PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: January 17, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 7; Letters Desk
BYLINE: Gary Goldman, Annette Shanks, Sheldon Coburn, Anneliese Ohler, Tea James.
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Gary Goldman, Annette Shanks, Sheldon Coburn, Tea James.
Los Angeles Times published the following letters to the editor concerning leaf blowers:
Necessity is the mother of invention. For years now, the manufacturers of leaf blowers have continued to ignore the public's justifiable anger at their noisy and environmentally destructive devices, leaving the low-income gardeners as the lightning rods for all the heat. Now Gody Sanchez has solved the problem without a million-dollar research program or expensive solutions. The use of an auto radiator fan is brilliant--these are extremely reliable devices, easily available and inexpensive. The choice of an auto battery is absolutely genius--just an ordinary battery that the gardener can take home and pop on a recharger overnight. I hope Sanchez can capitalize on his genius.
GARY GOLDMAN
Los Angeles *
The Times is presenting one-sided coverage of the leaf-blower issue. You are doing a "politically correct" story. The damage to the environment is being overlooked. We are entitled to live without noise and air pollution. The smell of gasoline fumes, the constant, unabating roar of the blowers, the dust and grime covering plants and being inhaled by all are worthy of mention. Ninety percent of leaves would be removed by lawn mowers if gardeners were efficient. Rakes would do the rest.
ANNETTE SHANKS
Los Angeles *
Let's not falter in our efforts to clean up our environment. There is no doubt that leaf blowers pollute with particulates and noise. Banning these polluters would not put gardeners out of business. They might have to work more or even hire a helper for an hour. They can charge an appropriate amount for this extra effort and cost. Their customers are not poor and can afford to pay a bit more for this good cause.
SHELDON COBURN
Marina del Rey *
Why haven't customers been asked what they want? If they want no leaf blower, then they should hire a gardener who doesn't use a leaf blower. Since only affluent communities are objecting to this use, let them pay more for the gardener's service. The rest of us, mostly ordinary people with limited incomes and moderate gardens, are not objecting. Please let the gardeners do their jobs--they are the ones who keep our city fairly clean. And if residents want to start cleaning up the air and everything else, why not start with much more polluting industries and businesses in the city? Have a heart for poor people, for a change.
ANNELIESE OHLER
North Hollywood *
Would someone introduce L.A.'s gardeners to Southern California Edison? Gardeners using electric blowers pass on energy costs to clients. Electric blowers are less expensive to maintain and replace. The gardeners win. The voters win.
TEA JAMES
Los Angeles
PUBLICATION: Saturday
DATE: January 17, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Karla Schuster
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
Saturday reports that a Federal Aviation Administration ruling concerning the Boca Raton Airport will freeze up funds that would allow for a new control tower. The tower is controversial because its completion would allow for heavier traffic at the Boca Raton airport. Area residents fear the noise that more traffic would bring, while city officials fear the current air traffic congestion as a safety hazard.
The article says the state of Florida has frozen $1.1 million for a new control tower at the city airport because of a federal ruling that accuses the airport of giving Boca Aviation a monopoly on aircraft services. The state Department of Transportation's decision to withhold funds will delay construction of the tower at least several months, and possibly longer, while the airport seeks a hearing to overturn the Federal Aviation
According to the report, the Boca Raton Airport was about to award a construction contract for the tower, planning to break ground in the spring. Airport officials had hoped to open the tower by next winter. Instead, the Airport Authority is now caught between two costly and unpleasant choices: Fight the FAA ruling and indefinitely delay the tower project, or kill its lease with Boca Aviation, which would immediately restore the tower funds but probably result in a lawsuit for breach of contract. On Friday, airport officials said they will stick with their plan to fight the FAA ruling, despite the state's decision to suspend tower funds.
The report continues to explain how the airport has hired a Washington, D.C.-based firm, Spiegel & McDiarmid, to handle its case. "We clearly think we're right (in awarding the lease to Boca Aviation), and I think the state acted prematurely because the FAA's ruling isn't final," said Rick Murdoch, the airport's local counsel. Airport Authority Chairman Phil Modder could not be reached for comment on Friday.
The FAA, the article goes on, in a preliminary ruling last month, found that the airport violated federal rules and showed favoritism when it awarded Boca Aviation _ the airport's sole maintenance operator _ a lease for the last undeveloped 20 acres at the airport. The FAA made its ruling after a complaint was filed by Stuart Jet Center, a competing maintenance operator that lost out to Boca Aviation in its bid for the land. Boca Aviation plans a $2.5 million expansion, including a new avionics center and additional hangar space. "I know the airport feels its lease with Boca Aviation is completely beyond reproach, but the FAA ruling very clearly casts some doubt on whether the airport's decision was above board," said DOT's Downing. Downing said the state has not set a deadline to kill the funds altogether.
The article says the tower has been a key issue in the debate over airport noise. Many homeowners think it will lead to an increase in jet traffic, while aviation officials and many pilots call it a critical addition to an airport growing so fast that the skies above Boca Raton are dangerously congested. "Anything that interferes with the construction of a control tower and affects the safety and ability to control noise at the airport would be very distressing," said Dave Freudenberg, president of the Boca Raton Pilots' Association. Since 1990, traffic at the airport has increased 51.6 percent. FAA officials have estimated that 160,000 aircraft will take off or land at the airport each year by the next decade. This week, the FAA was at the airport to update its traffic projections. Officials counted 425 takeoffs and landings on Wednesday alone. "We need the tower, but the question is, can we afford to do it without the state's help? and I don't think we can," said airport manager Nelson Rhodes. Downing said the state is as anxious to build the tower as are airport officials. "We would love to participate in this project, and we agree it's a safety issue because of the dramatic mix of propeller and jet traffic in Boca," Downing said. "But we can't be asked to go outside state law to do it."
PUBLICATION: National Parks and Conservation Association
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: National Desk, Environment Writer
BYLINE: National Parks and Conservation Association
DATELINE: Washington, Jan. 16
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: National Parks and Conservation Association.
The National Parks and Conservation Association issued the following press release concerning the study of winter uses by the public at Yellowstone Park and their effects on wildlife, air and water quality, and overall park tranquility:
The nation's leading national park advocacy group applauded the decision today by the National Park Service to delay closure of a road within Yellowstone National Park, and called for Congress to approve $1.5 million in funding for comprehensive research on winter use of the park. The Park Service today announced it would not close a 14-mile section of road through the Hayden Valley as it had proposed earlier this recommended leaving the road open this winter to conduct a baseline study for comparison against a future closure.
"Yellowstone has been grooming roads for snowmobiles and snowcoaches since 1972, yet we still know very little about their impacts on air quality, park quiet, water quality and wildlife," said Mark Peterson, Rocky Mountain regional director for NPCA. "There is great controversy over how groomed trails affect bison, but like these other impacts, the debate will not be put to rest until we have objective, scientifically valid information."
The Park Service today announced it has approved a decision to continue to groom and keep open the Hayden Valley and Gibbon River road segment this winter season and for the next two winter seasons. Over the next two winters, the park will continue and expand research and monitoring of wildlife movements and their use of groomed roads; collect information on weather patterns, snow conditions, grooming and visitor-use patterns; and begin to construct a model of bison and visitor data to assist in evaluating possible management actions. In fall of 2000, research and monitoring results will be evaluated and a determination will be made on a possible closure of the two segments or other roads segments to gather additional information. The NPS may modify the decision based on other planning initiatives. The process of developing a permanent Yellowstone winter use plan will begin next spring.
Peterson said that NPCA "will work to make sure the park is ready with the data to proceed with an experimental road closure in 2000 that makes sense and provides good scientific information. The park wants to conduct these studies, but Congress needs to make the financial investment to bring about the research that can resolve the controversies over bison and the other impacts from winter use," Peterson added.
NPCA estimates a comprehensive research program on winter use would cost approximately $1.5 million over a three to five year period. Such a program would include wildlife studies, visitor surveys, economic impact studies, studies on noise and air quality, and research on grooming techniques. Winter use includes the impacts of increased cross country skiing, snowshoe hiking and other outdoor recreation activities that bring visitors to Yellowstone in addition to snowmobiling and touring the park via snowcoach.
The "record of decision" on winter use released today by the Park Service is the result of a court settlement imposed in a suit brought by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Fund for Animals. The groups sought closure of Yellowstone's roads during the winter season to reduce the movement of bison out of the park. The slaughter of nearly 1,100 migrating Yellowstone bison last winter prompted the lawsuit.
Peterson emphasized the need to study a wide range of effects of winter use beyond impacts on bison, including additional research to identify areas of conflict between snowmobilers and other park users. Once this information is available, the Park Service could take steps to mitigate impacts. These steps could include limiting the hours during which snowmobiles can be used or requiring snowmobilers to certify that their machines meet "best available technology" standards for emissions and noise.
"NPCA believes we need to fully understand the impact of winter use on Yellowstone," Peterson said. "It may be taking a much larger toll on park resources than we realize." ------ The National Parks and Conservation Association is America's only private nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to preserving, protecting and enhancing the U.S. National Park System. An association of " Citizens Protecting America's Parks," NPCA was founded in 1919 and today has nearly 500,000 members. ------ A library of national park information, including fact sheets, congressional testimony, position statements, press releases and media alerts, can be found on NPCA's World Wide Web site at http://www.npca.org.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: Local (News), Pg. 4B
BYLINE: Del Quentin Wilber
DATELINE: Baltimore, Maryland
The Baltimore Sun reports that the area Planning Board is developing a plan for a planned employment center. Area residents seek a development plan that will minimize noise and other environmental pollution.
The article says the county Planning Board unanimously recommended allowing additional uses in the planned employment center zoning. County planning officials say they proposed the changes because the original concept -- designed for businesses that fell in between retail and industrial zones -- has not attracted developers to the sites. But residents testifying at the initial hearing said that some of the proposed uses would generate traffic, noise and other problems. Joseph W. Rutter Jr., director of the Department of Planning and Zoning, said the new proposal addressed those concerns by specifically limiting manufacturing and warehouses to on-site uses associated with office buildings or research centers. Trucking centers and concert halls were eliminated from the plan. "It was really just a matter of semantics," he said. "I think I've addressed the concerns of those that testified [two months ago]."
According to the report, residents who attended yesterday's meeting said they supported the changes. "The warehouses and concert halls just weren't what we were looking for," said Judith Haxton, who lives on Whiskey Bottom Road in North Laurel. "We wanted to see a little more employment, more offices, a campus-like setting. We wanted to avoid a lot of noise and smell." Planning Board members said they thought the changes made sense. The board recommended that the County Council consider adding fast-food outlets that are developed in conjunction with gas stations as a special exception. "They could be a place where employees go to get a cheap lunch," said board member Gary Kaufman.
The article says the proposal has drawn the attention of those opposing the Rouse Co. plan to develop a 517-acre parcel in North Laurel into a Columbia-style, mixed-use development. Some feared that Rouse could use the changes to threaten neighbors with the possibility of undesirable development if it does not get the zoning change it needs for its proposal. The changes are expected to go before the County Council next month.
Pub Date: 1/16/98
PUBLICATION: The Chapel Hill News
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. B5
BYLINE: Anne Blythe
DATELINE: Chapel Hill, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bob Hollister, president, Cameron Glen Homeowners Association; Kathryn Kirk, Cameron Glen resident.
The Chapel Hill News reports that residents of Cameron Glen, North Carolina are fighting the renovations of a local power plant. Only recently completed, the plant's original construction took four years. Residents say they were four years of noise and that the renovations are required due to ill-planning which they are unwilling to support.
The article describes how Bob Hollister lived in Cameron Glen when the university built the Cameron Avenue power plant coal silos that tower over his neighborhood. He still recalls the construction and delivery trucks coming and going throughout the night. He remembers the dust and that irritating, monotonous hiss that filled his home for days on end when a steady stream of steam was vented. "We lived with that for four years," Hollister said. No one in Cameron Glen is eager to live with it again.
But, according to the report, university officials say that the silos were poorly designed and that it would be better to tear them down, five years after they were built, and spend $8 million to construct two taller and thinner towers than to continue to send coal through flawed structures and operate at half capacity. "You want the coal to go in at the top and flow all the way through, first in, first out," Bruce Runberg, associate vice chancellor for facilities management, said Thursday. "Right now, there are some stagnation points." At places where the coal stagnates, there's danger of combustion. A silo fire in 1993 took special efforts and several weeks to extinguish. Yet repairing the existing towers could cost as much or more than replacing them, university officials say, so they've decided to build two new silos. In addition, the university plans to install an $8 million backup boiler at the Cameron Avenue plant that supplies power to UNC Hospitals and most of the main campus.
The report says the university has asked the Town Council to modify a special-use permit issued in June 1986. This week, it asked for an expedited review. Hollister and many of his neighbors in Cameron Glen, a 10-year-old community just east of the power plant, object to a hastened process. "They're moving forward without a design," said Hollister, president of the Cameron Glen Homeowners Association. Designs for the backup boiler are complete, Runberg said, but the university recently asked another engineering firm to design the silos and those drawings are not yet finished. "A positive that is important is with the new boiler and replacement of the coal silos, there will be improvement with noise abatement," Runberg said. Some neighbors aren't quick to buy into such thinking. They say they were there 10 years ago, when the university presented plans for a $99 million renovation of the 1940s-vintage plant. "They told us it would be state-of-the-art," said Kathryn Kirk, a Cameron Glen resident for nine years. That so-called state-of-the-art plant has been at the center of a decade of controversies.
The article describes how some of the battles ended up in front of town officials and others went to court. In the late 1980s, when major renovations of the existing plant began, residents stormed Town Hall on more than one occasion, urging officials to force the university to limit the noise and blasting. "They say it's going to take two and a half years for the building process," Kirk said. "During these years, we want them to comply with the noise ordinance." Runberg says the university is committed to working with not only its neighbors in Cameron Glen, but those throughout the nearby Westside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods.
PUBLICATION: The Northern Echo
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 6
BYLINE: Julie Tyers
DATELINE: United Kingdom
The Northern Echo reports that Darlington officials recently approved a controversial kennel operation. While area residents protested that noise and other nuisances from the dogs were unacceptable, the Darlington Councillors decided that a kennel was a permissible use of the rural landscape.
The article says concerns over dogs barking, straying and fouling the countryside were not enough to stop a new boarding kennel being granted planning permission. Councillors in Darlington approved proposals for a 20-dog kennels to be built on farmland on the outskirts of the town, despite opposition from neighbours worried about the scheme.
According to the report, Farmer Peter Galvin, of Oat Hill Farm, wants to build the kennels on the south side of a three-and-a-half acre site west of Great Stainton. The site already includes the family home, two barns and a small field. it is accessed by Salters Lane, a public road and bridleway. The application is for a single-story kennel building measuring 18 meters by 16.8 meters and 4.3 meters high. A 24-signature petition and four letters of complaint were sent to the council objecting to the proposal, expressing concerns about stray dogs in the countryside, noise disturbance and fouling. One letter from a neighboring farmer read out to the planning committee expressed concern over "the anti-social behavior of dogs". It said: "Twenty dogs are bound to cause noise and disturbance. I am also concerned about safety. When the dogs are taken out on walks they may worry farm stock." Other worries concerned the likely increase in traffic caused by the scheme and its possible future expansion. But Councilors spoke in favor of the project.
Councillor Rosemary Boynton said: "I live on a farm and a kennel would be no noisier than a farmyard." Councilor Beatrice Cuthbertson, ward councilor for Sadberge where the National Canine Defense League has a 150-animal kennels, said: "We have had no complaints whatsoever from the NCDL kennels, so I cannot see that there is going to be a problem with this." After visiting Oat Hill Farm last week, planning officers recommended that the proposal be approved. "It can be seen as benefiting the needs of several communities as appropriate diversification of the rural economy, and is best suited to a site in the countryside," they said.
PUBLICATION: OC Weekly
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: Columns; Pg. 7 First Person
BYLINE: Anthony Pignataro
DATELINE: Santa Ana, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dave Kirkey; Project '99;
The OC Weekly published the following editorial concerning direct action for opponents of the El Toro International Airport in California:
Shake your chains to earth like dew/Which in sleep had fall'n on you," wrote Shelley in Masque of Anarchy. "You are many--they are few." Take Shelley's words to heart! Don't let the county's El Toro International Airport public-relations blitz take the day! Here are our suggestions on how everyone can strike at the county's plans. 10. File a property-tax reassessment. We've all heard developers' sob stories about local governments "taking" their property through rezoning. Well, isn't dropping a loud, obnoxious international airport in your city an assault on the value of your property? Don't let the county sap your property values without lowering your tax payments. Send your requests to Orange County Assessor, P.O. Box 149, Santa Ana, CA 92702. 9. Check out the El Toro Information Web site. According to Peggy Ducey, Newport Beach's executive director of El Toro boosterism, the pro-airport lobby is "losing the battle at the federal level because South County is flooding every office involved in this process with letters, faxes and visits." It's a good bet many of those letter writers got their ideas from www.eltoroairport.org--Dana Point resident Len Kranser's online arsenal. There you can get the names and addresses of local, state and federal officials, along with a sample letter and suggested newspaper-article attachments. And while you're there, check out the latest El Toro-related meeting schedules. Read digests of the latest El Toro news stories. Judge the potential noise, traffic and pollution for yourself. See video interviews with county Supervisors Todd Spitzer and Tom Wilson. Have a ball, and keep sending those letters. 8. Get a copy of Under the Flight Path. Here's where you can start making real mischief. Dave Kirkey, who runs Eagle Canyon Music and lives in Coto de Caza, made a CD of aircraft arrivals at John Wayne Airport and LAX. If you listen to the CD at conversation level, you can get a realistic demonstration of El Toro's potential noise. But don't keep all that fun to yourself--share the CD with people you know will appreciate it! People like George Argyros, the airport's chief bankroller. Grab your boom box, and rent an outboard boat at Davey Jones' Locker ($35 for half a day) in Newport Harbor. It's a short cruise over to Argyros' Harbor Island home. Stand off a dozen yards, and let her rip. You can get the CD--for free!--by writing to Project '99, P.O Box 252, Irvine, CA 92650. 7. Send Supervisor Chuck Smith a dime. First District Supe Smith is easily the most vocal airport proponent on the county board. He supports allowing cargo flights while the Marines are still in control of the base, despite objections by the Marines and Congressman Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach). He finds no problem with the county's El Toro Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), despite a San Diego Superior Court judge's ruling that the document is "misleading." Why does the former Westminster mayor want an airport so much? Perhaps the $20,000 he took from Argyros and airport proponents in last year's campaign is the reason. Buy Smith back! At one dime per person, that means just 200,000 people need to contribute to beat Argyros and his cronies. 6. Carve the words "John Wayne Forever" in the Newport Beach sand. Show how much you miss the Duke and how sad you'd be if the county ever had to close the airport that honors his name. Newport Beach Mayor Thomas Edwards says we must have an El Toro International Airport because John Wayne Airport "is a 470-acre airfield with no more ground space to grow." Other El Toro boosters have said John Wayne can never meet the county's international-passenger demand. Really? Where is the Environmental Impact Report that says so? In fact, the county has undertaken no official studies on the feasibility of expanding John Wayne's runways. Any legitimate discussion of meeting future air-passenger and cargo demand must start by examining existing county facilities. So let the good residents of Newport Beach know how you feel--in 6-foot letters. 5. Tell ETRPA what you want. A key weapon in the fight against El Toro is a better reuse plan than the county's airport. The El Toro Reuse Planning Authority (ETRPA) only has until April 3, 1998, to devise that plan. Give them ideas on how to turn the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station into something everyone can cherish. Do you want a high-tech research complex? Or a 1,500-acre park? How about a pedestrian-friendly downtown? Unlike the county, which pretty much discounted all public comments in its DEIR and reuse plan, ETRPA assured us they will listen. Send your comments to El Toro Reuse Planning Authority, 23161 Lake Center Dr., Ste. 100, Lake Forest, CA 92630. 4. Support anti-airport candidates and officials. There's no shortage of these in the South County. Third District Supervisor Todd Spitzer's public grilling of county CEO Jan Mittermeier and El Toro program manager Courtney Wiercioch should be the model for the rest of the board. North County opponents have been rare--until now. La Palma City Councilman Paul Walker is eyeing the 4th District, and former Costa Mesa Mayor Sandra Genis wants to knock 2nd District Supervisor Jim Silva off the board. If she and Walker win, the board will have the votes to kill the airport. 3. Stay off the toll roads. The proposed El Toro International Airport and the new toll roads are results of the same force: mad developer greed. In the 1980s, the developers had great housing tracts planned all over South County but precious few highways to serve them. Their solution is our political nightmare--tax revenues buttressing toll roads of dubious value. Toll-road usage numbers are already 51 percent below expectations. Now finish the job--starve the toll roads of all revenue. Force the county Transportation Corridor Agencies to tear out its hair trying to keep the roads alive, and maybe the county will think twice about eternally granting developers their wishes. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will cost the county $5 billion--$4.6 billion more than county officials projected a decade ago. Now who wants to gamble on the airport? 2. Attend Local Redevelopment Authority and county Board of Supervisor meetings. Although El Toro officials are always quick to "encourage" public attendance, the county's power brokers shudder at the prospect of a hearing chamber packed with "crazies" (read: taxpayers, citizens, voters, etc.). But people: should cram the chamber as often as possible. Although the board only meets every three months to act as the El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority, there is time reserved at the end of every weekly meeting for public comments on any subject. We know the meetings are booooooring, and it's scandalous that only one meeting per month is held at night, but there's no reason for a meeting to go by without a couple of dozen residents asking to be heard on El Toro. The board meets every Tuesday (7 p.m. once each month; 9 a.m. the other times) in the Board Hearing Room, 10 Civic Center Plaza in Santa Ana. 1. Think for yourself. This is the most dangerous, most subversive suggestion. It involves the agonizing exercise of critical thought. Every time you read or hear someone say that the county needs the El Toro Airport or that it will be a silent, quiet neighbor, ask the following questions: Why is it that the most energetic El Toro boosters come from Newport Beach, which has been fighting John Wayne Airport expansion for decades? Why is it that developers, who stand to make billions over the next century from El Toro, are its greatest fans? Why is the so-called El Toro "Citizens Advisory Commission" stacked with former county officials and developers, most notably Argyros himself? How can the county be doing a good job planning the El Toro Airport if a Superior Court judge ruled that their DEIR minimized noise, traffic and pollution impacts? Keep asking those questions, and when it comes time to vote on the airport again, you'll know what to do.
PUBLICATION: The Daily Telegraph
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A11
BYLINE: Caroline Davies
DATELINE: United Kingdom
The Daily Telegraph reports that neighbors of an annual open air opera festival in England are fed up with the noise of the festival.
The article reports that the host of an open-air opera festival that neighbors claimed was too loud was cleared yesterday of shattering the calm of a village in southern England. Banker Leonard Ingrams won his fight against villagers who had tried to disrupt performances with a discordant symphony of garden trimmers, blaring car horns and even a low-flying light aircraft. Mr. Ingrams, 55, pleaded not guilty to two charges of breaching noise levels. Immediately after a three-day hearing that found in his favor, he vowed that the opera festival, staged at his 17th-century home, would continue.
According to the report, the area's district council, complained that two performances of Richard Strauss on June 24 and July 6 had exceeded set noise levels. It was the second time they had taken him to court. The court had heard that Strauss was the most offensive composer, according to villagers who have objected to the internationally renowned festival, which has permission for as many as 20 performances a year. "Strauss is bound to be the loudest opera because he uses the largest orchestra. This was the fourth time we had had Strauss. We had become something of specialists in doing Strauss," Mr. Ingrams had told the court. "We can't afford Wagner, or any other of the 19th-century operas, and they would make much more noise. "
The article says his defense lawyer, Richard Beckett, said variables such as the weather could affect noise levels. "If you are lucky with the weather, you are an innocent man. If you are unlucky and have some balmy weather, you are a guilty man. "That would be the first time in English history that an Englishman in a fair English court would stand convicted by an improvement in the weather," Mr. Beckett said.
The report describes how festival opponents had made their feelings plain on the opening night last year. "There was a demonstration of trimmers being used in the garden and a light airplane being flown over the auditorium. Cars hooted their horns and car alarms went off. There was a notice put out that said 'Please hoot if you object to the Opera.' " Mr. Ingrams said. The council's decision to prosecute followed claims from professional noise consultants that the opera had breached the conditions of its entertainment license. The license requires the music to be no more than five decibels louder than surrounding background noise. The council was ordered to pay Mr. Ingram's costs.
PUBLICATION: The Press Enterprise
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: Local; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Christina Wise
DATELINE: Lake Elsinore, California
The Press-Enterprise reports that Lake Elsinore recently passed a tough "noisy animal" ordinance.
The article explains how a city ordinance approved earlier this week gives Lake Elsinore animal control officials more bite in dealing with barking dogs. For example, it allows the city to levy fines of up to $100 if your noisy pooch is impounded or collect "noisy animal response charges" if animal control officers are continually summoned to your home. And, not only dogs are affected. The new city law applies to all "noisy animals."
According to the report, any animal whose sounds annoy nearby residents or disturb the peace, the ordinance states, qualifies as a "noisy animal." Under the new law, if a Riverside County Sheriff's Department deputy or a Lake Elsinore Animal Friends officer determines a nuisance exists, he or she will issue a Noisy Animal Warning Notice. Animal owners are told that if the racket continues and officers are summoned back to the same location, the person will be charged the cost of the visit, as well as for further abatement proceedings. The notice would be voided if animal control authorities later determine that the barking or howling was provoked and not "excessive, unrelenting or habitual. "But if animal control authorities receive a second complaint about a noisy animal within six months of the first at the same location and decide the animal's owner simply ignored the notice, a public hearing will be scheduled with the Lake Elsinore Animal Friends agency.
The article continues to describe how if the agency concludes that the animal qualifies as a "noisy animal" and a "public nuisance," the animal's owner will have five days to correct the problem. The agency can order that the animal be kept inside, wear a noise suppression device, take obedience training lessons, be allowed outside only during certain time periods, be "debarked" through an operation on its vocal cords, be removed from the property or be impounded. Fines between $50 and $100 can be imposed, depending on how many times the animal is impounded.
According to the report, the animal control agency asked city officials to help, and the ordinance approved by the council Tuesday is similar to those in Murrieta and Temecula, said Ann Washington, director of Lake Elsinore Animal Friends, which provides animal control services for Lake Elsinore, Temecula and Murrieta. "It will help people because now we will have the means to abate these (cases)," she said. Previously, those cases were sent to the Riverside County district attorney's office for prosecution, Washington said. "But the courts are so jammed, they just can't handle barking dogs." Consequently, many cases were unresolved. The ordinance becomes effective in March.
PUBLICATION: The Chicago Tribune
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 6B; Zone: Nw
BYLINE: by Ian Ritter
DATELINE: Arlington Heights
The Chicago Tribune reports that the proposal for a third Chicago airport is raising economic worries in the surrounding communities.
The article says most Arlington Heights residents who spoke at a public hearing this week criticized the idea of building a third regional airport near Peotone, saying it could devastate their community. If the third airport is built, said village resident Phil Klein, "everybody's going to be gone. This town's going to be half a ghost town." Klein, a village resident and an employee of American Airlines, spoke at a Tuesday night hearing conducted by the Arlington Heights Advisory Committee.
The report explains how the hearing followed an uproar last week that was triggered when an aide to Mayor Richard Daley warned that northwest suburbs supporting the third airport could face a loss of soundproofing funds for area schools and homes. The Peotone airport proposal has the support of Gov. Jim Edgar, but is opposed by the Daley administration. Noise advisory committee members opted to continue the discussion to their next meeting, scheduled for Feb. 17 at Village Hall. Panel member Larry Niemann said while he was convinced a third airport would reduce noise around O'Hare, "I don't see anything that tells me it's going to reduce the noise in Arlington Heights."
According to the article, the committee is looking at whether the village should join a coalition put together by U.S. Reps. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and calling for the construction of a third regional airport. Klein conceded there was a lot of aircraft noise in his neighborhood, but he added his greater concern was that a third airport could destroy the economy in communities surrounding O'Hare International Airport. Greg Pantos, a village resident who said he had been employed at O'Hare for 19 years, said it was not in the noise committee's jurisdiction to support a third airport. "I am employed there (at O'Hare), and I don't want folks in this room making decisions about my future," Pantos said. Also testifying before the committee were spokesmen for Hyde, the Illinois Department of Transportation and United and American Airlines. City of Chicago representatives were invited but didn't attend.
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: B, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Caren Chesler
DATELINE: Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Max Gagnon, Eileen Curtis,
The Asbury Park Press reports that residents on the New Jersey Shore are fighting a zoning change that would allow a public parking lot in a residential area. Residents oppose the change because the lot would attract traffic and noise and encourage others to destroy the residential nature of the area.
The article describes how the oceanfront can be somewhat chaotic with billboards, bars and arcades, but there have always been rules: The east side of Ocean Avenue is commercial but the west side, for the most part, is homes. Plans to demolish eight houses along the west side of Ocean Avenue to put in a parking lot anger residents. They fear that once commercialization from the boardwalk leaps across Ocean Avenue, there will be no stopping it. Some 70 residents who live in the area have signed a petition opposing the parking lot being proposed by the Storino family, which owns Jenkinson's, the aquarium and most of the arcades along the boardwalk. The Storinos want to knock down eight houses at Ocean Avenue and Point Pleasant Parkway, on property they already own, to make way for a 133-space parking lot. The proposal requires a zoning variance because the site is in a residential zone. The application, filed by Anthony, Frank and Patricia Storino, will be heard before the Board of Adjustment tonight.
According to the article, area residents say another parking lot will only exacerbate the problems they face every summer, in terms of traffic and noise. "We're less than happy about it," said Max Gagnon, a Niblick Street resident who drew up the petition. "It can be mighty rough down there in the summer. We already have gridlock. But with the (added) noise and the exhaust, it will become unbearable." "If you let one person start knocking down homes, what's to stop others from putting up parking lots? It's too close to homes," Niblick Street resident Eileen Curtis said.
The report says the Storinos argue, in their application that the lot will not destroy the character of the neighborhood, and that it will alleviate traffic problems along Ocean Avenue in the summer. With more places to park, there would be less congestion, making the road safer and less hazardous, they say. Representatives for the Storino family either declined to comment or could not be reached.
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: Extra; Pg. 03A
BYLINE: Nathanial W. Cook
DATELINE: Atlanta Georgia Area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Charles Feltus, member, PDK Watch.
The Atlanta Journal reports that a recent study shows that the benefits of the DeKalb-Peachtree airport proposal outweigh the costs to area residents whose property will lose value due to the project.
The article says that a recently completed county-funded study of DeKalb-Peachtree Airport has concluded that the overall benefits to DeKalb residents and business owners of the airport outweigh the costs, most of which are borne by airport-area homeowners. The cost-benefit study, distributed to DeKalb's county commissioners in December, is available for residents to review at each of DeKalb's public library branches. The county plans to hold a public hearing to discuss the study, possibly in February or March.
According to the article, critics of the airport began clamoring for the study almost a decade ago. They are fearful that the increasingly busy airport -now the second busiest in Georgia - would continue to expand unchecked, forcing nearby residents to live with unsafe conditions and noise pollution. The battle over whether and how to handle the study continued through the early 1990s, and the study got off the ground only about a year ago. The study, as it was finally commissioned, had four objectives: "analyzing the contribution of the airport to county residents and businesses, quantifying the fiscal benefit to the City of Chamblee and DeKalb County, evaluating the real estate and related fiscal impacts as a result of airport noise and assessing the likely costs and benefits of alternate development scenarios for the airport," according to the study's summary. Alternate scenarios include maintaining the airport at its current level of growth; expanding the airport, including possibly adding passenger service; shrinking the facility by cutting back operations; and closing and redeveloping the site. Among the economic and fiscal benefits the researchers noted were 762 aviation and 271 non-aviation-related jobs directly provided by the airport's tenants, an estimated 7,300 jobs brought into DeKalb, $130 million in personal income for DeKalb residents each year and $8.9 million in taxes annually for various county governmental agencies. The primary negative impact of the airport on county residents mentioned in the report was the devaluation of airport-area property because of aircraft noise.
The report explains that the findings are based on reviewing similar national studies, surveying area real estate agents and appraisers and examining sales data on the properties next to the airport over a nine-year period. The researchers determined that the airport has a "modest" impact on property owners -a net loss of $68 million in fair market value. They also estimated that the county loses at most $1.2 million annually in property taxes because of this devaluation. Using these figures, the researchers concluded that the airport's economic benefits to the county outweigh its costs by a 16-to-1 ratio, and its fiscal benefits outweigh the costs by a 7-to-1 ratio. As for the four alternate development plans, the researchers determined that the first two options ---maintaining the current size or expanding the airport ---would be viable for the county. The third option ---reducing the level of service ---would result in the airport losing money because of businesses leaving and then needing more money from the county. The report shows that the final alternative ---closing the airport ---could be a disaster. The county could lose $20 million to $25 million in redevelopment expenses, lose or have to pay back Federal Aviation Administration grants and lose tax funds while the property is being redeveloped over a probable 10-15 year period. Additionally, the county could lose many of the estimated 7,300 jobs generated by the airport. Charles Feltus, a member of the citizen watchdog group PDK Watch, said he is reviewing the study. "I can't offer a definitive comment on it, because I don't have a technical background, and it's taking a while to make sense of it all," Feltus said. "I can say that I think the section on negative impacts is weak ---I noticed that they didn't talk to any homeowners. I also don't know if I buy that 7-to-1 ratio or not."
PUBLICATION: The Evening Standard
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: News; Local; Pg. 2
BYLINE: John Myers
DATELINE: Palmerston North, New Zealand
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jill White
The Evening Standard reports the results of a recent survey on jet noise from the Palmerston North airport.
According to the article 183 people out of 1000 responded to a survey by Labour list MP Jill White on the noise created by air force jets using Palmerston North Airport, and 12 percent said there was a problem. Ms White believes the comments written on the forms warrant a meeting. RNZAF Aermacchi jet trainers from Ohakea periodically use Palmerston North Airport for training in civil-controlled airspace.
The article says the 1000 forms were circulated before Christmas. Ms White said people who weren't bothered by the noise probably wouldn't respond to the survey. But yesterday, she said she believed the nature of the comments, rather than the number of responses, warranted a public meeting. "It appears there are some areas where a mitigating path can be found," she said. There was a "fascinating split of opinion" in the 183 returns -- "quite strong views in all directions". A "serious nuisance" was claimed by 75 respondents, a "moderate nuisance" by 45, and "no nuisance" by 67.
The report says there had clearly been a wide exchange of views on the survey. Ms White cited a return mailed from Kimbolton, which referred to the effect of noise on stock. Those who complained of a serious nuisance were mainly concerned about not being able to hear telephone conversations, radio and television, and about the effect of the noise on children and pets. There were comments about the noise "getting on my nerves", and hurting the ears. Those who said there was a moderate nuisance said that, as long as the planes didn't use the airport too late in the day or for too long at a time, and as long as the frequency of use did not increase, they could live with it. Then there was a group of 67 respondents whose comments included expressions of support for the training exercises. "Some said they knew, when they bought their properties, there was an airport nearby, and accepted the noise. A number said they'd lived in Milson for 20 years or more, and the noise wasn't a problem. But another had lived there 26 years, and never got used to it. I suspect (the response) is enough for me to call it representative, and to organize a meeting."
PUBLICATION: Irvine Citizen
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: Community; Pg. 02
BYLINE: Valerie Avalos
DATELINE: Orange County, California
The Irvine Citizen interviewed Courtney Wiercioch, Orange County, California's program manager for the El Toro Airport Master Development Program. The Citizen talked with Wiercioch concerning San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell's ruling last week that major revisions must be made to the county's environmental analysis of El Toro airport noise, traffic and passenger demand. The article reports that the ruling requires the county to make additional comparisons based on existing or known conditions, such as road improvements now funded or in place. Wiercioch said that the ruling is not viewed as a major setback and will not stop base-reuse planning.
Wiercioch said, according to the article, that the Board of Supervisors has already decided that it will appeal parts of the ruling where the judge found against the county. It is their belief that the ruling doesn't reflect the facts of the case.
In terms of setbacks, Wiercioch said in the Irvine Citizen interview that the county will now have to give time, attention and resources to the prior document that they would have liked to spend on the future document.
In the interview, Wiercioch was asked how much the court-ordered revisions to the EIR would cost Orange county. She responded that they "don't know. And at this point we don't know if we're going to appeal on all of the issues or some of the issues and which ones we want to correct. So we still have some decisions to make about that. We're not back to square one because we have a full year of planning under our belt and the judge said that we can continue in the planning process. The Marines are leaving in 1999. And for the community to make the most of that base, we need to get our planning done."
In terms of upsides to the ruling, the Irvine Citizen reported that Wiercioch said that she thinks the ruling was very positive for the county. The environmental impact report was a huge document - the most expensive EIR the county has done. The ruling upheld the overwhelming majority of the document which is positive for the county. About 17 specific issues were raised by the petitioner. The judge upheld nine of these which allows the county to move forward with the planning process. In the article, the Irvine Citizen asked Courtney Wiercoch, "How do you think the county will benefit from bringing in an inter-national Airport?"
Wiercioch responded that, "There are a couple of things to keep in mind. The Board of Supervisors has determined that they believe a commercial aviation use is an appropriate use for a portion of the base. The board has not decided what that airport would look like or how large it would be or what kind of service it would provide or what kind of facilities would be provided there. An international airport is one of the components they will consider, but that decision has not been made."
She also said in the article that the lack of international service is a hindrance to the local economy. The provision of international service for both passenger and cargo would be a benefit to the tourism in the city, to trade to the whole technology import-export business. Wiercioch said that right now they are exporting all of these benefits to other communities - largely to L.A.X.
The Irvine Citizen also asked Wiercioch what she thought about the concerns that have been expressed by residents in the seven cities opposing the airport. And whether she thought that their concerns about the noise, traffic and the possible lowering of property values were legitimate.
The article reported that Wiercioch said, "I think it's always legitimate for people to take an interest in and ask questions about the community in which they live. I ask the same kind of questions about projects in my neighborhood."
Wiercoch also said, "Whether or not those concerns will be born out by the project is exactly why we're doing the analysis. We want to be able to answer those questions for people who say: "What will the noise environment be in my home, my child's school and what will the traffic be like on the freeway?""
The article reported that Wiercioch stated that the county's job from a staff prospective is to answer these types of questions. The county's job is to provide the information and let the board and the community decide.
The article reported that Wiercioch stated that there's information that's been issued that property values actually increase in the vicinity of an airport because it's a more dynamic community, it's economically stronger and there's greater job creation. It depends on your proximity to the airport.
In the article she said that sometimes a property value deduction is a function of how close you are to the airport. Because there is 18,000 acres of protected area already around the base. There are no homes as close to El Toro as you would find at John Wayne Airport.
According to the article, Wiercioch said that with El Toro you're not just planning the airport, you're planning all the land around it. So through zoning and planning you can ensure that the land uses around the airport won't be the kinds of things that the community doesn't want.
In the article, the Irvine Citizen asked, "The county has received a lot of criticism for its planning process. Some have suggested that the county is trying to bulldoze the airport through despite resident concerns. Do you think the criticism is justified and is the county doing anything to change the process to include more outside input?" In the article, Wiercioch responded, "I think the planning process has been fairly long, slow and methodical. The county has taken tremendous pains to make sure the community is involved. Orange County has been dealing with the base since 1993. It's 1998 right now. We're still planning. That doesn't sound like any decisions are being ramrodded. We won't come to the board with the next planning document until 1999."
In the article, Wiercioch ended by saying that the county's Website should be up and running January 12th. Included will be meeting agendas, flight maps, noise contour maps, newsletters, the actual resolution the board adopted and more.
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B02
BYLINE: Mary Ann Milbourn,
DATELINE: Orange County California
The Orange County Register reports that public support may be waning for the El Toro International Airport.
The article says it's been a long two years for supporters of an El Toro airport. Ever since March 26, 1996, when voters rejected an effort to stop the airport by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent, public support has been waning. At least three polls in the past year, including one for the county, show growing disenchantment with a proposed airport.
The article describes how airport proponents, however, remain undeterred. "There have been times in the past when we've been behind and we won two elections," said pro-airport spokesman Bruce Nestande. A new pro-airport drive, however, must win the hearts of a public buoyed by a booming economy and becoming more focused on quality-of-life issues, such as noise and neighborhoods, rather than jobs.
According to the article, four months after the county Board of Supervisors endorsed an aviation plan for the closing Marine base, a poll conducted for the county in April showed support for an El Toro airport dropping under 50 percent for the first time. The poll of 600 heads of household showed 45 percent favored an airport. There was a 4 percent margin of error. Majority support also eluded the airport plan in an independent poll of 1,002 residents done for the UCI Orange County Annual Survey in September. Forty-one percent favored an airport, 48 percent were opposed and 11 percent were undecided. The margin of error was 3 percent. Poll results released Wednesday also showed that a majority don't want an airport. All three polls consistently showed south Orange County is a stronghold of airport opposition. In two of the three polls, a majority of north-county residents favored an airport.
The report says Tom Shepard, who oversaw the south-county poll on behalf of Campaign Strategies Inc., said, "There is majority opposition to conversion of El Toro into an international airport." But Courtney Wiercioch, county El Toro reuse planning manager, said the results weren't as bad as airport opponents made them out to be. She said the county is planning to include many of the nonaviation alternatives supported by the public in the half of the base that is not going to be an airfield. "Our position is, you like a tech center? Great, we've got it. An educational complex would be great? We've got it. "
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: Business, Pg. 1F
BYLINE: Nora Lockwood Tooher; Journal-Bulletin Staff Writer
DATELINE: Providence, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that construction of Providence Place, a new mall in Providence, Rhode Island, is keeping some Westin Hotel guests up at night. They're losing sleep listening to the pounding of piles all night long at the mall site across Memorial Boulevard from the Westin. Construction times are dictated by Amtrak, which won't allow construction crews on the railroad tracks in the daytime when trains are running. The mall is to be built over the tracks.
The article reports that from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. during the week of January 15th, crews have been driving steel H piles between railroad tracks 1 and 2 at the mall site.
According to the article, Westin manager Tim Kirwan said he first learned of the nighttime pile driving Saturday night when some hotel guests complained. The pile driving started up again Tuesday night, prompting Kirwan to complain to Providence Place's developers.
"They were very apologetic," he was quoted as saying in the report, both about failing to notify the hotel and about the booming sound of pile driving all night long. Kirwan added that he's trying to cooperate, too.
"We're trying to take care of our guests, and get the Providence Place mall built," he said.
In all, about 30 guests have complained so far, Kirwan said in the article.
According to the article, Mike Doyle, a spokesman for Providence Place Group, the mall's developers, said nighttime pile driving was scheduled to continue until January 15th. After that, there will be a one-week break, with night pile driving due to resume the week of Jan. 26, and again three weeks after that.
The article stated that the railroad track pile driving is the first step in building a 130-foot extension of the existing train tunnel that now ends beneath the Francis Street bridge. Once the mall is completed sometime in the second half of 1999, trains will go beneath the center of the mall, although there won't be a stop there.
According to the article, crews are driving about 40 steel H piles for the train tunnel extension. After the piles are in, they'll pour concrete caps across the top of the piles and build concrete crash walls 2 feet thick and 26 feet high - strong enough to withstand the impact of a train crash. After that, they'll erect a steel structure that eventually will support the top of the building.
Construction crews can drive part of each pile into the ground by vibration, but the last several feet of each 80-foot-long pile "has to be pounded into the ground" with a traditional pile-driving rig, Doyle said in the article. Hence, the noise.
Doyle stated in the article that the developers have requested permission from Amtrak to start pile-driving work earlier, by 6 p.m., so crews could finish by midnight "and be less disruptive to the Westin Hotel in particular."
But he said, a train passes through Providence around 8 p.m., so it may not be possible.
Meanwhile, Kirwan was said in the report that, he's trying to move guests who are bothered by the noise to the city side of the hotel, which faces West Exchange Street Street. But with an 80 percent occupancy rate, "I simply don't have enough room to put everybody on the city side."
In the article, Kirwan also said he's put notes on guests' doors with a revised construction schedule advising them of the nighttime pile driving.
According to the article, while Kirwan is hoping the pounding of piles at night will soon cease, he also gently reminds complaining guests that "in any urban setting, overnight noise unfortunately is part of the territory."
PUBLICATION: Roanoke Times & World News
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: Virginia, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Betty Hayden Snider the Roanoke TIMES
DATELINE: Salem, Virginia
The Roanoke Times reports that a couple's request to open an in-home babysitting service on Bainbridge Street in Salem, Virginia has met with considerable opposition from their neighbors. Neighbors complained about increased noise, traffic, and decreased property values at a recent Salem Planning Commission hearing concerning the special use permit.
According to the article, these types of complaints raised Wednesday night were nothing new for the Salem Planning Commission. The residents of Bainbridge Street and others nearby turned out to protest a couple's request to open an in-home babysitting service. The issue is a controversial one the commission last considered in October in a similar but unrelated hearing.
The article stated that Deborah Calloway, who has lived on Bainbridge with her husband, Tony, for four years, wants to baby-sit eight children, including the couple's 3-year-old son, Travis. She worked in a children's hospital for six years and has worked at several large day-care centers in the area.
According to the article, Deborah was surprised that so many of her neighbors were opposed to her request. About two dozen people attended Wednesday's meeting, with 13 speaking against the babysitting service.
The report says that the middle-class neighborhood is one block from Roanoke Boulevard near the Roanoke-Salem line. Several houses back up to Honeytree Learning Center, a large day-care center. With that facility and a smaller babysitting operation already being run in the neighborhood, some neighbors said they have enough child care.
"We do not need a third day-care," said Robert Puch in the article, who complained that the children from Honeytree and the existing babysitting house already make plenty of noise outdoors. Others complained that added traffic might endanger people who walk on the street in the mornings and evenings because there are no sidewalks in the area. Some feared that the children might play in the street, creating a traffic hazard.
However, the report stated that the street is wider than many residential streets, and the city planning department's report said it could handle any traffic generated by the babysitting service.
Mary Burton, who owns a duplex on Bainbridge, said in the article that she's concerned the babysitting service would make it harder for her to find tenants.
According to the report, the Calloways were asking for a special-use permit. It does not change the existing zoning, and the permit expires if they move.
The couple said in the article that they couldn't understand what people are so worried about. But Deborah had heard a rumor had circulated that she would be keeping 200 children.
Tony Calloway, a purchasing agent at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said in the article that he believes racial prejudice may be involved because his is the only black family on their street.
He was quoted in the article, "I think deep inside it is. We don't bother anybody. We take care of our property like everybody else."
Tony also said in the article that he expected some opposition after reading about the case of Bill and Kathy Patterson. The Pattersons, who are also black and live in Salem, encountered considerable opposition to their request in October for an in-home babysitting service.
According to the report, after the Planning Commission split 2-2 in the Patterson's case, City Council unanimously approved the request.
On Wednesday night, the commission recommended approval of the Calloways' request, 4-0. Member Dave Robbins was out of town on business.
Betty Hayden Snider can be reached at 981-3237 or bettyh@roanoke.com
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: JANUARY 15, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A18
BYLINE: Rick Delvecchio, Chronicle Staff Writer
DATELINE: San Leandro, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: The Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Oakland International Airport's proposed expansion has prompted two lawsuits from neighboring California communities, where residents fear they'll be stuck with more noise pollution. The city of San Leandro, California filed suit yesterday in Alameda County Superior Court, charging that Oakland Port officials' environmental review of the $600 million project did not adequately address the effects of added traffic, noise and air pollution on San Leandro residents. In addition, a lawsuit against the port is reported to have been filed today by a group of airport neighbors in Alameda.
Liane Randolph, San Leandro's assistant city attorney, said in the article that the action comes amid negotiations between the two cities over demands made by the San Leandro City Council in November.
San Leandro officials stated in the report that Oakland should close the airport's North Field to night operations, restrict the types of planes using North Field runways, eliminate outside engine testing and adopt a home and school noise insulation program.
The article reported that a group of airport neighbors in Alameda, called the Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity, announced it would file a similar lawsuit against the port today.
According to the article, Port administrators have said they have taken reasonable steps to ease the effects of the expansion on airport neighbors in San Leandro and Alameda. They have said steps to eliminate the conflicts, such as realigning runways and refusing to accommodate cargo shippers seeking to expand, would be unrealistic.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A03
BYLINE: from Staff Reports
DATELINE: Oxnard, California
The Ventura County Star reports that despite lingering concerns about construction noise, traffic snarls and other issues, the Oxnard City Council has approved measures that could clear the way for a new Highway 1 interchange at Pleasant Valley Road. The council voted 5-0 Tuesday to approve an environmental study and an agreement with the state Department of Transportation to build the new interchange and eventually reroute Pacific Coast Highway off Oxnard Boulevard to Rice Avenue.
The article stated that area residents, including those who live in nearby mobile-home parks, told the council at a City Hall hearing Tuesday that they worry about drainage problems, noisy construction continuing into the evenings and traffic problems caused by the closure of several existing roads.
According to the article, council members voted to approve the agreement and environmental study, but they also asked city staff members to work with the state to ease the residents' concerns. They directed city employees to closely monitor construction and to ask the state to consider redesigning the interchange to ease some traffic access problems.
Councilman John Zaragoza said in the article, "The Caltrans people said they will work with the city and the county to follow the rules we have here, hopefully to mitigate the noise problems, drainage problems and other problems."
According to the report, the proposed $40 million interchange has been in the planning process for several years and is meant to improve the route from the Port of Hueneme to Highway 101.
Councilman Tom Holden said in the article he wants to redesign the planned interchange so drivers heading north on Highway 1 from Santa Monica would not have to go through a maze of turns to continue on Oxnard Boulevard, the current Highway 1, through downtown Oxnard.
"If this becomes a bottleneck, then we've significantly discouraged the efforts for downtown," Holden said in the report.
According to the report, the state Transportation Commission must grant final approval, but the two-year construction project could begin in May 2000.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Times
DATE: January 15, 1998
SECTION: Part C; Metropolitan TIMES; Regional News; Pg. C7
BYLINE: Walden Siew; the Washington TIMES
DATELINE: Washington, D.C.
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ann Krahnke, chairman of Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments's (COG) noise-abatement committee
The Washington Times reports that the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) unanimously opposed a federal bill that would allow more planes to land at Washington National Airport, fearing increased traffic would mean more noise. COG opposes the Aviation Competition Enhancement Bill, introduced by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican in October, which seeks exemptions to a "perimeter rule," which bans nonstop flights longer than 1,250 miles into or out of National. A companion House bill introduced by Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., Tennessee Republican, proposes to add up to six more flights a day at National. According to the report, opponents say this would increase noise.
The article reports that Betty Ann Krahnke, chairman of COG's noise-abatement committee, told the full council, "[Sen. McCain's] legislation represents a significant step backward in airport noise abatement in this region." The full council voted unanimously to oppose Mr. McCain and Mr. Duncan's proposed legislation.
According to the report critics say Mr. McCain, who was in Phoenix yesterday, is pushing for the exemption as a way to bolster America West Airlines, an Arizona-based air carrier. Mr. McCain has called the charge "ludicrous" and "offensive."
The article includes Mr. McCain's statement yesterday that "Unfortunately, [COG] has taken an action that will neither serve the interests of their own constituents nor those of air travelers across the country."
According to the article, COG Chairman Robert Dix, a Republican Fairfax County supervisor, instructed its staff to send a notification letter to the House Aviation Subcommittee, which Mr. Duncan chairs.
Mr. Duncan's bill would give the secretary of transportation authority to grant two exemptions per hour, and no more than six per day, to what is known as a "slot rule."
According to the report, FAA slot rules limit National Airport to 12 general aviation flights an hour, which is designed to push growth in air traffic from National out to Washington Dulles or Baltimore-Washington international airports.
The article states that in October, Mr. Duncan told the House his bill would open up new slots for airlines to serve underserved cities like Knoxville and Syracuse.
"It would allow more competition in the marketplace," said David Balloff in the article. Balloff is Mr. Duncan's press secretary, who declined to comment about COG's opposition.
The article reports that last month, the Federal Aviation Administration backed a Boeing study that found that lifting the perimeter rule at National Airport would not cause an increase in aircraft noise, as previously thought. The Boeing study found that carriers often use aircraft that have better range and fuel efficiency for longer routes. Comparing noise made by local vs. long-distance flights, the study found less than a 3-decibel difference - too little to be perceived.
"We disagree with that," said Mrs. Krahnke in the article. "Three decibels is considered significant by our State Highway Administration. It does cause more noise, even if it is 3 decibels." Krahnke is a Republican council member from Montgomery County.
In the article, Mrs. Krahnke also criticized the FAA for not giving her noise-abatement committee advance notice of its plan to combine four flight-control centers and reconfigure airspace around the Washington region to make air traffic control more efficient.
The article reports that COG and the noise-abatement committee agreed yesterday to send out requests for a series of meetings by the end of February with FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, local and state leaders to discuss the perimeter and slot rules and seek public input.
"We want to make sure that we are involved in the process for the plan," George L. Nichols, a COG staffer for the noise -abatement committee, said in the article. "The local governments want to be assured that they will have a role early in the process, not after the plans have been made."
PUBLICATION: The Capital
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: West County; Pg. B6
BYLINE: by Stacey Danzuso, West County Staff Writer
DATELINE: Russett, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Brian Stempowski, Russett resident
The Capital reports that a proposed speedway just west of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in Russett, Maryland has created a slew of concerns for neighbors. These concerns center around potential noise and decreased property values.
According to the article nearly 75 residents have contacted County Councilman Bert L. Rice's, R-Odenton, office to voice opposition to Middle River Racing's recent proposal
In the article, Jim Golden, Mr. Rice's legislative aide said the calls have come primarily from residents of the planned unit development Russett, who rank noise at the top of their list of concerns. Traffic and fears a racetrack in their back yard would lower property values are also priority concerns, Mr. Golden said.
According to the article, while neighbors contend their lifestyle will diminish, Middle River officials say otherwise.
" Noise won't be a nuisance or a bother," Joe Mattioli, chief operating officer, said in the article. He said federal guidelines limit track noise levels to no more than 65 decibels at the property line. Studies done by MRRA show the track will maintain a level of less than 65 decibels, and weekly races would generate significantly less noise because mufflers could be required on cars, he said in the article.
The article reports that Middle River Racing has proposed several design mechanisms that would diminish noise. The track will be sunk into the ground and utilize a 30-foot berm. Mr. Mattioli said in the article that the grandstand will also serve as a natural buffer between the track and the Russett community. The open side of the complex would face Route 32 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
According to the article, residents are skeptical of the association's claims. "I defy anyone to tell me I won't hear (the track)," said Russett resident Brian Stempowski. "Some people might hear it more than me, but we will all be affected."
The article reports that residents also don't buy Middle River Racing's assertion that existing roads can handle the traffic that their property values won't plummet.
"How will I sell my house eventually?" Mr. Stempowski asked in the article. "My home is only three years old and in a beautiful community but a racetrack could change that."
The article reports that Mr. Rice said the outcome of a meeting with Middle River officials and Russett residents Monday showed "the bottom line issue has to do with property values."
Mr. Mattioli said in the article, "We believe property values will increase ... they're building condos around the Charlotte track right now."
According to the article, residents are also pointing at potential traffic tie-ups the motorsports complex could generate.
Middle River Racing officials say traffic studies show no improvements to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway or Route 32 would be necessary.
The article reports that Mr. Mattioli said that with direct access from Route 32, attendees will not need to use local roads. He also promised to work closely with the Maryland Transit Authority to work out satellite parking and mass transit plans.
"I find it hard to believe resourceful people won't head up Route 1 and over Route 198 if traffic backs up," Mr. Stempowski said in the article.
Residents familiar also say Route 32 could not handle traffic on big race dates - which would draw about 60,000 people. They say upgrades in front of the National Security Agency would be necessary.
"We need improvements on to Route 32 first," said Greater Severn Improvement Association president Mike Shylanski at a recent meeting, as reported in the article.
According to the article, Mr. Rice was optimistic that they could resolve traffic issues.
PUBLICATION: The Idaho Statesman
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: Local ; Pg. 3b
BYLINE: by Candice Chung
DATELINE: Star, Idaho
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pat McGavran and Brad Carlson, local residents
The Idaho Statesman reports that the Ada County Commission will have the final say Thursday on an application for a gravel pit near Star, Idaho. According to the article, the proposed operation would be on about 30 acres of the 600-acre Phillips Bros. Cattle Co. ranch south of the Star city limits. It would remove close to 1 million cubic yards of gravel in the next 10 years. The Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission denied the application for the gravel pit in July 1997, largely because of a public outcry against the project.
The article reports that with more than 100 letters in opposition to the project, the commissioners will have the tough decision of overriding or upholding Planning and Zoning's decision.
"It meets the comprehensive plan. The question is will it meet the zoning ordinance," Daren Fluke of Ada County Development Services said in the article. "The commissioners will have to decide will it cause damage, hazard or be a nuisance to the neighbors."
According to the article, residents such as Pat McGavran say it will cause all three problems to their neighborhood by lowering property values, filling streets with dangerous truck traffic, and creating dangerous dust levels and noise.
The article reports that McGavran has stopped construction of her house, which is 1,000 feet from the site, because of those concerns.
"It would be a shame to see a rural residential area with recreational wildlife habitat and excellent residential development potential turn into a string of industrial gravel pits and crushers," McGavran said in the article.
The noise and dust impact would be minimal, because the facility would be surrounded by large areas of open land, Chris Korte, a consultant representing the developers, said in the article.
He said in the article that mining and crushing would take place only three months out of the year.
"I don't think people understand how large the property is, how far it is from the affected properties or how much noise a gravel crusher makes," Korte said. "We've done some sound studies, and I don't think the neighbors will even hear it."
As for the traffic, Korte said in the article, the trucks will mainly use Idaho 44, which is designed to carry commerce across the state.
Neighbors say the impacts have been downplayed and that they worry that approval of this site would set a dangerous precedent.
"This may sound like a small proposal to other people, but I know there are other gravel pit operators waiting to see if this is approved," Brad Carlson, who lives less than half a mile away said in the article. "If this one is OK'd, then everyone else jumps on board, and we don't have a chance."
Korte emphasized in the article that the use is temporary and said the pits eventually would become wildlife ponds, which he said would enhance the neighborhood. He has created a Web page that includes pictures of how the site will look from neighboring homes after the mining is completed.
The article reports that Korte's Web site can be found at http://www.primenet.com/ korte/phillips
Star Mayor Joe Watson said in the article that the ponds could be a nice amenity when the mining is finished, but he understands the concerns of residents and has a few of his own regarding the increased traffic.
"Personally speaking, there is no question in my mind that there will be more traffic through town," he said in the article. "That's my concern, first and foremost. "
According to the article, if the proposal is denied, the developers would have to wait a full year before resubmitting the same proposal, or they could appeal the matter in court.
If you go
The Ada County Commission's hearing on a proposed gravel pit near Star will begin at 6 p.m. Thursday in the Les Bois Room of Boise City Hall, 150 N. Capitol Blvd.
PUBLICATION: Las Vegas Review-Journal
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: Aa; Pg. 1Aa
BYLINE: Scott Gulbransen
DATELINE: Las Vegas, Nevada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Veltman, chairman of the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that development and growth is an issue which affects all residents of Las Vegas, Nevada no matter what part of the city they reside in. A citizens advocacy group in the area, the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council, is doing its part to help preserve the area from uncontrolled growth. The Advisory Council's input on two recently proposed projects have lead to changes in the projects to reduce noise and other negativeeffects on nearby residents.
The article reports that the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council has been in existence since 1990 when the city of Las Vegas and Clark County finalized the Northwest Master Plan. The group, selected by the County Commissioners, has no real power but closely advises commissioner Lance Malone regarding growth issues in the Northwest. According to the article, the only requirement for applicants wanting to serve on the board is that they live in the Northwest.
"We have reached the level where if we suggest something the commission usually listens to us," Jim Veltman, chairman of the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council said in the article. "Lance Malone has told us he will back us on all our suggestions and that is what he has done."
Malone said in the article that the input provided by the council allows him to follow the will of his constituents much more effectively.
The article reports that the group has spent the past few months working closely with the city and county in developing a regional park near Lone Mountain. With its input, plans have been reworked to please the citizens.
"The park is an important issue the citizens in our area are very concerned about," Don Dickson, vice-chairman of the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council, was quoted as saying in the article. "We have sat down with the county and held public meetings so citizens can tell our elected officials what we want in our park."
Out of those meetings have come some significant changes brought about by citizen input.
According to the article, the park was first planned to include several lighted baseball and softball fields but has shifted to a more docile environment.
"The homeowners who will live across from the site wanted a more passive park due to noise pollution," Dickson said in the article. "We had one man tell us he can hear when someone opens a beer can because the sound can echo right off the side of Lone Mountain. If you add four ballfields the noise would really be unbearable for residents."
According to the article, the baseball fields are sorely needed and will be moved further east toward U.S. Highway 95.
The article reports that the group has also been keeping a keen eye on the Las Vegas beltway project to make sure it fits in with the area.
"Mainly we have been in contact with the Nevada Department of Transportation and Clark County to make sure it is depressed like they have said it would be," Veltman said in the article. "It is a very important project for everyone in the valley but it needs to fit with what is surrounding it as well."
According to the article, projects like the Lone Mountain regional park and the beltway are just small examples of how the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council works to preserve the rural feel of the Northwest.
The article reports that the Lone Mountain Citizens Advisory Council meets the second Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at the Rainbow Library located at 3150 N. Buffalo Drive off Cheyenne Road. The meeting is open to the public and the next scheduled meeting is Tuesday.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion; Pg. A12
DATELINE: Cary, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: P.C. Murphy, writer of editorial
An editorial in the News and Observer by P. C. Murphy of Chapel Hill, North Carolina wants to make clear two things regarding FedEx's plan for a possible hub at Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU). One, the noise involved is largely night-time noise, with arrivals and departures heaviest between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. and two, noise will affect many area communities, not just Cary, North Carolina.
According to the editorial, passenger operations at RDU typically close down short of midnight and resume the next morning. An air freight hub is designed specifically for inbound flights in the first part of the "overnight" delivery promise and outbound flights for the second half of the night.
The editorial reports that in recent debates about use of The University of North Carolina's (UNC) Horace Williams Airport, it was discovered that air cargo flights twice a night over Chapel Hill were compounding the night noise problem. The editorial reports that these flights typically occur shortly after 3 a.m. (inbound) and again around 5 a.m. (outbound), Monday through Saturday mornings.
The officer on the RDU Noise Hotline confirmed that such a schedule is characteristic of air-freight operations and that some lower-altitude approach patterns could indeed include parts of Orange and Durham, North Carolina counties.
The editorial claims that it's not hard to imagine that other parts of Wake County and surrounding counties could be affected as well. The Horace Williams example was just one flight each way, each night. FedEx's proposal plans for 20 jets initially and more later on.
According to the editorial, "being sensitive to" community needs had better include honest recognition of the potential effects, and all the communities potentially involved had better be aware of them as well - weighing the merits against the roaring in the night. Once the planes are flying, complaints about noise will be futile.
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: General News, Pg. A6
BYLINE: by Doug Campbell; Staff Writer
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
The News & Record reports that neighbors have mixed feelings about the possibility of FedEx adding 20 flights a day to Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina
The article reports that for years, Debbie Gautreau has co-existed peacefully with Piedmont Triad International Airport. Although aircraft headlights occasionally light up her living room, noise from jet engines has never bothered Gautreau or her family.
"Ninety-nine percent of the time, you never hear them," Gautreau, whose home is less than a mile from the runway, said in the article.
Cardinal Country Club resident Al Ihrig tells a different story in the article. His home lies in the shadow of bad-weather flight patterns.
"It's kind of loud over here," Ihrig, who has lived near the airport for nearly 12 years, said in the article. "My porch shakes. The conversation stops."
According to the article, noise concerns are the reason word leaked out about Federal Express' plan to establish a shipping hub somewhere in the Carolinas. A group of worried leaders in Cary, near Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU), blew the whistle this past weekend.
"From what I've heard, it would not be good for our community," Cary Mayor Koka Booth told the Raleigh News & Observer, according to the article. Booth and other city leaders questioned whether the increased noise of an additional 20 flights a day through RDU was worth the price of 1,500 jobs.
According to the article, if FedEx settles on the Piedmont Triad International Airport, noise will inevitably be a topic of concern among airport neighbors. But so far in the airport's history, noisy aircraft haven't been a big problem, Ted Johnson, Triad airport executive director, said in the article.
The article reports that unlike Raleigh's airport, which handles more than 400 flights daily, Greensboro sees only 84 passenger and cargo aircraft on its runways each day. This is one of the reasons why noisy flights have mostly been a non-issue in the Triad.
"I couldn't even have to use one hand to count the noise complaints we've had in the past year," Johnson said in the article. Most complaints happen when aircraft warm up their engines at night, something the airport discourages.
According to the article, the Triad airport's noise cone overlaps little residential development. The noise level inside the cone when an airplane takes off or lands averages 65 decibels. By comparison, a nearby lawn mower produces about 85 decibels.
Jet engines seem louder at night than during the day because there is less ambient noise, according to the article. This could become important in Greensboro because FedEx plans on clustering its approximately 20 flights between 7 p.m. and 1 a.m.
The article reports that if FedEx picks Greensboro, airport neighbor Gautreau said she will support the move.
"I don't think I'd be opposed to (FedEx) unless they bring a noise problem," she said in the article. "I live there and I think it's important for the city to grow."
But Ihrig isn't so sure. "I'm not in favor of it," he was quoted as saying in the article. "I'd hate to be selfish, but it could get pretty bad. "If it was me, put it someplace else."
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B1
BYLINE: by Coleman Warner Staff Writer
DATELINE: New Orleans, Louisiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: St. Peter Street Neighborhood Improvement Association; the French Quarter Citizens for Preservation of Residential Quality; the Friends of Jackson Square; the Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents and Associates.
The Times-Picayune reports that State Senator Paulette Irons has stepped into the battle over noise control in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana. According to the article, Senator Irons, D-New Orleans, said Tuesday she will ask the state to develop a tourism management plan for New Orleans that covers noise and other quality-of-life issues. Irons, spoke at a news conference called by four groups of Quarter residents who want tougher enforcement of noise controls in their neighborhood. The Quarter groups holding the news conference were the St. Peter Street Neighborhood Improvement Association, the French Quarter Citizens for Preservation of Residential Quality, the Friends of Jackson Square and the Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents and Associates.
According to the article, the meeting was held at the office of the groups' attorney, Patrick Klotz, and included claims from several Quarter residents that bombs, smashed windows and a car burning may have figured in a campaign to intimidate those who complain about noise.
The article reports that city officials have long resisted calls for writing a tourism management plan, even though French Quarter advocates say one is badly needed and some other cities with historic districts have such plans. It wasn't clear how the state would craft a tourism management plan for New Orleans, but Irons said Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco's office, which oversees state tourism programs, could play a part.
According to the article, the resident groups were outraged by a City Council decision in September to raise the decibel levels allowed in the Quarter. Mayor Marc Morial's administration sought the change in the hope it would help settle a federal lawsuit filed against the city by street musicians who said old noise controls made it impossible for them to ply their trade.
"I am confused that we have raised the noise level from 70 to 80 (decibels in Quarter residential zones)," Irons, whose district includes the Quarter, said in the article. "Somebody said that there is a lawsuit from musicians and that they have rights. Well, residents have rights, too."
The article reports that Irons was joined by state Sen. Diana Bajoie, D-New Orleans, who also expressed support for curbing quality-of-life problems in the Quarter. Bajoie said in the article that she doesn't want to be at odds with City Hall.
"I think it's going to take all of us working together," she said in the article.
According to the article, the four Quarter groups asked for state government's help in:
1) Establishing a quality-of-life hotline that Quarter residents could use to report noise and other problems needing police action.
2) Encouraging the Police Department to enforce noise controls.
3) Petitioning the U.S. Department of the Interior to recommend steps for balancing residential and commercial interests in the Quarter. The department includes the National Park Service, which offers tours in the Quarter.
4) Asking a local university to develop a tourism management plan that could be presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council.
5) Establishing a Quality of Life Committee to work on improving Quarter living conditions.
6) Pushing for an investigation of residents' claims that they have been harassed or threatened after lodging noise complaints.
Saint Philip Street resident Stuart Smith said in the article that a flaming Molotov cocktail was thrown on his balcony and his car was burned in separate incidents in September. Saint Louis Street residents Janet and Robert Valkavich said in the article that they found a pipe bomb, its fuse lit but burned out, in their garden in early 1994. In each case, the residents said in the article, they had complained to police about noise from bars.
The article reports that Klotz has asked U.S. Attorney Eddie Jordan to investigate the incidents. Although Klotz didn't cite it as a reason for contacting Jordan, other Quarter activists are angry that city police have turned up nothing in their investigation of the incidents.
According to the article, Klotz also called Jordan's attention to complaints by Ursulines Street resident John Lynott, who said his front windows were shattered twice in October after he complained to police about amplified music near his home.
It was reported that police officials have said they have no suspects in the reported incidents and haven't found a basis for assuming they are connected.
PUBLICATION: The Vancouver Sun
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. B7
BYLINE: Janet Steffenhagen; VANCOUVER SUN
DATELINE: Blueberry Farms, British Columbia, Canada
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Charlene Brown, William Brown, John Austin, Carolyn Bridge, residents of Blueberry Farms; Blueberry Indian band
The Vancouver Sun reports the idyllic existence of residents of Blueberry Farms, British Columbia, Canada ended last summer when they discovered that Calgary-based Remington Energy had purchased the rights to oil and gas reserves under their property. The news came as a shock, because residents were unaware the province retained those rights when making land sales this century and can sell them without notifying or consulting the surface dwellers.
According to the article, the community is located east of the Alaska Highway, in the backwoods of northern British Columbia. There, group of people from different countries came together 25 years ago to live off the land and raise wholesome children. They have led a quiet life, independent and free farming the land, selling their produce, creating several profitable companies and schooling their children.
The article reports that now the community of Blueberry Farms, B.C. is in disarray - oil and gas have permeated their lives. Some members, worried about the effects of industrial pollution on themselves, their children and their land, are thinking about moving away.
"We feel invaded," Charlene Brown, who has lived at Blueberry Farms for more than seven years, said in the article. "It used to be a nice, pristine, wholesome community to raise our families."
"Now we might as well live in Pittsburgh," her husband, William Brown, who manages the farm's Pure Seed Company, which sells organic seed potatoes, added in the article.
He dismisses assurances from oil and gas producers that the industry will hurt neither the health of community members nor their environment.
"Sounds just like the tobacco industry," he said in the article, shaking his head.
John Austin, a member of the farm's board of directors, says in the article that the oil companies have brought in experts to convince residents they won't be hurt by the development. "But common sense tells you this is not the way it should be and it's going to cause problems," he said in the article.
Carolyn Bridge, who, according to the article, has lived at Blueberry for three years, wonders if anyone in Victoria is listening to voices from so far away.
According to the article, the community, which has kept a low profile for years, is now looking for attention in the hope of persuading government to apply tougher regulations to oil and gas companies.
Ken Truscott, Remington's vice-president of land and business development, says in the article that his company is doing everything it can to help the community understand and adjust to industrial activity.
It is in Remington's best interest to work with the community and to make residents aware of how the industry is continually taking steps to improve its environmental and safety record, he added in the article.
But don't expect more than can be delivered.
"In any industry you do what you are paid to do, which is to find oil and gas," Truscott was quoted as saying from his Calgary office.
"I don't think northeastern B.C. should be exempt from development of any industry if it makes sense for the province as a whole."
Thiessen said in the article that the government seems reluctant to toughen regulations for oil and gas producers for fear they would withdraw from the area.
Austin said in the article that the regulations imposed on the industry by the B.C. employment and investment ministry are inadequate to deal with their concerns.
According to the article these include: - Flaring of waste gas damages land, air and water. - Seismic grid lines shatter the ecosystem and scare wildlife. - Noise, air and soil pollution threaten organic farms. - A leak of toxic sour gas could be disastrous, especially for Blueberry Farms, because the homes are in a valley and sour gas sinks. - Increased miscarriages among pregnant sheep and goats living near flares. - Emergency evacuation plans for residents near sour gas wells cause anxiety (especially at Blueberry Farms, where there are few vehicles and poor communications).
The article reports that late last year, the community won an unexpected reprieve. The Blueberry Indian band obtained a court order halting Remington's 3D seismic tests in the Blueberry area because the band was not properly consulted about the impacts of the development. According to the article, the band argued that 3D seismic grids would interfere with an important trapline, diminish hunting opportunities on private and Crown lands and disrupt a native burial ground.
According to the article even some people who work in the industry are upset with the pace of development in the northeast. Peter Dumlich of Sikanni Enterprises Ltd., which operates oil wells and plants in the Pink Mountain area farther to the north, said in the article that the newly constructed Caribou Gas Plant close to his home has brought the stench of sour gas and the noise of increased truck traffic.
PUBLICATION: Wisconsin State Journal
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: Breakaway/Daybreak, Pg. 2D, Recreation Notes
DATELINE: Wisconsin
The Wisconsin State Journal reports that increased complaints about noisy snowmobiles have attracted the attention of the Governor's Snowmobile Council, the Association of Wisconsin Snowmobile Clubs and state recreation officials. Some of the complaints are related to an increasing number of snowmobile owners who are replacing their machines' factory-installed exhaust systems with ones that boost horsepower but are noisier, according to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
According to the article, some trails have been rerouted to address the problem. In addition, the council and association have requested that the DNR step up efforts to educate snowmobile owners about noise laws and increase efforts to enforce those laws.
The article reports that the fine for not having a functioning muffler or for creating excessive noise is $122.90 and could double for repeat violations.
For more information, call Tom Thoresen at the DNR, 266-7820; Jim Saari, Governor's Snowmobile Council, (906) 932-2518; or Bill Pfaff, Association of Wisconsin Snowmobile Clubs, (608) 562-3858.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: Local (News), Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Tom Pelton, Sun Staff
DATELINE: Russett and Maryland City, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peter Militch, member of CARS (Citizens Against the Racing Stadium)
The Baltimore Sun reports that developers of a proposed 54,800-seat auto racetrack west of Fort Meade, Maryland said yesterday they might build eight public ball fields, a skateboard park and improve road intersections to win the support of skeptical neighbors. This seems to indicate the Middle River Racing Association of Timonium developers want to be "good neighbors" to nearby Russett and Maryland City, according to Anne Arundel County Executive John G. Gary. But some community leaders reacted hostilely, saying in the article that construction of soccer fields would not ease the noise and traffic problems created by a racing complex.
"What the heck would we need a skateboard park for if kids don't even want to be in the area because of loud NASCAR races, motorcycle races and monster-truck rallies?" Jeanne Mignon, a Russet Homeowners' Association representative, asked in the article.
According to the article, last night was the first time developers met to discuss their proposal with a small number of Russett and Maryland City leaders at Odenton Elementary School.
The article reports that although the racetrack could generate as much as $10 million a year in taxes for the county, Gary and County Councilman Bert L. Rice have insisted they will not support it unless residents are convinced the track will not hurt their neighborhoods.
The developers -- who recently announced that they had given up building in Baltimore County -- have asked Anne Arundel County to change zoning laws to speed the approval process, according to the article.
In the interview with The Baltimore Sun, developers said they hope to build the track by 2000 on 380 acres of industrial land south of Route 32 and west of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. The site is an abandoned gravel mine, with the Maryland House of Correction Reformatory for Women to the north, an industrial park to the east and the headquarters of the National Security Agency to the east.
"What we've got there now is an industrial moonscape," Joseph Mattioli III, chief operating officer of the racing association, said in the article. "We could plant a petunia in the middle of it and it would be an improvement."
Chris Lencheski, general manager of the racing association, said in the article that the roughly 17,000 cars that major events would draw to the track would be no problem to Russett. Fans would avoid the subdivision, driving along Route 32 to Dorsey Run Road.
The track would be surrounded by 30-foot earthen berms that would dampen sound to a level that would not disturb neighbors, the developers said in the article. In addition, the builders would leave a wooded area to shield the Russett subdivision from the track.
The racing complex would produce air pollution -- about 7.3 tons a year of volatile organic compounds and 1.7 million tons a year of nitrous oxides, the developers admitted in the article. But this is below the federal limit of 25 tons a year for such a development, they also say.
To convince neighbors that the track would be good for them, the developers might offer to build recreational facilities, Mattioli said in the article. The article reports that during a presentation to community leaders last night, Mattioli said the developers don't yet know what neighborhood improvements they might pay for. That decision would be made by the residents, he said.
One member of the audience said that Route 32 is inadequate and would need to be widened.
"In my opinion, we need to get that road fixed before this project could move forward," Mike Shylanski, Greater Severn Improvement Association president, said in the article.
"The community is saying, 'What's in this for us?' " Gary said in the article. "[The recreational facilities] certainly are one thing that could be in this for the community -- if they are willing."
Peter Militch, a Russett resident, said in the article that the community cannot be bought off. He said neighbors are already organizing to fight the racetrack under the acronym CARS (Citizens Against the Racing Stadium). "They have zero probability of winning over the support of the community," said Militch, a 42-year-old engineer.
Pub Date: 1/13/98
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Jon Davis Daily Herald Staff Writer
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Arlington Heights, Illinois Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise
The Chicago Daily Herald reports many eyes will be watching tonight as the Arlington Heights, Illinois Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise takes up the question of whether the village should join a pro-third airport group. While many south and west suburban communities have joined the Partnership for Metropolitan Chicago's Airport Future, Arlington Heights would be the first Northwest suburb outside of Suburban O'Hare Committee members Des Plaines, Elk Grove Village and Park Ridge, Illinois to join. "People are looking to see what Arlington will do," said Trustee Virginia Kucera, who will chair the committee's 7:30 p.m. meeting in the council room at village hall, 33 S. Arlington Heights Road. "We're going to have a thorough discussion."
According to the article, the Partnership for Metropolitan Chicago's Airport Future - founded by U.S. Reps. Henry Hyde, a Bensenville Republican, and Jesse Jackson Jr., a Chicago Democrat - calls for a third regional airport to be open in the South suburbs by the year 2005.
The article reports that it also calls for a permanent ban on new runways at O'Hare, protections for Midway Airport and high-speed rail links between the three airports and downtown Chicago.
Arlington Heights noise committee will recommend by January 20 whether the village, a member of the Chicago-sponsored O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, should sign up. The committee's focus for its 6-year life has been reducing airplane noise over the village, rather than a regional noise reduction approach, Mayor Arlene Mulder said in the article.
While the committee will look at a third airport in terms of how, and whether it would reduce noise over Arlington Heights, the bottom line is the village will act in the best interest of its residents, she said in the article.
According to the article, representatives from American Airlines, the Arlington Heights Chamber of Commerce, Suburban O'Hare Commission and Hyde's office are scheduled to attend the meeting. Chicago and United Airlines representatives were also invited.
PUBLICATION: WORLD TIMES, INC
DATE: January 13, 1998
DATELINE: Bangkok, Thailand
The World Times reports that Deputy City Clerk Wanchart Suphachaturas said that the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) is considering reviving a martial law imposing fines on owners of passenger boats that operate on canals and the river and generate excessive noise.
According to the article, a Bt200 fine, imposed under a 16th Revolutionary Council Order, will be imposed if noise levels in excess of 80 decibels are not addressed within two weeks of a warning being issued by the BMA.
PUBLICATION: The Herald-Sun
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: Business; Pg. B1;
BYLINE: Claire Cusick the Herald-Sun
DATELINE: Morrisville, North Carolina
The Herald-Sun reports that Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) wants to be Federal Express' next national hub. The Memphis-based overnight delivery company has issued requests for proposals to airports in the eastern United States seeking one to be its East Coast hub. FedEx is confirming neither the names of the airports nor the number contacted, but RDU Director John Brantley confirmed Monday RDU is one.
"We will respond to their request for proposals," Brantley said in the article.
A FedEx hub would bring about 20 extra flights daily to RDU, FedEx spokesman Jess Bunn said in the article. FedEx would like to begin construction in spring 1999 and begin operation "no later than fall of 2001," Bunn said.
The article reports that RDU averages about 400 flights a day.
Bunn said in the article that a FedEx hub could create about 700 to 800 jobs initially, and eventually as many as 1,500.
According to the article, FedEx has national hubs in Memphis, Tenn.; Anchorage, Alaska; Indianapolis; and Fort Worth, Texas.
Cary officials fear possible noise increases, Jess Ward, one of seven Cary council members, said in the article.
"I don't believe we have all the facts yet," Ward said in the article. "Of course, we'd love to have their business if it can fit ... and not hurt our citizens. The noise could be an issue. We're not sure."
Morrisville Town Manager David Hodgkins said in the article that he hadn't heard of the possible hub or any reaction to it.
"As far as our potential reaction to it ... we've lived with airport noise for years here," Hodgkins said in the article.
Excessive airport noise was a problem in Morrisville in the years American Airlines had an RDU hub, Hodgkins said, but that was mostly due to older planes and the frequency of flights. Neither may apply to FedEx.
"We really don't know enough at this point to know how it's going to affect us," Hodgkins said in the article.
Tim Ward, president of Alliance Air Services, which manages the Fort Worth Alliance Airport where FedEx has a hub, said in the article that FedEx's schedule has changed from month to month since opening in September. "December, of course, was a very busy month."
According to the article, now FedEx operates Monday through Thursday nights, 22 to 23 flights per night. Fifteen of that total are jets, and six or seven are smaller planes.
Fort Worth Alliance averages about 400 landings per day but is an "industrial" airport, Ward said in the article, which means mostly cargo, military and private planes fly in and out. According to the article, nearby Dallas/Fort Worth Airport serves the commercial passenger market.
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A8
BYLINE: Angela Paik, Staff Writer
The News and Observer reports that while business leaders applauded news that Federal Express might choose Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) as its fifth U.S. hub, the reaction of residents and local officials of Raleigh, Morrisville, and Cary, North Carolina was guarded. Worried about increased noise from airplanes and more traffic on already clogged roads, some said the new FedEx hub would be better suited for other locations.
"I cannot imagine that it's going to be good for the community at all," Joyce Jordan, who represents Cary on the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority's Noise Abatement Committee, said in the article. "I recognize that the airport is a viable part of our economy, and I have no problem with that. And I certainly have no problem with jobs. But you absolutely have to look at the downside."
That downside, she and others said in the article, is the possibility of more air traffic over neighborhoods in northwest Raleigh, Cary and Morrisville, North Carolina where some residents live directly under flight patterns.
The article reports that FedEx officials said Monday that the number of departures from the hub, if it were established at RDU, would start at about 20 and could increase to 60 per day. Flights would be clustered generally between 7 p.m. and 1 a.m.
Jordan and others remember the heavy air traffic before American Airlines moved its hub from RDU in early 1995. At the hub's peak, in 1993, American had 122 jet departures a day.
"That was very disruptive to live under," Jordan said in the article. "If it was disruptive during daylight hours, how disruptive will [this] be during the night?"
The answer, RDU spokesman Rick Martinez said in the article, is not very. "We have a pretty strong noise policy and a very strong noise rule," he said. "FedEx's operation, or anybody's operation, is going to have to operate within those parameters."
According to the article, the rules basically give each carrier a noise budget, which limits the total amount of noise that an airline can generate annually. Using the airport's guidelines, planes flying between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. are counted as noisier aircraft simply because they are flying at night.
Also, Martinez said in the article, by the time the proposed FedEx facility would open in 2001, most of the company's fleet would consist of the quietest aircraft, as the older, noisier planes are being phased out of use.
Cary Town Council member Jess Ward, a Prestonwood resident whose district lies within the airport's southwestern flight paths, reacted cautiously to the news Monday.
"We're willing to listen to any opportunities to bring jobs to the community, but we have to be very conscious of not doing any damage or hurting our citizens," he said in the article.
He and Cary Mayor Koka Booth, who came out against the idea over the weekend, were quoted in the article as saying that they needed to know more about the FedEx operation.
"I don't have enough information at this time to say any more than I've said," Booth said in the article. "I've talked without the facts, and I don't have any more facts today."
The article reports that ome business leaders were ready to support the proposal, including Harvey Schmitt, president of the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce. "It's an exciting project, and we'll work with the Airport Authority to bring jobs to the market," Schmitt said. "These would be excellent, well-paying jobs, from all we can determine."
Schmitt said in the article that in March, chamber members will visit FedEx's hub at Fort Worth, Texas.
Raymond Lech, president of the Morrisville Chamber of Commerce, also said he thought the facility would benefit the area, and he said additional noise from FedEx aircraft wasn't much of a concern to him.
Susan LoPresti, executive director of the Apex Chamber of Commerce, said in the article that road traffic - from new FedEx employees and company trucks - could be more of a problem than the airborne kind.
"Our growth right now stands at six people per day anyway," she said. "Adding something like that will obviously bring more people to the area, and more job opportunities. But it will also bring more traffic."
Congestion along N.C. 55 is of particular concern, she said in the article.
According to the article, Jordan said she hopes to address the possibility of the FedEx hub at the next Noise Abatement Committee meeting, which will be at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at the authority's temporary headquarters in Terminal A at RDU. The meeting is open to the public.
PUBLICATION: Orlando Sentinel Tribune
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: Local & State; Pg. D3
BYLINE: by Steve Barnes, Sentinel Correspondent
DATELINE: Deltona, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jim Kelly, Deltona resident; Larry DeMatteo (the "Ralph Nader of Deltona")
The Orlando Sentinel Tribune reports that a local park became a weekend battlefield in Deltona, Florida's ongoing struggle to accommodate growth while preserving the small-town life that attracted people in the first place. Nearly 70 people jammed a meeting room Saturday at Wes Crile Park to debate a proposal to add lights to basketball courts in the park. Several area residents who opposed adding the lights said they were concerned that extended hours would lead to more noise, traffic and crime. The potential cost, estimated by the Volusia County Parks and Recreation Department at about $100,000, was also a concern.
According to the article, supporters of the proposal argued that Deltona doesn't have adequate parks and that adding lights would be a wiser use of money than building new parks. City Commissioner Jose Perez, who favors lighting the park to expand its hours, said after Saturday's meeting that he will present his findings to the City Commission, possibly as early as the Jan. 20 meeting. The commission then will decide whether to take further action.
Perez stressed that the proposal to add lights isn't on the agenda for a vote at any upcoming meeting and said in the article that the lights won't be added without public hearings.
The article reports that Larry DeMatteo, whom Perez described as the "Ralph Nader of Deltona," illustrated his opposition to the plan by donning ear protection. Reading from a prepared statement, DeMatteo said the "continuous thump, thump of a basketball" is as annoying as the sound of a dripping faucet. He added that residents have a right to peace and quiet in their homes.
Willie Johnson, who coaches basketball at the park, said in the article that he favors the proposal because it will benefit neighborhood children.
According to the article, Johnson, one of the few people at Saturday's meeting who favored the proposal, said he thinks more Deltona residents support the project than oppose it. He attributed the lopsided anti-lighting turnout at Saturday's meeting to the proximity of the park to the affected homes.
Jim Kelly, who circulated a petition to kill the lighting proposal, said in the article that adding the lights would be unfair to those who have lived in the neighborhood since before the park was built.
The article reports that residents living near the park were told that it would remain a small community park and that the county had no intention of extending park hours or installing lights.
While Perez said he is sympathetic to residents' fears, he added that money is a big issue in the debate.
"We can't just run out and build another park like Wes Crile - we have to figure out how to serve the masses," he said in the article.
To help address such issues, he said, the City Commission is considering forming a citizens park and recreation advisory board.
PUBLICATION: The Press-Enterprise
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: Local; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Krista Olson, The Press-Enterprise
DATELINE: Beaumont, California
The Press-Enterprise reports that while developers of a proposed senior citizen community in Beaumont, California work to divert neighbors' traffic concerns, others wonder if the senior residents would curb family activities in the north side of the city. The Marshall Creek housing project would sit in the middle of one of the most family-oriented sections of the city, within earshot of Beaumont High School, Mountain View Junior High and an elementary school. And the Beaumont Sports Park is under construction. Opponents fear that if enough complaints come from the 500-or-so residents expected there, the sports park would be forced to close early and noise from the high school football games would be limited.
The Beaumont City Council will be asked today to review a zone change that would allow construction of the gated 277-unit Marshall Creek project.
"You're trying to stick them right into the middle of where we're putting a lot of activity," Scott Beard, who is buying a home adjacent to the proposed project site on Cougar Way at the north end of Palm Avenue, said in the article. Beard is a sergeant at the Beaumont Police Department.
According to the article, Beaumont Mayor Jan Leja, who will not be voting on the matter because she owns property nearby, said that future plans for that area of the city will not mix well with a senior community. About six years ago, Leja said in the article, the city specifically planned for families by changing the zoning in the area to allow only single-family homes. Changing zoning on the Marshall Creek property to allow apartments there and putting a seniors-only development amid the schools and the sports park could open the city to future conflicts, she said.
Developer Jim Liberio said in the article that neighbors are more likely to find the seniors sitting next to them at high school football games than on the phone complaining to police about lights and noise.
"I don't believe for a minute that seniors complain about things like that anymore than anybody else does," the article reported Liberio saying Monday.
Jean Deeter, who lives next to the project site, said in the article that she is comfortable that the developer is working to deal with the worries of neighboring residents, especially traffic.
She and other seniors already living in the area chat with teen-agers as they walk down Cougar in the afternoons. "I don't have any problem with the children," Deeter, who is 71, said in the article.
The lights from the football field aren't all that bad either, she said in the article. "It gives me the feeling that the kids are having a good time let them blow off steam. I did it when I was young," she said.
Liberio said in the article that he trusts that the seniors who would move into Marshall Creek will want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds the proposed project.
The article reports that neighbors and the developer met Thursday to discuss fears that too much traffic from the development would end up on residential Alexe, Agnes and Jon Gilbert streets. Liberio said in the article that he will propose a plan to divert the traffic north to wider Brookside Avenue.
According to the article, the council will meet for closed session today at 5 p.m. in chambers at 550 E. Sixth St. The regular meeting, which will include the hearing on the Marshall Creek project, will begin at 6 p.m.
PUBLICATION: THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: Local; Pg. B05
BYLINE: Ryan Slattery, The Press-Enterprise
DATELINE: Yucaipa, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Diane Greenawalt, Lakeview Mobile Estates resident
The Press-Enterprise reports that despite protests, the Yucaipa, California City Council voted Monday to move Sunnyside Drive to within 22 feet of Lakeview Mobile Estates to make way for the construction of Community Park along Oak Glen Road in Yucaipa. Mobile home residents, angry that the heavily traveled road will be moved, presented a petition with more than 100 signatures and spoke out against the proposal at Monday's city council meeting.
Diane Greenawalt, who helped circulate the petition, said in the article that park residents are concerned that the road will bring unwanted noise and force residents to breathe the exhaust fumes of vehicles using the road.
"Picture your own home and your own backyard and think how you'd like a major road where the traffic begins at 3 a.m. right on top of you," Greenawalt said in the article. "Some people have lived there a long time and don't deserve this."
The article reports that Alvin Wagoner, a resident of the park since 1980, said ever since the road was built there have been problems with dirt and dust, and moving the road closer will only add to it.
According to the article, the design was discussed at a Planning Commission meeting last month with commissioners voting unanimously in agreement with Lakeview residents to move the road no closer than 35 feet to the park. Currently, the road is approximately 135 feet to the west of the park, Greenawalt said.
Community Development Director John McMains said in the article that the city's proposal is to move the road a minimum of 22 feet, twice the 11 feet required by law, and the city will improve landscaping to construct a buffer zone for residents to eliminate noise created by the park.
McMains said in the article that the city's proposal calls for the construction of a 6-foot high block wall and shrubs would be planted along the fence to cut down on the noise.
In addition, Sunnyside Drive will be widened and parking spaces off the street will be limited in number. The main parking lot will be located off Oak Glen Road.
According to the article, Tim Maloney, a consultant for Community Works Design of Riverside, the group designing the park, said the project is intended to take advantage of all usable space.
The article reports that the plan for the 32-acre park includes lighted sports fields, an outdoor amphitheater, a community center and facilities for tennis, handball, basketball and volleyball. Equestrian trails and picnic areas are also included in the plan.
The article reports that according to Maloney, the new park will cost between $5 million to $6 million to construct and will be built in several phases over a five-year period. The city has allocated $2.2 million toward the first phase of the project, which is expected to begin next spring.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Celeste Katz; Journal-Bulletin Staff Writer
DATELINE: Tiverton, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports that James Gordon told the Rhode Island State Energy Facility Siting Board at a hearing yesterday that the natural gas-fired power plant he wants to build at the Tiverton Industrial Park in Tiverton, Rhode Island would be "one of cleanest, most cost-efficient" fossil fuel facilities in New England and a boon to the community. Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Chairman James J. Malachowski said the hearings are likely the last government-related hurdle Gordon and his companies, Energy Management Inc. and Tiverton Power Associates, must clear before embarking on the multimillion-dollar project. However, during the hearings, which stretched through the morning and afternoon, concerns were raised in several areas, including the noise that might come from the plant project as well as possible effects on the water supply.
According to the article, in sworn testimony at the Public Utilities Commission building, Gordon said he has already spent about $3 million on the Tiverton Power project - much of it on commissioning detailed impact analyses and also on cooperative measures with the town.
The article reports that at a hearing in Tiverton on Jan. 6, some residents asked about the noise, and, yesterday, EMI representatives said the plant would be required to adhere to the town's noise-level ordinances. Gordon also said in the article that one of the advantages of the industrial park site is that it's about 4,000 feet from the nearest residence.
On the issue of aesthetics, Fagan testified that except for the large stack, the facility would be buffered by trees and vegetation. Some aspects of the plant might be visible from Route 24, he said.
Gordon also said in the article that he expects construction of the plant to create 150 to 200 engineering and construction jobs, and that there would be longer-term jobs associated with running the plant.
Tiverton Town Administrator Raymond Houle, who attended yesterday's hearings, said in the article that Gordon has the unanimous backing of the Town Council.
"We're 100 percent in favor of it," Houle said in the article. "I was the one who found them and cultivated them, so you know how I feel about it.
"Everything has been unanimous, and this has been (through) two councils," Houle added. "And that's a miracle and a half for Tiverton."
According to Gordon in the article, potential benefits for the town could include a new access road to the industrial park that could make the site more appealing to other tenants, increased tax revenues and the addition of a "lowest price" power provider for the area.
While aware of residents' concerns, Houle said in the article that town officials "are convinced that the studies that were conducted prove conclusively that (noise) will not be a factor" and that "environmentally and aesthetically," the plant will be "safe and beneficial to the town, without question."
The article reports that yesterday's hearing adjourned at about 4 p.m. The board still has a few outstanding requests for information, but cross-examination of witnesses has been completed.
Malachowski said in the article that the board is tentatively scheduled to reconvene on Monday, Jan. 26, for its final hearings. After that, it will have 60 days to make a decision. Malachowski said there will more public meetings before the board issues its written decision.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: January 12, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N1
BYLINE: Deborah Sullivan Daily News Staff Writer
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Julie Newmar, Peter Graves, actors
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports that from the moment the City Council voted last week to ban leaf blowers from Los Angeles, California, the city's class and ethnic divisions split open like an earthquake fault. Before the vote Tuesday, actors Julie Newmar, Peter Graves and others from posh Westside neighborhoods sat on one side of the City Council chamber demanding a ban on leaf blowers that cause air and noise pollution. On the other side sat members of the Association of Latin American Gardeners, clad in green caps and jackets, who pleaded with council members to spare them the basic tool of their trade.
The article reports that outside, 10 gardeners and two sympathizers lay lethargic in the fourth day of a hunger strike, vowing to fast to the death if necessary to protect their right to use blowers.
According to the article, the council, in a 9-6 vote, approved enforcement measures. Two days later, Mayor Richard Riordan signed the ban, which takes effect 30 days after an official notice is published. The fine will be $270 for anyone using a gas-powered blower in a residential neighborhood.
"We're fighting against rich celebrities," Fernando Chavez, 33, said in the article. He is a Simi Valley resident who helps with his father's Canoga Park gardening business.
"What are you going to do? They have the money. If our mayor votes against them, he's in trouble. He has to vote against us, because we're the poor."
The article reports that the ban separated the wealthy from the working poor, drawing a line between those promoting quality of life and those struggling to make a living.
According to the article, while affluent celebrities lobbied for the ban as an anti-pollution measure, immigrant gardeners said banning the leaf blower is like removing their right hand - the linchpin of their livelihood.
"It's like taking the hammer away from a carpenter," North Hollywood gardener Manuel Jimenez, 58 said in the article.
To drive home that point, the gardeners continued on a weeklong hunger strike, the article reports. Consuming nothing but sports drinks and water, the group, which dwindled after several members sickened or left, swore to fast to the death if the law weren't rescinded or modified.
IT is reported that the remaining strikers ended their fast Friday when council members Jackie Goldberg, who favored the ban, and Mike Hernandez, who opposed it, signed an agreement committing to hold hearings on it.
The article reports that the agreement stated that he hearings will seek alternative power sources for leaf blowers, examine whether gas-powered blowers can be made safer and quieter and consider whether the city can provide economic assistance programs to gardeners making the transition to new technologies.
"I think it's what we wanted," gardeners association leader Adrian Alvarez said in the article of the promise of hearings. "Unfortunately, it comes as the ordinance is coming into effect."
He said in thet article that he is prepared to wage a hunger strike again if the hearings fail to yield results. "We can't wait five years until they solve this."
The article reports that other gardeners question why such a compromise wasn't considered earlier. "The whole point is, why didn't somebody come out and say, let's try to work out something and educate the gardeners?" said Roy Imazu, 66, a Sun Valley gardener who serves as legislative analyst for the predominantly Japanese-American Southern California Gardeners Federation. "But nobody ever approached us."
The article reports that many gardeners fear the new law may force them into poverty. Manuel Jimenez came to the United States 24 years ago, raised eight children, bought a house and built a gardening business. His income from 30 clients averages about $1,500 a month. About half goes to his mortgage, and the rest pays insurance on his two work trucks and family van, and living costs for himself, his wife and youngest son. Enough remains to maintain food on the table. He proudly displayed his thriving papaya tree, backyard barbecue pit and cage of quail and doves. Yet his yard is barren of grass.
The leaf blower ban could double his work time, he said in the article, reducing the number of clients he can serve and slashing his income in half. Finding another job at 58 would be tough, he also said in the article.
According to the article, along his route last Thursday, Jimenez stopped at the Sherman Oaks home of longtime client Delores Immel. After 15 years, Immel said, Jimenez has become a trusted figure in her life, occasionally dropping off gifts of his wife's homemade tamales and helping with extra tasks that Immel's husband, ill with bone and vascular diseases, can't perform. Jimenez cleans leaves off the roof and rain gutters, fertilizes and reseeds the lawn, and trims tree limbs.
"I think if they want to regulate the blowers they should regulate those who make them, not those who use them," Immel, 66 said in the article. "They don't take the car away from the traveling salesman if it doesn't meet emissions standards. They say get it fixed or get a new car."
The article reports that Jimenez and his son, Manuel Jr., 16, spent about eight minutes clearing Immel's lawn with a leaf blower Thursday, but said they had been avoiding using the device for about a week. "We don't want no trouble with the police," Manuel Jr. said.
And residents say that's what gardeners will get if they continue to use the devices. Ron Recasner, a Van Nuys actor who works from his home, said in the article that the blowers leave him with pounding headaches as they blare from 7:30 in the morning to 8 at night on weekdays and weekends.
"The sound of a blower just goes through me, it opens me up like a can opener," he said, as one droned in the background behind him.
"I don't want to do any arresting or anything like that, but the police can be called, and of course they can cite the owners as well as the gardeners," Bill Sherinyan, 65, of Woodland Hills said in the article.
In the article he scoffs at gardeners' complaints that banning blowers will double their work time. His gardener of 21 years services his three-quarter acre property in one hour, never once blasting a blower, he stated in the article.
"I'm certainly in favor of banning those mind-blowing, exhaust-billowing, ear-deafening, storm-drain-clogging, air-polluting, quality of life-destroying leaf blowers," Sherinyan said in the article.
The article states that Mary Kaminer, 58, of Valley View, jumped ahead of the law's enactment and called police Wednesday, receiving a house call from three officers who declared their hands were tied.
Sgt. Kent Pollard said in the article that police were awaiting orders on enforcing the ban, but offered to warn the gardeners that their devices would soon be illegal.
For Kaminer, her body riddled with lung disease, arteriosclerosis and osteoporosis, that was little consolation. The blowers' fumes send flames of pain through her lungs that her one allotted pain pill a day can't alleviate, she said in the article.
In the article, California Air Resources Board spokesman Jerry Martin said manufacturers cleaned up the blowers' emissions in accordance with state regulations, but also said "I think it's safe to say those types of machines can emit easily 10 times more than a new 1998 car. They're very, very dirty."
The pollutants emitted - hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide - can exacerbate lung and heart diseases, he said in the article.
The article reports that once the blower ban takes effect, Kaminer said, "I'm going to be able to relax a little bit, and know that I'm going to be able to live maybe another year longer and play with my grandchildren."
Still, even she suggested the city should take a conciliatory tack. "How can we show the Latino community that we do not dislike them if we do not help them by loaning them money to buy the new equipment?"
Jimenez said in the article that he would have no problem with switching equipment and is hopeful for a compromise. "It doesn't matter if it's not the same machine. What I don't want is to be left with nothing."
PUBLICATION: The Record
DATE: January 12, 1998
DATELINE: United States
The Record reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed that the Venezuelan air carrier, Servivensa, pay a civil penalty of $144,000 for conducting flights that violated FAA's aircraft noise regulations.
The article reports that under the FAA's aircraft noise program the agency classifies aircraft in three stages. Stage I aircraft are the noisiest, Stage III the quietest. The FAA requires that foreign carriers designate and receive FAA authorization regarding what "stage" aircraft they can operate in the United States.
According to the article, between Jan. 1 and Jan. 21, 1997, Servivensa conducted 48 flights in U.S. airspace with two Stage II aircraft not authorized by the FAA.
The article reports that Servivensa, which is owned by the South American company Servicios Avensa, was informed that a civil penalty of $3,000 would be assessed for each flight conducted in violation of FAA's regulations.
The announcement of the civil penalty proposed against Servivensa is being made in accordance with the FAA's policy of releasing information to the public on newly issued enforcement actions in cases that involve penalties of $50,000 or more. CONTACT: Henry J. Price, FAA Tel: +1 202 267 8521
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer
DATE: January 12, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Cynthia Barnett
DATELINE: Raleigh, N.C.
The News and Observer reports Federal Express is considering building a $300 million national transportation hub at Raleigh-Durham International Airport. But Cary, NC officials, concerned the noise will impact their community, oppose the siting.
According to the newspaper report, RDU is one of six airports in the Carolinas in the running for FedEx's sorting and distribution headquarters for the Eastern Seaboard, which could bring up to 1,500 jobs to the area. The paper reported Global TransPark, Eastern North Carolina's long-envisioned 21st-century manufacturing and transportation complex in Kinston, is another candidate. Others include Charlotte and Greensboro airports in North Carolina and the Columbia and Greenville/Spartanburg airports in South Carolina.
According to article sources, the company hopes to start construction on a Carolina distribution center in spring 1999, to be opened by fall 2001. This would be FedEx's fifth national hub and would handle 24,000 packages an hour.
According to the article, FedEx wants to fly 175 planes in and out of its new facility each night; in contrast, the company currently flies about four jets and three smaller aircraft a day out of RDU.
The article states that the six airports' negotiations with FedEx were supposed to be top secret. But Cary officials concerned about the noise from the planes flying over their community at night made the negotiations public, according to the report.
Although RDU Airport Authority member George Conklin said he was assured FedEx's plans would keep the airport within the noise budget it adopted in 1990, according to the article, Cary Mayor Koka Booth does not appear to accept that the assurance will protect their community.
Cary Mayor Koka Booth was quoted as saying, "From what I've heard, it would not be good for our community. It may be good for jobs, and it may be good for the economy. But I can name 100 things you could bring in that might be good for jobs and the economy but they're not good for our community."
According to the article, RDU sources said the airport would propose a 175-acre site between Umstead State Park and Interstate 40. While facility construction costs are estimated at $300 million, according to the article, it's unknown how much FedEx would pay, since airports and local governments in the running could offer everything from building space to tax breaks, sources said.
According to the report, some people feel Cary officials' involvement could hinder RDU's chances of winning the FedEx hub. According to the article, Joyce Jordan, Cary's representative to RDU Airport Authority's Noise Abatement Committee, said that would be fine with her.
PUBLICATION: Wire Services
DATE: January 12, 1998
SECTION: Opinion; Pg. A11
BYLINE: Paul J. Griffo
DATELINE: Teterboro, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Griffo, Teterboro Aircraft Noise Abatement Advisors Committee
According to a Wire Services article, the Port Authority plans to reroute air traffic from Newark International Airport to Teterboro Airport in Bergen County using economic incentives to entice air carrier companies. Already subject to the noise from the 4,200 planes that pass over North Jersey daily, the rerouting would increase the frequency and level of unwanted noise, the article stated.
According to the article, the airspace over North Jersey is one of the most congested in the country, with air traffic into Teterboro, Newark, LaGuardia, and Kennedy airports each day.
The article stated the proposed rerouting could add an additional 14,000 landings and takeoffs at Teterboro Airport on top of its present 4 percent per year growth.
According to the Wire Services article, the increased traffic at Teterboro Airport will add to the noise problems many residents of Bergen County already complain about: lack of sleep, physiological symptoms, loss of school time caused by interruptions when both students and teachers "tune out" the jet noise, increased probability of cancers caused by long term exposure to jet fuel byproducts, and loss of property value with increasing overflights.
The article stated that the Port Authority is committed to moving corporate flights out of Newark and into Teterboro by providing landing fees and fuel costs at rates much lower than those at Newark Airport.
According to the Teterboro Aircraft Noise Abatement Advisors Committee (TANAAC) member who wrote the opinion article, some of the initiatives North Jersey citizens are requesting include:
A series of public hearings held in the Bergen County towns most affected by the increased air traffic, with Governor Whitman, senators, congressional representatives, other elected officials, and residents in attendance.
Environmental impact studies to assess the impact of the increased number of flights, specifically examining the effects of air, water, and noise pollution within a six-mile radius of the airport.
Restriction of non-emergency flights after 11 p.m. and before 6 a.m.
Modification of the Noise Capacity Act of 1990 for more stringent control over jet noise levels and hours of operation at all U.S. airports.
Request that the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives approve the passage of the Quiet Communities Act of 1997 (S951 and HR536), re-funding and re-opening the Office of Noise Abatement and Control within the EPA.
According to the article bio, Paul J. Griffo of Rutherford is a representative on the Teterboro Aircraft Noise Abatement Advisors Committee (TANAAC) and a member of Alliance of Municipalities Concerning Air Traffic (AMCAT).
PUBLICATION: Daily Herald
DATE: January 11, 1998
SECTION: Neighbor; Traffic Q and A; Pg. 1
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
A Daily Herald article answered reader's questions about traffic problems and road construction, with one question referring to sound wall construction along current roads.
In the article, one person asked about the status of the noise abatement for homes along Route 53 in Arlington Heights between Palatine and Rand roads. The response was that sound walls aren't in the Illinois Department of Transportation's (IDOT) budget for existing roadways. The IDOT will consider walls to screen out noise when constructing a new expressway, according to the article.
The article also stated that a community can construct a noise wall provided they can raise about $1 million per mile, with expenses including construction, engineering, design and maintenance.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal
DATE: January 11, 1998
SECTION: Forum Hawpe David Pg.03d
BYLINE: David Hawpe
DATELINE: Louisville, Kentucky
An article in the Courier-Journal reports that a plan to relocate a Louisville, Kentucky neighborhood affected by recent Lousiville International Airport expansion has been hampered by the unwillingness of nearby affluent communities to take the residents in. The article reports that the Jefferson County legislature has withheld support for a $20 million state allocation to finally move people out of Minor Lane Heights in Lousiville. It has done this in order to pressure the airport authority into dropping another relocation project, in which anybody displaced from any neighborhood by the airport expansion (such as Minor Lane Heights) could be moved to a new 450-home subdivision in the Cedar Creek area. Residents of the Cedar Creek area oppose the new subdivision.
According to the article, the original plan ten years ago was to take whole neighborhoods, displace businesses, move churches and reshape a major part of the community in order to expand the airport and accommodate UPS's growth. When all the relocation is accomplished, neighborhoods no longer suited for residential life, including Minor Lane Heights, will be available for business development instead.
The article states that every legislator who opposes the money for Minor Lane Heights relocation should be asked just where, in his or her district, the 450-home subdivision could be put. The author of the article maintains that until the lawmakers, as a group, have an answer, they have no moral standing to exploit the Minor Lane Heights dilemma and prolong that community's suffering.
PUBLICATION: The Courier-Journal
DATE: January 11, 1998
SECTION: News Pg.04b
BYLINE: Paul Baldwin, The Courier-Journal
DATELINE: Lousiville, Kentucky
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Barbara Shaffer, secretary, Airport Neighbor's Association
An article in the Courier-Journal reported that Rep. Jim Wayne attended a recent meeting of the Airport Neighbors' Alliance in Louisville, Kentucky. The article reported that Wayne was one of about 50 people at the alliance's monthly meeting held at St. Rose School. At the meeting, people were urged to go to Frankfort, Kentucky this week to support a bill that would add a citizen advocate to the airport board. The meeting also included information about Kentucky's relocation plan for people who live close to Louisville International Airport. This plan has recently come under fire. The Quiet Communities Act was also discussed.
According to the article, Rep. Jim Wayne called for people to attend a meeting of the House Committee on Counties and Special Districts at noon Wednesday. Wayne and the alliance are hoping to increase neighborhood representation on the Regional Airport Authority. The meeting of the House Committee on Counties and Special Districts will include a discussion of a bill supported by Wayne, a Democrat whose district includes several airport neighborhoods. Wayne said in the article that the bill would give people more information on the airport's plans. If the bill becomes law, the governor would appoint a member from the alliance's board of directors, adding a seat to the airport board. Representatives of about a dozen neighborhood groups showed up to support the bill.
The Courier-Journal article reported that Wayne also spoke of the state's plan to spend $20 million to relocate people who live near Louisville International Airport. He assured members of the audience that the money was in the budget. However, the article reports that legislators last week agreed to postpone the decision on whether to support the measure because of concerns about how residents of the rural Cedar Creek Road area would be affected by a proposed 450-home subdivision to which the airport would relocate families.
The article states that residents of the new Cedar Creek neighborhood association, which was formed to fight the subdivision, have told legislators that they strongly object to the development because the area's roads and other services can't handle so many new residents. Many of the new residents would come from the city of Minor Lane Heights, an area south of the airport.
According to the article, Alliance Secretary Barbara Shaffer said that she is trying to gauge support in Kentucky for the Quiet Communities Act, a bill proposed in Congress last year that would re-establish the Environmental Protection Agency's noise-abatement committee, which was eliminated in 1982. If passed, the act would result in an examination of how the Federal Aviation Administration measures the noise in communities near airports and of the effectiveness of the FAA's noise-abatement efforts.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News
DATE: January 11, 1998
SECTION: Suburban; Pg. 1
BYLINE: by Donald Bertrand
DATELINE: Queens, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Joseph Fabio, member of aviation committee of the Browne Park Civic Association and SAFE (Sane Aviation for Everyone); Bill Mulcahy, a founder of SAFE; Arlene Bronzaft, a member of the Mayor's Council on the Environment and a professor at Lehman College in the Bronx
The Daily News recently reported on the jet noise problem experienced by Queens, New York residents who live nearest to Kennedy International and LaGuardia airports. The article stated that their noise problem looks to get worse before it gets better as more and more airlines are being given the okay to land and take off at the borough's two airports. This, despite a federally enacted High Density Rule that places limits on the number of flights into and out of Kennedy, LaGuardia, Chicago's O'Hare and Washington National airports.
The Daily News article reported that last month, 21 additional flights began taking off or landing at LaGuardia on a daily basis as AirTran Airlines and Frontier Airlines were given exemptions to slot limitations at the airport. A "slot" is a takeoff or landing at an airport, and since 1968, LaGuardia and Kennedy have had a fixed number of slots. For LaGuardia, that number is now set at 1,224 daily flights.
The article reported DOT spokesman Bill Mosley as saying that in granting the exemptions at LaGuardia, the U.S. Department of Transportation acted because the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994 mandated that the DOT award exemptions to the slot restrictions "when exceptional circumstances warrant."
"We are interpreting that to mean [that exemptions can be granted] where it can significantly enhance competition without significantly impacting congestion," Mosley said in the article.
But the article stated that Borough President Claire Shulman and other critics protest that granting the new exemptions has spurred other airlines to request new slots at LaGuardia and Kennedy. A variety of airlines have applied for a total of 33 additional slots at the two facilities. However, according to Mosley, no action has yet been taken on these requests, and there is no timetable by which a decision is to be announced.
Nevertheless, the article quoted Shulman, "the floodgates are open, and residents of Queens County will bear the additional burdens of noise, traffic and pollution from our airports, unless we successfully block these requests."
Shulman has gone so far as to join the Giuliani administration in filing suit against the U.S. DOT to block the awarding of additional slots a move that was applauded by anti- noise activists.
"It has become jet noise continuum," Joseph Fabio, who heads the aviation committee of the Browne Park Civic Association, said in the article. "Queens used to be a bedroom community. It is now a sleeping pill's dream come true." Fabio is also a member of SAFE Sane Aviation for Everyone.
According to the Daily News article, Bill Mulcahy a founder of SAFE and a resident of Rockaway said that over the past decade, the number of flights that roar over the Rockaways has doubled, while more affluent areas such as the Five Towns area in Nassau have been left virtually untouched by the noise of planes arriving or departing from Kennedy.
"They [suburban residents] have the money," Mulcahy said in the article. "They can hire the lawyers, so the FAA [Federal Aviation Agency] does not fly planes over their homes. This is discrimination."
"The whole issue is fairness," Mulcahy continued in the article. "You can't get fairness by dumping it on others. You have to develop a system that fairly allocates the aircraft noise over to everybody close to the airports."
Allan Greene of Howard Beach said in the article the issue of air pollution should not be ignored either.
"The Natural Resources Defense Council labels LaGuardia and Kennedy as among the five largest sources of industrial volatile organic compounds and nitrous oxide in the New York City area," Greene, a vice president of SAFE, said in the article.
"The emissions of one plane per minute is equal to 3,000 cars, and all these contaminants and pollution [are] falling on all of us," he also said.
The article reported that pollutants aren't the only things that are falling from the skies. Notes Councilman Al Stabile (R-Ozone Park), a year and a half ago, part of the wing of a plane fell to earth in Howard Beach.
"The airline never reported it, and the FAA first said no such part fell," Stabile told the Daily News. "We had the part at the 106th Precinct, so we knew. It took 51/2 hours for them to admit to it.
Furthermore, said Stabile, in Howard Beach, "a tremendous amount of children have suffered hearing loss, which is attributed to the overabundance of noise in the community" due to planes.
Arlene Bronzaft, a member of the Mayor's Council on the Environment and a professor at Lehman College in the Bronx, was quoted in the article, "People who are assaulted by aircraft noise do not get used to it."
The article reported that according to a study Bronzaft authored and published in this month's issue of "Environment and Behavior," nearly 70% of residents who live in the paths of overhead airplanes "perceive themselves to be in poorer health, describe more sleep difficulties and report that noise interferes with their daily activities."
Another study, she said, found that children who live near airports have impaired ability to learn and hear.
In addition, the article reported that the Natural Resources Defense Council has classified LaGuardia Airport as the airport with the most neighbors affected by noise pollution. JFK Airport is seventh on its list.
As a guideline, the group used the Federal Aviation Administration's definition of excessive airport noise as noise that averages 65 decibels.
According to the article, NRDC's top 10 airports, nationwide, in terms of numbers of nearby residents affected by excessive noise, are:
LaGuardia, 194,972; Miami, 163,234; Chicago O'Hare, 93,860; Atlanta, 81,621; Chicago Midway, 79,960; Los Angeles, 75,000; Kennedy, 51,317; San Diego, 40,000; San Antonio, 37,268, and Seattle/Tacoma, 31,800.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: January 11, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 16; Zones Desk
DATELINE: Valley Village, California
The Los Angeles Times printed the following letters to the editor:
Lori Dinkin is wrong when she says "commercial jet flights have tripled since 1978 public ownership" of Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport ("Burbank Airport Expansion," Letters to the Valley Edition, Jan. 4). The factual record shows they have not even doubled. What's more, overall aircraft activity has gone down by a hefty 37% in the past 20 years, something Dinkin would rather that Times readers not hear about.
In 1978, there were 34,395 airline jet flights, half of them landings and half of them takeoffs. In 1996, there were 59,156, and through November 1997--the latest data available--we're running about 1% behind the 1996 pace. To show how far off the mark Dinkin is, there would have to be 103,185 airline operations for her statement to be accurate, an error of 44,000 flights!
In the big picture, there has actually been a tremendous reduction in total aircraft operations at Burbank in the same time period. The busiest year ever for Burbank Airport in modern times was 1978, when there were 293,810 operations. In 1996 we had only 184,803, and 1997 will come in below that figure.
No one is saying that jet noise at Burbank is not an issue. It is, and we should all be trying to find the best approach to the problem. But letting Dinkin make blatant misstatements and portray this airport as a runaway behemoth when it is in fact modest, efficient and well ahead of the majority of airports in the country in reducing noise does not serve the public debate.
VICTOR J. GILL
Director, Public Affairs and
Communications, Burbank Airport
I am often embarrassed to explain to people who inquire about my home community of Valley Village that, no, it is not some secluded woodsy enclave but a designation imposed upon the City Council by Realtors hoping to distinguish it from less affluent, more culturally diverse areas of North Hollywood.
More embarrassing are the whining Burbank Airport- noise letters from Valley Villagers that The Times seems compelled to publish with boring regularity.
It pleases me that my community contributes to travel and commerce. All this contributes to my sleeping very peacefully in my patio in summer and relaxing in my home, only occasionally noting the drone of powerful engines thousands of feet above me.
JOHN A. DONNELLY
Valley Village
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: January 11, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 7; Editorial Writers Desk
DATELINE: Orange County, California
The Los Angeles Times published the following letters:
Your Jan. 4 editorial "The Road Ahead," proposes the same fatal course that doomed any hope of a consensus for the future of the El Toro Marine base. Although you correctly note that the problem of increased airport capacity is a regional problem and should be dealt with as such, your suggestion that South County residents accept "a carefully regulated airport of modest scale" disregards the same federal guidelines already ignored by county leadership.
The process for military base conversion is specified in the Defense Department document "Community Guide to Base Reuse." It emphasizes that a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) be formed comprising the local areas most impacted by the base's closure.
El Toro's original LRA was composed of Irvine, Lake Forest and the County of Orange. Measure A stripped Irvine and Lake Forest--the two cities most impacted by El Toro's closure--of any meaningful say in the base's conversion. The result? Years of lawsuits, arrogant county leadership and open talk of secession.
The guide stresses the importance of involving the locally impacted communities in building a consensus plan. That's the approach used to build Tustin's win-win plan for converting their Marine base. In fact, the guide specifically warns against predetermining land use: "allow a full and open process."
The Times shouldn't advocate any specific reuse for El Toro. What you should advocate is for the county to follow federal guidelines by weighting the reuse decision in favor of the communities surrounding the base.
STEPHEN C. SMITH
Irvine
Continual criticism of the planning process, without balancing it with the overwhelming reasons for an airport, could prove fatal for our county. Only being fed the negative of what the county is doing on this issue ultimately could result in swaying public opinion against an airport that our county needs.
John Wayne Airport is not sufficient for Orange County and will never be due to its location and small size. On the other hand, El Toro is exceptionally qualified. That is not just my opinion, but one voiced by sources in the FAA, the vast majority of business leaders as well as workers' unions.
County citizens need to learn of the positive qualities an airport will give and understand problems that will face us in the future should we forfeit that land for any other use. These would be worthy subjects of future Times editorials, and would allow readers essential information needed and deserved in order to make an informed decision regarding the airport.
JOHN NEIL
Santa Ana
Would a positive third vote on this matter be acceptable and finally be the definitive embarrassing answer they are seeking?
For starters, we already have and have had an airport at El Toro long before the protesters arrived. I have been a resident of this flying area for almost 20 years and I have seen property values substantially increase in value during that period of time.
The same is true of Newport Beach and the surrounding flying area of John Wayne Airport. In other words, there is not a shred of evidence that property values have skidded or would fall once the commercial airport is operational.
Military planes are substantially noisier than commercial aircraft as they are not subject to noise and other restrictive abatement laws that could be made a part of a commercial airport. Since the noise factor is a legitimate concern, I suggest that the pro-airport planners be required to develop a built-in, sound, feasible plan that will address and resolve this matter to a reasonable satisfaction acceptable to most people.
Should the anti-airport group, however, still persist in their opposition, I would highly recommend that this group, as a last resort, exercise their right to boycott the commercial airport and drive to their choice of alternative airports: Ontario, Burbank, or LAX.
As for me and the 35% of South County residents who voted for the airport, we'll take the short drive to El Toro International Airport, check in, and be on our merry way.
ROGER GARCIA
Laguna Hills
Bell conducted a study of commercial and residential properties near LAX, Ontario Airport and John Wayne. He found the commercial market to be severely depressed and single-family homes worth an average of 27.4% less than similar properties not located near an airport.
Bell sent his findings to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, where they were dismissed.
LEONARD KRANSER
Dana Point
PUBLICATION: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: January 11, 1998
SECTION: Real Estate Pg. 1 Neighborhood Of The Week
BYLINE: Larry Sandler
DATELINE: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that residents of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin neighborhood of Holler Park are worried about the effects of Mitchell Airport expansion on their community. Holler Park, often called 'the suburb within the city,' is an island of residential tranquility, surrounded by rivers of commerce and a sea of industry. The article reports that a runway at Mitchell, which can now handle only small propeller aircraft, is to be extended to accommodate 19-seat propeller airliners and a few private jets. The runway's flight path leads over Holler Park.
Although the small propeller planes don't produce much noise now, the article reports that some Holler Park residents fear the added air traffic will boost the noise level. Others are reported to be more concerned about the prospect of a plane crashing into the neighborhood. In addition the article reports that another concern is noise from airliners revving their engines on the ground at a nearby maintenance facility.
According to the article, County Supervisor LeAnn Launstein, at the urging of the Holler Park neighbors, tried unsuccessfully to chop the extension project out of the county budget.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: January 11, 1998
SECTION: Magazine; Pg. 8; Zone: C; For Starters.
BYLINE: by Ellen Warren.
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Greg Zak
An editorial in the Chicago Tribune argues against leaf blowers and for the old fashioned, quiet rake. The editorial claims that gas powered leaf blowers make bad neighbors. And while, the editorial admits, the sickening, high-pitched leaf-blower whine is only a memory in January, it is not too early to begin efforts in your city, town, village, suburb or exurb to get the damned things outlawed by the fall.
According to the Tribune editorial, Greg Zak, the state's noise czar, says that gas-powered leaf blowers are about 10 times as loud as a jack hammer. In decibels, they're about the same as a chain saw. Snowblowers, lawn mowers and electric leaf blowers are much quieter than gas leaf blowers, according to the editorial.
The editorial states that towns throughout the state of California have outlawed leaf blowers. Before that, Californians apparently had never heard of the rake or the broom. Even Winnetka, states that editorial, hardly at the forefront of citizen activism, has banned gas leaf blowers from June through September.
But the editorial muses, why not go all the way? Don't just limit the months or the hours these things can disturb the peace we all yearn for. Forbid the beastly things altogether.
Says the editorial, consider this your call to arms! Petition your town to end the noise nightmare: Ban the Blower. Bring Back the Rake!
PUBLICATION: Bangkok Post (Bangkok, Thailand)
DATE: January 17, 1998
SECTION: News
DATELINE: Bangkok, Thailand
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Srisuwan Janwa, member of Anti-Air Pollution & Environmental Protection Foundation (APEPF); Soundscape Association of Japan; Monthip Sriratana Tabucanon, director of Environmental Research and Training Center (ERTC)
The Bangkok Post reports that inner city residents, traffic police, bus drivers, steersmen and workers at certain factories are at risk of losing their hearing due to traffic and construction noise.
According to the article, noise levels in heavily congested areas and roads have been measured at 80-100 decibels (A) compared to the standard of 70 dB(A). These areas include Victory Monument, King Taksin Monument, Lat Phrao, Bang Phlat, Lam Salee and Asoke intersections, Vibhavadi, Phahon Yothin, Sukhumvit, Phet Kasem, Nakhon Chaisi, Ratchadaphisek, and New Phet Buri. Long-tail boats are a big culprit, said Srisuwan Janwa of the Anti-Air Pollution & Environmental Protection Foundation (APEPF). Noise levels of passenger boats running in Klong Saen Saeb measured about 84-101 dB(A). The noise level at schools on Ploenchit, Lat Phrao, Phet Buri and Sukhumvit roads was about 70-90 dB(A), and in entertainment spots, the noise shot up to more than 110 dB(A).
The article states the noise information came out of the recent seminar, "Strategy for Noise Pollution Abatement and Control in Bangkok." The seminar was jointly organized by the APEPF, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, and the Environmental Research and Training Center (ERTC), and supported by the Soundscape Association of Japan. Monthip Sriratana Tabucanon, director of the ERTC, said the inner areas at risk involved Ratchathevi, Dusit, Phya Thai, Phra Nakhon, Pathumwan, Bang Rak, and Huay Khwang districts.
The article reports Bangkok Governor Bhichit Rattakul said more trees would be planted along roads to help absorb noise and more right-turn lanes would be built to improve traffic flow so that traffic would not stall at intersections which will consequently accumulate noise. The seminar chose a section of Phaya Thai road from Urupong to Tuk Chai intersection as a pilot project to control noise pollution.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA)
DATE: January 16, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N4
BYLINE: Eric Wahlgren
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports Burbank Airport officials' proposed settlement with the city of Burbank contains several points still barring the way to air terminal expansion.
According to the article, despite rising legal bills, attorneys for both sides predict no resolution before another court appearance scheduled for Jan. 30. "We apparently agree that, in this case, the most fruitful negotiations will come about if the litigation is allowed to proceed its course simultaneously," said Peter Kirsch, an attorney for Burbank in a letter to airport lawyer Richard Simon. Although a gag order was placed on the settlement talks in December, lawyers' letters show Burbank officials, who generally oppose the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority's expansion plan, and airport officials are discussing a possible settlement.
The article states lawyers' documents show that in one proposed settlement the airport would conduct studies to address the city's concerns about noisy aircraft and drop its opposition to a city parking tax in exchange for city approval of plans to tear down the current 14-gate terminal and replace it with a new 19-gate terminal. But the biggest obstacles to an agreement involve demands by the city that the airport ban noisy planes known as stage 2 jets from the airport. In addition, the city wants the airport to cap noise generated by flight operations. But the airport says such restrictions could constitute the control of flight operations - a move airport officials say the FAA would not approve. "We cannot guarantee" these restrictions, said airport spokesman Sean McCarthy.
According to the article, in a letter to Kirsch, however, Simon agreed to explore the possibility of these restrictions through FAA-approved studies. Under the proposal outlined in his letter, Simon said the airport would make several concessions if the city agreed to "provide all approvals necessary to complete the (terminal) relocation project." The letter asks the city to agree to cap the tax the city collects in airport parking revenues at 10 percent. In the document, Simon also said the airport wants the city to allow for the issuance of tax-free bonds to help pay for the expansion plan. In return, the airport, Simon said, would build a new terminal. Any further expansion would require agreement between both the city and the airport on the issues of noise and other impacts, the letter said. Furthermore, Simon's letter said the airport would agree to conduct any FAA-approved studies on flight controls such as mandatory curfews and caps on flights, and that it would implement any measures approved.
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press (Neptune, NJ)
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: B, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Jean Mikle
DATELINE: Toms River, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Paul Spagnola and John Moriarty, co-chairmen of Whitesville Action Committee; James Reilly, resident
The Asbury Park Press of Neptune, New Jersey, reports member of the Dover Township Committee agreed to accompany a group of residents to the Ocean County Board of Health for answers to the loud noises and noxious odors emanating from the Ocean County Landfill.
According to the article, for more than two years, residents who live near the dump have complained that the overpowering stench from the landfill frequently makes it difficult for them to leave their homes. Last week, more than 300 residents met to form the Whitesville Action Committee to deal with problems related to the landfill, located in Manchester Township. In a meeting with Mayor Joseph G. "Jerry" Geoghegan and Committeeman J. Mark Mutter, residents said last night they are not satisfied with the response from the health department and the state Department of Environmental Protection, the two agencies charged with monitoring odor and noise complaints about landfill operations. "What we're looking for is continued support," said Paul Spagnola, a Ridge Hill Drive resident who is co-chairman of the citizens committee. "The problems over the last three years have not gotten better. If it was getting better, we would not be here." Spagnola said residents have made hundreds of complaints to the health department about odors over the last two years.
According to the article, health department officials have said that the landfill's owner, Charles J. Hesse III, has been found to be in violation only once. Spagnola and other residents said that's because it usually takes health inspectors 12 to 14 hours to respond to residents' complaints. "You cannot verify an odor complaint hours after the fact," said Grande River Boulevard resident John Moriarty, who also co-chairs the citizens committee. The health department and Hesse have put employees on night and weekend shifts in an attempt to respond more quickly to complaints.
The article goes on to report many residents were disappointed when Township Committee members told them that since the landfill is in neighboring Manchester Township, there is little Dover officials can do to control its operation. "I pay taxes to Dover Township. Why should I go to Manchester Township?" asked James Reilly, Ashewood Court. "As far as I'm concerned, the violation is now taking place in Dover Township. You five are our only hope."
PUBLICATION: Knoxville News-Sentinel (Knoxville, TN)
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: North Zone; Pg. N1
BYLINE: Ed Marcum
DATELINE: Milletown, Tennessee
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Roosevelt Allen, member of Metropolitan Planning Commission; Cecil Meek Jr., resident
The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports that a surface-mining operation has been deemed incompatible with the Millertown Pike area. Planning commissioners were not wooed by company's offer to make road improvements.
According to the article, the Metropolitan Planning Commission voted down a request by General Shale Products Corp. to mine shale on a 100-acre site on Harris Road north of Millertown Pike. That decision can be appealed to Knox County Commission. In an attempt to convince the MPC, John King, attorney for General Shale, told MPC the operation would not be something new -- just moving an operation from one site to another in the vicinity. The supply of shale at their current site is nearly gone. To get the same quality of shale for brick making, it's imperative to move the operation to the Harris Road property, King told MPC. General Shale would also be willing to help pay for some much needed road improvements in the area, King said. However, MPC Commissioner Roosevelt Allen said that, even if the roads could be improved, the mining operation would still be out of character with the neighborhood. "The issue is incompatibility and I'm not sure we can correct that problem," he said.
The article notes that earlier MPC planners had recommended the request be turned down because of concerns over inadequate roads serving the site and because a surface mine operation didn't fit with long range land use plans calling for the area to develop residentially. Cecil Meek Jr., representing about 100 homeowners, urged commissioners to follow the planners' advice. Harris Road is only 15 feet wide at some points and the extra truck traffic will pose a hazard, he said. The trucks and mining activity will also produce noise and dust, he said. "These people are going to hear 48 trucks a-gruntin' and a-groanin' as they go up grade, plus a scraper and a bulldozer will be used," Meek said. General Shale estimates there will be 15 truck trips per day. At times during the 1970s, houses near the Millertown site were covered with dust, Meek said. "There is no way to make this compatible with a residential area," he said. King disagreed with Meek, saying there are several ways to address residents' concerns. He conceded there would be some noise but people will get accustomed to it. King said roads could be improved, heavy vegetation could be used to screen the site and reduce noise and water can be sprayed to keep down dust.
PUBLICATION: FAA Airports(R)
DATE: January 13, 1998
SECTION: Vol. 15, No. 2; Pg. 9
DATELINE: Washington, D. C.
The FAA yesterday published procedures and guidance in the Federal Register for operators of Stage 2 aircraft to submit a request for an interim compliance waiver, although the agency's policies for reviewing those requests have not changed. Under FAA noise regulations, an operator of Stage 2 aircraft by Dec. 31, 1998, must either reduce its number of Stage 2 aircraft by 75% from the November 1990 base level or achieve a fleet mix of airplanes that is 75% Stage 3 airplanes.
In 1994 and 1996 - the two previous years ending interim compliance periods - FAA did not approve any waivers from the compliance deadlines. In 1994, seven were denied and three were withdrawn, and in 1996, all four petitions submitted were withdrawn by the aircraft operators.
Since applications for waivers must be filed at least 120 days before the compliance date, they must be filed by Sept. 3, 1998. All applications for a waiver must contain (1) the operator's plan to achieve interim and final compliance; (2) an explanation of the operator's efforts to date to achieve compliance, and (3) evidence or other information showing that a grant of the requested waiver is in the public interest. Each operator also must explain why compliance with the Dec. 31, 1998, deadline would: (1) be financially onerous; (2) be physically impossible; (3) be technologically infeasible, or (4) have an adverse effect either on competition or service to small communities. At least one of those four criteria must be met. A summary of any applications for waivers will be published in the Federal Register for comment.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star
DATE: January 14, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A04
DATELINE: Moorpark, California
The Ventura County Star reports that a draft noise ordinance has won the approval of the Moorpark, California Planning Commission. The commission voted 4-0 Monday, with former Commissioner Paul Norcross' seat still vacant, to recommend City Council approval of the ordinance, which will regulate noise within city limits to preserve "peace and quiet."
Acording to the article the ordinance was proposed in conjunction with an update of the general plan. Moorpark doesn't currently have a noise ordinance and the draft ordinance follows a model used by cities throughout the state, with the basic purpose of preventing willful or negligent activities that disturb residents or office workers in Moorpark.
The article reports that the commission asked staff workers to add objective criteria to allow code enforcement officers to decide whether or not noises are in violation of the ordinance.
"We want to have objective criteria folded into the language of the statute," Commissioner Keith Millhouse said in the article. "You don't want the city to be turned into a vehicle for neighbor-vs.-neighbor disputes."
According to the article, the council will consider the ordinance in coming months.
Previous week: January 4, 1998
Next week: January 18, 1998
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