Guy Jr.
DATELINE: Chapel Hill, North Carolina
The News and Observer reports that officials in Chapel Hill, North Carolina are continuing to look for a site for a new firing range, as residential development and complaints have sprung up around the old firing range. In a related matter, commissioners in Wake County voted Monday to build a new firing range near Holly Springs.
The article reports that Chapel Hill police officers have used the old firing range, owned and operated by the Chapel Hill Police Officers Association, since 1960. The range is located on a 26-acre tract along Old N.C. 86, halfway between Carrboro and Hillsborough. The area has experienced residential developments in recent years, and neighbors have complained about hearing gunshots at all hours of the day and night.
According to Capt. Gregg Jarvies of the Chapel Hill police department, police officials are searching for another site. "We promised the neighbors out there that we'll try and find an alternate site, and we're trying to stick to that promise," he said. However, so far, Jarvies said, no suitable site has been found. He added that police were limiting their training hours at the firing range currently.
The article goes on to say that land in Chapel Hill and Orange County is tight. Jarvies said finding the property is the main problem, and was the problem faced in Wake and Johnston Counties as well. Cal Horton, the Chapel Hill Town Manger, said options outside Chapel Hill are being explored. Jarvies also said that the police will have to stop using the current range within 12 to 18 months. Police could train in Durham or Alamance counties, Jarvies added, but it would be expensive to transport equipment and officers.
The article notes that the enclosed firing range approved in Wake County will cost $3.2 million, and will be located on about three acres next to the county's Feltonsville landfill. The range had both opponents and proponents, the article says. Meanwhile, residents living near the three-year-old firing range in rural Johnston County, just east of Angier, have been complaining about noise as well, the article explains.
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: November 19, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A10
BYLINE: Salt Lake Tribune
DATELINE: Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
The Orange County Register reports that commercial river-rafting outfitters in Arizona's Grand Canyon National Park have agreed to convert their fleets of rafts to low-noise, low-emission outboards by 2001. The outfitters' announcement came in response to a growing call to quiet the noisy boats by the Park Service in response to the federal government's directive to restore "natural quiet" to the park. Meanwhile, conservation group members said the outfitters recognized they have little choice but to abandon the noisier outboard motors.
According to the article, Mark Grisham, director of the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association, said, "We didn't want to go the route of the aircraft-overflight industry and be involved in any long-term regulatory struggle." (The effort to quiet the park has focused so far on restrictions on sightseeing planes.) Grisham added that re-fitting the boats with quieter motors will cost more than $1.5 million, but industry members believed it was a positive step to undertake and wanted to head off any up-coming regulations on outboard motors. He said, "We have adopted a series of goals to transition to this technology [four stroke engines]. By next season (1998), roughly 1 in 3 commercial boats will be powered by the new motors and we will have 100 percent compliance by 2001."
The article notes that there had been increasing focus recently on the noisy outboard motors on the large, pontoon-style rafts of the 16 licensed river-company outfitters on the Colorado River. Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Rob Arnberger said he told the outfitters that park officials would consider regulations on quiet-technology outboard motors in the future. He said, "The river outfitters have moved a contractual partnership into one of a truly constructive relationship. This is clearly a situation where this relationship becomes one where the partners take constructive steps before government regulation, and demonstrates the capacity to be self-managing in many areas."
PUBLICATION: The Southland Times (New Zealand)
DATE: November 19, 1997
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 5
DATELINE: Invercargill, New Zealand
The Southland Times reports that development surrounding the Invercargill Airport in Invercargill, New Zealand would be restricted to prevent noise complaints under the latest draft of the Invercargill District Plan released yesterday. The plan must be approved by the City Council, the article notes.
According to the article, the plan was presented to the Invercargill City Council environmental and planning services committee yesterday. Bill Watt, the director of the environmental and planning services committee, said planning referred to a national standard that noise abatement measures should be used in a narrow band starting at Otatara and ended at Queens Park to avoid noise problems with nearby residences. The plan proposed no noise limits in the operational area of the airport, a 55 decibel limit in other areas between 7 am and 10 pm, and a 45-decibel limit between 10 pm and 7 am.
The article explains that the City Council will consider the revised district plan on December 2, and Watt said that barring any appeals of the plan, it could be fully operative before local government elections in October.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: November 19, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Vicki Hyman
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune reports that officials in Kenner, Louisiana have scheduled a public hearing on plans by the New Orleans International Airport to turn a taxiway into a runway for private planes. Local officials were critical of the way airport officials handled their own public forum on Monday on the same topic, the article says.
The article reports that according to airport officials, their forum on Monday was structured to create a more productive dialogue with residents. The forum included five booths staffed by airport employees and consultants addressing different issues, such as noise and land acquisition. About 200 residents attended the forum.
But Kenner officials think the format stifled debate, the article explains. Council members Terry McCarthy and Betty Bonura wrote in a letter to constituents Tuesday, "Past experience with public hearings is that citizens get the opportunity to question officials on matters that concern them. This did not happen. The airport chose a format that eliminated your right to speak out and be heard as a community." The city councilors also criticized the time of the forum: 5 pm on a Monday, which they said limited attendance by residents who had to work late.
At the hearing organized by Kenner officials, residents will have a couple of minutes to speak, the article says, and airport officials will field questions from the audience. "Sometimes you don't know all the questions," Bonura said. "It's good to listen to other people's ideas."
The hearings are required by the Federal Aviation Administration in its environmental study of the project, which involves converting the 6,700-foot east-west taxiway into a runway for small planes, and turning the existing 4,542-foot general aviation runway into a taxiway. The FAA study asserts that the changes would decrease noise pollution in residential neighborhoods east of the airport, but some residents disagree.
The new hearing will Friday at 7 p.m. at the Pontchartrain Center. The public comment period on the environmental study ends Nov. 28.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: Gilbert Community; Pg. Ev1
BYLINE: Melissa Jones
DATELINE: Gilbert, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Julie Reiter Suchard, resident
The Arizona Republic reports that a resident in the Gilbert, Arizona area is trying to quiet the noise of early morning band practice from the Mountain Pointe High School Marching Band. Resident Julie Reiter Suchard, who lives at Ray Road and 44th Street across from the school's football field, has complained to city officials, and has discovered that the band is violating a city code that regulates noise from musical instruments between 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. However, Suchard's complaint is drawing anger from band students, who say they have no other time to practice.
According to the article, Suchard said when her family moved into its house across from the 2,300-student high school this summer, they expected noisy Friday night football games, and even noise from students in physical education classes. But, Suchard said, they didn't anticipate 6 a.m. marching band practice five days a week. When the 130-member marching band practices, it sounds as if a herd of elephants is running around the townhouse, Suchard said. "It starts out with the drums," she said. "It's just amazingly loud. It's as loud as it is at a football game. You can't escape the noise it's so loud."
To solve the problem, Suchard has not only called the school principal, she has called the police, her city councilor, the city attorney, the mayor's office, and has extensively researched city and state statutes. She said, "They're flouting the law. They're having the kids flout the law, tacitly telling them 'Mob rule is OK.'" Debra Barone, a Phoenix assistant city attorney, confirmed Suchard's conclusion, saying that a city code regulates noise, including that of musical instruments, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. She said legally the band shouldn't be playing so early. But, Barone went on to suggest that the school and Suchard participate in mediation. Suchard believes she shouldn't have to take that step. "If there's a law, it should be enforced," Suchard said. "That seems real simple to me. I don't understand why I need to go through mediation when the school is breaking the law." She added, "My husband was in the marching band. We have sympathy for the kids. We just don't like getting woken up so early." Suchard also said that her husband is a doctor in training and works erratic hours. Her kids are on a schedule where they are supposed to wake up at 7 a.m. Suchard said she would be happy if the band complied with the law and started practice at 7 a.m.
However, the article goes on to explain, classes at the high school start at 7:45 a.m., and the football field isn't available for band practice after school because athletes use it. Band director Leo Werner said, "I live in the neighborhood, too. I don't see it as a big problem. I suppose if you lived as close to the football field as they do, it would be annoying." Meanwhile, band students are defending their morning practice, saying that Suchard shouldn't have moved there if she didn't want to hear it. Trombone player Miguel Zarate said, "I think it's really silly they moved into an area where there's a high school next door. They should've known that high schools have marching bands that play in the morning." Tenor drum player Kate Paxton said the band has already cut its rehearsal time in half because of Suchard's complaints. She added that the Suchards should go to bed earlier. She added, "People always talk about society's ills. Band is one of the ways to get high school kids involved. It's certainly one of the reasons I haven't gotten into trouble."
The article explains that early morning band practice is almost over for this school year. The last home football game was last night, and the state competition at Mesa Community College is today. Meanwhile, principal Harold Slemmer said the school is looking at altering its schedule for next year so the band can get a practice in before school starts.
But the Suchards say they won't be satisfied until the band obeys the law. Suchard wrote in a letter explaining the problem, "If for instance I were to go (to) the band director's house at 6 a.m. on a Saturday morning and have my children play their toy instruments, the police would be called and we would be arrested for disturbing the peace. Why then does the same law not apply to them?"
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: Plano; Pg. 1Z
BYLINE: Jennifer Packer
DATELINE: Plano, Texas
The Dallas Morning News reports that planning and zoning commissioners in Plano, Texas on Monday rejected a request for a new Sonic drive-in restaurant on Coit Road due to the proximity of a residential neighborhood, and complaints from residents about the noise, traffic, and trash the restaurant would bring.
According to the article, the city development staff recommended to commissioners that the noise from speaker boxes and vehicles late at night could be an annoyance to neighbors. The speakers would have been separated from residential properties' rear boundaries by 82 feet, and there would have been an 8-foot screening wall and landscaping between the restaurant and the homes, the article notes.
The article reports that commissioners expressed a variety of concerns. Commissioner Gerald Brooks said he was especially worried about the noise from cars. "On a night like this, I doubt you'd have any engine turned off," he said. "I believe this will in the long term be a detriment to the community." Commissioner Loretta Ellerbe said, "Given the choice, I would prefer not to have a fast-food restaurant next to houses." Several commissioners praised the chain's practice of limiting its hours, hiring employees to pick up restaurant trash outside, and taking extra steps to address neighbors' concerns.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Lynn Bonner
DATELINE: Holly Springs, North Carolina
The News and Observer reports that county commissioners in Wake County, North Carolina voted Monday to approve a firing range near Holly Springs. The decision angered residents and officials in Holly Springs, who said their town is becoming a dumping ground for facilities no one else wants.
According to the article, Republican Commissioners John Converse, Leo Tew, Les Merritt, and Chair Stewart Adcock voted to approve the firing range, while Democratic Commissioners Yevonne Brannon, Vernon Malone, and Betty Lou Ward voted against it. The enclosed range, which will cost $3.2 million, will be used by county law enforcement officials and will be open to the public. It will be located on three acres of a 100-acre tract beside the county's Feltonsville landfill. According to Phil Stout, the county's design and facilities director, the range is expected to open in 1999.
But, the article says, Holly Springs officials have hired a law firm to try to stop the firing range from being built. Holly Springs Mayor Gerald Holleman said town commissioners will discuss their legal options at a meeting tonight. Holly Springs Commissioner Bob Kapel said the firing range should be located near Holly Springs. "Every time something good is needed for the citizens of Holly Springs, there is never enough money. Every time there is something bad," it goes in southwestern Wake, he said, referring to the landfill, the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant, and a proposed low-level radioactive-waste site.
The article reports that hunters were happy with the county's decision, saying gun owners need a practice range to learn to use guns properly. Francis Hale, a Raleigh resident, said gun owners need the range because Wake County is becoming too crowded to shoot safely outdoors. The only way to ensure safety is for the county to have "an approved, well-controlled, well-regulated site," he said.
The article goes on to explain that a firearms "recreation center" was considered by county commissioners last summer, but residents were worried about safety and noise. In response, commissioners nixed plans for a skeet and trap shooting area, and partially enclosed the pistol and rifle range. Later, commissioners reduced the size of the range and placed it in a pre-fabricated steel building surrounded by concrete. The proposed range originally had 62 shooting positions, but the positions were reduced to 15 rifle stations and 25 pistol stations. Commissioner Les Merritt said the changes to the firing range made it "safe, silent and sensible."
County commissioners also voted to site the firing range on the Holly Springs site, rather than search for another location. The article notes that the county first bought the land for the firing range 10 years ago, when Holly Springs had only a few hundred residents, and the landfill area was surrounded by woods. Today, the town has thousands more residents and subdivisions are located within a few miles of the firing range site.
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A15
BYLINE: Edward Epstein
DATELINE: San Francisco, California
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that officials from San Francisco's Municipal Railway said yesterday that the only remaining option to fix the whining noise and shaking caused by new Breda streetcars is a repair that could cost as much as $1 million a car.
According to the article, the transit authority already has purchased 77 of the $2 million-cars to replace its 20-year old streetcars, and wants to buy 59 more at a cost of about $2.5 million each. But the streetcars are a nightmare to residents in some neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods around 22nd Street and Church, Cole and Carl streets and around 35th Avenue and Taraval Street. Residents say the streetcars produce a high-pitched whining sound and vibrations that shake their walls.
Officials with the transit authority and Breda have made some repairs to the cars and say there is some improvement. But now, transit officials told members of the Board of Supervisors (meeting as the county Transportation Authority) that only very expensive options remain, and their is no guarantee the repairs would work. Emilio Cruz, the director of the transit authority, said an insulated bipolar gate transistor, a motor control system that reduces noise, could be retrofitted onto the existing Bredas and ordered for the new ones. The repair could cost between $400,000 and $1 million a car, he said. Elaine Cartwright, the Breda car manager for the authority, said the device has been installed on Breda cars in Boston and it wasn't working there. At most, she said, the device would cut noise but not eliminate it.
In addition, the article reports, Cruz told supervisors that the authority was continuing with a $30 million plan to reduce vibrations fro the streetcars. The project involves replacing and grinding the tracks.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B6
BYLINE: William Gershuny, New Orleans resident
DATELINE: New Orleans, Louisiana
The Times-Picayune printed the following letter-to-the-editor from William Gershuny, a New Orleans resident, regarding the noise and trash problems in the city's historic Quarter:
Coleman Warner's article, "Tourist trap" (Nov. 5) reminds us how much New Orleans has done so far in preserving its historic Quarter -- restricting new hotel construction, eliminating coach-size buses and providing improved police protection -- and how much further it has to go.
High on the list of problems to be tackled: Noise. New Orleans means music -- in bars and lounges and on street corners. But like everything else in life, there are reasonable limits. The entire neighborhood should not have to listen to loud rock around the clock, and streets, sidewalks and business entrances should not be blocked by six-piece bands. There is a simple means of striking the balance -- simple to understand and simple to enforce. Require bars and lounges, as a condition of their license, to close windows and doors on the street side except for normal egress and ingress and prohibit use of street-side speakers; limit street musicians and entertainers to groups of two and prohibit electronic amplification except during special licensed events.
Trash. Given our tolerance of go-cups and other open drink containers, it is a given that tourism brings trash. Tons of trash. Ordinary trash containers and trash collection schedules are just not enough. We have turned our historic streets into open garbage cans, not only during special events but every day. A simple solution -- already done by the Parks and Parkways Department, which tends Jackson Square -- would place disposable plastic bags in each trash bin, remove and replace those bags several times a day as needed and supplement regular trash containers with disposable cardboard ones for each football weekend and each special event.
We can preserve the character of our city and still attract tourists. It just takes clear thinking and hard work.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: National; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Vicki Hyman and Matt Scallan
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Margaret Spraitzer, Angie Tinnerella, David Landry, D.J. Estopinal, residents; Milton Peterson, president, Fairfield subdivision in St. Rose; John Lavarine, Kenner City Councilor
The Times-Picayune reports that officials of the New Orleans International Airport held a public hearing Monday to gather input on plans to turn an east-west taxiway into a runway for private aircraft. At the hearing, airport officials staffed five booths addressing different issues, such as noise and land acquisition, and invited questions from the 200 residents who attended. But many residents from Kenner were angry both at the proposed taxiway conversion and at the way the forum was set up to handle their input.
The article reports that an airport official said the hearing's booth format would be more effective than a formal public hearing. The official noted that at a 1991 hearing, a crowd of residents took over the hearing, chanting "No runway!" However, the article explains, many of the residents accused airport officials of trying to dilute their response. Margaret Spraitzer, a resident of Woodlake Estates, said, "They did not want 2,500 screaming people up here. What I see here is a great slick way of having a meeting and checking it off. This is not a serious effort at making people come together." John Lavarine, a Kenner City Councilor, said airport officials stacked the meeting in their favor. Lavarine added that he would discuss with fellow councilors the possibility of holding another, formal hearing.
The article goes on to explain that the Federal Aviation Administration requires the airport to hold a public hearing as part of an environmental study of the project. The FAA's approval is required to convert the 6,700-foot east-west taxiway, still under construction, into a runway for small planes. The new runway would replace the 4,542-foot general aviation runway used currently. Tim Tandy, the FAA project manager, will evaluate residents' comments and decide whether to move forward or undertake a more thorough environmental impact statement, the article says.
The current environmental impact study said the proposed taxiway conversion would reduce delays for commercial jets and noise for neighborhoods east of the airport. But some residents, including those under the flight path of the new runway, are skeptical about the prediction of reduced noise, especially because the airport's projections show general aviation traffic increasing. Resident David Landry said, "They must think we're stupid if they think we're going to believe that it will be quieter if they put more planes over our houses."
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA)
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. B5
BYLINE: John Murphy
DATELINE: Manteo, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Shick, member, citizen's action committee on F/A-18 relocation
The Virginian-Pilot reports that the U.S. Navy held its final public hearing Monday in Manteo, North Carolina on plans to relocate 180 F/A-18 Hornet jets to the Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, Virginia. About 20 people attended the hearing, including a resident from a newly formed citizens action committee opposing the jet relocation on the basis of noise and safety concerns. Meanwhile, the public comment period for the draft Environmental Impact Statement was scheduled to end today, but the Navy announced last week that the deadline would be extended to Dec. 2. North Carolina officials had asked for the extension for additional time to review it.
The article reports that the 46,000-acre Dare County Bombing Range is located near Manteo, and is surrounded by the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. The bombing range is used primarily by the Navy and Air Force, and relocating the Navy jets to Virginia Beach would result in an additional 1,500 to 2,000 operations per year there. Michael Bryant, an official of U.S. Fish and Wildlife, said the military operations could interfere with his flights over the wildlife refuge to monitor wildlife populations and fires.
Meanwhile, a resident of Virginia Beach who opposes the Navy relocation also attended the meeting, the article reports. John Shick, a member of the newly formed citizen's action committee on F/A-18 relocation, said the jets would bring increased noise and safety concerns. He added, "I do not believe that the long-term economic vitality of Virginia Beach is contingent upon the explosive growth that would accompany these aircraft."
The article also notes that the meeting was the second held in Manteo. The first hearing, on Oct. 23, drew only five people, and the Navy decided to hold another meeting to draw more input. Six similar public hearings were held last month in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, and the hearings in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake drew about 500 residents and political leaders. Most supported the jet relocation, but a group of residents who say the jets will cause increased noise asked the Navy to go somewhere else.
Finally, the article says that the Navy is expected to make a final decision on the jet relocation in the spring.
PUBLICATION: U.S. Newswire
DATE: November 17, 1997
SECTION: National Desk, Environment Writer
DATELINE: St. George, Utah
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Phil Voorhees, associate director for policy development, National Parks and Conservation Association
U.S. Newswire reports that an official from the National Parks and Conservation Association today testified at a congressional field hearing that the National Park Service should be given the power to regulate air tours over national parks in order to curb noise. The official said that legislation is needed to manage the operations of scenic air tours, because the tours have grown explosively at the Grand Canyon and have expanded to other parks. Currently, neither the Park Service nor the Federal Aviation Administration has a process in place for regulating or managing flight tour operations over parks, the article notes.
According to the article, a law passed in 1987 stipulated that natural quiet be restored to the Grand Canyon, but disputes between National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration still are ongoing. Meanwhile, FAA officials say the number of annual tourist flights over the Grand Canyon increased from 40,000 in 1988 to between 105,000 and 200,000 in 1995. In addition, the proportion of the park experiencing natural quiet has declined from 43 percent to 31 percent.
The article goes on to say that Phil Voorhees, the associate director for policy development of the conservation group, said, "Every year more national parks, national monuments, national historic parks, national lakes, and seashores endure the drone of air tour engines, with a resulting loss of their natural quiet and the experience of tranquillity for the visitor. In point of fact, any and every unit of the National Park System with dramatic features and a scenic vista is at risk." Because of the difficulty of implementing the "natural quiet" law at the Grand Canyon, Voorhees said that legislation should clearly delegate the National Park Service as the authority for determining whether natural quiet is part of the park's natural resources and experience. The Park Service also should have the authority to determine which restrictions should preserve natural quiet and how the restrictions should be applied. Voorhees said the Park Service also should require the FAA to implement its recommendations unless the FAA can clearly identify safety reasons for not complying. "Historically, FAA and NPS have not worked well in partnership," said Voorhees. "Therefore, to protect park resources and the visitor experience, any legislation drafted should make it explicit that no flights shall take place unless FAA can devise, at an individual park, a route structure which both meets NPS objectives and ensures safety."
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal
DATE: November 17, 1997
SECTION: Business Horizon; Pg. 03E
BYLINE: Susannah Vesey Rauscher
DATELINE: Atlanta, Georgia
The Atlanta Journal reports that because businesses are increasingly owning their own fleets of jets, general aviation airports in the Atlanta area are booming. According to Bill Peratta, senior planner for the Atlanta Regional Commission, takeoffs and landings at these airports now outnumber commercial airliner takeoffs and landings at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport. Planners in the area are beginning to think about how to help general aviation airports manage the future air traffic growth, including how to deal with noise pollution and transportation congestion issues.
According to the National Business Aviation Association, more than half of the Fortune 500 companies nationwide now own their own fleets of jets, the article reports. That trend is filtering down to medium and small companies. Cassandra Boscoe, a spokesperson for the association, said, "Business is really flying up in a time when corporations are right-sizing. It's an efficient way of using people and time."
The article goes on to explain that one of the growing general aviation airports in the Atlanta area is Cobb County's McCollum Field. After a air traffic control tower was installed in 1995, enabling larger aircraft to land there, takeoffs and landings increased 11% to 95,000. Since 1994, the number of planes based at the airport has increased from 281 to 340, and the number of jobs has more than doubled. Karl VonHagel, the airport manager, said, "We're now the fourth-busiest airport in the state." The metro area's busiest general aviation airport, the DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, has attracted more than 100 ancillary businesses nearby, airplane maintenance and flight instruction companies, office space rentals, restaurants, charter flights, and car sales.
According to Jack Joiner, manager of aviation programs for the Georgia Department of Transportation, future growth is likely to be exponential, the article reports. Peratta of the Atlanta Regional Commission said that next year the commission hopes to begin in-depth planning to help the metro area manage the growth. He said three general aviation airports -- McCollum Field, DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, and Gwinnett County Airport-Briscoe Field -- are expected to exceed their present capacities by 2010. He added that Douglas County also needs general aviation capacity because of its growth, but it's not clear whether the best solution would be to expand facilities at Fulton County Airport-Brown Field, or build a new airport.
Peratta also noted that planners would be considering how to deal with the issues that typically accompany airport additions and expansions: opposition due to noise pollution and traffic congestion. He said, "We will be working with cities to improve land use planning near airports to be able to have appropriate type uses near airports: more manufacturing and technology, nonresidential uses, because of the noise. This is a long-term-type program."
The article also printed the following table about the number of planes and operations based at Atlanta area airports:
The State of Airports in Metro Atlanta and Planes Based at them in 1996
Hartsfield International Airport
Commercial operations (regularly scheduled traffic): 578,221
Air taxi (rent/charter plane): 149,897
Local general aviation: 10
Itinerant operations: 23,307
Military: 2,683
Total: 754,118
Fulton County Airport-Brown Field
Air taxi: 1,925
Local general aviation: 47,624
Itinerant operations: 63,455
Military: 3,251
Total: 116,255
Gwinnett County Airport-Briscoe Field
Air taxi: 3,600
Local general aviation: 98,280
Itinerant operations: 65,920
Military: 200
Total: 168,000
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport
Air taxi: 2,000
Local general aviation: 78,830
Itinerant operations: 143,630
Military: 3,600
Total: 228,060
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: November 17, 1997
SECTION: News Pg. 01A
BYLINE: Patrick Howington
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky area
The Courier-Journal reports that the communities of Minor Lane Heights and Edgewood, near the Louisville (Kentucky) International Airport, are in the heaviest noise zones surrounding the airport, and residents are expected to be moved to new neighborhoods in an airport buyout plan over the next several years. The article explores in detail the economic benefits that could result from using the land the neighborhoods now occupy for industrial and commercial airport-related development.
According to the article, Dave Armstrong, a Jefferson County Judge-Executive, said the land now occupied by Minor Lane Heights could be the Louisville area's "economic development ace in the hole" in the future. After the residents are gone, Armstrong and other officials said, the land could become a prime 750-acre site for light industry, which is the type of land the county has lacked in the past when competing for businesses. Officials believe the area could become a draw for companies that rely on speedy transport because United Parcel Service has its international air hub at the Louisville airport. Paul Coomes, a University of Louisville economist, said converting Minor Lane Heights and other noisy residential areas to industrial use could bring up to 13,000 jobs and a payroll of up to $225 million a year to the area. And, officials say, it could give a boost to business and government leaders' plans to develop south-central Jefferson County as a logistics and distribution center.
The article goes on to explain that residents in the neighborhoods will have the option of moving as the airport buys homes under a federally funded noise-mitigation program. Airport noise during the day and night is expected to increase starting December 1, when the airport's new west runway opens as part of a $676 million expansion. However, because of the slow pace of federal funding, some residents might have to wait nine years before moving. Airport officials, in an attempt to accelerate the timetable, have proposed building 450 homes for relocated residents in southern Jefferson County in the next 3 1/2 years. The article notes that this plan also would make some land available for industrial development sooner.
The article also points out that there is a shortage of large sites zoned for industry in the Louisville area. Adrian Freund, Jefferson County's director of planning and environmental management, said a recent study found there are "not more than a handful" of virgin sites of more than 100 acres that are along an interstate and have good infrastructure. Officials claim that this has sometimes put the region at a disadvantage when competing to land large projects.
Officials are already starting to think about who should get the new industrially zoned land after residents leave, the article says. Some people say the land should be reserved for companies that use the airport and UPS. Mike Bosc, a spokesperson for the Chamber of Commerce, said, "That land is so valuable that we would need to be very particular about whom to sell it to." Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson said, "We want to use that economic engine" that the airport has become "as our lure for time-sensitive, high-value product development." He added, "It makes no sense to sell that land for the building of -- oh, engines for a car or something like that. The whole idea is to leverage that UPS presence at the airport into additional good-paying jobs."
PUBLICATION: Illinois Workers' Compensation Law Bulletin
DATE: November 17, 1997
SECTION: Causal Connection; Loss Of Hearing; Vol. 5, No. 20
DATELINE: Illinois
The Illinois Workers' Compensation Law Bulletin reports that a correctional officer was awarded permanent partial disability benefits by the Commission, after he suffered hearing loss and a constant, high-pitched tone when an inmate slammed a steel door next to his ear.
According to the article, the correctional officer was talking to an inmate through a steel pass box, when the inmate became angry and slammed the steel door shut very close to the right ear of the officer. The officer testified that the noise was very loud and sharp in his right ear, and caused an immediate ringing. Since the incident, the officer said he hears a high-pitched tone (called tinnitus) all the time and sleeps poorly. In addition, the officer has had to change his work duties -- he can no longer monitor the radio, because he can't understand what people say.
The article says that the arbitrator for the officer argued that he had suffered permanent disability to the extent of seven and one-half percent person as a whole. After review, the Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the arbitrator.
The case was: Chris Gavin v. State of Illinois, Dept. of Corrections, [Ill. Ind. Com.], Nos. 94 WC 9557, 97 IIC 0934, September 10, 1997.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: November 17, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Kathy Bushouse
DATELINE: Coral Springs, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: David Bowe, Brian Porter, residents
The Sun-Sentinel reports that residents in a Coral Springs, Florida neighborhood are angry about the early morning noise from businesses near their homes. Meanwhile, businesses are angry about the city ordinance that stipulates they can't open until 8 a.m. due to noise constraints, and are arguing they should be allowed to open at 7 a.m. The City Commission will discuss the ordinance at a second public hearing Tuesday evening.
According to the article, in the neighborhood just east of Coral Ridge Drive, small businesses abut the back yards of residents on Northwest 45th Street, creating conflict. While business owners want to open one hour earlier on weekdays, residents say that business owners already don't obey the current ordinance, and things will get worse if their hours are extended.
Resident David Bowe said he is awakened most morning by the screeching of a diesel truck's air brakes at 5 a.m. due to equipment deliveries at Sy's Supplies, behind his neighborhood. "They don't realize that people are right behind them, sleeping," Bowe said. "It's very, very noisy." Resident Brian Porter said he has lived with loud vacuums and music from Mena's car wash since 1991. He said he has taken his complaints to the City Commission 13 times, and has gotten nowhere.
Meanwhile, the article reports, business owners are also angry. Ted Mena, owner of Reddy Teddy Self-Serve Car Wash on Wiles Road, said, "We are the backbone, the little guy. All these (businesses) provide jobs, too, but we're treated like we're a nemesis. It's like we're a disease." Daniel Applebaum, owner of Sy's Supplies, is suing the city to change the ordinance that restricts when businesses can open.
The article goes on to say that the city already built an eight-foot concrete wall between the houses and businesses to mitigate the noise problem, but according to City Manager Mike Levinson, it hasn't satisfied residents. A task force has assembled to search for solutions to the problem, and will present its findings at Tuesday's meeting, said Fire Chief Bill Fyfe. "The (land) uses are not compatible, sitting together like that," Fyfe said.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 16, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Editorial Writers Desk
DATELINE: Irvine, California area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Keith Bridwell, Laguna Niguel resident; Rita Charette, Laguna Hills resident; Bob Morton, Monarch Beach resident
The Los Angeles Times printed the following letters-to-the-editor from residents in the Irvine, California area regarding the proposed conversion of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station into a commercial airport:
To the editor:
Contrary to your Oct. 30 editorial criticizing the county's planning process for reuse of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, the planning process has been a textbook example of thorough land use analysis, abiding by guidelines set by the Federal Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.
The integrity of the planning process has always been one of the county's highest priorities. We are very proud of the level of analysis that went into preparing Community Reuse Plan and Environmental Impact Report 563 -- a level that was higher than the law required.
To suggest that the result of the planning process was predetermined is irresponsible and untrue. And to subsequently suggest that the county was "putting the health and safety of the public at risk," without providing any examples or reasoning for the accusation, is an unsubstantiated and unprofessional act.
The reuse plan has been studied, analyzed and debated more than any other issue in the history of Orange County. The decision to plan for a modern, vibrant airport community that will allow Orange County to continue to compete in the global economy did not come without years of careful examination.
We encourage public input during the current master planning process and will continue our commitment to thorough and credible planning.
Courtney Wiercioch, Manager, MCAS El Toro Master Development Program
To the editor:
Finally, an entity with a whole lot of clout has the courage to tell it the way it really is: "The airport has been the choice from the beginning for a powerful group of developers and their supporters in the corridors of county government. All the planning and all the decision making have been a mere window dressing to support a foregone conclusion." Thus far it has appeared that the ruling body in Santa Ana could care less about the health and safety of the public.
Many thanks for your timely views on the County of Orange's cavalier handling of the El Toro airport matter.
Keith Bridwell, Laguna Niguel resident
To the editor:
The Orange County electorate, in our form of democracy, twice voted and instructed the supervisors to proceed with the El Toro airport option.
Contrary to the views continually expressed by The Times and its covey of "airport opponents," the Orange County supervisors are doing the job they were elected to do. If a majority of the electorate thinks not, they will have their choice to reelect them or vote them out in the next election.
The Orange County folks who voted in favor of an airport at El Toro stand for something that will benefit everyone in Orange County in some way. An airport at El Toro would facilitate expanding investments into emerging markets in the world. As we have clearly seen from events these past weeks, these markets will have an increasingly electrifying effect on anyone's stock and bond portfolio, or job and weekly paycheck.
Getting overly focused on the negative effects of noise, pollution, traffic and the environment, though important to fix, can lead to monumental, needless headaches and a waste of a lot of positive energy.
Victor Jashinski, Newport Beach resident
To the editor:
Taylor lives in Newport Beach, where pilots put their passengers at risk rather than have noise pollute luxury houses and where restrictions require planes to only fly between certain hours so they don't disturb the occupants' sleep.
If Taylor and these strong advocates for an El Toro airport were forced to live in the flight paths, they would all be singing a very different tune.
Rita Charette, Laguna Hills resident
To the editor:
So far, based on my seriously unscientific study, the letter count on this topic seems about the same, against or for. The "against" contingent seems broadly represented by the communities of Irvine, Lake Forrest, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, San Clemente, Laguna Beach. However, the "for" contingent seems heavily represented by Newport Beach only.
It's very interesting that there are precious few letters of support for the conversion plans, or even indignant outrage at the recent court rulings, from the good citizens of Huntington Beach, Westminster, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Corona Del Mar, Orange.
Newport Beach loves to claim clear victory in no less than two elections on the issue, yet with the claimed clear mandate, one would expect to see more letter-writing action from the other North County cities.
Most folks recognize this whole thing as a not-so-subtle ploy by the Newport elite to move the last remaining nuisance as far as possible from Bayshore Drive and make a few bucks in the process.
Bob Morton, Monarch Beach resident
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 16, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 16; Zones Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joan Luchs, resident
The Los Angeles Times printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Joan Luchs, a Los Angeles resident, regarding the proposed expansion of Universal Studios:
Re "Stricter Noise Standards Recommended for Universal," Nov. 11. When Universal Studios cut its project by more than 40%, they also added many new exemptions which gave it all back. Although many believe the project will bring 13,000 new jobs and $25 million in increased tax revenue, the truth is the entertainment industry has been exempted from 80% of its sales tax obligations. Also, Universal is releasing many high-paying, skilled positions, replacing them with entry-level, part-time, low-paying jobs.
County planners are investigating the legal necessity to re-circulate the environmental impact report because impacts have been minimized, underestimating necessary mitigations. With the comment period closed, Universal's misrepresentation is not being challenged. Come to the Nov. 19 hearing and support this request to rewrite the EIR. Do not believe there is nothing you can do about their traffic and noise.
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: November 16, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A31
BYLINE: David Crary
DATELINE: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Sister Sharon Doyle, spokesperson, Nova Nada monastery
The Record reports that Catholic monks at the Nova Nada monastery in Nova Scotia are fighting the J.D. Irving company over logging in the woods near the monastery. The monks say the chainsaws disrupt their silent meditation, and are waging a fight to keep the logging operations at least two miles away from the monastery.
The article reports that Sister Sharon Doyle, a spokesperson for the monastery, said, "We're weary, but we feel this is God's will. It has mushroomed, it's about the rights of little people in the face of multinationals." The male and female monks drive to a message center nearly 40 miles away several times a week to wage their crusade by e-mail, phone, and fax against the logging company.
The article says that Nova Nada was established on a 65-acre lakeside tract in 1972 by a small Carmelite order that also operates retreats in Colorado and Ireland. It has a dozen or so permanent residents, and about 500 paying guests a year. Silence is observed each day between 8 p.m. and 9 a.m., and during one full day each week.
Last summer, the article explains, J.D. Irving began cutting logging roads near the monastery and felling stands of white spruce. Negotiations between the logging company and monastery started, amicably at first. But Sister Doyle and her colleagues were angered by company officials' unilateral proposal Nov. 5 that called for no logging within a mile of the monastery and logging within two miles for no more than five weeks each year. Sister Doyle said, "Any logging within two miles will ruin us. They knew we would refuse it."
Meanwhile, J.D. Irving, part of a family business empire with vast land holdings in the Maritime provinces, is facing a public relations nightmare. Mary Keith, a spokesperson for Irving, said, "We want to be a good neighbor. But there are people whose livelihood depends on the operation we have there.... We both have communities we're serving in our own way." The article notes the company employs more than 300 people at a sawmill in the area, and hundreds more in wood-cutting and other services. Keith also said she visited the monastery and couldn't hear a chainsaw from a distance of one mile. "Is it worth putting people out of work if in fact the one-mile zone will serve as a reasonable buffer?" she asked. "Why can't we at least give this solution a try?"
Sister Doyle, however, scoffed at that idea, the article says. She added she would swear on a Bible that power saws and trucks could be heard more than two miles away. "This particular family never concedes land," she said of the Irvings. "It's about power, about fear of setting a precedent."
The article concludes that a possible solution to the problem might be intervention by the Nova Scotia government. The monastery has asked the Natural Resource Ministry to assess whether some provincial land could be offered to Irving in exchange for turning the area around Nova Nada into a nature reserve.
PUBLICATION: Sacramento Bee
DATE: November 16, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Deb Kollars
DATELINE: Sacramento, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ann Kohl, chair, "No Way L.A." Coalition
The Sacramento Bee reports that officials in Sacramento County, California are considering widening the Watt Avenue bridge over the American River to relieve congestion in the area. The first public hearing on the matter will be held Monday, and opponents and proponents of the plan are expected to attend. The $15 million project will go before county supervisors for a vote early next year, the article notes.
The article says that many residents support the project, believing it will reduce congestion and improve safety near the bridge. However, many residents living near the bridge strongly oppose the project, saying it will draw more cars to the area, and will exacerbate noise and pollution problems. County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said, "This has generated so much energy and emotion. I can't think of another transportation project that has been this controversial."
The draft environmental impact report on the project will be the subject of Monday's public hearing before the Sacramento County Project Planning Commission. After the hearing, county staff members will use public comments to produce a final environmental report, and the project will go before supervisors early next year.
The article says that the county's plan involves widening Watt Avenue from two to three travel lanes in each direction between Fair Oaks Boulevard and Highway 50. In addition, an outside merge lane would be added in each direction between La Riviera Drive and American River Drive. According to transportation chief Tom Zlotkowski, the project is expected to improve safety; more than 100,000 cars a day travel Watt Avenue, and the on- and off-ramps at La Riviera and American River drives are notoriously difficult to use in heavy traffic. The plan also includes an 8-foot pathway on both sides of the bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as added architectural features and historical light fixtures. The project would paid for from a number of sources, including about $7.6 million in federal transportation funds, and additional funds from Measure A sales tax income and developer fees.
The article goes on to say that the draft environmental report said most of the negative impacts of the project could be mitigated with sound barriers, new shrubs, traffic metering, and other measures. Antonia Barry, an assistant environmental analyst for the county, said noise levels are expected to be lower than existing levels because of the new sound barriers and other measures. In addition, carbon monoxide emissions in the immediate area are expected to decrease with the project because there would be less congestion, faster speeds, and fewer cars idling for long periods. However, oxides of nitrogen would rise during the first few years of the project's existence because of increases in speeds and in the overall miles traveled in the region. In the long run, though, the report concluded that air quality in the region is expected to improve as additional transportation improvements take place. The widening project would add up to 600 cars per day to the road, according to the draft environmental report, a number that county engineers say is a minor increase.
But, the article explains, opponents believe the project will attract more cars, according to Ann Kohl, chair of the "No Way L.A. Coalition." Kohl said the draft environmental report is incomplete and inaccurate in several areas. She added that the coalition wants the county to halt the project and instead convene a regional forum to come up with broad solutions to transportation problems, such as expanded mass transit. "The county has proposed a project to create a larger congested roadway. You're not going to build your way out of congestion," Kohl said. "People are very upset. They feel this was rammed down their throats. We need to have a much broader vision for addressing transportation issues."
Another group, called Sacramento Taxpayers Advancing Responsible Transportation, supports the project, saying it will bring safety to an area known for gridlock and dangerous merge lanes.
Meanwhile, bicyclists are torn over the project, the article reports. Bicycle advocates generally oppose projects that provide more capacity for motorists, according to Ed Cox, treasurer of the Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates. But the project is intended to make needed bicycle improvements, including more room on the bridge for bicyclists and better connections to the bike trail. So far, Cox said, the Bicycle Advocates have decided not to take a position on the project, although the issue has sparked long debates at the organization's meetings.
The article goes on to describe many other transportation improvements planned for the future which will connect with or impact the Watt Avenue project.
Three of five county supervisors who responded to phone calls said they had not made up their minds on the project, the article says. Supervisor Dave Cox said he is inclined to support the widening, but will listen to comments at the public hearings before making a final decision. Supervisors Illa Collin and Roger Dickinson said they plan to study the matter further before committing.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: November 16, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Steve D'Oliveira
DATELINE: Pompano Beach, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports that city officials in Pompano Beach, Florida have been exploring the possibility of closing the Pompano Beach Air Park since September. But the Federal Aviation Administration, which must grant permission to close the airport, recently told city officials the airport is too important to the future aviation needs of South Florida to be shut down.
According to the article, the city owns the 945-acre general aviation air park, but the federal government holds the deed restrictions to the land. More than 200 single and light twin-engine planes and a Goodyear blimp are based at the air park. In addition, two fixed-based operators, Pompano Air Center and Suncoast Helicopters, provide aviation services. Revenues from the air park have increased in recent years, and were $1.8 million in 1996, but flight operations have been decreasing. The number of takeoffs and landings fell from 214,000 in 1990 to 97,000 in 1996. But, the article reports, some say flights have decreased because of a new city ordinance restricting operating hours for touch-and-go flights.
Meanwhile, the article says, South Florida developers Frank Abdo and Michael Swerdlow want to develop the air park property, which is in a lucrative area of town. City officials want to sell about 70% of the air park property for residential and commercial development, which could add about $1 billion to the city's tax base. The city already has sold 89 acres of the air park property since 1958 for various developments. William Hargett, the Pompano Beach City Manager, said city officials believe they should either upgrade the airport or shut it.
But the Federal Aviation Administration will only close the air park if the city can prove that shutting it would benefit aviation in South Florida, the article reports. For that to occur, the money from the sale of the property would have to go to expand either Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport or Boca Raton Municipal Airport. Charles Blair, manager of the Orlando Airports District Office of the FAA, said studies indicate that relocating air traffic to those airports is not practical or feasible. Jim Naugle, the Fort Lauderdale Mayor, said, "Fort Lauderdale residents would be concerned about anything that would increase the noise around our airport." And Nelson Rhodes, the Boca Raton Airport director, said his airport has some capacity to grow, but that would disappear if air park traffic relocated there. "We're then in a situation of not being able to serve our own community's future needs," Rhodes said. "Boca is not the candidate. Physically we're not able to do it, and politically we're not able to do it."
In response to the FAA's statements, City Manager Hargett said city officials will continue discussions with the FAA and development plans were not dead yet. Airport tenants, meanwhile, have urged the city to improve the airport instead of sell it, the article notes. The air park's master plan calls for spending $6.3 million in the next 20 years to upgrade signage, pave runways, remove overhead power lines, extend taxiways, and replace the World War II-era electrical system.
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: November 16, 1997
SECTION: Brandon/South Bay, Pg. 6
BYLINE: Deborah Vanpelt
DATELINE: Thonotosassa, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mary Padgett, resident; Samuel Ervin, resident and president of the Seffner-Thonotosassa Council for Community Affairs
The Tampa Tribune reports that a Florida county hearing officer denied an appeal by residents living near a borrow pit in eastern Hillsborough County, where dirt is excavated by the Hardaway Co. Residents are sick of the dust and noise from the pit, and filed the appeal to revoke the company's permit. But the hearing officer ruled that the operating permit that allows Hardaway to dig a half-million yards of dirt from the pit is valid. The hearing officer did include an amendment to the permit requiring Hardaway to water the pit daily to reduce dust.
According to the article, county officials granted Hardaway a permit earlier this year to dig dirt for the Interstate 4 construction project, designed to raise the interstate above floodwaters.
But neighbors say county officials have ignored their concerns about living near the pit, the article reports. Mary Padgett, a resident near the pit, said, "We're living through all the dust and the digging, and as far as the county is concerned, we don't count. Here you have this big old digger churning, churning, churning at 7 in the morning. That digging is right there in front of people's homes." Neighbors said dust from the operation is worsening their allergies, noise from the trucks is upsetting their peace and quiet, and the sight of the pit is ruining their pastoral landscape. Samuel Ervin, president of the community council and the person who filed the appeal, said, "I stand in my driveway and see everything that's going on out there. I can't sit on my back porch when the dust is blowing. When the dust blows on the weekend, who are we going to call?" He added, "There are about 20 neighbors who live around this area, and all of them are mad about the pit."
Under the original permit, inspectors are supposed to check the pit at least three times a week, the article says. But in the hearing officer's decision, that was amended to include the following measures to minimize dust:
Trucks must be covered, with their tailgates latched.
Paving or regular watering of non-paved portions of the haul route are required.
All on-site working areas traveled by trucks or equipment must be watered at least daily, including weekends, holidays, and "down" days.
The article notes that residents also have filed an appeal with the Hillsborough Circuit Court to try to reverse the company's special use permit, an additional permit required under the county's permitting process. The residents also could file an appeal of the hearing officer's decision to uphold the company's operating permit.
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: November 21, 1997
SECTION: Garland/Mesquite; Pg. 1J
BYLINE: Jeff Mosier, Staff Writer of
DATELINE: Rowlett, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kim Webb, resident; Gregory Craig, resident; Penny Halstead, resident.
The Dallas Morning News reports that some southwest Rowlett homeowners say they are still waiting for the peace and quiet promised by a city noise ordinance passed early this year.
According to the article, residents of Dexham Estates and the Ridgecrest subdivision lobbied for the restrictions, hoping they would lower the noise level at Tolar Industrial Park near Dexham Road and State Highway 66. Homeowners said the clatter from the businesses is just as bad now as it was in January, when the ordinance was approved. "I told my husband that we had better sell the house during the day - and not show it at night," said Kim Webb, who lives on Cortland Circle in Ridgecrest. "No one is going to buy it. The noise isn't any better than it has ever been." Gregory Craig, a Dexham Estates homeowner who lives on Stallion Circle, said he is disappointed that the problem in his neighborhood has not been solved. "I think they are trying to make an effort to do something, but it's just not quite happening yet," he said. "It's kind of funny how that happens."
The report says Rowlett code enforcement officials are continuing to investigate the noise coming from the industrial park but have not been able to identify a single offender. The City Council is expected to authorize an acoustical study of the noise problem to identify any businesses that are not complying with the ordinance. The restrictions allow the city to assess a fine of up to $2,000. With the help of a $15,000 to $20,000 study, city officials said they hope they can isolate the sounds. "If we know exactly where the noise is coming from, then we can go to this person and say, You are making this noise, and if you can't get it stopped, then fines kick in,' " said council member Dan Wardlow. "There are several businesses out there, so you don't necessarily have just one company responsible for making the noise, " said council member Susan Troutte. "Really, it may be a combination of all the noises, and I'm not sure how we are going to handle that."
According to the report, officials at Bodin Concrete Co., the target of a recent noise complaint, said they are willing to work with the city and homeowners. They said that Rowlett officials have not been able to determine if the offending noise was coming from their plant. "We are just waiting on the city to decide what they are going to do," said Bodin spokeswoman Skip Lemmond. "If they can come to a decision, we will abide by that. We want to be good neighbors."
The report explains how a group of homeowners, mostly in Dexham Estates, began lobbying the city more than a year ago to quiet the businesses in the industrial park about a quarter of a mile away. Dexham Estates was built in the late 1980s, and some of the businesses in the Tolar Industrial Park have been there since the late 1950s. When homeowners first started complaining about the sound, city noise regulations were limited. Police officers could issue tickets to people for nuisance noise, such as barking dogs and loud stereos, but no regulations governed noise levels.
The article describes the ordinance adopted in January. The ordinance prohibits sounds above the 55- to 65-decibel range from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and above the 50- to 60-decibel range from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. in residential areas. On commercial or agricultural land, the limits are 62 to 72 decibels during the day and 57 to 67 decibels at night. That level increases on industrial property to 75 to 85 decibels at all times. An average conversation is usually about 60 decibels, and a lawn mower will emit about 90 decibels of noise. City officials said there have been no other reported violations of the noise ordinance except near the industrial park.
The report describes Penny Halstead, who lives on Cortland Circle, said the sounds of the machinery and intercom nearby have become a regular part of life for her and her neighbors. "The only time that I really notice it is when my husband and I are sitting outside," she said. "You just want a nice quiet evening, and you hear this stuff going on at night."
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: November 16, 1997
SECTION: Brandon, Pg. 6
BYLINE: Deborah Vanpelt
DATELINE: Thonotosassa, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mary Padgett, resident; Samuel Ervin, president, Seffner-Thonotosassa Council for Community Affairs.
The Tampa Tribune reports that an excavation site in Thonotosassa, Florida is causing air and noise pollution for area residents.
According to the report, county hearing officer denied an appeal by members of the Seffner-Thonotosassa Council for Community Affairs last week, saying the operating permit that allows Hardaway Co. to dig a half-million yards of dirt from a pit at Joe Ebert Road and County Road 579 is valid. The hearing officer did include an amendment requiring Hardaway to water the pit daily to reduce dust.
The article says neighbors also have filed an appeal with Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge Dick Greco Jr. to try to reverse the company's special use permit. Under Hillsborough County's permitting process a company that wants to excavate dirt must have an operating permit and a special use permit. Hardaway attorney Russell Thomas said neighbors can file yet another appeal through circuit court to try and overturn the hearing officer's support of the operating permit. But Thomas said he doesn't believe there's any basis for it. "Hardaway feels it has gone above and beyond what is required to mitigate any adverse impact to the neighborhood," he said. "We let the neighbors structure, to a large part, the permit conditions."
The article describes how for the people who live near the pit, the hearing officer's decision was just another setback in a long fight against what they see as abuse and neglect by county officials. "We're living through all the dust and the digging, and as far as the county is concerned, we don't count," said Mary Padgett, who lives near the pit. "Here you have this big old digger churning, churning, churning at 7 in the morning. That digging is right there in front of people's homes."
The report explains how earlier this year, the county granted Hardaway a permit to dig dirt for the Interstate 4 construction project. Dirt from Hardaway's pit is being used to elevate the I-4 roadway, from Interstate 75 to 50th Street. The project, designed to raise the interstate above floodwaters, requires so much dirt that soil from another source also is being used. Neighbors say dust from all the digging at Hardaway's pit is affecting their allergies, noise from all the trucks is affecting their peace and quiet, and the sight of the pit is affecting their pastoral view. "I stand in my driveway and see everything that's going on out there," said Samuel Ervin, president of the community council and the person who filed the appeal. "I can't sit on my back porch when the dust is blowing. When the dust blows on the weekend, who are we going to call?"
According to the article, inspectors are supposed to check on the pit at least three times a week, according to the permit issued Aug. 15. In the most recent decision, the county hearing officer amended the original permit to include the following to minimize dust:
Trucks shall be covered with their tailgates latched.
Paving or regular watering of non-paved portions of the haul route shall be required.
All on-site working areas traveled by trucks or equipment shall be watered at least daily, including weekends, holidays and "down" days.
The article says neighbors say that's not enough. "There are about 20 neighbors who live around this area, and all of them are mad about the pit," said Ervin, who has lived off Joe Ebert Road for 27 years. "We're going to talk with our lawyer. We're not going to turn it loose.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)
DATE: November 18, 1997
SECTION: National; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Vicki Hyman and Matt Scallan
DATELINE: Kenner, Louisiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Margaret Spraitzer, resident; David Landry, resident; D.J. Estopinal, resident
The Times-Picayune reports that a number of Kenner residents expressed their disapproval on Monday of New Orleans International Airport's plans to turn its east-west taxiway into a runway for private aircraft. Residents also were not pleased with the forum designed to receive their input.
According to the Times-Picayune, airport officials set up five booths at the Pontchartrain Center to address issues such as noise and land acquisition. They invited residents to ask questions about the taxiway conversion. An airport official said this forum would be more effective than a formal public hearing similar to a 1991 forum at which crowds of residents chanted "No runway!" But many of the nearly 200 residents who attended the three-hour session accused airport officials of trying to dilute their response. They said they wanted to vent their feelings about jet noise in every quadrant of the city, about planes deviating from flight paths, about the airport's soundproofing and buyout programs, and about their general mistrust of airport leadership. Woodlake Estates resident Margaret Spraitzer said, "What I see here is a great slick way of having a meeting and checking it off. This is not a serious effort at making people come together."
The article reports the Federal Aviation Administration requires the airport to hold a public hearing as part of an environmental study of the project. The study is an initial step toward obtaining federal and local money to build another taxiway. The airport needs FAA approval to convert the 6,700-foot east-west taxiway, still under construction, into a runway for small planes. The FAA will evaluate residents' comments and decide whether there is "no significant impact," or if a more thorough environmental impact statement is required, FAA project manager Tim Tandy said.
According to the article, the study contends that the runway's new location would mean less noise for neighborhoods east of the airport. But some residents, especially those under the flight path of the new runway, do not buy this assertion. "They must think we're stupid if they think we're going to believe that it will be quieter if they put more planes over our houses," said David Landry, who lives a block from the site of the 1982 Pan Am crash that killed 146 people on board and eight on the ground in Morningside Park subdivision. D.J. Estopinal of Kenner said the airport's projections of increased air traffic are maddening. "They call it the Kenner Pause," he said. "You know how everybody just stops talking when a plane goes overhead and picks up right where they left off when it's gone."
Previous week: November 9, 1997
Next week: November 23, 1997
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