PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: State News; Pg. 06E
BYLINE: Jingle Davis
DATELINE: Townsend, Georgia area
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution reports that the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Georgia National Guard want to conduct combat exercises year-round with low-flying jet aircraft over coastal Georgia near Townsend. The proposal is being opposed by some civilian aviators and local government officials, who believe the military's plans would compromise air safety, cause noise pollution on the ground, and discourage business and vacation travelers from landing in the area. Public comments are being accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration on the proposal through Monday.
The article reports that according to National Guard Lt. Col. Kirk Simmons, the proposal would allow military aircraft and personnel from Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida to use the area to prepare for actual combat, such as in Desert Storm. The proposal would allow the military to increase the number of days its pilots can conduct air combat exercises and make practice runs and dummy bomb-drops at a target range in Townsend, a rural community in western McIntosh County, the article says. Currently, the range is used only for two 14-day periods each year, but the military wants to be able to train there 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, if necessary. In addition, the article says, the military wants to use a large area around the Townsend range called the MOA, or military operations area, for training missions of low-flying jets. The MOA covers mostly rural sections of several southeast Georgia counties, including Chatham, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, Glynn, Wayne, and Brantley. Some small communities, such as Hinesville, Ludowici, and Jesup lie within the MOA, but military pilots would be required to fly at least 14,000 feet above them. However, elsewhere in the MOA (except over airports) the military could conduct training flights only 300 feet above ground year-round under the proposal. When the MOA was being used by the military, civilian aircraft would be required to fly over or around the area, the article says.
The proposal has attracted some critics, the article goes on to say. Larry Wade, president of Golden Isles Aviation at McKinnon Airport on St. Simons Island, said it would be dangerous for military and civilian aircraft to use the same airspace when military maneuvers are going on. "Military jets are doing 650 miles an hour and you're doing 130," he said. Last week, the Glynn County Airport Commission, which operates the Glynco Jetport, voted to ask the FAA to withdraw the proposal. According to Steve Brian, the jetport's managing director, one section of the MOA that extends over the coastal islands and out to sea should be redrawn to run west of I-95, because private pilots use the interstate as a visual reference. The Glynn County Airport Commission also voted to ask for expanded radar coverage in the Brunswick area, in order to ensure that civilian and military aircraft are kept separate. According to Wade, most private pilots would detour around the area to avoid possible problems. The detours would mean lost tourism dollars, said Brian.
In response to the concerns, National Guard Lt. Col. Kirk Simmons said the military's proposal would be modified to address most of the concerns of the civilian community, the article says.
PUBLICATION: Capital Times (Madison, WI)
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: Local/State, Pg. 2A
BYLINE: Amy Zarlenga
DATELINE: Madison, Wisconsin
The Capital Times reports that the Alcohol License Review Committee in Madison, Wisconsin is considering suspending or revoking the liquor license of Taste Buds, a minority-owned bar and restaurant, due to several ordinance violations, including noise violations. Meanwhile, County Board Supervisor Regina Rhyne believes the establishment is not being treated fairly by city officials and is using her position as a minority official to play watchdog over the city.
According to the article, police have responded to complaints about Taste Buds more than 30 times since its opening in the fall of 1996. The establishment has received numerous tickets for noise violations and has citations for maintaining a disorderly, riotous, indecent, or improper house and selling alcohol to intoxicated people, according to police records. The records also show that almost all of the noise complaints were made by two neighbors. In addition, the article says, when the primary owner of Taste Buds, Yvonne Spencer, applied for a liquor license, she said the establishment would bring in more than 50% of its sales in food. However, according to Assistant City Attorney Rick Petri, the bar hasn't served food on a regular basis and is not trying to keep that promise. Petri said the establishment's liquor license is in danger because the owners have repeatedly violated ordinances and have not responded to numerous citations.
Meanwhile, County Board Supervisor Regina Rhyne hand-delivered a letter Wednesday to Petri accusing the city's Alcohol License Review Committee (ALRC) of discriminating against Taste Buds and unfairly trying to force the establishment to close. Rhyne said in her letter, "I feel that people of color in our community are expected to abide by a different set of rules and standards, and as the only black woman elected official in Dane County, I feel I have an obligation to assure that fair and equitable practices are the norm, not the exception." The article notes that Rhyne is a close friend of Taste Buds owner Yvonne Spencer, who is black, and occasionally works at the bar. Rhyne said the complaints are almost all for loud music, and almost all originate from a couple neighbors who dislike any noise in the area. "What it comes down to is they don't want us to play our music," she said. "And I don't understand why the ALRC didn't offer to help by telling the owner who was complaining so she could try to work it out with them." Rhyne also said that although Spencer had experienced some problems running the business at first "they run a clean establishment" now. She added, "They work under the rules and try to keep the noise down, but it's not louder than the music coming from the Crystal Corner down the block, and no one's trying to shut them down."
Petri, however, angrily dismissed the possibility that race could be a factor in the city's action or the ALRC's decision, the article says. "Of course the race issue will come up, but we are moved by behaviors," he said. "It is behaviors that cause us to act -- and solely behaviors." The issue has come up recently due to the closing of the Latin Club bar earlier this year and the Paramount Music Hall in 1996 -- both of which attracted minority crowds. In addition, there is an ongoing city study on police traffic stops and ticketing of African-Americans, which have caused many to question the integrity of some city groups, including the ALRC.
The article goes on to say that Tim Bruer, ALRC member and Alderman (District 14), said that Taste Buds has clearly violated its agreement to bring in half its sales in food. The ALRC met with Spencer and her co-owners several times, Bruer said, to communicate that the establishment needed to live up to its agreement, but the owners have not tried to comply. The city has been sensitive about granting liquor licenses, Bruer said, because historically, many chronic alcoholics have hung out in the Williamson Street area. Therefore, Bruer said, the city has tried to keep liquor licenses down, which has increased the pressure the city has placed on Taste Buds to live up to their agreement to operate as a restaurant. "The ALRC went well out of its way ... to bring this license into compliance," Bruer said. "We really work toward trying to bring the alderperson, the license holder and the neighborhood people together."
Spencer is tentatively scheduled to appear before the ALRC on Dec. 8 or 9, the article notes. The ALRC has the power to suspend, revoke, or do nothing to the establishment's liquor license, according to Petri.
PUBLICATION: The Daily Telegraph
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: Motoring; Pg. 09
BYLINE: Andrew Baxter
DATELINE: England
The Daily Telegraph reports that a British government study published in Traffic Engineering & Control magazine has found that vehicles driving over speed bumps in Britain's villages are so noisy they are annoying thousands of British residents. In many cases, the article says, the increased noise from the speed bumps is outweighing the benefit of quieter roads gained by reducing the speed of traffic. The study found that trucks are responsible for much of the louder noise, the article says.
According to the article, a research team at the Transport Research Laboratory found that speed bumps were not well received at the villages of Craven Arms near Ludlow, Thorney near Peterborough, and Hayton near York. In those villages, up to three-quarters of residents said traffic noise was worse now than before, even though noise measurements indicated there had been an overall decrease in noise. The research team discovered during experiments at its test track in Crowthorne, Berkshire that the noise of trucks traveling at speeds of up to 24 mph increased by as much as 7.9 decibels to 87.6 decibels when going over speed bumps, while the noise level of buses rose by one decibel. Overall noise levels fall with speed bumps if only cars use the road, the research team found, but noise levels rise "substantially" if 10% of vehicles are trucks and 1% are buses. In addition, the low frequency sounds of trucks and buses negotiating speed bumps is another factor that annoyed residents and convinced them their houses were vibrating, the article says. The study also found that other sources of noise pollution occurred when drivers accelerated between speed bumps, applied brakes hard and quickly when approaching speed bumps, and drove over patches of red Tarmac laid at the entrance to villages as a reminder to motorists that they are entering a residential area.
The article says that four types of speed bumps were examined for noise, but the worst culprits were flat-topped bumps, which are often paved, and cushions, which cover only part of the road. Phil Abbott, the Transport Research Laboratory's traffic noise expert and the joint author of the study, said "Despite significant reductions in overall traffic noise levels, residents of the villages where traffic calming has been introduced appeared generally dissatisfied with the effects of the schemes on the local noise climate. We are now trying to find out exactly what aspects of the noise get people particularly annoyed."
Meanwhile, Kevin Delaney, traffic and road safety manager at the RAC, said, "Speed humps were supposed to be part of a package of traffic calming measures but they have been over-used. They have been adopted willy-nilly as a cheap and cheerful road safety and management measure and mushroomed up all over the place. Lorries [trucks] make a tremendous impact and van drivers don't slow down because they know they won't have to pay for new dampers."
As part of continuing research into this area, the article reports, two new studies commissioned by the government's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be undertaken in Gloucester and in Havant, Hampshire. In the studies, vehicles will be filmed to discover which driving behavior generates the loudest sounds, the article says.
PUBLICATION: The Daily Telegraph
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: Motoring; Pg. 14
BYLINE: Simon Arron
DATELINE: Gorbio, Monaco
The Daily Telegraph printed a column reporting on the third Monte Carlo Rally for Electric Vehicles, the FIA Solar Cup, held near the village of Gorbio, Monaco.
According to the column, the race scene is markedly different from the traditional Monte Carlo races. Spectators number only a dozen, the weather is balmy, and most importantly, spectators have to be alert or they may miss the cars' approaches. As the first car, a Renault Clio, approaches, all spectators can here is the distant growl of trucks changing gears down on a motorway about two kilometers away. Even as the Clio passes directly before the spectators, there is only a hint of a sound from the tires on the pavement, the article says.
The columnist goes on to say that the stages of the electric vehicle rally are short, because electric car batteries are less durable at higher speeds. There are seven timed stages over three days covering less than 30 kilometers. In addition to a prize for finishing the race first, there is also an award for energy conservation.
According to the article, Renault Clio driver Frederic Meniere, who won the 1996 race, suffered a transmission failure at the beginning of the fourth stage. Another Clio driven by Jean-Christophe Bertrand skated up the road on its side after Bertrand lunged into a rock face. After the Renaults fell out of the race, an Italian two-seater was left unopposed at the head of the field in the class for modified cars, the article reports. The car was driven by Giugliano Mazzoni and was officially named Tanesini Cartanfruit, but Japanese engineers at the race dubbed it "the electric Ferrari" on the first day and the name stuck. On some stages, the car's winning average speed was 50 mph, which the columnist says is not bad considering the hairpin turns and the uphill terrain of the race course. A Toyota factory-built car won both the production category and second place overall, driven Frenchman Philippe Wambergue, an experienced Monte Carlo and RAC Rally competitor. Wambergue said, "The performance of the electric RAV is quite good. I've been pleasantly surprised. You have to master a new technique. It's not just trying to be fast; you have to be tidy, too. The smoother you are the less energy you waste. There's a definite art to it."
The columnist goes on to speculate whether electric vehicles are the future of the sport. He asks whether we one day will witness electric Formula One cars thundering silently into Copse Corner at the start of the British Grand Prix. According to Masao Kinoshita, chief engineer at Toyota Motor Corporation's electric vehicle division, this scenario won't be happening any time soon. He said, "The most difficult part of an electric vehicle is the battery. We are getting good performance now but there are still practical drawbacks and we have to bring the price of the technology down. In the shorter term the petro-electrical vehicle we showed in Tokyo is cheaper and more efficient." He added, "Doing rallies like this helps us improve battery performance and already we are making great gains. On the last such event, in Scandinavia, the battery system was so volatile that we had to have a technician standing by all the time it was recharging, in case it exploded. We've refined that now. At the end of the day we can plug the car in and leave it quite safely, just like a kettle."
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Barbara Polichetti
DATELINE: Cranston, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ed Conway, Barbara Mendelsohn, residents
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that a mysterious booming noise in the earth has been disturbing residents in the Glen Woods neighborhood of Cranston, Rhode Island. The noise caused several residents to file a collective complaint on Nov. 16 with police. City officials say they now believe the noise is emanating from a pressurized sewer line.
According to the article, the noise has disturbed residents for months. After residents filed their complaint with the police, the article says, city, state, and federal officials were notified, including those at the U.S. Geological Survey and the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency. Some residents described the sound as a dull explosion beneath the earth, while others said it was like muted gunshots or the sound and feel of someone falling down in another room, the article says. Resident Ed Conway said, "It feels like something rumbling beneath your house. You can definitely feel that it is beneath you." Conway's 3-year-old-daughter yells "The dinosaurs are coming!" when she hears the sound.
The article goes on to report that engineers searched for the source of the noise for 10 days. Now, according to Public Works Director Peter Alviti, he believes the noise is coming from a 24-inch sewer line that makes twists and turns sharply. Alviti said more testing still must be done, but he thinks the sound is caused when sewage being pumped uphill through the pipe hits some of the 90-degree turns in the line beneath the streets and backyards of Glen Woods. He added that some of the sound also may be caused by air that gets into the pipe. The sound is probably made worse, he surmised, because many of the homes in Glen Woods sit on ledge, an excellent conductor of sound and vibration. Most of the complaints were from homeowners within a three-block area on Summit Drive, West Blue Ridge, and Park Forest Roads, which match perfectly with the location of the sewer line, according to Alviti.
In an attempt to quiet the noise, Alviti said public works employees will install better seals on manhole covers on Monday, which should reduce some of the sound. But, he added, "If it is the sewer line, like we think it is, then there's not going to be too much else we can do."
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: Brandon/South Bay, Pg. 6
BYLINE: Susan Green
DATELINE: Tampa, Florida area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ann Fabel, vice president, Greater Thonotosassa Civic Association; Leonard McGinty, resident
The Tampa Tribune reports that residents in Thonotosassa near Tampa, Florida are protesting that allowing a property on U.S. 301 to be rezoned to allow commercial intensive uses could cause inappropriate development in an area that has much residential development. County commissioners, meanwhile, have asked the owner of the property for a site plan for the warehouse distribution facility proposed for the site, along with a request to rezone the property.
According to the article, the 21-acre parcel is located between U.S. 301 and Main Street, and is owned by Spada Fruit Sales. John Grandoff, an attorney for Spada, said the property housed a citrus packinghouse from the 1950s until 1984, when it burned. The property previously was zoned the equivalent of "commercial intensive" under old regulations, until the county "down-zoned" the property to a "general commercial" zone in the early 1990s. But Grandoff argued that U.S. 301, which is a designated truck route, is an appropriate area for commercial intensive uses. County planners have indicated they do not object to the rezoning, the article says, but a zoning hearing master recommended commissioners deny the request, except for a 6-acre parcel that faces U.S. 301.
However, the article reports, neighbors and civic leaders are opposed to the rezoning, which they say could allow uses such as a trucking terminal or truck repair facility. Residents are concerned about the noise, traffic, and potential air pollution that could come with a warehouse or trucking facility. Ann Fabel, vice president of the Greater Thonotosassa Civic Association, said, "You want to talk about a domino effect. This OC (office commercial land-use designation) -- I'll call it obnoxious commercial -- will just continue to roll on around the residences." Resident Leonard McGinty, who has lived across from the Spada property since 1954, said he already listens to 35 or 40 diesel trucks revving up early each morning at a trucking terminal 300 feet from his home. He added that he and his wife are receiving medical attention for respiratory ailments that he believes come from breathing the air around the facility. McGinty said, "That's something we have to live with because it's already done, but there's no reason to continue it any further."
In response to residents' concerns, County Commissioner Jan Platt said the commercial intensive zoning category would allow too broad a range of uses, but a development with a site plan would offer more protection to neighbors. "With all the residential in that neighborhood, I'd be afraid of it, too," Platt said. "To be fair to the neighbors, there ought to be a site plan."
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. 16
BYLINE: John Schmied
DATELINE: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lorri Mitoff, co-chair, Council of Concerned Residents; Ronald Willson, resident
The Toronto Sun reports that a new runway at the Pearson Airport in Mississauga, Ontario (outside Toronto) opened yesterday. The opening was marked by a celebration at one end of the facility and a small protest by residents under the runway's flight path at the other end.
The article reports that about 25 of the homeowners who will be under the flight path of the new north/south runway carried placards complaining about the noise and devalued homes brought about by the runway. Ronald Willson, a resident who lives directly south of the airport, said when he moved in, federal and municipal politicians promised the runway would not be built. "We've seen a lot of lies from a lot of politicians" over the runway, he said. Lorri Mitoff, co-chair of the Council of Concerned Residents which is seeking plaintiff status in a court case to close down the runway, said residents did not move near the airport and then complain about noise, but the airport moved to them.
Meanwhile, Federal Transport Minister David Collenette said the runway was built because too much money was being lost due to weather-related delays without the runway. However, Collenette insisted that residents' rights will not be overlooked. The new runway, he said, would be used mostly when weather conditions prohibit the use of other runways.
The article also notes that the runway cost $150 million to build and took four years to complete.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star (Ventura County, CA)
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A03
BYLINE: Aron Miller
DATELINE: Oxnard, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mel Allen, Martin Jones, Richard Senters, residents
The Ventura County Star reports that residents in Oxnard, California who live near Oxnard College are opposing a proposal for the Pacific Suns minor league baseball team to play games at the college. An environmental study released this week recommended 16 measures to mitigate the traffic, noise, and bright lights that would result from the games, but found that the games would not cause significant problems for residents. The City Council already approved allowing the Suns to play at the college pending the results of the environmental study, the article says, but the Ventura County Community College District has not yet approved the proposal. Their decision is expected in January, the article notes.
According to the article, residents have complained for months that the games shouldn't take place in the middle of a residential neighborhood. In spite of residents' concerns, the City Council voted to approve the move in October, and will review the results of the environmental study at its January 6 meeting. The article says many of the nearby residents believe that the more than 1,000 people flooding their neighborhoods for 45 home games during the 1998 season would lower their quality of life. According to Mel Allen, a resident of Sunny Acres Mobile Home Park, "It isn't the Suns that we have an objection to, it's putting an entertainment stadium right next door. I can sum it up in one word: pollution." Resident Martin Jones, who has led the effort to keep the Suns from playing at the college, said, "I don't know how they're going to mitigate traffic on Pleasant Valley Road, and I don't how they're going to mitigate noise from a cheering crowd. Another resident, Richard Senters, said he doesn't buy the proposed mitigation measures. He said, "You can't mitigate noise out of the way, you can't mitigate light out of the way. They're just ignoring the residents in this area."
PUBLICATION: AP Worldstream
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: Financial pages
DATELINE: Amsterdam, Netherlands
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Victor van der Belt, spokesperson, Milieu Defense
AP Worldstream reports that a Dutch government advisory body, the Central Plan Bureau, released a report Friday warning that limiting the growth of Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport to meet legal noise limits could cost the Dutch economy "tens of billions of guilders" by the year 2020. The report is being hailed by airlines and dismissed by environmental groups.
According to the article, the report stated, "Setting a limit of 44 million passengers per year on Schiphol is an effective way of keeping to noise limits but has serious negative effects on parts of the Dutch economy." The report went on to advise the realigning of the runways, which it said would allow the airport to handle 70 million passengers per year within existing noise pollution limits. If runways were realigned, another runway was added, and airlines were encouraged to use quieter planes, the airport could accommodate up to 100 million passengers per year, the report found.
In addition, the report said that the Netherlands will be less attractive as a base for European distribution centers and multinational companies if the airport's growth is hindered, the article says. Jobs would be lost in the airport sector and in airport-related businesses in the Amsterdam region, according to the report.
The article goes on to say that the report will further polarize the government and airport authorities who want the airport to continue to grow, and environmentalists who say growth will worsen air and noise pollution. Officials from KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, which is based at Schiphol, said the report was "good news and may well lead to a government decision in favor of continued expansion." But Victor van der Belt, a spokesperson for the environmental group Milieu Defense, said the report was "incomplete and one-sided. He added, "We also believe that the economic consequences are nowhere near as dramatic as projected."
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press (Neptune, NJ)
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: A, Pg. 3
BYLINE: Kathleen Hopkins
DATELINE: Elizabeth, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: A. Tony Monteiro, City Councilor (5th Ward); J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor; Manny Grova, City Councilor, (1st Ward)
The Asbury Park Press reports that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is going forward with plans to extend one of the runways at Newark International Airport, despite objections from officials in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The article reports that Bill Cahill, a spokesperson for the Port Authority, said construction is beginning to extend the runway by 1,800 feet into Elizabeth. The runway also is slated to be extended by another 1,000 feet to the north in Newark, bringing its total length to 11,000 feet, according to Cahill. Ground on the southern extension is expected to be broken in the spring, with the completion slated for the end of 1998. Cahill said that the Port Authority's board of commissioners approved the runway extension project and allocated $93 million for it earlier this year.
The article goes on to report that the runway is being lengthened to reduce the delays that are caused when aircraft must wait to cross the strip to get to the airport's longer runway, which runs parallel to the runway that will be extended. The shorter runway must be shut down to allow the heavier aircraft the time to cross it and proceed to the longer runway, Cahill said. The article notes that Newark is consistently ranked first or second in the nation in the number of flight delays, according to Cahill.
But, the article says, officials in Elizabeth are objecting to the runway extension, saying it will bring more planes and noise over their city. A. Tony Monteiro, a City Councilor from the Fifth Ward, said, "Any increase in the capacity of Newark Airport is not going to help us here in Elizabeth. There's going to be more planes and more noise." At a public hearing last year, many city officials objected to the proposal, the article reports, including Elizabeth Mayor J. Christian Bollwage, who said that neither the Port Authority nor the Federal Aviation Administration had done anything to alleviate the aircraft noise over Elizabeth neighborhoods.
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: Business; Pg. 1D
BYLINE: Terry Maxon
DATELINE: Dallas, Texas
The Dallas Morning News reports that Southwest Airlines, which has long stayed out of the fight over expanded service at Love Field in Dallas, has entered the controversy after the city of Fort Worth filed a lawsuit to close or prevent expanded service at the airport. According to Southwest chair Herbert Kelleher, the company is "very much opposed to closing Love Field."
According to the article, Southwest has offered flights from Love Field for more than 26 years, and maintains its headquarters next to the airport. The airline currently operates about 140 daily flights from the airport. Southwest was started as a Texas-only airline, the article says, and it won a long legal battle for the right to operate and to keep flying from Love Field after other carriers moved their operations to the new Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in 1974. Just when the airline was starting to offer flights to other states, Congress in 1979 passed a law known as the Wright amendment that limited flights from Love Field to points in Texas and the four adjoining states.
However, the article goes on to say, last year the new air carrier Legend Airlines asked permission to fly jets from Love to cities beyond the four adjoining states, using a provision in the law that exempted planes with 56 seats or less from the geographical limits. The Department of Transportation turned down Legend, but the airline recently persuaded Congress to clarify the law in order to permit its proposal. Congress also added provisions to the law that allowed Mississippi, Alabama, and Kansas to be served from Love Field.
In the latest developments, the city of Fort Worth decided to sue Dallas, Legend, and the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Board to prevent expanded service at Love, and the city of Dallas has countersued. Meanwhile, American Airlines, which is the primary air carrier at the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, has sought to intervene on Fort Worth's side and has launched a public relations campaign against increased use of Love Field.
In the midst of the controversy, the article says, Kelleher has kept Southwest out of the debate. Kelleher said the company has not made any decisions about intervening now, but "we're absolutely opposed to any restrictions on Love Field that adversely affect Southwest Airlines' operations and the economy of the city of Dallas." The article also points out that when citizens groups opposed the noise from Love Field in the 1980s, the airline signed an agreement with the city to phase in quieter aircraft. However, the city also agreed to buy out Southwest's Love Field investment if the airport's operations were limited directly or indirectly by efforts to reduce noise. If Dallas should ever decide or be forced to close Love Field, Kelleher indicated that the company would interpret the agreement about noise controls very broadly. He estimated that the company's investments are worth about $100 million.
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 41A
BYLINE: Sherry Jacobson
DATELINE: Dallas, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rudy Longoria, co-chair, Love Field Citizens Action Committee
The Dallas Morning News reports that Jerry Bartos, a former Dallas City Councilor, is campaigning for expanded use of Love Field. Meanwhile, the article says, most citizens are opposed to increased use of the airport due to noise problems in many neighborhoods.
According to the article, Bartos is a longtime opponent of restricting flights at the inner-city airport. He said he doesn't believe neighborhoods near Love Field would be adversely affected by increased air traffic. He added that the new home he's building in a gated community has a clear view of ascending planes, and he doesn't believe the noise complaints are justified. However, critics point out -- and he agrees -- that Bartos's new neighborhood lies outside the airport's flight paths. Still, Bartos said, he believes jet noise has decreased since 1992, pointing to the success of voluntary noise controls by Southwest Airlines and an agreement that requires most jets using the airport to have quieter engines by 2000. The article also says that Bartos formed the group Friends of Love Field in 1991 to advocate for expanded use of the airport. And, more recently, he set up a political action committee, the Association for Sensible Aviation Policies, which lobbies for making Love Field a regional transportation center.
The article reports that many citizens are opposed to expanded service at Love Field. In 1992, a noise study at Love Field found that 22,000 residents were being exposed to noise that averaged 65 decibels, a level considered "incompatible with residential land use." Rudy Longoria, co-chair of the Love Field Citizens Action Committee and an area resident, said, "If noise is not a problem, then why is there a noise abatement program being implemented right now in schools around Love Field?" The article notes that five public schools near the airport currently are receiving soundproofing to reduce jet noise. Meanwhile, Pat White, a resident of the Bluffview neighborhood near Love Field, said, "the people who think it's okay to open Love Field up are not in the majority." The article notes that the citizens committee, which has fought for greater noise controls, has been reactivated since Congress voted in October to ease restrictions on flights at Love Field. Flights had been restricted due to the passage of the Wright amendment in 1979, which stipulated that passenger flights from Love Field could go only to destinations in Texas and the four adjacent states. But the new law allows flights to Mississippi, Alabama, and Kansas, and permits Legend Airlines to fly out of Love Field. The citizens group has asked the city to fund a new noise study, the article reports. But city council members said they could not discuss the noise issue while the lawsuit from Fort Worth is pending.
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. 16
BYLINE: John Schmied
DATELINE: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lorri Mitoff, Co-Chair, Council of Concerned Residents
The Toronto Sun reports that Pearson Airport's newest runway in the Toronto, Canada area was marked yesterday by a celebration at one end of the massive facility and a small protest at the other.
According to the report, about 25 homeowners who will now be under a flight path of the new north/south runway carried placards decrying the noise and devalued homes brought about by what they say is a string of broken promises. "We've seen a lot of lies from a lot of politicians" over the runway, said Ronald Willson, 60, of Bough Beeches Blvd., directly south of the airport. Willson said that when he moved in, federal and municipal politicians promised such a runway would not be built. Lorri Mitoff, co-chairman of the Council of Concerned Residents which is seeking plaintive status in a court case to close down the runway, said the issue is not one of people moving near the airport and complaining about the noise, but of the airport moving to them. "This is about money, pure and simple," he said of politicians' reversal of positions.
The report says Federal Transport Minister David Collenette said the decision to build the runway was based on the money lost due to weather-related delays, but said residents' rights will not be trampled. He said the new runway will be used primarily when weather conditions prohibit the use of other runways and will remain aware of the "sensitivities of those who live close by." He said Pearson can be both "a very efficient airport and one that is a good citizen."
The article says the $150-million runway, slightly more than a kilometer west of the original runway, took four years to complete. The second runway, which will still undergo about three weeks of daily testing from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., will help maintain the airport's normal 90 departure/arrivals-an-hour rate when winds dictate a north/south movement.
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 41A
BYLINE: Sherry Jacobson
DATELINE: Dallas, Texas
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rudy Longoria, Co-Chair, Love Field Citizens Action Committee
The Dallas Morning News reports that two sharply opposed citizen's groups continue to struggle over the expansion of a Dallas, Texas area airport at Love Field.
According to the report, four years after he left the Dallas City Council, Jerry Bartos is still bursting with opinions and political fervor as the latest chapter of the Love Field debate unfolds. A longtime opponent of restricting flights at the inner-city airport, Mr. Bartos says he is not worried that neighborhoods near Love Field might be adversely affected by increased air traffic. In fact, he's building a $300,000 home in a new gated community that has a clear view of ascending airplanes. "Personally, I don't think the complaints about noise are justified," said Mr. Bartos, who served three terms on the City Council from 1987 to 1993 and has lived in the Love Field area since 1957. Other community leaders take exception to Mr. Bartos' optimism about Love Field noise. They point out - and he agrees - that his new neighborhood lies outside the airport's flight paths.
The report describes how the 13-acre Wellington on the Creek has 49 new homes valued at $230,000 to $500,000 and is just north of Northwest Highway and east of Marsh Lane. Though it is less than a mile east of Love Field, the new subdivision is less likely than some to be beset by airport noise. People who live in the flight path point out that the worst noise spreads north and south of the airport, directly beneath the takeoffs and landings of the largest jets. "If noise is not a problem, then why is there a noise abatement program being implemented right now in schools around Love Field?" said Rudy Longoria, co-chairman of the Love Field Citizens Action Committee and an area resident for 39 years. Five public schools near the airport are being outfitted with double-paned windows and insulation to reduce airplane noise.
The report says a 1992 noise study at Love Field found that 22,000 people were being exposed to noise that averaged 65 decibels, a level considered "incompatible with residential land use." The noise contour did not include the site of Mr. Bartos' new home. He says he believes the noise has decreased since 1992. He points to the apparent success of voluntary noise control efforts by Love Field's primary user, Southwest Airlines, and an agreement that requires nearly all jets using the airport to have quieter engines by 2000. "In 1989, I was promoting noise containment around the perimeter of the airport, mainly to stop the run-ups or testing of airplane engines at 5 a.m.," he recalled. "Most of that has moved out of Love Field."
According to the article the 64-year-old former politician is something of an expert on noise, having made a living from soundproofing in construction, such as hospital operating rooms and noisy electrical stations. His company, Bartos Inc., does no business related to aeronautical noise, he says. Pat White, who has lived in the Bluffview neighborhood, near Love Field, for 20 years, says Mr. Bartos has a right to his opinion, and she concedes that some of her neighbors might even agree with him. "Everybody has a legitimate point of view," she said about the issue that has divided some neighborhoods. "But the people who think it's OK to open Love Field up are not in the majority."
The article says the 16-year-old Love Field citizens committee, which has fought for greater noise controls, has been reactivated since Congress voted in October to ease flight limits at Love Field. The Wright amendment, passed in 1979 to encourage passenger traffic at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, had restricted passenger flights from Love Field to destinations in Texas and the four adjacent states. The new legislation also allows direct flights to Mississippi, Alabama and Kansas and allows a new airline, Legend, to fly out of Love Field. The citizens group has asked the city to address noise and safety concerns as well as pay for another noise study. City Council members have said they cannot discuss the noise issue while Fort Worth has a lawsuit pending to stop Dallas from increasing flights at the municipal airport.
The report says Mr. Bartos has stayed busy. Friends of Love Field, a group he formed in 1991 to push for expanded use of the airport, puts out a newsletter several times a year to about 2,000 supporters. It also provides speakers to community and civic groups. More recently, Mr. Bartos set up a political action committee, the Association for Sensible Aviation Policies, which pushes Love Field as a regional transportation issue. About 100 people have joined. "We've said we will not ask for money, and we will not ask airlines for money," said Mr. Bartos, who estimated that both groups spent about $8,000 this year on educational programs. "It's the only thing political I do," Mr. Bartos said. "I've given up everything else."
PUBLICATION: The Dallas Morning News
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: Business; Pg. 1D
BYLINE: Terry Maxon
DATELINE: Dallas, Texas
The Dallas Morning News reports that there is growing controversy over whether Southwest Airlines will continue to fly out of Love Field in Dallas, Texas, or whether it should be closed.
The report says that Southwest Airlines Co. has stayed out of the controversy over expanding service from Dallas Love Field, even though it probably has the most to gain by repeal of a 1979 federal law limiting the airport's flights to Love Field. If the dispute results in a less restricted Love Field, Southwest says it will be ready to compete.
According to the report, a recent court filing by the city of Fort Worth has given Southwest chairman Herbert D. Kelleher cause to enter the fight, he said. What has provoked Mr. Kelleher's ire is a request by Fort Worth that "if all else fails," Dallas be required by the court to close Love Field. "We're passionate about that," Mr. Kelleher said. "We're very much opposed to closing Love Field."
The report describes how for more than 26 years, Southwest has operated flights from the close-in Dallas airport and has built its headquarters across the fence from Love Field's west runway. It now operates about 140 daily flights from the close-in Dallas airport. Citing studies that say Love Field contributes more than $2 billion to the Dallas economy, Mr. Kelleher said, "I don't think Dallas should react too kindly to losing $2 billion of economic benefit." Southwest is the fourth-largest taxpayer in the city of Dallas, he noted. "We have over 4,000 jobs," he said. "If it hadn't been for the Wright amendment, it'd probably be 9,000. So Dallas has already made a sacrifice in that respect."
The article says Southwest started as a Texas-only airline, and survived a long legal battle for the right to operate and to keep flying from Love Field after other carriers moved their operations to the new Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in 1974. Just as Southwest was beginning to fly to other states, Congress in 1979 passed a law known as the Wright amendment that limited flights from Love Field to points in Texas and the four adjoining states.
Last year, the report goes on, new carrier Legend Airlines asked permission to fly jets to cities beyond the Wright amendment borders, using a provision in the law that exempted planes with 56 seats or less from the geographical limits. The Department of Transportation rejected Legend's proposal because the carrier was going to use larger jets scaled down to meet the 56-seat rule. Legend persuaded Congress to clarify the law to allow its use of the larger jets. At the same time, lawmakers also added Mississippi, Alabama and Kansas to the states that could be served from Love Field. In the last month, Fort Worth has sued Dallas, Legend and the D/FW Airport board to prevent expanded service, and Dallas has counter-sued. American Airlines Inc., the dominant carrier at D/FW, has sought to intervene on Fort Worth's side, and American has launched a public relations campaign against increased use of Love Field.
The article says Mr. Kelleher was stung by the controversy when he proposed loosening the limits in 1989, and has kept the airline out of the debate. Although an airline spokeswoman said Southwest wants to be part of a court-ordered settlement conference next month, Mr. Kelleher declined to discuss the plans of Southwest, which isn't a defendant in either lawsuit. "I don't really want to be accused of maybe transgressing or trespassing on the prerogatives of the Dallas City Council with respect to what it should or should not do," he said. "We haven't made any determinations with respect to intervention or not." However, "we're absolutely opposed to any restrictions on Love Field that adversely affect Southwest Airlines' operations and the economy of the city of Dallas," he said.
According to the report, Mr. Kelleher's airline holds a valuable bargaining chip should the city of Dallas decide or be forced to close the airport - the city would have to buy out the airline. When citizens groups protested the noise from Love Field operations in the 1980s, the airline signed a contract with the city to phase in quieter aircraft over time. But the city also agreed to buy out Southwest's Love Field investment if the airport's operations were limited directly or indirectly by efforts to reduce noise. Mr. Kelleher indicated the airline would interpret the link to noise controls very broadly. He estimated that Southwest's improvements are worth about $100 million.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: Community Close-Up, Pg. 3
BYLINE: Kathy Bushouse
DATELINE: Coral Springs, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports that the Coral Springs (Florida) City Commission has tabled a proposed change to the city's noise ordinance that would allow businesses to be open an extra hour.
According to the report, the commission on Nov. 18 deferred an ordinance that would have allowed businesses close to residential areas to open at 7 a.m. and close at 6 p.m., rather than the current times of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Residents of the Northbrook neighborhood, which borders Wiles Road businesses in northwest Coral Springs, have complained for years that the noise ordinance is being violated, and that extending the hours would make it worse. A task force set up after the Nov. 4 City Commission meeting will look at immediate and long-term solutions to the strife between the businesses and the residents. Both groups have accused the other of being less than neighborly.
The article says the task force will examine businesses' occupational licenses to make sure they are operating within the regulations for that area's zoning. They will also consider constructing more physical barriers between the homes and businesses, and will look at reducing the zoning ordinance for the area to restrict the types of businesses that can operate there, said Senior Assistant City Manager Charles Schwabe. Commissioners said at the Nov. 18 meeting that they want to see code enforcement stepped up in the area. "It appears as though (code enforcement is) not being done extensively," said Commissioner Alan Polin. "I think we need to do that to send a message to the businesses in this area that we mean business."
According to the report, Commissioner William Stradling said he visited the Northbrook neighborhood early one morning to see whether businesses were operating before 8 a.m. He said it was too noisy because there were businesses receiving deliveries before the time allowed by the ordinance, and that the commission might consider rezoning the area. "I think the long term is that we're going to have to be able to make a zoning change," Stradling said. "I think that we, at this point, need to take some strong actions." But Vice Mayor Rhonda Calhoun, who also visited some of the business owners on Wiles Road, said that any decision should be fair for residents and business owners, and not limited to the small strip of Wiles Road. "It's very important that any resolution of this issue be done on a 50-50 basis," Calhoun said. "If we are looking at enforcement issues they need to be enforced throughout the city."
PUBLICATION: The Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Neighbor; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Arthur Kane
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that the City Council of Des Plaines, Illinois unanimously supported a third airport as an alternative to new runways at O'Hare
According to the report the Des Plaines council voted 8-0 this week to support a resolution urging the General Assembly and Congress to build a third regional airport. "We're supporting this as a solution to congestion at O'Hare," said Mayor Paul Jung. "We oppose any new runways at O'Hare." Jung admits the resolution is only symbolic, but it comes after recent speculation that Des Plaines may be talking to the anti-expansion Suburban O'Hare Commission's arch-rival, the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission.
The article says the city invited the representatives of the Noise Compatibility Commission to speak to the city council. SOC officials said Des Plaines could not be a member of both organizations, but Monday's action is a clear sign of where the city stands. The resolution urges Congress and the General Assembly to explore a third airport and asks neighboring communities to adopt similar resolutions. Suburban O'Hare Commission spokesman John Geils, who also serves as Bensenville village president, said several communities already passed a similar resolution and dozens more are expected to follow.
The report says the plan for a third airport gained new credibility when U.S. Reps. Henry Hyde and Jesse Jackson Jr. recently appeared together to support the new field, possibly in Peotone. Many Northwest suburban officials oppose new runways at O'Hare because of the noise from the airport, and Jackson believes his South Side district may get a flood of jobs from a new airport. Geils said the resolutions support Jackson and Hyde's plan. "I'd like to think they show (the congressmen) have backing in this region," Geils said. Noise Compatibility spokesman Dennis Culloton said the suburbs may support a third airport but the federal government requires widespread support. "They don't have Chicago, the state of Illinois or any airlines supporting this," he added.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: November 24, 1997
SECTION: Neighbor; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Jon Davis
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that Arlington Heights, Illinois will consider joining a new group touting a third regional airport to open by 2005.
The report says the Partnership for Metropolitan Chicago's Airport Future calls for a third airport and a permanent ban on new runways at O'Hare International Airport. That could prove to be an alluring message for Arlington Heights, already a member of the Chicago-sponsored O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. At the request of Trustee Dwight Walton, the village's Advisory Commission on O'Hare Noise will look at the new group and recommend by Jan. 20 whether the village should join. With more and more Arlington Heights residents being affected by noise, "we've got to get more information," Walton said.
According to the article if joining the new group means the village is committed to building the airport in Peotone, "then I don't want to be a part of it," said Advisory Commission member Trustee Virginia Kucera. "My concern would be I'm just not informed enough as to the other possibilities" for stopping growth at O'Hare, she said. The Partnership - formed by representatives Henry Hyde, an Addison Republican, and Jesse Jackson Jr., a Chicago Democrat - is an attempt to build regional political consensus for a third airport, a Hyde spokesman said. "It's to remind the current administration that consensus isn't defined by what airlines and the city of Chicago want, but what the region needs," he said.
The congressmen also call for a regional economic summit to discuss new airport construction, high-speed passenger and cargo rail links between downtown Chicago and the three airports and protections for Midway Airport. The partnership also endorses unspecified protections for Northwest suburban business communities to improve their infrastructures, "to reduce the fear of cost differential with the new airport." Already in the partnership are Des Plaines, Elk Grove Village and Park Ridge - all members of the Suburban O'Hare Commission. "We're part of groups that we feel will get our concerns voiced and addressed," said Mayor Arlene Mulder, who chairs the city's O'Hare commission. "If this is another venue that we can do that, we ought to look at it."
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, PN)
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: National, Pg. A1
BYLINE: David Washburn and Gene Tauber, with contributions by Peter Noah
DATELINE: Allentown, Pennsylvania
The Morning Call reports that the Cumberland Gardens housing project in Allentown, Pennsylvania, contrary to popular sentiment, currently is considerably safer than many other low-income neighborhoods in the city. Although many believe that crime is high in the area, the article says that noise complaints are the most frequent type of complaint received in the area.
The article goes on to detail at length the crime situation in the Cumberland Gardens project. The article says that while there is crime in the area, the biggest problems are loud music and broken windows, according to Rafael Perez, the community police officer stationed at the Gardens. In fact, the article reports, noise complaints, disturbances, and traffic violations are the most commonly reported crimes in Cumberland, just like in most other Allentown neighborhoods.
The article also printed the following table regarding crime in Cumberland:
The Most Frequent Crimes in Cumberland Gardens Between 1992-1996
Noise complaints.........................369
Non-domestic disturbance............292
Juvenile complaints.....................174
Domestic disturbance, no arrest...110
Suspicious autos, persons.............101
Vandalism to residence.................94
Traffic...........................................83
Unwanted person...........................81
Vehicle vandalism.........................70
PUBLICATION: The Vancouver Sun
DATE: November 28, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. B1 / Front
BYLINE: Scott Simpson
DATELINE: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
The Vancouver Sun reports that the Canadian government has released a report that identifies problems with a light rail transit link proposed to run between Vancouver (British Columbia) and Coquitlam. Problems include everything from noise and vibrations for local businesses and residents to a loss of traffic lanes to disturbance of a wildlife habitat in an important ravine.
The article reports that the new light rail link would be a sophisticated, high-speed trolley train system that would run mainly at road level along the Broadway-Lougheed Highway corridor. Some sections of the proposed route have no problems associated with them, the article says. However other sections, such as Miller Ravine in Port Moody, is a problem because it is identified by local environmentalists as a small, important refuge for about 40 species of birds. Another concern is related to the impact of noise and vibration on businesses and nearby apartments, the article says. Officials say that some alternative routes are being considered to mitigate the problems.
According to the article, it is hoped that construction on the project can begin in 1999, with completion of the Coquitlam-Broadway line by 2005
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: Neighborhoods Pg. 01n
BYLINE: Linda Stahl
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
The Courier-Journal reports that the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County (Kentucky) is considering purchasing 287 acres on Cedar Creek Road in order to build 450 homes for people displaced by noise from Louisville International Airport's reconfigured runways. Plans are to offer residents in 1,620 homes to option to move, the article says.
According to the article, the proposed Cedar Creek Road housing development would include homes worth up to $75,000 that would be built over three years. But potential financing is secured for only 300 homes so far, the article says, and airport officials have proposed using a lottery to decide which residents would get to move first.
Some residents have been excited at the prospect of speeding up their escape from their noisy homes, the article reports, but others have been suspicious about the airport's plans, saying they haven't forgotten the airport's earlier retraction of providing sound-proofing to their current homes. Some residents immediately questioned the quality of the housing that would be built.
In addition, the article says, some residents in areas where noise is considered excessive are angry that their homes will be targets for prime commercial development once they are gone. That news was released recently by local leaders, including Dave Armstrong, Jefferson County Judge-Executive.
The relocation is proceeding very slowly, the article notes. A large section in Edgewood and some streets off Minor Lane have been dismantled, while residents left behind put up with dust, noise, security problems, and no firm answers about when they'll be moving. The relocation is expected to take up to nine years, the article says, mostly because money from the Federal Aviation Administration has slowed. But, the article points out, the project should speed up if the Cedar Creek Road project goes forward and if local officials get $20 million they are requesting from Kentucky's General Assembly next year.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: News Pg.01a
BYLINE: Linda Stahl
DATELINE: Minor Lane Heights, Kentucky
The Courier-Journal reports that a "truth rally" was held in Minor Lane Heights, Kentucky last Monday to discuss the frustration residents are experiencing with officials at the Louisville International Airport over plans to relocate more than 1,000 homes because of excessive airport noise. The meeting was attended by a crowd of about 500 people, the article says. This month, airport officials proposed building a relocation housing development, but residents still aren't all happy, according to the article.
According to the article, officials in Minor Lane Heights are trying to get the airport authority to allow the formation of a relocation committee that would include neighborhood representatives and would oversee the design and building of new housing for displaced residents. Meanwhile, Dave Armstrong, Jefferson County Judge-Executive, sent a letter to airport officials the day after the rally chastising them for poor relations with the public. Armstrong also urged officials to allow a design firm chosen by Minor Lane Heights officials to be involved in the housing project.
PUBLICATION: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Dan Reed and Kristin Sullivan, with contributions by Max Baker and Jack Smith
DATELINE: Fort Worth, Texas
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that Kenneth Barr, Mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, said yesterday that he will launch a new media effort in the city's legal battle with Dallas over the expansion of air service at Love Field. Barr said he hopes the media effort will build more support in the city's legal efforts to protect the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from additional competition at Love Field.
According to the article, in October, Congress made changes to the Wright Amendment, the law that has restricted Love Field to short-haul service for the past 18 years. The City of Fort Worth subsequently filed a lawsuit against Dallas, because Dallas leaders indicated they would go along with Congress' push to allow expanded service at Love, according to Barr. The mayor added that he is frustrated by what he perceives as Dallas' history of trying to renege on its deal with Fort Worth for joint development and promotion of Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. In addition, Barr said, he believes some airlines at Dallas/Fort Worth are charging "exorbitant" air fares to some local business travelers.
The article notes that Barr, City Councilor Chuck Silcox, City Manager Bob Terrell, and City Attorney Wade Adkins met yesterday with reporters and editors of the Star-Telegram to discuss the legal battle. According to Barr, proponents of expanded service at Love have a simple, easily understood message: that expanded service will mean lower fares at both Love and Dallas/Fort Worth. And that's a message that gets high marks with consumers, Barr said. On the other hand, Barr said, Fort Worth's position of maintaining the status quo "is a much more difficult message to deliver, and we haven't done a very good job of delivering it." The message is "a lot more complex" than the message of lower airfares, according to Barr.
Barr went on to say that officials in Fort Worth believed the Love Field controversy was resolved each time the debate flared during the past three decades. "We thought it was solved once and for all in '92 when a concurrent resolution was passed by the two cities," he added. "But it keeps coming back up again."
The article reports that Barr also strongly denied suspicions that by suing Dallas, Fort Worth is acting on American Airlines' behalf. American Airlines is based in Fort Worth, and is the largest employer in North Texas with more than 33,000 employees, the article notes. Barr noted that Fort Worth sued Dallas in 1979, when Love Field's Southwest Airlines sought to fly beyond Texas borders for the first time, at a time when American wasn't the dominant carrier at Dallas/Fort Worth. Barr agreed that Forth Worth's and American's interest are the same right now, but that won't be the case, he said, if Dallas approves Legend Airlines' plans to offer long-haul service at Love Field and American follows through on its threat to move some of its 530 daily flights to Love Field. The article notes that officials from American have said they will move flights to Love to protect their local market share, because more than half their local business travelers live or work closer to Love Field than to Dallas/Fort Worth.
Meanwhile, the article says, the city of Dallas has countersued Fort Worth, and the case is presently before the Fort Worth court of U.S. District Judge John McBryde. McBryde has ordered all the parties in the case to have a settlement conference and report its results to him by Dec. 12. The conference is currently set for Dec. 9, according to Barr.
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: Lake Sentinel; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Kevin Connolly
DATELINE: Clermont, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Kerry Rose, resident
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune reports that mining company Tarmac America has plans to move a sand-mining operation in Clermont, Florida to a 321-acre parcel of land in south Lake County off Hartwood Marsh Road. Residents near the proposed site are gearing up to fight the plan, which they say will drain or taint water supplies, cause excessive noise, and disrupt the calm atmosphere of the rural neighborhood.
According to the article, resident Kerry Rose and more than two dozen neighbors are planning to fight the mining company. They have hired the high-profile, local land-use attorney Steve Richey to help in the fight. According to Rose, he moved into the neighborhood just before the mining company announced their plans, the article says. "It's one thing when you move into an area and you know it's there. It's another thing when it moves right beside you," Rose said. Rose also said that he predicts opponents will pack the two public hearings on the issue next month.
The public hearings will come next Wednesday, when the Planning and Zoning Commission will decide whether to approve a conditional-use permit for the expansion, and on Dec. 16, when the Lake County Commission will vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, the article says, officials from Tarmac are insisting that the impact to residents will be minimal. Officials also said they already have the backing of several regulatory agencies. Jim Mason, general manager of Tarmac's sand-mining division in south Lake, said, "We have looked at every aspect of this operation and there are no problems. I basically have permits for everything you can possibly think of." Mason also said that the mining operation will not be as intrusive as residents claim, and several mitigation measures should shield neighbors from the impacts. "The bottom line is the noise is not what they are portraying it to be," Mason said.
The article explains that if the permit is approved, the company will have to preserve a 100-foot-deep strip of pine trees and vegetation along the property's perimeter, and to create a 7-foot earthen berm to block trespassers and offensive noises.
If approved, the operation is expected to move to the area in three to five years. After 15 years of mining, the article says, the sand would be depleted and the entire parcel would be replanted with vegetation. Mason said the company would attempt to excavate the sand quickly to reduce any impacts. "I feel that we are good neighbors and we will work with the citizens all the way across the board to discuss any problems they might have," he said. However, he said some residents will never accept the company's plans. "[Rose] wants to sit in his back yard and look out over 300 vacant acres," Mason said.
PUBLICATION: Portland Press Herald
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: Local & State, Pg. 4B
BYLINE: Dennis Hoey
DATELINE: Woolwich, Maine
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rita Sturtevant, resident and Select Board member
The Portland Press Herald reports that a Maine Superior Court judge Tuesday denied a mining company's request to allow a bedrock mining operation in a rural neighborhood in Woolwich on Dana Mill Road. The decision upholds the town's mining ordinance, and comes after a decade-long battle to protect the 163-acre site.
According to the article, the controversy started in 1989, when a construction company considered using the site as a quarry. The company ultimately backed out of the purchase, but it scared nearby residents. According to Rita Sturtevant, a nearby resident and Select Board member, the neighbors started fighting to develop a mining ordinance for the town. Then, in November 1992, Ferraiolo Construction of Rockland acquired the site, and several months later the town adopted an earth extraction ordinance, which prohibited the removal of more than 5,000 cubic yards of material a year. Ferraiolo Construction subsequently filed a lawsuit, claiming that the ordinance was arbitrary and was designed to prevent the company from doing business there. Ferraiolo officials have maintained that in order to remain profitable, they must remove at least 50,000 cubic yards of bedrock per year. They also have said the site has the potential to supply enough bedrock to keep the company in business for 50 years.
However, the article reports, residents said the mining operation would have destroyed their quality of life by creating dust, noise from blasting, and truck traffic in their rural neighborhood. The noise and pollution would have affected about 20 homes along Dana Mill Road, as well as new housing developments at nearby Nequasset Pines and on Trott Road, the article says. In addition, the neighborhood would have lost a huge tract of open space that has been used by generations of Woolwich residents for deer and duck hunting, hiking, and snowmobiling. In addition, the town had pointed out in court filings that the mining operation would have gone against its Comprehensive Plan, which identified three community priorities -- protection of water quality, preservation of the environment, and preservation of the town's rural lifestyle. The article also notes that the quarry would have been in the Nequasset Lake watershed, about 1.5 miles from Nequasset Lake, which supplies drinking water to 15,000 customers in Bath, West Bath, Wiscasset, Woolwich, and East Brunswick.
The article goes on to explain that Judge Stephen Perkins of Sagadahoc County Superior Court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the town's mining ordinance is constitutionally invalid. Perkins ruled that the town has the right to set limits on mining operations, and in this case actually increased the amount of bedrock that could be extracted from zero to 5,000 cubic yards of material a year.
Meanwhile, Ed Bearor, Ferraiolo Construction's attorney, said, "I don't agree with the judge's conclusion that there is a rational basis for this ordinance. It seems to me the ordinance was totally arbitrary and the (extraction) figure so low as to prevent any mining operation from ever using the site." He added, "I think the town has prohibited this use, in a backdoor fashion. I have no idea what my client will do with the property. You can't build houses on it because the bedrock is too close to the surface." Bearor said the company would consider an appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
However, the article says, the town's attorney, Eliot Field, said an appeal is unlikely. "The judge basically ruled that Ferraiolo has no case," Field said. The only other complaint pending, Field said, is whether the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals gave proper notice to Ferraiolo Construction before the town adopted the mining ordinance. But Field said the company probably won't pursue that complaint since the ordinance already has been determined to be valid.
Meanwhile, resident Sturtevant said she will contact her neighbors to tell them about the decision, and said they might even have a celebration. "This is a wonderful Thanksgiving present," she said. "We have worked so hard over all these years to keep the town's mining ordinance in place."
PUBLICATION: The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: B, Pg. 4
BYLINE: Warren Wise
DATELINE: Pringletown, South Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lisa Hadstate, resident, Hollow Tree Nursery owner, and appellant
The Post and Courier reports that opponents of a proposed racetrack in Pringletown, South Carolina have appealed a decision by the state Department of Health and Environmental Control that the track's noise level will not adversely affect Francis Beidler Forest. The appellant in the case has claimed that comparisons made between the proposed track and another track are invalid because the topography and existing background noise are very different.
The article reports that appellant Lisa Hadstate, a Lebanon resident and owner of Hollow Tree Nursery, said in her appeal, "We request the Department of Health and Environmental Control's office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management retract this permit and contract a qualified acoustical engineer to review results of both sound tests." The appeal also argues, "Using Myrtle Beach Speedway as a comparison to a race track in Four Hole Swamp is not an acceptable choice because the topography of the areas and the amount of existing background noise are quite different." Sound travels differently across a flat, open area such as Myrtle Beach compared to a bowl-shaped, heavily forested area at Four Hole Swamp, she said. "Sound tests conducted four miles from a race track in Myrtle Beach are not valid because overriding background sounds from a highly developed area will mask noises, which would be easily heard in an area such as Francis Beidler and the entire surrounding rural countryside," the appeal argues.
Meanwhile, Mike Brown, the developer of the racetrack, said the appeal will not affect his decision to construct the $1.5 million, half-mile concrete Interstate Speedway near Interstate 26 and S.C. Highway 27. Brown said, "How can you appeal facts and figures? They're just trying to buy time. I think it can be brought back to the administrative law judge when he rules on the storm water permit."
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: A Section, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Yolanda Rodriguez
DATELINE: Sarasota, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dick Taylor, City Attorney
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports that a judge invalidated the noise ordinance in Sarasota, Florida on Wednesday, chalking up a victory for Lemon Coast bar, which challenged the ordinance in July. The noise ordinance had been passed by the City Commission in May, the article says. In response to the ruling, city officials are beginning the process of creating a new ordinance that will correct the faults found by the judge in the previous ordinance.
The article reports that the noise ordinance was passed after a lengthy public hearing that drew angry downtown condominium owners, predominately those from the Dolphin Towers, as well as musicians, patrons, and owners of the bar. The Lemon Coast bar has a sand-floored outdoor band area and a semi-enclosed bar on Lemon Avenue, the article notes. The ordinance that was voted in stipulated that outdoor amplified music could not be louder than 70 decibels, and could not be played past 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
According to the article, Judge Lee Haworth ruled against the noise ordinance for two reasons. The city should have treated the change to its code as a zoning change and advertised it as such, the judge said. In addition, Haworth ruled that because the change limited how Lemon Coast could use its property, the planning board should have reviewed the ordinance, which it did not do. The article says that the judge's decision forces the city to regulate noise with its former noise ordinance, which didn't stipulate a decibel limit for outdoor music or a required time to stop the music.
The article goes on to say that City Attorney Dick Taylor said he did not agree with the judge's decision, but that the ruling should not be seen as a "license to get loud." Police still will apply both state and local regulations that are in force, Taylor said. He also said that his office has revised the ordinance to correct the procedural faults that the judge found. The article explains that there will be a public hearing on the matter before the Sarasota City Commission on Dec. 8.
Meanwhile, according to Robert Lyons, the attorney representing Lemon Coast, the bar has seen business drop off in the months since the noise ordinance was passed. Lyons said, "It's a good thing for the Lemon Coast ... and for those people who enjoy music downtown. My fear is that the city is considering a more restrictive ordinance than this. My fear is that the city is listening to the complaints made by a handful of people. The vast majority of people who are enjoying the music are not making themselves heard."
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. C3
BYLINE: Mike Funston
DATELINE: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Mayor
The Toronto Star reports that the mayor of Mississauga, Ontario, Hazel McCallion, will boycott tomorrow's official opening ceremony for Pearson Airport's new $150 million north-south runway. McCallion made the decision to support homeowners who have been concerned about increased aircraft noise from the runway.
According to the article, McCallion sent a letter to federal Transport Minister David Collenette, writing, "For me to attend [the runway opening ceremony] would be like rubbing salt into a wound." The city council had supported the runway project on the condition that an agreement be signed placing restrictions on the runway's use, McCallion said. The agreement was almost in place when the Conservative government lost the election in 1993 to the Liberals, who took over the negotiations and later passed them to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which assumed control of Pearson last December. Each time a change took place, the article says, the negotiations started over. McCallion said, "I'm sad to report we still don't have an agreement. It's extremely disappointing to be let down on this ... after my council only asked for a few conditions ... to protect people who will no doubt be seriously impacted by the runway." The article also explains that the city wanted a clause stating that the runway would be used only for landings, which are much quieter than takeoffs, and only when weather or emergencies preclude the use of the two east-west runways that are used for most flights.
Transport Minister Collenette, in his response to McCallion, wrote: "In a special meeting of the airport operations committee on Nov. 15, which Transport Canada attended, the authority ... expressed its commitment to use the runway for arrivals only, except in exceptional cases when weather or operational safety concerns necessitate its use for departures." Collenette also noted that the noise abatement policies can't be changed by the airport authority without Transport Canada's consent, the article says.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: Loudoun Extra; Pg. V07
BYLINE: Jennifer Ordonez
DATELINE: Warrenton, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dorothy Frostick, member, Ivy Hill Homeowners Association
The Washington Post reports that a four-lane divided bypass around Warrenton, Virginia opened on Monday after a ribbon-cutting ceremony. But some residents in the Ivy Hill neighborhood near the new highway say the noise walls and berms that have been built will not be enough to drown out the noise of passing traffic, the article reports. Residents attended the ceremony carrying signs saying "Finish Our Sound Wall" and "Spur Noise Ruins Lives."
According to the article, the highway is a 2 1/2-mile spur to Route 17, and is formally known as the Warrenton Bypass Extension. The road has been in the works since the late 1960s, and cost the state slightly more than $23 million. It was designed to re-route traffic on Lee Highway and Broadview Avenue around the town. By 2015, according to estimates by the Virginia Department of Transportation, the spur will carry as many as 16,000 vehicles per day.
That prediction worries resident Dorothy Frostick and other members of the Ivy Hill Homeowners Association, the article reports. Some residents from the Ivy Hill neighborhood, a 103-lot development just north of the spur's west end, are concerned about the noise that will come from the passing traffic. Frostick said, "It's like we're up in an amphitheater viewing a bad show. I can stand up in my second-floor window and see the roadway. It's partly aesthetic, but it's mostly the noise." Residents said they were assured verbally by county and state officials throughout the project's three-year construction that although the sound mitigation plans were within federal guidelines, the issue would be studied further if noise were a problem once the road was opened. However, now, according to Frostick, residents have received a letter from Virginia Department of Transportation's Commissioner David Gehr saying that nothing more will be done. Gehr wrote in a letter dated Nov. 20 that because "all impacted residences are fully protected by the wall-berm combination, the department will not be able to conduct noise measurements or provide additional noise abatement measures as requested."
The article goes on to explain that Gehr could not be reached for comment, but David Stanley, assistant resident engineer with the transportation department said that public input had been considered and that ample modifications had been made to the spur to mitigate noise concerns. "What was originally shown on the plans has actually been exceeded. No one has been misled," Stanley said. "The right of way was there prior to the subdivision being built. ... If you're going to pay $150,000 for a piece of land and the state owns a long, strip-like parcel right next door, you should check the comprehensive plan to see who your neighbors might be."
But Frostick, who has lived in the development since 1991, says her family was never informed of the spur, the article reports. Now, she and other homeowners said, the issue is whether the transportation department will listen if noise becomes an issue when traffic on the new road picks up. "Just because VDOT says our homes are outside the 1,000-foot range where they're responsible for noise doesn't mean it's not there," Frostick said. "We are prepared to go ahead with our own sound study, if it comes to that. This neighborhood, in the past, has not been afraid to hire legal counsel."
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev8
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
The Arizona Republic printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Phoenix resident Lee Ann Hopper regarding the controversy over early-morning high school band practice in Chandler, Arizona:
Things I have learned about band practice:
1) When a band practices in the afternoon, it has access to a practice field that is not being used by the football team.
2) Everything starts early in Phoenix to avoid the heat. It appears that we have a noise law written by tradition rather than the reality of living here. How are the construction crews that begin work at 4:30 a.m. affected by the noise law? Rather than enforce an archaic law, perhaps we need to adjust the law to reality.
3) As a band parent, I have noticed one thing about band members: They may make lots of noise in the morning, but they are not out tagging and engaging in other forms of vandalism. I'm sorry that no one had the foresight to warn the Suchards about the band practices. Perhaps her complaints need to take a different direction. The leasing agent and developer did not disclose hazards of living near a high school.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev8
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
The Arizona Republic printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Karen Noble, a Chandler, Arizona resident, regarding the controversy over early morning band practice at a high school in Chandler:
Hooray for Mountain Pointe High School Marching Band! Hooray for Citizen Suchard! Yes, the band is violating the noise code. Yes, the Suchards want to sleep until 7 a.m. Since the Suchards feel that their efforts have been less than applauded, maybe they should attack this problem from a different angle.
How about joining together with the parents of the Mountain Pointe High School band members and lobby to get the noise code changed from 7 a.m. to 6 a.m.? Then, the so-called "whiny" students will be holding to the letter of the law, they'll see citizens effecting change and the Suchards will have one extra hour a day to spend some quality time together. Everyone wins!
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev8
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
The Arizona Republic printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Cece West, a Queen Creek, Arizona resident, regarding noise from early morning high school band practice in Chandler:
I read with some interest the story about the family in Ahwatukee complaining about the marching band practicing at 6 a.m. Monday-Friday.
It must have made an impression on me, since I relayed the story to my family. To us, it seemed like an open and shut case since city code regulates noise from 11 p.m. till 7 a.m. But, to my dismay, today I read several letters to the editor supporting the marching band. I don't understand how people feel they are above the law or support others to do so. Think about the message being sent to the students that it's OK to break the law. Some of the comments directed at Ms. Suchard are ludicrous and unfair. It seems most of the writers were merely promoting the good qualities of marching bands, which no one is questioning. As adults, though, shouldn't we be trying to instill the quality of being law-abiding citizens? Had this been a group of musicians practicing rock music, it would not have been tolerated. And just because it's a marching band does not give it special privileges.
When Christine Eaton states, "Your failure to completely research what kind of 'noise' you would have to deal with living near a high school...." is ridiculous. Ms. Suchard has already stated she was well aware there would be plenty of noise. That's not the issue. It is the time constraints are put on that noise. Christine further states that "as a resident of our community, you should be supporting these kids and this excellent program, not complaining about losing an hour of sleep." I feel as a resident of your community, Ms. Suchard has every right to expect the law to be upheld and encourage others to support her. She is not doing anything wrong! And for Michael Vanegas to use the word "selfish" is totally out of line. The only ones being selfish are people in the mind-set that feel the laws were not written for them. June Beck of Tempe states, "Those that have jobs that require day sleeping would choose the location of their home more wisely to accommodate extraneous noise." I don't recall reading that the Suchards are asking anyone to accommodate their sleeping schedule. They are simply asking them to abide by the city code. Seems simple enough to me!
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: News Pg. 01a
BYLINE: Nina Walfoort
DATELINE: Minor Lane Heights, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dave Armstrong, Jefferson County Judge-Executive and member of the airport board
The Courier-Journal reports that Dave Armstrong, a Jefferson County (Kentucky) Judge-Executive, has written a strongly worded letter to officials at the Louisville International Airport criticizing them for angering residents of Minor Lane Heights over plans to relocate residents under the airport's flight paths. Armstrong said the engineer that residents have already worked with should be included in designing a new development for displaced homeowners. Armstrong's letter comes after Minor Lane Heights officials were angered last week after the Regional Airport Authority ignored their recommendation to hire Design Engineering for the preliminary work on the town or subdivision where residents may be relocated. Meanwhile, Monday night, 500 residents attended a "truth rally" where the railed against airport and county officials.
The article reports that Armstrong's letter was addressed to Burt Deutsch, project manager for the airport expansion project, Bob Michael, manager of Louisville International Airport, and Sam Rechter, chair of the airport board. Armstrong wrote that it is "unconscionable" that residents are so frustrated that 500 will show up at a rally. He went on to write, "We have asked residents of Minor Lane Heights to move from their homes in the name of progress for their community. They have willingly agreed. It is impossible for me to understand, however, that the airport's relationship with them has deteriorated to such a point of mistrust and misunderstanding." Armstrong, who is also a member of the airport board, said he will ask other members to include Design Engineering as a subcontractor on the project and will ask officials working on the expansion project to develop a plan to communicate better with residents. He wrote, "This project is far too important to jeopardize its future success by failing to account for the human and emotional aspects of working with citizens who are being asked to uproot their lives for the betterment of the community."
The article also notes that the relocation project was prompted by the completion of the airport's parallel runways, which has brought changes in jets' flight patterns and more noise over Minor Lane Heights. Current proposed plans are for moving residents about six miles southeast to 287 acres on Cedar Creek Road.
In response to Armstrong's letter, Sam Rechter of the airport board said he has no quarrel with Armstrong's recommendations. He added that he is willing to consider finding a role for Design Engineering in the project, and board members already have been discussing how to improve communication with residents. Meanwhile, Fred Williams, Mayor of Minor Lane Heights, said he will insist Design Engineering have a major role in the project design, the article says. Phil Gambrell, vice president of Design Engineering, said he would accept a subcontractor role in the project, and would be happy to share with the project engineer his large stack of information about what the people of Minor Lane Heights want.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News (New Plymouth, New Zealand)
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 6
BYLINE: Nikki Newland
DATELINE: New Plymouth, New Zealand
The Daily News reports that the South Taranaki District Council in the New Plymouth, New Zealand area has rejected an appeal from Kiwi Co-operative Dairies to expand its co-generation plant. The council's judicial committee earlier approved the expansion, subject to special noise conditions, which then were appealed by the company.
According to the article, Kiwi's application to expand its co-generation plant to meet steam requirements was approved by the judicial committee on September 18, subject to six special conditions. The committee met again Monday to consider Kiwi's appeal against two of the special conditions. The conditions were: that the noise emissions from the co-generation plant and ancillary equipment would not exceed 64 dBA L10 (64 decibels more than 10% of the time) at a height of 1.5 meters and 8 meters from the ground; and that a suitably qualified person would comprehensively monitor noise emissions from the plant within one month of it being commissioned. The article goes on to say that within three months of the monitoring, Kiwi would have to provide the council with a report showing it was complying with the noise limits. In addition, the company was required to provide a report during the height of the dairy season and another during the low point of the season to prove it was still complying.
The article goes on to explain that in a letter appealing the conditions, Karen Leov, the company's resource management officer, said Kiwi did not believe there was a need to measure noise emissions 8 meters above the ground because the figure was outside the relevant national standard. She wrote, "Therefore, we support the inclusion of the 1.5 meter height requirement, but do not accept the 8 meter height requirement. Our noise consultant will not take measurements at 8 meters above the ground. Further, the co-generation building includes a parapet, specifically incorporated for noise control. Noise measurements at heights close to or above the parapet will be subject to abnormal noise levels and, therefore, could not be considered representative of plant noise." Leov said that the company believed noise measurements at 1.5 meters above the ground and at off-site locations were sufficient.
The article reports that the appeal was reviewed by Nigel Lloyd, a noise consultant for the South Taranaki District Council, who said the council's original recommendation was necessary. Lloyd said in a report to the committee, "The sound emissions from the co-generation plant need to be measured at high level to capture the contribution from noise sources at high level. If the co-generation plant cannot meet the noise limit at a height of 8 meters then it will not comply with the 35 dBA standard applied at the district plan monitoring locations. The need is to measure at a distance of 15 meters from the co-generation plant at heights of both 1.5 meters and 8 meters. This will then ensure that the noise performance standard is not exceeded at those measurement locations specified in the district plan."
PUBLICATION: The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL)
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Community News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Monica Richardson
DATELINE: Arlington, Florida
The Florida Times-Union reports that a town meeting in Arlington, Florida was held Thursday by City Councilor John Crescimbeni, and was attended by about 35 residents. The main topics of discussion were the health of the St. Johns River and noise pollution from concerts at Alltel Stadium.
According to the article, many residents complained about a U2 concert at Alltel Stadium on November 12. Residents said the noise and vibrations from the concert traveled as far as 4 miles away from the stadium. Councilor Crescimbeni said he received complaints by telephone from residents who live as far away as University Park and Charter Point off University Boulevard North. According to Steve Pace, an engineer with the city's Regulatory and Environmental Services Department who was at the meeting, officials are looking at how to address noise from outdoor concerts in the future. Pace said, "There is going to be a real effort to work something out to mitigate impact. It's a significant problem." He added that there are some problems with controlling noise pollution -- namely, that there is only one person who can make noise inspections, the city has only three noise meters to detect excessive levels, and his department has no control over outdoor concert vendors if they have a permit for the event.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B5
BYLINE: Janice D'arcy
DATELINE: Cheshire, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Gregory Fiasconaro, resident
The Hartford Courant reports that residents in Cheshire, Connecticut are opposing a new outdoor shooting range being built by the state. Residents fear both the noise of gun blasts and the possibility of stray bullets, and are planning to protest at a public meeting on Monday.
According to the article, work currently is being completed on a 75-foot, partially enclosed shooting range within a few hundred feet of town roads and 1,000 feet from a residential area at the Maloney Center for Training and Staff Development, which formerly was a state prison. The shooting range, which will have 16 stations, is an expansion of a smaller, sporadically used range that has been on the land since Maloney Correctional Institution opened in 1910. Last year, the prison was transformed into a training center, the article notes. Officials first announced plans to expand the range in 1996, but residents didn't voice their concerns until this month, the article says.
The article reports that according to resident Gregory Fiasconaro, "I've never had any trouble living near the prison. But I do have a problem with a shooting range aimed at my house." Fiasconaro, along with about 20 other residents, is mobilizing opposition to the range and is asking residents to attend a public meeting Monday on the subject.
The article goes on to explain that residents' fury began after a public relations stunt misfired. On Nov. 8, officials at Maloney invited Cheshire's five-member prison advisory committee to tour the half- completed range and watch a shooting demonstration. Sound barriers for the range had not yet been built, and when the shooting demonstration started, residents were terrified. Fiasconaro said, "People were coming out of their homes. No one knew what was going on."
Meanwhile, Kathy Needham, an advisory council member, said she understands residents' concerns, but she hopes they attend the public meeting with open minds. She pointed out that the shooting demonstration on Nov. 8 was not "an accurate portrayal of what the guns will sound like."
The article also says that residents are concerned about the safety aspect as well as the noise from the range. According to Greg Czarny, a gun salesman at Meriden Trading Post, bullets fired from the guns used at the range can travel from several hundred yards to a mile. Officials insist that the range will have 9-foot high concrete walls and a ceiling designed to muffle sound and absorb ricocheting bullets. According to William Wheeler, a spokesperson for the state Department of Correction, the walls will be surrounded by an 8-foot-fence atop a 20-foot dirt barrier. Wheeler added that there is little chance construction will be halted, and said he believes protesters' fears will be addressed at the upcoming meeting.
PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: News; Page A30
BYLINE: Liz Willen
DATELINE: New York, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Stanley Michels, City Councilor (D-Manhattan); Kenneth Fisher, City Councilor (D-Brooklyn)
Newsday reports that two city councilors in New York City introduced legislation yesterday that would stop the expansion of trash transfer stations in the city due to increasing problems with odor, noise, and heavy traffic associated with the stations.
According to the article, City Councilors Stanley Michels (D-Manhattan) and Kenneth Fisher (D-Brooklyn) have proposed a moratorium on all new transfer stations and on expansions of current stations. (Transfer stations, the article notes, are buildings where trucks transfer trash for shipment to a landfill.) Michels said, "The wholesale trucking of solid waste through communities with the consequent problems of odor, noise and heavy traffic is unacceptable."
The article says that the legislation is introduced at a time when the city is beginning to haul more residential garbage by truck within Queens and Brooklyn. Officials are preparing to close Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, the article reports, and questions about how to deal with the city's trash are mounting. City Councilor Walter McCaffrey (D-Woodside) said, "We have a series of concerns about quality-of-life issues, like noise." McCaffrey has been dealing with complaints from residents about trash transfer stations on 51st Avenue in South Elmhurst and 31st Avenue in Woodside.
But, the article reports, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said transfer stations "are really necessary to move us toward a more equitable, more sensible and environmentally more sound system of dealing with garbage in the city." He added that expanding existing stations must be done carefully and with environmental sensitivity, and that searching for sites for new stations "makes a lot of sense and is the only way we can deal with the huge amount of garbage that is produced in New York, both residentially and commercially."
The article notes that last week, the Sanitation Department issued a request for proposals inviting private companies to bid for contracts to truck 2,400 tons of residential garbage per day from Brooklyn and Queens. John Doherty, the Sanitation Commissioner, also has said he would consider creating new trash transfer stations. In June, the article explains, the Sanitation Department issued a request for companies to show how and at what cost they could take residential garbage by ship to sites outside the city. However, under that plan, trash would have been transferred at stations on the waterfront, not in residential neighborhoods, the article says. Doherty commented that shipping the garbage away won't deal with the volume of trash, and that truck hauling also will be necessary.
PUBLICATION: The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Local; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Krista Olson
DATELINE: Riverside, California
The Press-Enterprise reports that the Riverside (California) County Board of Supervisors Tuesday granted a resident's appeal to keep her kennel license, despite complaints by neighbors that the barking dogs are a nuisance. But, the article says, the kennel owner must return to the board before the license can be renewed in March, and the board expects to monitor conditions at the kennel.
According to the article, the dispute began two years ago, after kennel owner DeeAnn Noland and her husband Manuel Delgado moved into the Cherry Valley neighborhood with their two daughters, three horses, four dogs, and other pets. The article says that Noland breeds the dogs as a hobby and for some income. She may keep one of the puppies one day if the "ultimate" puppy is born, the article reports. Noland's permit to keep more than four German shepherds was set to be revoked because she was turned in by a neighbor and convicted October of violating a county ordinance against barking dogs. But Noland and Delgado assert that they have been victimized by their neighbors. Earlier this year, Noland and Delgado filed a lawsuit in Riverside Superior Court alleging that their neighbors have engaged in a campaign to oust them by filing false complaints with county agencies, malicious prosecution, damaging Noland's business reputation as a breeder and harassing, shooting, and injuring their animals. Delgado told county supervisors the family has been the recipient of "hate crimes" by the neighbors.
At Tuesday's board meeting, about 15 neighbors read prepared statements saying that Noland's dogs have destroyed the peace and quiet of their rural, residential neighborhood. Defendants Albert and Donna Field, Harry and Nadine Fieger, and John and Katharina Nuss spoke at the meeting, saying that noise from the four dogs has prevented them from enjoying their property. Donna Field said the situation has damaged her husband's health.
But Noland and Delgado defended their right to have animals in an area zoned for residential and agricultural uses, the article reports. They said the complaints were based not on actual problems with the dogs, but on the fact that their neighbors do not like them. But Philip Klatchko, an attorney for the neighbors, said his clients wanted the license revoked to ensure that the barking would not increase if Noland got more dogs
Meanwhile, members of the county board expressed exasperation at what they saw as a neighborhood feud, the article says. Tom Mullen, the 5th District Supervisor, said, "This isn't a kennel problem. It's a neighbor problem. I don't think government has found a good way to resolve neighborhood problems."
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Opinion; Pg. L10
BYLINE: The Record
DATELINE: New Milford, New Jersey
The Record printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Paul Sveridovich, a New Milford, New Jersey resident, regarding aircraft noise from the Teterboro Airport and traffic noise:
To all those critics who are concerned about all the air and noise pollution supposedly created by Teterboro Airport, I ask, where are they when it comes to the constant air and noise pollution that's generated by Routes 46 and 17?
PUBLICATION: St. Petersburg Times
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Neighborhood Times; Editorial; Pg. 2
DATELINE: St. Petersburg, Florida
The St. Petersburg Times printed an editorial that argues that residents living near Crisp Park in St. Petersburg, Florida deserve relief from the noise and traffic associated with a popular boat launch area in the park. The City Council is considering restricting the use of the boat ramps, and the editorial says councilors should vote in the restrictions.
The editorial says that the boat ramps currently are open 24 hours, and residents complain about noise that lasts till the early morning hours and damage to yards when boaters turn trailers around in them. When the parking lot, which holds 34 vehicles, is full, residents say vehicles and trailers park on the streets. Parents worry about kids trying to cross the street to the park when so many vehicles are blocking the view, the editorial says. City administrators, after meeting with residents, restricted parking for trailers and eliminated the Crisp Park boat ramps from a list for ramps available to commercial fishermen. But now, the editorial says, the City Council is set to consider closing the boat ramps at 11 p.m. and restricting their use to boats of 25 feet or less.
The editorial argues that the council should pass both restrictions. The rules would have the effect of cutting down on boat traffic in Crisp Park, which is what residents want. City officials have said they will search for other locations to install more public boat ramps, the editorial points out. Residents who want to make comments on the recommendations before the city council should attend the Dec. 11 public hearing, the editorial advises.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: November 26, 1997
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 2; Zone: D; Dupage Overnight
BYLINE: Jeff Coen
DATELINE: Bensenville, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Larry Anzalone, resident
The Chicago Tribune reports that the Bensenville (Illinois) committee of the whole met Tuesday night with more than 40 residents whose homes will be soundproofed against noise from air traffic at O'Hare International Airport. The soundproofing will be paid for with money from a settlement of a Bensenville lawsuit against the city of Chicago.
According to the article, about 31 homes near the airport will be in the first round of residences to be soundproofed next year with new windows and other measures that will muffle jet noise. The work is expected to cost as much as $30,000 per house, the article says. According to Village Manager Michael Allison, Bensenville sued Chicago in May over the disbursement of soundproofing funds through the Chicago O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. The settlement reached in July will allow soundproofing for 160 Bensenville homes in 1997 and 1998, Allison said.
The article goes on to say that Tuesday's meeting informed residents of the details of the soundproofing program, including when the work will be scheduled and what it will entail. Allison said before the meeting that he didn't expect grumbling from the residents who would attend. "We've been through this before, and it's usually a pretty happy group," Allison said. "Generally, people are positive when you're saying, 'Let's talk about spending $30,000 on your house.' " After the meeting, residents said the program sounded good. Resident Larry Anzalone said, "I won't have to turn up my TV anymore when I try to watch it. And I won't have to ask people I'm talking to on the phone to wait until the plane goes by so we can finish our conversation."
PUBLICATION: Albuquerque Journal
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 1
BYLINE: Andrew Padilla
DATELINE: Los Ranchos, New Mexico
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ken Blumenthal, Johanne Glover, residents
The Albuquerque Journal reports that residents in the village of Los Ranchos, New Mexico are opposing the proposed expansion of the Albuquerque Tortilla Co., saying the constant noise from coolers and air compressors already is a nuisance. The tortilla factory is seeking a zone change from "commercial" to "special use" to operate a new warehouse.
According to the article, Jim Miller, an architect representing the company, said that the new 14,500-square-foot warehouse won't be used initially for manufacturing, so the chance is low that there will be additional coolers and compressors right away. Miller said the warehouse would be designed in such a way that it will help drown out some of the existing noise. "We're going to get an acoustical engineer involved, and he's going to tell us what we'll need to do to get the noise level down to what's common in that [commercial] area," Miller said. He added that the warehouse would allow delivery trucks to load and turn around on the property and will keep them from parking on the street. Miller also said the company could build the warehouse under the existing commercial zoning, but is asking for the zone change in case the new building is needed for tortilla manufacturing in the future.
But residents Ken Blumenthal and Johanne Glover, who live near the plant, oppose the project on the grounds that the noise already is annoying, and that the proposed metal building would be an unattractive addition. Glover said she doesn't believe the designers of the warehouse can mitigate the noise. "It doesn't matter what they're going to do -- nothing really drowns out the noise of an industrial cooler going 24 hours a day," she said. Glover also believes the plant is detracting from the rural and agricultural nature of the village. Blumenthal said, "We figure we're going to lose 40% on our property value" when the warehouse is built. "We've already talked to a Realtor about it."
The article also explains that the expansion plans were submitted in late October. Brad Stebleton, the village zoning administrator, said he will recommend approval of the zone change if the company meets at least six conditions, including the addition of soundproofing to the warehouse and buffering around it so it blends in better aesthetically with the surrounding area. The village Board of Trustees might add more conditions if needed, he said. Stebleton added that even if the zoning gets a thumbs-up from the trustees, the company's site development plan must still get approval from village planning staff. The article also notes that representatives from the company will meet with neighbors tonight at 7 at the Village Hall on Rio Grande Boulevard to discuss the issue.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Chandler Community; Pg. Ev6
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jeff Suchard, resident
The Arizona Republic printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Jeff Suchard, a Phoenix resident, regarding the controversy over early morning band practice of the Mountain Pointe Marching Band:
When early-morning marching band practices started earlier this season, my wife and I called the high school and spoke with a representative who told us that such practices were legal by special exemption of the applicable noise laws. I personally spoke with the band director, Leo Werner, who to his credit did not claim that these practices were allowed by law. He did tell me the band's proposed schedule, which included starting later as the season progressed because the sun would be rising later. Therefore the statements that the band already has made accommodations because of our complaints are apparently untrue. Further, we were awakened as recently as Nov. 10 at 6:20 a.m. to the din of drums and the football stadium's public address system. Mr. Werner also told me that we were not the only persons to lodge complaints, and that he receives many calls every year about this issue.
Research into the applicable city and state laws revealed that no special dispensation exists. In fact, the school is the only institution that ever claimed that such practices are legal; representatives from the Phoenix City Attorney's Office, the Phoenix Police Department, Arizona State Law Library, and our city and state representatives have all told us that the law forbids excessive noise, which includes the playing of musical instruments, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. These laws also apply to early morning construction, late-night parties, or any other after-hours noise nuisance. The fact that a high school marching band is breaking the law is only incidental. We have never said that the marching band should not practice. We are only requesting that it do so during the hours allowed by law, which would mean waiting until 7 a.m. to practice outdoors. We have never lodged any complaints regarding evening practice sessions or the football games, because these occur during hours allowed by law. If, as Ms. Eaton suggests, the law is changed, then we will obviously abide by such changes, since such is the crux of our argument.
I also was in a high school marching band, and I feel the experience was very positive. However, when our band director received complaints from the neighbors, we changed our practice location to improve community relations. We didn't have to change the time because we practiced between 11 a.m. and noon. I congratulate the Mountain Pointe Marching Band on its many awards, and Christine Eaton's son in particular for his academic excellence. Personally, I wish only the best for the band and its members.
It is interesting to note that the Nov. 20 letters to the editor from Michael Vanegas and June Beck sidestep the central and irrefutable issue that such early morning practices are illegal. I would like to ask Vanegas why it is that my wife's efforts to protect herself, our children, and our neighbors from gross and repetitive infractions of the law is selfish, whereas support of such infractions is "community spirit"?
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Extra; Pg. 03J
BYLINE: Peter Scott
DATELINE: Walton County, Georgia
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution reports that the Walton County (Georgia) Commission is proposing a new animal-control ordinance that would fine the owners of dogs that are a nuisance. The article says that specific penalties have not yet been proposed, but the commissioners are seeking to make dog-owners pay fines for dogs that bark excessively or stray too close to their neighbor's property.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: News Pg.01b
BYLINE: Nina Walfoort
DATELINE: Minor Lane Heights, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Wayne, state representative; Carole Cantrall, city councilor
The Courier-Journal reports that about 500 residents of Minor Lane Heights, Kentucky gathered last night at a "truth rally" to discuss the relocation project for residents in the flight path of jets from the Louisville International Airport. Officials told residents about plans to relocate residents a 287-acre subdivision on Cedar Creek Road. The residents accused officials from the Regional Airport Authority and Jefferson County of ignoring their input and dismissing their needs.
According to the article, officials from Minor Lane Heights, along with state representative Jim Wayne, criticized the airport board for overlooking the city's choice of an engineer to design the new subdivision. And city councilor Carole Cantrall accused the airport board of looking out for the interests of the businesses that might want to use Minor Lane Heights' land, which is south of the airport, instead of the residents who are losing their homes because of airport noise. Cantrall said, "We have seen the airport put their priority on everything but us," alluding to the airport's recent investments in its facilities. Cantrall also pointed to a Nov. 17 Courier-Journal article where local officials were quoted as putting a premium on the industrial and commercial potential of the residents' land. "They're licking their chops, wringing their hands and divvying up a pie that doesn't belong to them," she said.
The article explains that Representative Wayne told residents they should make their desires known to officials by voting, calling radio talk shows, signing petitions, and carrying protest signs if necessary. He said, "What you have to do is make enough noise to get you on their radar screen." He also suggested that residents form a committee to take their concerns to officials and to ask the airport board to reopen the selection of an engineer. Later, the City Council passed a resolution that called for residents to be treated with "dignity, fairness and respect" and to be included in all aspects of the relocation project, including the design, engineering and construction.
The article goes on to say that when the floor was opened for questions at the meeting, people voiced a wide variety of concerns. Several people complained that their homes are too large to qualify for the relocation plan, which calls for an even swap of homes in the 800- to 1,200- square-foot range. Resident Joe Powell said his home has about 2,300 square feet. "If everyone else gets out on a swap thing, that leaves us out in the cold," he said. Another resident, Paul Fink, drew applause when he asked for a home that is a little better than the one he has now. He said, "We should get something a little better than what we have now. We want to improve our quality of life. I think we deserve it." Steve Tobbe, a resident of Cedar Creek, said residents there don't want the subdivision built if it's not quality construction.
Meanwhile, Doug Stern, a spokesperson for the relocation project from the Corradino Group, mostly listened to the proceedings and afterward said that the airport authority clearly has not communicated with residents in a "meaningful, interactive way." He added the airport board is interested in improving its relations with residents. Stern also defended the airport's choice of an engineer, saying that the board followed a process prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration for finding an engineer. That process was explained to the residents when they submitted their choice of an engineer, he said. "If anyone wants to project from that a refusal to cooperate or a resistance to their input, then I don't think that's fair," Stern said.
PUBLICATION: Daily Record
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Page 15
DATELINE: Brussels, Belgium
The Daily Record reports that hundreds of protesters dressed in pajamas bedded down for the night at the Brussels (Belgium) airport to protest nighttime aircraft noise. The article says that residents are demanding a cut in the 65 flights allowed at the airport every night.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Rubaina Azhar
DATELINE: Windsor Locks, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ed Kenney, Suffield resident
The Hartford Courant reports that more than 100 residents attended a series of workshops Monday night to discuss noise issues at the Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. But, the article reports, the event organized by the airport commission left many residents feeling skeptical and powerless.
According to the article, most residents attending the workshops were Suffield residents, who recently have registered many complaints to the airport commission about noise pollution. Ed Kenney, a Suffield resident who represents a group of residents in southeastern Suffield and helped circulate two petitions demanding a solution to excessive aircraft noise earlier this year, said of the workshops, "This has been a joke, absolutely useless. We're getting hammered and they're just blowing us off." Kenney said his group will sue the state if aircraft noise isn't addressed in a timely fashion. "If you're going to keep on deliberately, intentionally hurting us, we have no other choice," Kenney said.
Meanwhile, Astrid Hanzalek, a member of the airport commission and a Suffield resident, said a steering committee of residents and elected officials will be formed to come up with the best solution. She said, "We need to move forward positively," adding that state Department of Transportation, which runs Bradley, "deserves your trust."
The article goes on to explain that Charles Watras, the airport commission's chair, said Monday's workshops were intended to provide residents with "a better understanding of what the elements of the problem are. This is just step No. 1. Finding a solution isn't going to be simple." The workshops were run by Federal Aviation Administration officials, and focused on five topics: noise and how it is measured, air traffic control operations, aircraft performance and pilot discretion, land-use planning and federal regulations, and responsible agencies.
Part of the noise problem at Bradley has been caused by increasing air traffic, the article indicates. Thomas Benson, Bradley's air traffic manager, said air traffic had been steadily been decreasing at the airport, but during the first nine months of this year, air traffic was up 9.9% compared to the same period last year. Theresa Flieger, an environmental protection specialist with the FAA, pointed out that by the year 2000, all non-military jets using Bradley will be required to have quieter engines that comply with so-called Stage 3 noise standards, the article says. But, the article notes, more than 76% of passenger jets using Bradley already meet the Stage 3 standard.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Orange County Focus Desk
BYLINE: Jeff Kass
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that noise from a 400 square-foot recycling center in Los Angeles has been causing increased complaints recently. The city council is considering revocation of the center's permit to operate, and will decide after a public meeting on December 2nd. Litter has also increased at the center.
According to the article, the company wants to move from behind a grocery store to the front in order to get further away from the complaining residents. The company says it would landscape the area aesthetically. The business does not have a business license in the first place, which the company says was an accident.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Martha L. Willman
DATELINE: Van Nuys, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: David Rankell, member, Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association
The Los Angeles Times reports that a public meeting attended by more than 250 people, residents and aviation-business owners argued over a proposed ban of the noisiest corporate jets from Van Nuys Airport. Also on the table was the issue of whether to include helicopters in the ban. Business owners said layoffs, economic instability, and financial ruin would result from the bans.
According to the article, the audience was actively cheering and jeering the speakers. Many aviation workers asked that the proposal not be passed because they would affect their jobs. It was suggested that an economic study be done before the ban was decided upon.
The article notes that a curfew adopted in 1981 already bans the use of the noisiest jets between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., but residents want to extend the curfew to begin at 10 p.m., and to include helicopters: especially news helicopters.
The article notes that while most aviation businesspeople said that the curfew extension is alright, a ban on additional Stage-2 jets being located at the airport is a major problem. They also say that they didn't learn about the proposal until two days before the penultimate meeting on the issue. Business leaders pushed to have the decision delayed because they hadn't been aware of it.
The article goes on to say that one aviation business leader at the airport pointed out that the newer, quieter jets cost $27-million to $37-million as opposed to the noisier ones which range from $5-million to $10-million. He argued that most companies can't afford to make the conversion.
The article concludes, noting that residents are "not advocating a slowdown or a shutdown of Van Nuys Airport. We're advocating a better quality of life, which we haven't had for years." Another speaker complained that the advisory group for the airport, including residents, was not consulted.
PUBLICATION: M2 Presswire
DATE: November 25, 1997
DATELINE: Great Britain
M2 Presswire released the following press release regarding a consultation paper published today by Britain's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The paper proposes more efficient noise monitoring and lower noise limits for aircraft at Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted airports.
Lower noise limits for aircraft departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and more efficient noise monitoring arrangements are proposed in a consultation paper published today by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
This consultation follows the Court Order of 16 April 1997. The Order was made after challenges by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to last year's decision to introduce lower noise limits and improved monitoring arrangements. The Court Order, made with the consent of the parties, enabled interim arrangements to be put in place until the outcome of the new consultation. These provided improvements in the monitoring arrangements at all three airports but the old noise limits of 97 dBA (decibels) by day and 89 dBA at night were retained.
The Government's new proposals include: reductions in the noise limits of 3 dBA (daytime) and 2 dBA (night-time), to 94 dBA and 87 dBA respectively; retention of the five noise monitors at Gatwick and eight monitors at Stansted currently operating under the interim arrangements, with one monitor at Stansted to be re-sited in a better position. At Heathrow, to keep the eight monitoring sites in the interim arrangements and to add two further monitors as previously proposed; beginning a further review of both monitoring efficiency and noise limits in 2000.
Comments on all the proposals are invited by 2 March 1998.
Notes for editors:
1. The consultation paper is available from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Aviation Environmental Division, Zone 2/24, 76 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DR.
2. The full proposals are:
a) to relate the noise limits to a fixed reference distance, 6.5 km from start of roll;
b) to continue to monitor noise levels at the fixed monitors in Lmax dBA and to apply the noise limits to all departing aircraft except Concorde and a number of specified exemptions (see h below);
c) to reduce the noise limits by 3 dBA (daytime) and 2 dBA (night-time), to 94 dBA and 87 dBA respectively;
d) to retain the five monitors at Gatwick and eight monitors at Stansted currently operating under the interim arrangement, but to re-site a Stansted monitor to a better position. At Heathrow, to keep the eight sites in the interim arrangements and to add two further monitors as previously proposed;
e) to calculate the positional adjustments on a revised basis;
f) to allow a reduction of not more than 2 dB of the noise recorded in specified tail wind conditions;
g) to require aircraft to be at a height of 1000 ft aal (above airport level) at 6.5 km from start of roll;
h) to exempt from the new daytime noise limits certain aircraft given exemptions from the Chapter 2 phase out requirements in accordance with the provisions of the EC Directive;
i) to begin a further review of both monitoring efficiency and noise limits in 2000.
3. (i) Start of roll is where aircraft (using the full runway length) typically begin their take-off run. It is approximately 150 meters in from the "start" end of the runway.
(ii) Lmax dBA is the highest instantaneous sound level recorded during a noise event. The A-weighting approximates to the characteristics of human hearing.
(iii) Positional adjustments are calculated for individual monitors to account for the effects of any displacement between their actual location and the reference distance.
(iv) Chapter 2 aircraft are aircraft certified to noise standards introduced in 1970 by the International Civil Aviation Organization under the Chicago Convention. Developments in technology allowed tougher Chapter 3 standards to be introduced from 1977.
4. Noise limits were first set at Heathrow in 1959 and were applied at Gatwick in 1968 and Stansted in 1993.
5. On 28 August 1996 (Press Notice 272/96), the Department of Transport announced new lower noise limits and improved monitoring efficiency to come into effect on 1 January 1997. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) challenged the new noise limits and, on 6 December 1996 (Press Notice 379/96), the High Court issued a stay on their implementation. In February 1997, IATA put in a further challenge to the improved monitoring arrangements. On 16 April 1997 (Press Notice 94/97), Mr. Justice Keene made a consent order which provided for a new consultation by the Department.
6. Copies of the full technical report "Review of the Departure Noise Limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports" (CS Report 9539) (GBP 15) and the supplementary report "Review of the Departure Noise Limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports: Additional Study of Boeing 747 Departures" (CS Report 9539 Supplement) (GBP 5) are available from Westward Digital Ltd., 37 Windsor Street, Cheltenham, GL52 2DG. These reports and the material that was submitted to the Court in relation to the legal proceedings may be inspected at the Information Center, DETR, Great Minister House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1 4DR.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 1B
BYLINE: V. David Sartin
DATELINE: Olmsted Falls, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Matt Melis, member, Olmsted Falls Airport Committee; Mark Laubscher, resident; Marvin Hirschberg, citizens committee member and retired NASA researcher
The Plain Dealer reports that residents and officials in Olmsted Falls, Ohio are opposed to the proposed extension of runways at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, saying that the plans will increase noise over a village already plagued by too many low-flying jets. More than 300 residents, as well as officials from Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township, gathered last night to discuss the airport's expansion plans.
According to the article, Kenneth Silliman, executive assistant to Mayor Michael White, said Cleveland wants to expand capacity at the airport. A study conducted in 1994 indicated that the airport would become crowded in a few years due to recent unprecedented growth in air travel.
Last night's forum, the article explains, was the first in what is expected to be a series of hearings over the next two years regarding the impacts of expanding Hopkins. Representative Dennis Kucinich, a Cleveland Democrat, called the forum after residents in Olmsted Falls said they believed their objections were not being considered. Olmsted Falls is located at the end of the northeast-southwest runway of the airport, which is the busiest runway.
Residents and city officials say the community already is harmed by noise pollution and will be harmed further by expansion, the article reports. Matt Melis, a member of the Olmsted Falls Airport Committee, said, "If they shift those runways in our direction, everybody is going to get a lot of racket." Resident Mark Laubscher said jet noise is so loud at his home that he can't talk on the telephone with his house windows open.
Meanwhile, the article says, a citizens committee appointed by Mayor Tom Jones and the City Council argues that it is not necessary for the airport to extend its runway from about 9,000 feet to 12,000 feet. The committee maintains that departing jets can reach Europe and Asia using 9,000-foot runways, as is the case at the Newark, New Jersey airport and other airports that don't have long runways. In addition, according to Marvin Hirschberg, a committee member and retired NASA researcher, new airplanes expected to be used at Hopkins by Continental Airlines and other major carriers in the near future will be more fuel-efficient and will not need long runways. Hirschberg and others have asked the Federal Aviation Administration to examine Cleveland's plans to extend runways at Hopkins. They say it could cost up to $28 million for one runway extension and $44 million for two. Hirschberg also argued that the FAA should ask pilots to fly into landings at a steeper angle, which would reduce noise over Olmsted Falls.
The article also notes that the city of Cleveland has proposed soundproofing for homes in Cleveland, Olmsted Falls, and other suburbs, and intends to spend about $85 million by 2001 to buy homes or install soundproofing. About 400 homeowners in Cleveland already have been bought out, the article concludes.
PUBLICATION: The Union Leader (Manchester, NH)
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Section A Pg. 9
BYLINE: Roger Amsden
DATELINE: Loudon, New Hampshire
The Union Leader reports that a conceptual plan for a 9,000-seat expansion of the New Hampshire International Speedway in Loudon, New Hampshire received approval from the town planning board last week. However, according to Loudon Planning Board Chair Gary Tasker, the project must get through several more regulatory hurdles before it can go forward. Concerns about increased noise and traffic from the project are still to be addressed, the article says.
According to the article, officials from the racetrack will come before the planning board again on Dec. 18, and have been requested to provide information on increased noise if the track is expanded and the impact of increased traffic on local roads. In addition, the Speedway needs approval from the state wetlands board for the expansion, and from the state agency that regulates septic systems. According to Tasker, racetrack officials have agreed to conduct a noise study and will research existing traffic data to see if conclusions can be drawn about the impact of race weekend traffic on secondary roads in the vicinity. Tasker said, "We might have to wait until a traffic study can be completed before we act on the proposal." He added that the planning board also will consider a proposal to form a committee to study the track's long-term impact on the area.
The article explains that a 4,000-seat expansion already has been approved for 1998. If the 9,000-seat expansion is approved for 1999, the track's seating capacity will grow to 91,000. But, the article says, more than 100,000 people would attend some of the races, because of the large number of recreational vehicles which attend weekend races. The two Winston Cup races held at the track this year attracted 88,000 spectators, which is 10,000 more than the existing number of grandstand seats, the article reports. Bob Bahre, the racetrack owner, announced in September that his long-term goal was to increase seating capacity to 110,000, which would bring its capacity up to the level of many other Winston Cup tracks.
Meanwhile, officials from Canterbury also are taking part in the hearings because of the project's regional impact and because residents have raised safety concerns about race weekend traffic. Canterbury officials have suggested that the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission should undertake a study which would look at the environmental, traffic, and social impact of the track's expansion plans. But Tasker said that if such a study were conducted, it might not be completed for several months or longer, and might service best as a guide about how the planning board should look at future expansion requests. Tasker said, "We can only look at the proposal which is immediately before us. But a study like that which has been suggested is not a bad idea." Tasker also said that many concerns raised by Canterbury residents at a meeting two weeks ago can be dealt with by state and local officials who handle traffic planning, the article reports. "The track has always worked closely with the towns. I don't see any problem here which can't be solved," said Tasker.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: November 24, 1997
SECTION: Life; Pg. C3
DATELINE: Chandler, Arizona
The Arizona Republic printed the following letters-to-the-editor from residents in Sun City West, Chandler, Glendale, Ahwatukee, and Phoenix, Arizona responding to a resident who complained about early morning noise from a high school marching band in the Chandler area:
To the editor:
I would like to respond to Julie from Ahwatukee, who is griping about the Mountain Pointe High School band disturbing her sleep. Well, she can easily invest in earplugs. . . or invest in extra-heavy drapes that would help muffle the noise. But it is terrible. . . to comment that the band is always out of tune and does not play very well. Extracurricular activities -- there's no time for that in the proper school timing, and that's not very good encouragement. Give the kids some encouragement.
Frank, Sun City West resident
To the editor:
My gripe has to do with people who gripe about high school marching bands. I'd like to know if these people realize that these are good, dedicated kids who are often up at 5:30 in the morning? They will often give up their weekends and holidays to march in parades and competitions. I don't think that these kids deserve the sort of negative attention that they get from people who complain about them in the morning. And as far as this person's comment about going to the band director's house on the weekends, well, more than likely, that band director is already up and involved in some band activity at this point in the school year. So I just wanted to say that these are good kids, these are kids that are not on the streets getting into trouble, and I think the readers should be more appreciative of that fact.
Linda Betters
To the editor:
Julie, you should have never moved next to a high school. Next, you'll be asking that football games be held during school hours. Didn't you stop to think before finalizing any type of house buy? High school bands, games, teenage kids -- all equal noise. You need to wake up and smell the coffee, and listen to the band march on. Or move already. I think your gripe is way out of tune.
Sharon, Chandler resident
To the editor:
I'm a band mom in Glendale, and I want to let Julie know that the kids in our band have been working very hard for the last three months preparing for state competition. . . . Every morning, over a hundred kids had to be up and ready for rehearsal at 6 a.m., in addition to after-school and evening rehearsals. They also have to keep their grades up. Julie, these kids are not the ones running the streets, causing problems. They deserve respect from everyone in the community for working towards their goals. . . . Next August, buy some earplugs.
Lynn, Glendale resident
To the editor:
My gripe is living in a community with a person like Julie, who chooses to move into an apartment next to a high school, and, rather than move to another apartment. . . she chooses to publicly criticize a group of young, dedicated, talented students. . . .
Susi, Ahwatukee resident
To the editor:
My advice to Julie is. . . if she does not like the noise, please move. Show some school spirit.
Adam, Phoenix resident
PUBLICATION: Business Line
DATE: November 24, 1997
SECTION: Pg. 20, Col. A
BYLINE: Bharat Savur
DATELINE: India
Business Line printed an editorial in which the columnist argues that public parks in India are being converted into locations for one noisy personal celebration after another. The writer urges people to join the "quiet India" revolution in order to save the public parks for their intended use and protect human hearing.
The editorial reports that in August, the Maharashtra State Government was taken to court by the August Kranti Maidan Bachao Samiti (AKMBS) for its decision to allow the use of playgrounds for religious celebrations extending for more than a day. On the same day, the government announced a new ordinance that stated it reserved the right to permit the use of playgrounds for a maximum period of 12 days at a time but not exceeding 30 days in a year. The editorial writer says that AKMBS said in court papers, "The whole purpose of having playgrounds for children in cities like Mumbai where there is a dearth of open spaces is lost if such grounds continue to be used for commercial purposes. Playgrounds are public lands and should be used for the enjoyment of the public."
The writer goes on to ask whether Indians want to see public parks and grounds as "islands of nature and leisure," "the green lungs of the city," or as rallying places for pujas and politicians. The writer says India's parks are under siege and in a state of decline because they no longer serve the many purposes they were meant for -- play and recreation. Sadly, the editorial says, the Mumbai public seems to vote for "disco-dandiya and other mind-numbing beats" in public grounds and gardens. People used to celebrate their festivals at home, but now every community celebrates its functions in an ever-escalating display of sound and dance in a public park. The writer says that there are so many festivals, it seems to be a series of celebrations without end. And, the writer laments, it is too bad that Indians believe they must be loud to make a social statement -- whether it is a candidate celebrating a victorious election, a community immersing an idol, or just parents heralding their first born.
The editorial goes on to explain that there are serious hearing hazards of noise exposure. According to Dr. S.M. Sapatnekar at MCM Hospital in Mumbai, the limit at which human ears and bodies can tolerate sustained sound is 85 decibels (dB). Sapatnekar pointed out that a chain saw produces 100 dB, a rock concert 110 dB, and a plane breaking the sound barrier 130 dB. He added, "Every decibel increment in noise beyond 85 dB has dangers which rise exponentially in a steep upward curve." Sapatnekar also explained how hearing works: "The outer ear funnels in the sounds to beat the eardrums. Three ossicles in the middle ear modulate and amplify the vibrations. The cochlea of the inner ear is the hearing apparatus. It converts the vibrations into electric impulses which help the brain determine the quality, intensity, tone, etc. of the heard sound. It is a highly efficient but highly delicate organ." The editorial points out that humans are born with the ability to hear noises between 40 and 40,000 cycles per second in the frequency range, but with age, we lose the ability to hear high-frequency sounds above 20,000 cycles per second.
The editorial writer concludes by saying Indians should hear the call of the "quiet India" revolution.
PUBLICATION: The Nashville Banner
DATE: November 24, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. A16
BYLINE: Michael Lawrence, Nashville resident
DATELINE: Nashville, Tennessee
The Nashville Banner printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Michael Lawrence, a Nashville resident, regarding a super-speedway proposed for Nashville, Tennessee:
The Nashville Banner's gushing endorsement of the super-speedway "Natural for Nashville," Nov. 12 is regrettable for its uncritical thinking. First, as pointed out in the Banner's own pages, the NASCAR / Winston Cup circuit is already oversaturated with venues. Second, if the super-speedway is such a swell deal for the county, then why are taxpayers expected to foot the "roads and other infrastructure needs" bill for yet another commercial sports enterprise?
Finally, and most importantly, no mention is made in the editorial of the super-speedway's devastating impact on the quality of life for a large area surrounding the facility. -The air and noise -- especially the noise! -- pollution and the traffic congestion the super-speedway will generate will degrade communities for miles around. Moreover, the predictable lot of camp followers (fast-food outlets, beer joints, liquor stores) will set up shop and further erode public safety, poison the environment, and lower the market value of residential neighborhoods.
The super-speedway is not a natural for Nashville. It is unhealthy for Nashville. It will be another reason for taxpayers to flee Davidson County. That is the long-term deal for Nashville.
PUBLICATION: The Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: November 24, 1997
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Courtney Lilly
DATELINE: Richmond, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Edward Marth, resident
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that residents in Richmond, Rhode Island have been complaining about noise from the Richmond Sand Gravel's rock crusher. Nine complaints have been issued in the past few months by residents on Stilson and Buttonwood Roads, but police have not found the company to have violated the town's noise ordinance.
According to the article, Police Chief Raymond Driscoll said that an officer has been dispatched to check out each complaint after it was issued. The officer measured the sound level each time, and found that the company was not in violation of the noise ordinance, which bans noises above 60 decibels between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., noise levels can't exceed 50 decibels, the article notes. According to Driscoll, the majority of complaints came in the early evening, around 8:00.
The article goes on to say that the company uses a rock crusher to produce sand, stone, and loam at its facility off Route 138. Jeff Nero, the company's president, said the rock crusher is operated until midnight during the winter months and 24 hours a day during the summer. He added that the rock crusher is operated between 5,000 and 7,000 feet from the nearest property line, and that traffic from Route 95 often produces more noise. Driscoll agreed with that statement, saying that it's difficult to get a good sound meter reading in the area because of ambient noise from traffic on I-95.
The article explains at a meeting last week, the town council agreed to table the subject until its first meeting in December.
PUBLICATION: The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
DATE: November 24, 1997
SECTION: Opinion; Pg. A14
DATELINE: Rochelle Park, New Jersey
The Record printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Bob Hager, a Rochelle Park, New Jersey resident, regarding the controversy over noise from the Teterboro Airport:
I have read continual negative outcries about the air traffic at Teterboro Airport. I believe some of these outcries were political fodder and the result of unrealistic views of airport activity. All major metropolitan areas are built around transportation hubs of airports, railroads, and major highways. As with Teterboro, this is a fact of life. With all the noise about the noise at the airport, no one has compared the assets vs. the liabilities.
Teterboro Airport generates half a billion dollars in economic activity each year. Local businesses in surrounding areas benefit. School districts benefit from Teterboro's internship programs, the Aviation Hall of Fame, and dozens of math and science education programs that the airport participates in, and provides hangar space for. The airport also participates in many philanthropic endeavors. Also, because of the airport's strategic position and proximity to New York City and northern New Jersey hospitals, it is utilized quite frequently for transporting burn victims and organ transplants, and in other medical emergency situations.
I'm not suggesting that excessive aircraft noise should be tolerated for the sake of business, but rather that airports are a part of local business. Teterboro has one of the country's best noise abatement programs. So if you're going to have an airport nearby, at least Teterboro gives back to its community. Those of us who truly know the facts know that this airport is much more of an asset than a liability.
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: November 23, 1997
SECTION: Niagara Week, Pg. 4NC
BYLINE: Dick Christian
DATELINE: Niagara Falls, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lewis Jeckovich, resident; George Maziarz, state senator
The Buffalo News reports that residents in Niagara Falls, New York are complaining about noise from the LaSalle Expressway, which runs from Williams Road in Wheatfield west to the I-190, through the heart of a Niagara Falls residential area. Despite residents' complaints, state officials say they cannot perform a noise study and don't have the funds to build a sound wall or plant trees as a buffer.
According to the article, resident Lewis Jeckovich said he moved to the area 40 years ago, and "back then you could hear a pin drop. Now we're boxed in with the LaSalle in front of us and the I-190 running alongside of us. The noise is carried from the elevated highway by westerly winds, and there is no relief from it." He added, "Many times, during the middle of the night, a tractor-trailer or other commercial truck will hit a bump on the road and wake us up. It sounds like it's on our roof, or someone is breaking in the house."
Jeckovich said the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and legislators didn't consider the need for sound barriers when the road was built. In 1987, he said, the DOT reportedly conducted a "noise assessment" study that included "future noise impacts," the article reports. Jeckovich said, "My neighbors and I find that interesting. They're saying that they did a study on the effect highway noise might have on our neighborhood before the project was even completed, and the possible impact into the year 2007. Now they're saying that despite the obvious noise pollution evident today, they aren't in a position to 'retro-fit' the roadway with sound barriers because they don't have the funding. That, they tell us, would require a special line item in the state budget for approval by the State Legislature."
The article explains that Jeckovich and others have suggested planting trees or hedges between the residences and the highway to cut down on noise and to create a more attractive landscape. Jeckovich said, "They've done this as a common practice in Canada along the Queen E(lizabeth Way) and in Europe for years. We don't expect to be totally noise-free with the expressway just a few hundred yards from our homes, but we should expect that the state would direct their attention to this problem and do what they can to fairly resolve it."
But the state has been indifferent to the problem, according to Jeckovich, the article says. He added that George Maziarz, his state senator, said there would be a new traffic noise survey this past spring, but it never materialized. Maziarz said he had made several requests for the DOT to look into the situation but state officials claimed there was no money to deal with the issue.
The article goes on to say that Shelah LaDuc, DOT Manager of Landscape Environmental Services, said that trees or hedges might be considered in the future, but she did not believe they would cut noise. She said, "We don't do noise studies independent of the project. The basic reason is that we don't have the staff or resources to do that. Another reason is that when we do the project, we perform studies and they have proven that there aren't significant changes. We have no staff or funding to just go out and do noise studies." Using trees or hedges to reduce highway noise had not proven effective anywhere else, she said. "For plant material to be effective as a noise-abatement medium, you would have to plant them in rows thick enough to be meaningful. Along this stretch of highway, there isn't enough land on either side of the road between the highway and homes to do that. I think hedges have more psychological benefits than the ability to reduce decibels." She added that there are several ramps and other interruptions in the area between the highway and the residences that would limit the effectiveness of a wall or a bank of trees. "Whatever kind of barrier you use," she said, "whether a wall or trees, you have to have a continuous barrier. Any interruptions at all make the attempt unfeasible." LaDuc added that the agency would not rule out the possibility of planting along the expressway, but added, "We don't have funds for that right now. While noise may be uncomfortable, it's not the same as a bridge falling down. It's not a true safety need."
PUBLICATION: The Fresno Bee
DATE: November 23, 1997
SECTION: Telegraph, Pg. A1
BYLINE: Felicia Cousart
DATELINE: Fresno, California
The Fresno Bee reports that the second phase of a three-phase expansion/renovation project at The Fresno (California) Yosemite International Airport started in August and should be completed by February. The project involves concerted efforts to attract more air traffic to the airport, the article says. The article describes the project at length, and mentions in passing that airport neighbors have brought forward some concerns about increased noise from the expansion.
According to the article, phase one of the expansion project was completed in 1993 and involved remodeling the main lobby and terminal for $6.5 million. In the second phase, the concourse will be remodeled, the passenger paging system will be improved, lockers will be updated, and cooling, heating, ventilation, fire protection, and security systems will be added at a cost of $4 million. The third phase, which is scheduled to start next September, will cost $20 million and will involve constructing a new building at the end of the concourse that will handle six jet ways and enclosed bridges, increasing the number of airport gates from 14 to 19, nearly doubling the capacity of the airport parking lot to 1,400, and relocating the main entrance of the airport. When the project is completed in 2000, it will have racked up costs of $30 million, the article says, and will have nearly doubled the facility's capacity to serve passengers, from 1.1 million to 2 million.
According to city officials, the goal of the expansion project is to capture more flights and airlines, including international carriers, and hopefully to increase competition and attract cheaper fares. The article notes that Fresno has had a problem attracting airline carriers, and residents often drive to airports in San Jose or Oakland for cheaper fares and more convenient service. According to Terry Cooper, the city's airport director, an estimated 300,000 people each year opt to drive to other airports.
The article goes on to say that the project is outlined in the airport's master plan, and was created to meet the airport's needs beyond 2020. Other projects outlined in the master plan include a second concourse and expanded baggage claim and ticketing areas. These projects will be undertaken if needed, the article says.
The article also explains that the airport was built in 1962, and has not had a major overhaul since then. However, in the 1980s, the runways were reconstructed so that virtually any size plane could land, and in 1988, a new automated enclosed baggage claim area was installed. In 1995, the airport ranked as the 10th largest in the state and the 109th largest in the nation. The article says that about 1.5 million people live within an hour's drive of the Fresno airport. Currently, the airport has 95 departures a day, and tickets can be purchased from 12 airlines.
The article reports that according to Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson, city officials are actively trying to attract more airlines to Fresno. In the future, better commuter service to regional cities is expected. And Terry Cooper, the city's airport director, said airport officials are working connections to Portland, Seattle, and Mexico. Lee Armstrong, chair of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce's Airport Service Task Force, said it's "a constant process. We're in touch, we're talking to four different airlines ... both international and domestic." He added, "Fresno is what they call a secondary market. We're kind of on the bubble as to whether or not they offer additional jet service."
The article also mentions that the prospect of increased air service has caused some neighbors to be concerned about more noise. But City Council Member Ken Steitz, whose District 4 includes the airport and whose house lies under a flight path, said noise won't be a problem. "I grew up there. You're just used to the noise, but it's very encouraging that ... the technology is making quieter jets," Steitz said.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: November 23, 1997
SECTION: Metro, Pg. C6
BYLINE: Victor Volland
DATELINE: St. Louis, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tom Bratkowski, resident
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Environmental Protection Agency held a public forum in St. Louis, Missouri Saturday to gather input on environmental problems. Residents who attended the forum told agency officials that many environmental concerns, including noise and industrial air pollution, are helping to destabilize neighborhoods and depopulate the city.
According to the article, resident Tom Bratkowski, who lives in Old North St. Louis, said his family lives along Interstate 70, and "the noise from heavy trucks and other traffic is deafening, and the smell of diesel fuel is choking." Bratkowski added, "There are two schools and playgrounds close to the highway, and now they're building a new bridge deck and ramps that will bring more traffic. When they built I-70 here, they didn't include any noise barriers like they did in the richer, suburban areas."
Other environmental problems mentioned at the public forum included early morning air pollution from factories to the south and in Metro East, air pollution from trucking depots, illegal dumping of trash and old tires, leaking underground oil tanks, and derelict buildings and vacant lots that breed vermin and crime.
The article reports that the public forum was the last of 11 held by the EPA in city neighborhoods this fall as part of a national "listening tour." The input received from residents will be included in a final summary guide for state, federal, and local agencies and private groups. Althea Moses, the representative from the agency representative who led the hearing said, "The (Environmental Protection Agency) cannot directly solve all of these issues, but I didn't hear one expressed today that some government agency or some private resource can't address and find a creative solution for."
PUBLICATION: The Buffalo News
DATE: November 25, 1997
SECTION: Local, Pg. 5B
BYLINE: Terry Webster
DATELINE: Hanover, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Chum Bowker, councilor; Donald Dalrymple, Supervisor
The Buffalo News reports that the Hanover (New York) Town Board heard from two residents Monday who complained about noise and vibrations from the Bailey Manufacturing plant on Bennett State Road, which makes auto parts. The article says that town officials visited the homes of the two residents and agree something must be done.
The article says that one resident said he has hired a lawyer and an engineer to study what can be done to correct the noises and vibrations he said are coming from a punch press operation at the plant. The residents said they are not trying to "put anyone out of a job," but have had difficulty sleeping at night. One resident said, "Sometimes I come home from work and I'm beat and I just want to lay down around 10:30 or 11 o'clock at night and go to sleep, and I can't do it."
According to the article, some town officials have visited the two homes and agree that something must be done. Councilor Chum Bowker said, "No one can deny that the vibration is there. I realize that something has got to be done, but what and to whom?" Supervisor Donald Dalrymple said he would "not put this on the back burner." He added, "I was up there and listened to it, and our zoning board is aware there is a problem."
The article also notes that according to councilor Richard Slawson, residents' problems with the manufacturing plant has been growing for two years. The company recently added more equipment and has been operating additional hours, Slawson added.
PUBLICATION: Government Computer News
DATE: November 24, 1997
SECTION: No. 35, Vol. 16; Pg. 26; Issn: 0738-4300
BYLINE: Thomas R. Temin
Government Computer News published an editorial about a Senate rule barring mechanical devices on the floor.
The editorial describes how one Senate Rules Committee member, Sen. Wendell Ford (D-Ky.), cited the possibility of distracting noises emanating from the computer [GCN, Nov. 11, Page 3]. Putting aside the possibility that much of the Senate's debate itself is mere noise, the writer observes that the user can disable the keyboard clicking and the admittedly obnoxious "Ta da!" that accompanies Microsoft Windows loading. Besides, most notebooks have such short key travel that a typical typist can use one almost silently. Even so, Enzi offered to enclose the machine in a mahogany box. The writer wonders whether other mechanical aids will come under scrutiny. Hearing aids? Multifunction watches? Calculators? Are mechanical pencils allowed, or only wooden ones? What about pencil sharpeners? Seriously, what is the harm in a senator taking notes or delivering prepared remarks while using a computer?
According to the editorial, sixteen states have some degree of chamber automation. At press time, none of their statehouses has shaken or collapsed. Fundamental rules covering issues such as voting or seniority haven't changed. The goal of floor automation is much more mundane. In the words of Pam Greenberg of the National Conference of State Legislatures, "It simply cuts down on all the paperwork involved in everyday legislation."
PUBLICATION: Orange County Business Journal
DATE: November 24, 1997
SECTION: Vol 20; No 47; Pg 8
BYLINE: Sandi Cain
DATELINE: Costa Mesa, California
Orange County Business Journal reports that while the debate over El Toro Airport is getting headlines, John Wayne Airport is growing steadily and expanding with several projects either in the works or on the drawing board.
The article says the most visible of the expansion and improvement projects at the airport is the renovation of the parking structures, which will add 1,962 parking spaces and is scheduled for completion in 1999. The 810,000-square-foot expansion will provide two levels on top of the existing structure as well as a bus and taxi station and pedestrian bridges to the terminal.
The report says the $25.8 million expansion is on schedule and so far on budget, with the first phase expected to be complete by next September. "There have been challenges," said McCarthy project director Frank Pasztor, "but the project team has worked to overcome obstacles, and the project is moving forward on schedule." Airport spokeswoman Kathleen Campini-Chambers agreed, adding that the public information campaign launched earlier this year to mitigate the temporary parking crunch has been very successful. "More people are using the Main Street Lot, and the valet service we began there has become very popular," she said.
According to the report, other projects under way include a $1.4 million replacement of the 18-year-old system that monitors aircraft operations and noise and a remodel of the Costa Mesa administration building for the airport. Each of the projects is being funded by the Airport Operating Fund, which gets its money from landing fees, parking fees, concessions and other revenue generated by the airport.
The article says for the year ended March 30, John Wayne served 7.5 million passengers-93% of its current authorized capacity of 8.4 million. That's a 5.6% increase over 7.1 million the year prior, when the faciility reached 88% of capacity. So far this calendar year, passenger counts are running 6.8% above last year.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star (Ventura, CA)
DATE: November 29, 1997
SECTION: News; Pg. A03
BYLINE: Aron Miller
DATELINE: Camarillo, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Martin Jones, resident; Mel Allen, resident; Richard Senters, resident
The Ventura County Star reports residents near Oxnard College are disputing a report released this week that says minor league baseball at the college would not have a significant impact on nearby neighborhoods. Residents are concerned about noise, pollution, and bright lights.
According to the article, protesters have complained to city officials that there are alternative sites in Oxnard for a baseball stadium. Baseball games shouldn't take place in the middle of a residential neighborhood, they contend. "It isn't the Suns that we have an objection to, it's putting an entertainment stadium right next door," said resident Mel Allen. "I can sum it up in one word: pollution." Residents say that more than 1,000 people flooding their neighborhoods for 45 home games during the 1998 season would lower the quality of life. "I don't know how they're going to mitigate traffic on Pleasant Valley Road, and I don't how they're going to mitigate noise from a cheering crowd," said Martin Jones, who has led the effort to keep the Suns from playing at the college.
The article reports that despite residents' opposition, the City Council in October approved the move, pending the results of the environmental study. The council will discuss the report, conducted by Impact Sciences Inc., at its Jan. 6 meeting. The Ventura County Community College District, which hasn't approved baseball at Oxnard College, also will look at the report in January and make a decision. The study provides a detailed parking plan and offers suggestions on how to keep the noise from the public address system to a minimum, including shutting it off at 10 p.m. Richard Senters, who lives in the adjacent Silverado neighborhood, isn't convinced. "That's an impossible feat," he said. "You can't mitigate noise out of the way, you can't mitigate light out of the way. They're just ignoring the residents in this area."
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: November 27, 1997
SECTION: Community; Pg. 02
BYLINE: Monica Linggi
DATELINE: La Palma, California
The Orange County Register reports that the La Palma (California) City Council is seeking to close the Mobile Recycling facility at 5420 La Palma Ave., the city's only recycling Center, largely due to noise pollution emitted from the Center.
According to the article, the facility, located behind Ralphs Market, parallels De Vries Lane, where residents have complained of excessive noise generated during operational hours. The council, acting as the Planning Commission, voted 5-0 on Nov. 18 to recommend closing the facility. The council will hold a public hearing to discuss its closure at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 7822 Walker St. "It's very noisy when they replace the bins," said neighbor Jacqueline Allen. "We get enough noise from Ralphs period and this was a little more than I could accept," she said.
The report describes how neighboring business owners have also cited insect problems caused by the recycling bins. The trailer-size bins originally were placed in the parking lot in front of Ralphs. The city moved them behind the store to avoid traffic circulation and visibility problems. Mobile Recycling President Ron Schweitzer said there were no complaints from residents or business owners while the bins were in their original location between March and December 1996. But council members are reluctant to move the bins back to their original location, making closure the only viable option. "The bins in front would detract from the beauty of the center and cut down accessiblity to the supermarket," said Mayor Kenneth Blake. "Under the circumstances, we're not putting undue hardship on anyone," Blake said. "There are two recycling centers within a mile of the city limits, " he said.
Previous week: November 16, 1997
Next week: November 30, 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