PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Real Estate; Pg. H2
BYLINE: by Nena Groskind
DATELINE: Arlington, Massachusetts
The Boston Globe prints a realty question from a tenant who says his landlord misled him in saying that noise would not be a problem in his apartment. The columnist says effective action would probably need proof that the landlord knew the other tenants would be disruptive, and an unquestionably misleading statement by the landlord. The questioner admitted the tenants were not particularly disruptive, and that the landlord's low-noise claim was ambiguous.
The article prints a question and answer column on the subject of realty. One tenant asks whether he has any recourse against a landlord who mislead him in saying that noise would not be a problem. He is bothered by footsteps and running water from other tenants, and says that although no one is being intentionally loud, lack of adequate insulation makes sounds unbearable.
The columnist says that although there has been action taken against landlords, those cases required the tenant to prove that the landlord knew other tenants would be troublemakers. Action would also probably need proof of an unquestionably misleading statement by the landlord, such as "the apartment is soundproofed." Neither of those two conditions apply to the situation that the question asked about.
PUBLICATION: The Boston Globe
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Learning; Pg. L7
BYLINE: by Richard Weizel
DATELINE: Fairfield, Connecticut
The Boston Globe reports that Connecticut's Fairfield University is taking more responsibility for disruptive and intoxicated off-campus students after years of claiming it is not their responsibility. A special task force, an off-campus student coordinator, a new dormitory, a delayed homecoming weekend, and more on-campus entertainment are intended to reduce disruptions at the nearby beach, where students frequently engage in rowdy behavior. Police are also stepping up enforcement of nuisance ordinances. Students maintain that most students are responsible, but a few students cause most of the noise and other trouble.
The article reports that Connecticut's Fairfield University is taking more responsibility for disruptive and intoxicated off-campus students after years of inaction. Historically, Fairfield and other University's have said that although they don't condone drinking, they are not responsible for controlling of disciplining students for their off-campus behavior. Resident Associations admit that the university's new steps -- which include a special task force, an off-campus student coordinator, a new dormitory, a delayed homecoming weekend, and more on-campus entertainment -- are important, but are skeptical as to their long-term results.
The article points out that Fairfield is located within one mile of the ocean, and that up to 600 students live at the beach each year; typically, housemates split the costs which can reach $50,000 for a ten-month lease. Many parties are held at the beach, and hundreds more students come to the beach for the festivities. Residents say that disruptions can range from "rowdy street behavior [to]... vandalizing and urination on lawns." In the early 1990s, an ABC television report on disruptive Fairfield students made the university a representative of sorts for national problems with student drinking.
The article notes that police response has included more bike patrols on the beach, more police on weekends, and quicker tickets for students who violate the noise ordinance.
The article notes that the student Beach Residents Association blames only a few students for the problems. They say that most bad behavior happens after parties are over, when "some are wandering around the streets making noise and getting in trouble.... We are saying... that students should be careful who they invite to their parties, and to try and end the parties as early as possible and with as little noise as possible."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Neighbor; Good Morning, Arlington Heights!; Pg. 1
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald prints several short articles on the week's news in local communities. One article deals with the Route 53 communities of Arlington Heights, Rolling Meadows, and Palatine which are expected to ask for some of the $25 million that Illinois has made available for paying up to half of highway noise barrier projects nationwide. Competition among communities for the money is expected to be stiff.
The article reports that Illinois' FIRST program has announced that $25 million will be available to pay for up to half of the cost of highway noise barrier projects statewide. Chicago communities -- including Arlington Heights, Rolling Meadows, and Palatine -- hope to win some of the money to pay for noise walls along Route 53. The walls will cost up to $1 million per mile.
The article continues, noting that the communities will have to pay the remaining half of the costs themselves. Also, communities along the Edens Expressway are expected to apply for much of the money, stiffening the competition.
The week that was
MONDAY
Bid for Route 53 sound wall?
Arlington Heights, Rolling Meadows and Palatine may bid for state money that has recently been made available to help them build noise barrier walls along Route 53. Residents near the expressway have complained for years about traffic noise and pollution. However, the noise walls are expensive, about $1 million per mile. Now, the Illinois FIRST program has $25 million set aside to pay 50 percent of the cost of noise walls statewide. The villages must decide whether they would be willing to spend the remaining half of the cost. It also isn't a given they would get the money - competition for the state money is also expected to come from towns along the Edens Expressway.
PUBLICATION: Arlington Morning News
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Opinions; Pg. 9A; Letters From Readers
BYLINE: Larry Sramek
DATELINE: Grand Prairie, Texas
The Arlington Morning News prints several letters to the editor, including one which protests the construction of a new Texas Motorplex near a residential area. The author has tried to contact city officials but has only been ignored and lectured on the existing noise in his neighborhood. He holds that the current motorplex is not near any homes for a reason: excessive noise; he also says that it is irresponsible for the city of Grand Prairie to build the noisy new motorplex near residences.
"A neighborhood sacrificed in GP
The city of Grand Prairie is sacrificing the neighborhood of Burbank Gardens in their greediness to lure the Texas Motorplex.
In all of the information the city and the Texas Motorplex is giving out about the relocation proposal nothing is ever said about our neighborhood homes being less than a quarter of a mile from the proposed track. Is this because the voting public may turn the city and the Motorplex down at the polls when they go to vote?
When I contacted City Hall with my concerns I was transferred to the deputy city manager, not the mayor as requested. Deputy City Manager Kevin Evans listened to my concerns and told me he would bring up my concerns in the meeting he was going to later that day and then call me back. He never called me back.
When I contacted Mayor Charles England he tried to lecture me on how noisy the neighborhood was today and in the past. When I was able to stop his lecture and explain that I was very aware of the noise in the past because I had been coming to this neighborhood for 31 years and now live in the house that used to be my grandparents house, the mayor got really defensive. He never listened to any of my concerns and never said anything to alleviate my concerns.
The mayor basically told me that he didn't know why I moved to the neighborhood in the first place if I didn't like noise, and that if I didn't like noise then maybe I should move.
What kind of thing is this for any elected official to say to a taxpaying citizen?
The citizens of Grand Prairie need to understand that there are residential homes less than a quarter of a mile from the proposed Texas Motorplex and that if it is built it will ruin our property values and our quality of life. The city has fallen for the ridiculous story that Billy Meyer of the Texas Motorplex has told them.
They believe that this track will not create an ungodly amount of noise in our neighborhood and it will not impact this neighborhood at all. This is stupid, ludicrous and irresponsible. Of course this thing is going to have a major impact on our neighborhood, a very negative impact.
The city and the Texas Motorplex should do the right thing and at least make us offers for our homes. You do not see residential neighborhoods anywhere near the Texas Motor Speedway or the current Texas Motorplex do you? Why do they believe that we want to live anywhere near the new Texas Motorplex?
I am an avid auto-racing fan who attends races every year at both the Texas Motorplex and Texas Motor Speedway but I don't want to live with this thing in my neighborhood, I know what kind of noise and traffic impacts this will have."
PUBLICATION: The Des Moines Register
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Nation World Pg.4
DATELINE: Des Moines, Iowa
The Des Moines Register reports that Des Moines, Iowa police will now enforce its noise ordinance, which has been around for years.
The article reports that Des Moines, Iowa police will now enforce its noise ordinance, which has been around for years. The writer of this brief editorial asks them to "Say it again, officers -not just because it's pleasant music to our ears, but because years of raucous assaults on our eardrums have dulled our hearing."
PUBLICATION: The Gazette
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: News; A3
BYLINE: Bill Brownstein
DATELINE: Montreal, Canada
The Gazette prints a column, which derides Montreal's Molson Centre Hockey Arena as being too noisy. The scoreboard -- which spews annoying commercials -- and rock music played at the game are too loud. A doctor that was interviewed said hearing damage could result from repeated attendance at the hockey games just as it could at frequent rock concerts.
The column derides Montreal's Molson Centre Hockey Arena as being too noisy. This sarcastic column includes several informal interviews with hockey fans. The basic gist is that the scoreboard -- which spews annoying commercials -- and rock music played at the game are too loud. The author suggests solutions, including getting rid of the scoreboard commercials and music, as well as improving the play of the team that plays there.
The column includes many references to hearing damage due to the noise. One man said "I'm half-deaf already. So I don't need any electronically enhanced irritation to ruin what's left of my hearing when I go to the Molson Centre. What's worse is this is noise that's unwanted and unnecessary at a hockey game." A doctor that was interviewed said hearing damage could result from repeated attendance at the hockey games just as it could at frequent rock concerts. But when you go to a rock concert, you're at least aware of the risk to your hearing.
PUBLICATION: The Orlando Sentinel
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Lake Sentinel; Pg. 10
BYLINE: Harry McCarraher
DATELINE: Orlando, Florida
The Orlando Sentinel prints a letter to the editor from an Orlando, Florida resident. The author is upset that growth -- which will increase commuter and corporate jet overflights near his house -- at the Leesburg Airport wasn't mentioned when he bought his house three years ago.
"Regarding growth of the Leesburg Airport and the resulting noise: We moved here three years ago to get away from noise pollution - a lot of which was caused by airplanes and helicopters. When we were buying our property, our Realtor mentioned that occasionally a light plane might fly over. What he didn't say was that corporate and commuter jets would be flying over in the near future."
PUBLICATION: The San Diego Union-Tribune
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Real Estate Pg. H-4
DATELINE: San Diego, California
The San Diego Union-Tribune prints a question and answer column for renters and landlords. One questioner asks if a tenant can prevent a planned natural childbirth in his complex -- which could be noisy -- or receive a discount on his rent for any disturbance. The columnists say that the only real recourse that the complainer has is to talk to the couple himself, or to ask the landlord or another neighbor to talk to them in his place; they also say to just "relax".
The column prints a question asking if a tenant has any recourse against another tenant who plans to have potentially loud natural childbirth at home. He does not like the couple -- who never notified him of their plans -- and wants to prevent the event or receive a discount on his rent for the disturbance.
The columnists say that landlords cannot act upon 'anticipated noise'; they can act only when the noise occurs. Also, they note that if the event is not ongoing -- and childbirth is not -- he should just get over it. The expectant couple should take reasonable measures not to disturb neighbors, but the only real recourse that the complainer has is to talk to the couple himself, or to ask the landlord or another neighbor to talk to them in his place.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Virginia Beach Beacon, Pg. 42
BYLINE: Paula E. Backus
DATELINE: Birdneck, Virginia
The Virginian-Pilot prints several letters to the editor, including one regarding jet noise. The author notes that although many say that residents knew how loud it would be to move near the base, residents should always be able to enjoy their home. She also notes that naval officials have ignored her concerns and the concerns of her community -- Birdneck, Virginia.
"Jet noise still on the increase
I am writing in reference to the articles that appeared in reference to the people who are tired of the "whiners" about the noise from Oceana jets.
Let me first say crash and noise zones are shown but nothing can relate to the extent as seeing this on paper. We visited this house while still under construction at least 10 times before we signed. We had obviously visited while the jets where using Bay Colony that week.
I know the jets have been here long before us, but anytime someone cannot enjoy the peace and quiet of their own home there is a problem. These jets are so close I can see the glass on the cockpits.
I was told in one of my complaints that it would be calmer after Sept. 10.
Maybe that was true for the neighborhoods that invited the Navy to their civic league meetings, but my noise has increased. On my fourth complaint a gentleman clearly advised me the only changes the Navy will make for the jets is "wind" conditions; no civic league meetings will change the courses. I also saw that five area neighborhoods will have decibel and pollution monitored. Of course, my neighborhood was not listed. I have never heard a mention of the Birdneck/Seatack area."
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: October 17, 1999
SECTION: Loudoun Extra; Pg. V20
BYLINE: Dana Hedgpeth
DATELINE: Leesburg, Virginia
The Washington Post reports that after continued complaints regarding noise at a local restaurant in Leesburg, Virginia, a consulting firm determined sound levels were not severe.
The article reports that after continued complaints regarding noise at a local restaurant in Leesburg, Virginia, a consulting firm was called in to measure the sound levels. The firm did not find the noise severe.
The article reports that residents complained about the noise, which originated from air conditioners and exhaust fans on the roof of the three story building, being too loud. Residents had also complained that police did not issue noise citations after the original complaints, but officers never determined the noise to be excessively loud.
Previous week: October 10, 1999
Next week: October 31, 1999