PUBLICATION: Mainichi Daily News
DATE: April 28, 1998
SECTION: Page 16; Domestic
DATELINE: Yokohama, Japan
The Mainichi Daily News reports that a group of 1,607 people living near U.S. Navy Atsugi air base in Yokohama, Japan filed a class-action lawsuit Monday in Yokohama District Court seeking 1.27 billion yen as compensation from the Japanese government for noise from U.S. and Self-Defense Forces (SDF) planes. The Japanese government is in charge of the base, which stretches over seven municipalities. The article notes that the lawsuit is the third of its kind regarding noise from the Atsugi base.
According to the article, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim the government has taken no action to reduce the noise since the Tokyo High Court declared the noise illegal in January 1996. The noise comes from night flights of U.S. carrier-based aircraft and SDF planes. The article explains that unlike the other two lawsuits filed against the base, the third suit focuses only on compensating residents and doesn't seek to halt the night flights. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said this approach could result in a quicker decision by the court. The 1.27 billion yen being asked for by the plaintiffs includes past and future noise, lawyers said.
The article notes that the three lawsuits together involve 5,047 plaintiffs, who are demanding total compensation of 4.29 billion yen.
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: April 27, 1998
SECTION: Section B; Page 4; Column 6; Metropolitan Desk
DATELINE: Sea Isle City, New Jersey
The New York Times reports that the City Council in Sea Isle City, New Jersey will vote tomorrow on designating noise-free zones in order to quiet partyers. In the zones, the fines for violations would be doubled. In addition, landlords would have their permits revoked if tenants receive three noise summonses in one summer. Mayor Leonard Desiderio said that the current $180 fines for violations have not kept the noise down. The article notes that Sea Isle City, along with other shore towns like Wildwood and North Wildwood, have been known as party towns, but they are trying to change their images to attract families. Wildwood and North Wildwood have voted to close their bars two hours earlier this summer, at 3 a.m.
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: April 27, 1998
SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 3; Metropolitan Desk
BYLINE: Mike Allen
DATELINE: New York, New York
The New York Times reports that New York City police have been undertaking a crackdown on minor crimes every weekend in Greenwich Village as part of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's increased focus on quality-of-life crimes. The crackdown, called Operation Civil Village, involves radar traps, sound traps, drunken-driving checkpoints, stolen-vehicle checkpoints, motorcycle checkpoints, and license, registration, and insurance-card checkpoints. The article notes that while police and some residents say the project has been a huge success, other residents complain about being stopped by police when they've done nothing wrong, about police officers harassing people, and about long waits in traffic when police are checking IDs.
The article describes one encounter between police and two 19-year-old college students driving through Greenwich Village on Friday night playing their stereo. Aaron Cohen and his twin brother, Ari, were caught by undercover police officer Thomas Purdy, who was patrolling the area for stereos blasting at more than 68 decibels. The Cohens' stereo barely went above the limit, but they got a ticket anyway for "unreasonable noise." "This is like martial law," Ari Cohen said. But, the article notes, things could have turned out worse for the Cohens. When noise from a car stereo exceeds 75 decibels, police seize the car immediately until the summons is settled. Drivers are given bags for their possessions, and can't pick up their cars until court opens on Monday. Officer Purdy said, "You see these people dressed up to go to clubs, and they're walking down the street with a garbage bag." Purdy's partner, Kevin Mulcahy, said the precinct's officers were extra busy these days. "We want to set a tone for the summer," he said.
The article also explains that police block up to 10 streets per night with sawhorses to deter cruising on Fridays and Saturdays. This can result in turning some streets into virtual parking lots, leading to noisy horn blowing that has some nearby residents thinking of moving. Other measures include installing surveillance cameras in Washington Square Park to deter drug dealers.
Operation Civil Village has created a backlash against Mayor Giuliani, the article says. Kathleen Ryan, a travel agency owner and Village resident, said, "I feel safe, but I also feel annoyed. It's like they're trying to make an example of everyone who comes to the Village." Joey Dominich, an advocate for AIDS sufferers and a Village resident, said, "It's overwhelming. I'm waiting for the tanks to come pouring in." Marc Turkel, who works in the Village and lives nearby, was stuck for more than an hour in a traffic jam caused by a police checkpoint in which he had to produce identification. Turkel said, "It felt like a military state. Once we turned onto the street, they wouldn't let us leave. We were being physically held against our will." Turkel's friend, Neena Beber, who was also in the car, said, "This whole notion of having to show your papers when you haven't been doing anything wrong is very disturbing."
But other residents praise the police, saying they have cleaned up the Village. Resident Gene Bassin said, "This place was a horror, before. Now, it's almost as if this place has been sanitized. The problems are small."
The article goes on to explain that Thomas Duane, a City Councilor who has represented Greenwich Village for six years, said he appreciates the greater police presence but thinks the officers need to be better trained, especially in dealing with young people. Duane said, "The libertarian streak runs very wide through Greenwich Village. I get calls and letters from people who feel visitors, and even some residents, are being harassed." Alan Gerson, the chair of Community Board 2, praised the police actions in the last two years, but added, "The police need to be sensitive to the fact that they can be sending a signal that's the opposite of what they intend, and create the perception that the Village is more dangerous than it is." Meanwhile, Norman Siegel, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said that even some early supporters of Mayor Giuliani's approach to enforcement were beginning to question its scope and direction.
But, the article reports that police see the program as a huge success. They say criminal-court summonses for the first three months of the year were up 87% percent over last year, and the number of traffic tickets is up 21%. Operation Civil Village started two years ago with some elements in place. Mayor Giuliani enthusiastically defends the program, saying "Most people in the Village are very happy that there are fewer drug dealers, that crime is down about 50% and that the quality of life has improved." According to Captain Gabrielle Sbano, who directs the operation on most weekend nights, "We have created a safe environment so people can relax and enjoy themselves and then get home safely." Captain Sbano acknowledged that roadblocks set up to search for drunk drivers can result in traffic jams, but she said cars are prevented from leaving the line of cars so that intoxicated drivers can't avoid arrest.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 26, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Lorenza Munoz and Jean Pasco
DATELINE: Irvine, California area
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Christina Shea, Irvine Mayor; Larry Agran, head of Project 99 and former Irvine mayor
The Los Angeles Times reports that Newport Beach residents -- who fought the expansion of John Wayne Airport in the 1970s -- are worried that if the proposed El Toro Airport isn't built, increases in air traffic will occur at John Wayne since expansion limits are scheduled to end in 2005. As a result, residents there have become fierce proponents for the El Toro Airport, often opposing residents in the south of Orange County who worry they will be negatively impacted by El Toro. In addition to past experience, Newport Beach residents tend to have more money and political clout than south county residents.
According to the article, Newport Beach residents made up a majority of people in attendance at a county supervisors' meeting last week, where supervisors were poised to choose among four plans for El Toro Airport. The supervisors chose a plan that would create a 24-million passenger capacity each year, and would include international, domestic, and cargo flights. Newport Beach residents said although they were timid at first, they've accepted the perception that the decision was "South County vs. Newport Beach."
Meanwhile, the article says, Irvine mayor and airport opponent said that Newport Beach is essentially deciding on the details of El Toro because supervisors take them more seriously due to their money and political power. She believes the end result will be a 33-million passenger El Toro with the closure of John Wayne, while "What we ought to be doing is expand[ing] John Wayne Airport because it would have the least impact on the fewest residents at the lowest cost."
The article explains that between the Airport Working Group, Newport Beach city officials, and other El Toro proponents, several steps have been taken to make El Toro more likely. Northern flight paths were examined to make them more amenable to central-county residents: important allies of El Toro. They pushed for the addition of many more cities to the Orange County Regional Airport Authority which supports a new airport. Finally, they pushed three of the five county supervisors to designate a preferred plan, even though that wasn't scheduled to happen until at least June. The article says that the chosen plan will be compared to the non-aviation plan, proposed by airport opponents, which would include parks, stores, a college, and homes on the former military base.
The article goes on to explain that Newport Beach fought John Wayne expansion for years, and successfully won a passenger cap at 8.4 million: at least until 2005. A former mayor of the community said "All of us know that if this airport is not built, there will be tremendous pressure on the Board of Supervisors to expand John Wayne. We cannot lose -- it's just that simple."
The article notes that last fall, the environmental impact statement was judged to be flawed, not properly considering potential noise and traffic issues. The article also goes way back to 1994, and notes that at that time Newport Beach residents in the Airport Working Group were wary of declining support for the airport. They developed the voter initiative Measure A, which made the County Supervisors responsible for deciding on the airport; this was important because it was feared by airport supporters that south county municipalities could form a group that would be in charge of deciding. Measure A also specified that the base be used specifically for an airport. The measure passed, but barely.
The article goes on to say that Newport Beach officials met many times with the county supervisors last year because no specific plan for the airport had been released. They believed that the delay was hurting public support. They said "County planners didn't recognize that the El Toro fight is primarily a political and public relations battle as opposed to a planning issue." This of course begs the question: shouldn't it be a planning issue striving to stay free of political influence?
The article reports that Newport Beach officials have been working to recruit cities in the north and middle parts of the county to the Orange County Regional Airport Authority which supports the airport. They maintain that for Measure A to pass, there had to have been a majority of county voters who support an airport; their job is to find those people again and urge them to speak out.
Meanwhile, airport opponents have said that Measure A passed mainly because many voters didn't care too much about what happened, and didn't have any alternative besides an airport. The mayor of Irvine, who supports the non-aviation plan as an alternative, says "There's a time when you don't deal with your enemies; you go with your own plan."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 26, 1998
SECTION: Opinion; Part M; Page 4; Letters Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times printed the following letter-to-the-editor from Noel Park, a San Pedro, California resident, regarding noise at Los Angeles International Airport:
Re: "LAX Expansion Publicists Are Catching Flak," April 19: The level of aircraft noise in our city is unacceptable.
I would like to see The Times have a reporter with a decibel meter stand at the corner of Century Boulevard and Crenshaw, or La Brea, or even Western, for one hour. I defy anyone to say that the level of noise is acceptable. How can we possibly think of doubling it? This seems to me to be the worst sort of environmental discrimination, when the least powerful would have their neighborhoods sacrificed to promote commerce and travel.
If we make our city the hub of business for the whole world, and in doing so render it uninhabitable, what will we have accomplished?
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 26, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 14; Zones Desk
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times printed the following letters-to-the-editor regarding the proposed expansion of the Burbank (California) Airport:
To the editor:
In a letter dated March 24 to U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, the Federal Aviation Administration wrote: "The imposition of an airport noise or access restriction, such as a curfew, a Stage II ban, or a noise budget, is subject to governing federal law and is not within the power of the Burbank Airport Authority or the FAA to impose."
This is a message we have been trying to get across for years. "It is important to note," the FAA writes in that same letter, "that the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport currently operates with an all-Stage III airline fleet and that noise is significantly less than it was when the airport was acquired publicly. The replacement terminal building will not increase noise at the airport. The FAA's concern is that the insistence on linking the construction of the terminal to a mandatory airport noise restriction may obstruct what we all agree is a needed safety improvement."
U.S. Rep. Howard L. Berman, in an article April 5, ("FAA Is the Best Hope for Burbank Airport,") states, "I don't want to see another 15 years go by without a new terminal." We couldn't agree more. That's why the airport authority has worked so diligently toward compliance with FAA regulations and toward providing a new and efficient terminal.
Berman charges that the airport authority has used as a "smoke screen" the refrain that "the FAA won't let us do that." We hope the FAA letter will clear up the misconception. It isn't the airport authority that has been pursuing a "stonewalling strategy," but rather opponents to the airport's replacement terminal program.
Berman's assertion that terminal expansion will "inevitably" lead to "more flights and aircraft noise" is in direct contrast to studies conducted by the FAA and findings of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the FAA's environmental impact statement, airport growth is not related to the size of the terminal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided last month in favor of the FAA and airport authority that the projected growth will come whether or not a new terminal is built.
Given that growth will come and that the airport authority is powerless to accede to opponents' demands, should airport safety continue to be compromised while the opponents drag out the battle in the courts? We think not. That's why we are working so hard to get this project underway.
Thomas Greer, Executive Director, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority
To the editor:
While the residents of Studio City share The Times' desire that the Burbank Airport tussle come to an end quickly, there are some serious flaws in your editorial comment (Time to Yield on Airport Curfew," April 18). First, the airport authority has never stated that it will restrict future growth to only 19 total gates. The current phase of expansion includes a 19-gate total but the authority has consistently acknowledged that it is planning for as many as 27 total gates in later phases. Second, moving the terminal for safety purposes is a pretext for expansion. The FAA currently allows every size aircraft that can use the airport to use the airport; were there a real safety concern, the terminal would have been moved long ago or flights into and out of Burbank would already be severely restricted. Third, in a recent newspaper article, the FAA stated that they would consider changes to aircraft traffic patterns at several airports to reduce congestion and noise. Clearly, if the FAA is willing to review heretofore sacrosanct flight patterns, there is some reason to believe that a reasonable curfew might also be worth further consideration.
Perhaps if the authority implements a response other than "just say no!" to every suggestion from residents and the city of Burbank, this matter can be resolved quickly.
Christopher Barnes, Airport Study Advisory Committee, Studio City
To the editor:
I try very hard to keep up with the details and events of the airport expansion, but seem to fall short. I honestly think it is a full-time job, and with all the smoke screening and accusations that are blasted back and forth, it's very hard.
I live in the flight path, near Burbank Boulevard and Hollywood Way, and the noise is a problem. I know that Glendale and Pasadena don't really care how the expansion will affect the neighborhood around the airport. But I do know that money talks, and that's all they are interested in. More building equals more business, equals more people, equals more traffic, equals more money.
I don't think anyone favoring this expansion has really taken into account that Burbank is our home, our children's home and our grandchildren's home. And I want my children and my grandchildren to enjoy living in this peaceful and serene town.
Lucy Guerra Aloyian, Burbank
PUBLICATION: The San Diego Union-Tribune
DATE: April 26, 1998
SECTION: News Pg. A-14
BYLINE: Gordon Smith
DATELINE: Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that the National Park Service is working to control noise from helicopter and plane flights in Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. A ten-year phase-out of the noisiest aircraft that was enacted last year is the most recent noise regulation, the article says.
According to the article, up to one million sightseers per year see the Grand Canyon by air. Grand Canyon Park Superintendent Robert Arnberger said hundreds of helicopter and plane flights cross the canyon each day, sometimes drowning out natural sounds. To address the problem, the Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration created flight-free zones over major portions of the canyon two years ago. The regulations stipulated that existing air-tour operators had to freeze the size of their fleets and fly only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the winter and from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the summer. Last year, new rules were enacted governing a ten-year phase-out of the noisiest aircraft. Arnberger said, "Our goal is to make 50% of the park quiet 75% of the time ... without destroying a viable industry that provides another way to see the canyon. We think we can reach that goal by 2008 or 2010, partly through development of quieter aircraft."
Meanwhile, the article says, Brad Martin, president of Air Star helicopter tours, said the regulations have cost air-tour operators millions of dollars and the rules regarding quieter aircraft will cost millions more. Air-tour companies also are negotiating with Park Service officials over the air corridors they are permitted to use, the article notes.
PUBLICATION: The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA)
DATE: April 26, 1998
SECTION: The Region, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Staff and Wire Reports
DATELINE: Pullman, Washington
The Spokesman-Review reports that the City Council in Pullman, Washington will consider a proposal to reinstate the noise ordinance on the first Friday and Saturday nights of the school year. The council lifted the city noise ordinance last year on those nights, which caused a "hue and cry from members of the public," according to Pullman Police Chief Ted Weatherly. The noise ordinance is intended partly to curb noisy parties at Washington State University, the article notes.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 30, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 8
BYLINE: Robert C. Herguth
DATELINE: Cook County, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jack Saporito, leader of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare; Charles Miller, member of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare
The Chicago Daily Herald reports that while a conference on noise reduction and education was held Wednesday at Park Ridge in Chicago, every few minutes or so, a plane would roar by and drown out the leader of the event.
According to the article, perhaps the Park Ridge ice rink building was the perfect setting for Wednesday's conference. Jack Saporito was one of the organizers of the event, held in conjunction with International Noise Awareness Day. "This is almost funny," one member of the audience said after a particularly loud plane passed over head. But to Saporito, who heads the Arlington Heights-based Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, reducing aircraft noise is anything but funny. "It's getting noisier and noisier," he said. At Wednesday's conference, he launched a petition drive and letter-writing campaign aimed at curbing airport expansion and noise. At the same time, his group requested a night-time ban on flights at O'Hare International Airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
The article goes on to report that Monique Bond, a spokeswoman for Chicago's aviation department, said the city has no power to create a night-time curfew. "First of all, under U.S. law, an airport authority cannot impose (those) restrictions on airlines," she said. "It would take an act of Congress." She added that most evening flights are international destinations and cargo operations. She said the airport has been meeting with cargo operators and is urging them to use quieter aircraft at night.
The article went on to say Saporito's group maintains that O'Hare's noise is detrimental to people's health, children's learning, and the quality of life for local residents. The event provided a forum for people to "sound off" about noise and talk about ways to reduce it. John Cermak, a member of Park Ridge's Airport Noise Advisory Council, said he was awakened at 4:15 a.m. Wednesday by a plane. "Now with the warmer weather (and people having their windows open more), it's going to get worse," he said.
PUBLICATION: Daily News (New York, NY)
DATE: April 30, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 5
BYLINE: Frank Lombardi
DATELINE: New York City, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Keith Muller, member of the League of Hard of Hearing
The Daily News reports New York City is increasing its efforts to limit noise by restricting cab drivers from honking their horns unnecessarily.
According to the article, the Giuliani administration is telling noisy taxi drivers: Blow your horn unnecessarily and risk blowing your tip. The Taxi and Limousine Commission will add indiscriminate horn honking to the list of a passenger's bill of rights now posted inside all cabs, officials announced yesterday. Passengers will be instructed to withhold tips if their driver honks the cab's horn for other than an emergency use, such as warning another car, pedestrian, or even an animal, of imminent danger. Taxi drivers who create excessive noise also risk a traffic fine, said TLC Commissioner Diane McGrath-McKechnie. The new anti- noise effort was announced as Mayor Giuliani declared yesterday Noise Awareness Day in the city. Keith Muller of the League of Hard of Hearing presented the mayor with a baseball hat equipped with ear plugs.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: April 30, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 3; Orange County Focus Desk
BYLINE: Debra Cano
DATELINE: Orange County, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Karen Winkle, resident; Kathy Wright, resident
The Los Angeles Times reports that in Orange County, California railroad noise has been a problem for many years, and residents have continued to push for noise walls in the area.
According to the article, 4,000 residents are impacted by the rail line as it passes through Anaheim. The original track was recently joined by a second track, and as a result train traffic tripled. Residents want a noise wall to lessen noise and vibrations. They also complain about dangers to children crossing the tracks, fumes, and possible derailments.
The article reports that the fight for a noise wall has been going on for at least five years, and a Representative may have finally netted $5-million in federal money to go towards the project. The noise wall would be built as part of a railroad overpass project that would use another $9.5 million from the federal government. The wall will be at least three years in coming, although no date has been set even after that. Residents are frustrated with the lack of a timeframe.
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: April 30, 1998
SECTION: Triad/State, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Peter Krouse
DATELINE: College Lakes, North Carolina
The News & Record of Greensboro, North Carolina, reports that because the new FedEx hub and a third runway are expected to alter the high- noise areas around the Piedmont Triad International Airport, the Airport Authority may purchase a number of homes.
According to the article, the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority may eventually purchase a limited number of homes that will fall within high- noise areas resulting from future FedEx operations at the airport. Authority officials stress that the computer-generated noise boundaries are preliminary and are subject to change pending an FAA-required environmental impact study, which will take at least one year to complete. The authority's executive director, Ted Johnson, said homes in the College Lakes subdivision and the Canoe Road area - which are at either end of a proposed new runway - are possibilities for purchase.
The article reports the noise boundaries are based on 24-hour sound-level averages measured in weighted decibels. Noises that occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., which is when most of the FedEx planes will fly, are given a 10 decibel penalty. In some cases, these boundaries can be used to restrict certain kinds of development near an airport. As configured, the boundary map lays out two future high- noise areas around the airport. One is for the year 2003, when the airport's new runway will open and FedEx is expected to begin operating 20 to 25 daily flights. The second, and larger, boundary is for 2008 and projects a doubling of FedEx flights at the airport. Each boundary includes areas where average noise levels will exceed those considered compatible with residential use, said Steve Brill, an FAA official in Atlanta. The boundaries also take into account the use of quieter aircraft. By 2000, all jets must have the most quiet engines available.
The article goes on to say that on Friday, authority director Johnson met with about 30 College Lakes residents. Johnson told homeowners that the authority has no plans to condemn their property, but that it would be willing to discuss the possibility of purchasing some of their homes. At least one home in College Lakes falls within the 2003 noise contour, and some others may be within the 2008 contour, Johnson said. Jack Goodman, whose home in College Lakes subdivision is just outside the preliminary noise boundaries said he and his wife will move from their home of 20 years before exposing themselves to the noise. But he harbors no bad feeling toward FedEx or the airport and believes the authority will buy his home and treat him fairly. "I don't blame the airport at all for what transpired," Goodman said. "It's like when opportunity knocks, you open the door." Some of the most vocal opponents of the FedEx hub live in the Cardinal, which is located near College Lakes. No Cardinal homes fall within the preliminary 2003 or 2008 noise boundary lines.
According to the article, the FAA will choose a consultant to perform the environmental impact study, which will look at the FedEx project's effect on noise, water, air, endangered species, wetlands as well as other issues, including departure procedures, such as the angle a rising plane might take to avoid flying over residential areas. FedEx has said it plans to have most planes land and depart at the southwest end of the runway, which is farthest away from the Cardinal, College Lakes, and other areas to the northeast of the airport.
PUBLICATION: The Northern Echo
DATE: April 30, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 9
BYLINE: Andrew Douglas
DATELINE: United Kingdom
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Sterling, member of airport consultative committee
The Northern Echo of the United Kingdom reports complaints about noise from light aircraft using Teesside International Airport have risen since plans were announced to build one of the UK's biggest freight terminals.
According to the article, Bob Goldfield, the airport's managing director, yesterday claimed a large number of complaints were from objectors to the proposed GBP 300m Southside development. He told a meeting of the airport's consultative committee: "I am sure there is a strategy being played out. One of the most prominent complainers about light aircraft is also one of the foremost people in the protest group. They only started complaining when the Southside application was put in."
According to the article, protesters fear increased trade from the distribution terminal will disrupt life in the surrounding communities. A public inquiry into the proposal is scheduled to begin on June 2. John Sterling, a Middleton St. George parish councilor and committee member, voiced concern at complaints over noise from light aircraft over Middleton St. George and Middleton-One-Row. He said it was especially bad at weekends, adding: "It is an ongoing problem which is getting worse." A letter from one Middleton-One-Row resident said that on one Saturday light aircraft passed over the village every five to seven minutes. He said: "There is no escape from this disturbance, even indoors. Conversation is halted until the aircraft has passed over."
The article reports Goldfield said the airport had asked its three flying clubs to respect the two villages, but said some disturbance was unavoidable. He said the number of light aircraft flying a circuit had been reduced from six to four and that the height had been raised from 800 to 1,000 feet. Light aircraft movements had reduced from 69,000 to around 62,000 per year. Goldfield added: "There is no illegal flying in the vicinity of this airport and the rules are being enforced. The problem is that people living close to the airport do not accept the fact that aircraft have to fly particularly low to land and take off."
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA)
DATE: April 30, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 19C
BYLINE: John H. Boit
DATELINE: Boston, Massachusetts
The Patriot Ledger of Quincy, Massachusetts, reports state officials plan to investigate why there is an increase in aircraft noise complaints from residents in Weymouth. Several hundred people living in those areas have signed a petition complaining of increased airplane noise.
According to the article, Massport, the agency that oversees the state's airports, plans to study the number of planes appearing on radar over certain parts of Weymouth, spokeswoman Barbara Pratt said yesterday. The study, which will take two months to complete, will focus on radar readings taken during a two-week period over the areas of Great Pond and Whitman's Pond.
The article states the testing was ordered after Sen. Robert Hedlund, R-Weymouth, arranged a meeting April 7 between Weymouth resident William Desmond and Massport officials. Desmond told the officials that he has often been kept awake at night by low-flying planes preparing to land at Logan International Airport, about 15 miles away. The noise subsides at times but always recurs. At times, the roar of plane engines can be heard every 3 1/2 minutes, he said. "Today there haven't been any planes," Desmond said yesterday from his home, next to Great Pond. "I don't know if it's because of the wind or what. But there have been days when it's continuous and annoying." Desmond said he believes planes are louder in his neighborhood because the sound echoes off the pond. He said the echo could be eliminated if planes flew "a little higher and maybe two or three miles over. Everybody has to put up with something, and we know we live 20 miles from Boston. We just don't want to have it all the time," he said.
The article goes on to report parts of Weymouth are directly under the flight path taken by many planes as they approach Logan. Massport officials say one way to alleviate the problem would be to build another runway, but opponents suspect that would only bring more plane traffic to Boston. About 1,300 planes land and take off from Logan in any given 24-hour period. About 170 planes, 13 percent of Logan's daily flights, take off and land between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The majority of those are cargo and mail planes. More than 80 percent of those are stage three aircraft-- planes with the quietest jet engines. That percentage gives Logan the highest average of stage three aircraft of any airport in the country, Massport officials say. Logan officials say that they insist that airlines use stage three jets whenever possible because of the airport's proximity to residential areas.
PUBLICATION: South China Morning Post
DATE: April 30, 1998
SECTION: Letters To The Editor; Pg. 18
DATELINE: South China
The South China Morning Post published the following letter to the editor from Wong Ching Kwok for the Commissioner of Labor about efforts made by the Labor Department to protect workers from hearing damage. Wong Ching Kwok wrote:
I refer to the letter headlined, "Must enforce safety rules", from Dorothy Portch (South China Morning Post, April 18). I would like to brief your reader on efforts made by the Labor Department in protecting workers from the risk of hearing damage.
The hearing protection for employees exposed to hazardous noise levels while at work is one of the major concerns of the Occupational Safety and Health Branch of the Labor Department.
The department's occupational safety officers enforce the Factories and Industrial Undertakings ( Noise at Work) Regulations, which require proprietors, among other things, to carry out noise reduction measures and to provide their employees with suitable approved ear protectors if the employees are likely to be subject to daily personal (decibel) noise exposure at a level of 85 dB(A) or above. Employees are also required to make full and proper use of the hearing protectors provided.
Hearing conservation for employees is promulgated through enforcement, education and publicity.
The Occupational Safety and Health Training Center of this department has been organizing hearing protection training courses for members of the public free of charge. Last year, 11 classes were held with 278 participants attending.
There are also other institutions running similar courses. Publications and guidance on hearing protection are also prepared and distributed to concerned proprietors. An inspection campaign targeting hearing protection for workers at work will soon be launched.
This department will continue to promote hearing conservation programs for workers with a view to protecting workers from the risk of hearing damage.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: April 30, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Karla Schuster
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill Glass, city council member
The Sun-Sentinel reports the Boca Raton, Florida, City Council this week approved a resolution mandating airport officials impose a voluntary night curfew, notify all pilots who violate it, and pursue federal approval for a mandatory ban on night flights.
According to the article, the city Airport Authority already has a voluntary curfew on night flights. Council member Bill Glass, who sponsored the resolution, admits the new measure calls for very little change in the airport's existing policy. "It was totally born of frustration," Glass said. "We have this voluntary curfew, but we still get complaints about night operations. And more than anything else, this is a mandate to tell them, 'Hey folks, we're watching you and we're going to demand you do the things you say you are.' " Airport officials said they welcome Glass' proposals, but members of the Noise Compatibility Advisory Committee, a group created last year to find ways to curb noise problems, say they feel the council has pre-empted their efforts. "I wish you would try and work through the noise committee," said pilot Dave Freudenberg, a member of the group and president of the Boca Raton Pilots Association. "There are some members of the committee who feel like the City Council is saying the work we've done over the last year has been for nothing," he said. In the past year, the Airport Authority, based on the noise committee's recommendations, instituted a ban on touch-and-go's -- continuous takeoffs and landings performed by student pilots -- at night and on weekends.
The article reports that on Friday, the committee will meet to discuss the City Council's resolution and the few changes it would require in airport policy. "The committee wants to sit down and figure out the best way to record night operations," said Renee Johns, of the airport's noise abatement office. "We're supportive of the council resolution and ready to take a very aggressive approach. We just want to find the most effective way to do that." Boca Aviation, the airport's only maintenance operator, logs all night operations. But notification on the airport's existing voluntary curfew has been inconsistent. More permanent changes face a number of obstacle. The Airport Authority requested FAA funds for a new Part 150 noise study several months ago, but is now involved in a dispute with the agency that has frozen all of the airport's state and federal funds. The study is required before an airport can request more stringent flight restrictions. "That's what airport officials say, but don't believe everything they say," Glass commented.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 29, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Natasha Korecki
DATELINE: Lake Zurich, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports Lake Zurich, Illinois village officials rejected a proposed 4,000-square-foot expansion to Wal-Mart, citing overdevelopment of the area in general and charging the company specifically with being a noisy neighbor.
According to the article, development in neighboring communities has driven many of the recent expansions in Lake Zurich. "I feel we're over building the site," said Trustee Julie Gyarmaty. Residents agreed. Naturally, Lake Zurich businesses have to be up to date to compete, but they shouldn't go overboard, Mayor Jim Krischke said. Wal-Mart is not the only business asking for more space.
The article reports some trustees said Wal-Mart shouldn't be allowed to expand because it hasn't been a good "corporate citizen." Neighbors complained of truck noise, traffic, broken fencing, noise from the outdoor public announcement system, and garbage blowing into their yards. "Wal-Mart has to demonstrate a willingness to pacify their neighbors," before the village will allow an expansion, said Trustee Steve McAvoy. The Fidelity Group, in charge of Wal-Mart's property maintenance, said they clean up regularly and consistently responded to resident complaints. Jim Gerund of Fidelity said, "Wal-Mart has been a good corporate citizen. It's the village and the board that hasn't accepted that." Wal-Mart officials said they would work to reduce the truck traffic and noise, and eliminate the public announcement system if the expansion was approved.
PUBLICATION: The Dominion (Wellington, New Zealand)
DATE: April 29, 1998
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 11
BYLINE: New Zealand Press Association
DATELINE: Auckland, New Zealand
The Dominion of Wellington, New Zealand, reports Auckland academics will allow citizens to experience blissful silence today in honor of Noise Awareness Day.
According to the article, as part of International Noise Awareness Day, the University of Auckland is offering a rare opportunity, even in New Zealand, which has much less noise than many countries. An acoustically "dead" chamber is being opened to the public so people can experience the "unaccustomed pleasure of complete silence." The padded anechoic chamber at the university's Acoustic Research Center will be open today to give people an understanding of how noise affects people's health and hearing, director George Dodd said. Graduate students will offer hearing tests and advice, and lectures on topics such as noise in the home, the legal requirements governing noise, and acting on annoying noise. "Noise does not have to be loud to cause health problems," Dr. Dodd said. "Low levels of noise over a long period can raise blood pressure, retard children's learning, disturb sleep and cause psychiatric disorders." Around the world, 2.15pm has been set aside for a minute's silence to mark Noise Awareness Day today.
PUBLICATION: Flight International (Cairns, Australia)
DATE: April 29, 1998
SECTION: Air Transport; News; Pg. 15
BYLINE: Kevin O'toole
DATELINE: Sydney, Australia
Flight International of Cairns, Australia, reports airline officials, controllers and pilots are against noise sharing at Sydney's airport, citing safety and economic issues as well as mounting chaos.
According to the article, Qantas and Ansett airlines are predicting disaster at Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport following an Australian Government directive on overflying the city's suburbs which has effectively cut in half off-peak capacity at the airport. Controllers have also raised safety concerns. A new long term operating plan (LTOP) had been worked out for the airport last year to share noise pollution over the suburbs, which established a cap of 80 movements an hour throughout the day and included rules on switching runways and flight paths during off-peak periods. The noise sharing was meant to be subject to demand, but the caveat was dropped in a new Government directive given to air traffic controllers only weeks after the start of the new procedures at the beginning of the year. That directive brought possible movements down to 40 an hour.
The article reports problems peaked on February 16 with a system breakdown which Sydney's air traffic controllers are calling "Black Monday", when airborne and taxiing delays lasted an hour. The airlines have issued angry protests, saying that the new limits will reduce traffic into the hub, harm its development as a tourism gateway, and cause economic damage to Sydney, including jeopardizing the city's planning for the 2000 Olympic Games. Ansett executive director Rod Eddington wrote to Australian transport minister Mark Vaile asking the Government to "justify a fundamental policy change" after only six weeks of operations of the new procedures. Eddington predicted that the new limits would have "unacceptable, far-reaching and severe impact on the efficiency and capacity of the airport. Qantas chief executive James Strong backed those complaints in a his own letter to Vaile, saying that the changes "contradict the whole approach developed for Sydney airport after considerable consultation and compromise".
The article goes on to say controllers and pilots are demanding that politicians stop interfering, citing fears of a potential breakdown in safety defenses. They say frequent changes in runway configuration and traffic flows determined by the noise sharing plan will inevitably erode safety margins by increasing airspace congestion as well as pilot and controller workload. Australia's Bureau of Air Safety Investigation is already investigating an LTOP-related near-miss. A foreign airliner turned across the approach path of an inbound flight after take-off on one of the new noise -sharing modes, in which departing and arriving aircraft pass in opposite directions.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, PA)
DATE: April 29, 1998
SECTION: Local/Region, Pg. B4
BYLINE: Marybeth Mcfarland
DATELINE: East Rockhill Township, Pennsylvania
The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reports East Rockhill Township supervisors are considering an proposed ordinance that prohibits the possession of animals that cause a public nuisance by making noise.
According to the article, Township Manager John V. Cornell introduced the proposed ordinance, saying that the township office frequently is asked to do something about noisy pets. Currently, the township has nuisance ordinances prohibiting excessive noise by humans and curfew laws that get two-legged noisemakers off the streets, but township regulations do not specifically address animals. Cornell said it was brought to the attention of township officials that they needed to develop some sort of standard governing excessive or continuous noise made by dogs and other animals kept by township residents.
The article states the proposed ordinance would be enforced by regional police. It prohibits township residents from owning, possessing, or failing to control any animal that makes any noise continuously for more than 10 minutes or makes any noise intermittently for a half hour or more, creating a public nuisance. Acting township solicitor Robert Saurman suggested the proposed ordinance be amended to specifically include birds, as outlined in a suggested model municipal ordinance issued by the state. Saurman explained, however, that animals raised for agricultural uses are exempt from the ordinance as well as dogs that are barking in response to a threat from an intruder. Violation of the ordinance would be punishable by a $600 fine, Cornell said. Township supervisors approved the wording of the ordinance and will vote on it at their next regular meeting May 19.
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: April 29, 1998
SECTION: Triad/State, Pg. B10
BYLINE: Peter Krouse
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
The News & Record reports leaders in the Greensboro, North Carolina, area are asking for more details about noise from the proposed FedEx cargo hub at the Piedmont Triad Airport.
According to the article, Greensboro council member Nancy Mincello supports the FedEx hub, but she wants answers to questions about noise. She wants to know about jets FedEx plans to fly in and out of its proposed hub. Mincello, who represents the Guilford College area, which adjoins the airport, said constituent calls are split between support of the hub and opposition stemming from concern over the nighttime noise it will generate. Mincello said she has spoken as well with residents of the Cardinal, which is not in the city but is near her district. Of particular interest, Mincello said, is the type of the jets FedEx will use and the so-called "hush kits" that will be installed on the engines to make them quieter. Airport Authority Chairman Hudnall Christopher told Mincello that the authority would arrange for a FedEx official to meet with her.
The article states that Mincello is not the only elected official to hear concerns about the hub. Walt Cockerham said he has heard complaints both in his capacity as an airport authority member and as a Guilford County commissioner, although several residents around the airport also have said they want the hub. "I think a lot of the fear here is fear itself," he said, and those fears will subside with increased communication. Cockerham said several people suggested putting the hub at the airport's old terminal site on West Market Street, but he said adequate land is not available, access to the new runway would be impossible, and FedEx planes would have to land and take off over residential areas to the northeast. Authority Executive Director Ted Johnson said he met Friday with about 30 to 40 residents of the College Lakes subdivision which is near the tip of the proposed new runway. Residents there wanted to know how the airport's plans would impact their community.
The article goes on to report in other action Tuesday, the authority approved a resolution that acknowledges FedEx's plan to build a hub, the economic benefit it will create, the proposed airport improvements that will be made, and the concerns of residents living near the airport. They agreed to build a nearly 17,000 square-foot cargo building and an additional parking ramp that will be leased to Emery Air Freight Corp. In addition, the authority decided to buy a home and about 1.8 acres along Old Oak Ridge Road that will be removed to make way for the proposed FedEx hub. The authority will pay Charles and Paula Durham $155,000 for the property and relocation expenses. They also agreed to buy a home and almost one acre on Breezewood Road. The property, owned by Thomas and Nancy Settlemyre, will not be part of the FedEx project.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)
DATE: April 29, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B6
DATELINE: New Orleans, Louisiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Guignard, resident
The Times-Picayune published the following letter alerting readers to the pervasiveness of noise and its harmful effects. The letter is from Metairie, Louisiana, resident, John Guignard. Guignard wrote:
Today is International Noise Awareness Day.
In the United States, the event is sponsored by the New York-based League for the Hard of Hearing. Among various activities to raise nationwide public awareness of the pervasiveness and the seriousness of noise in our lives, the league exhorts everyone to observe a reflective minute's silence - or at least noise reduction. This can be done in many ways: turn down the radio or TV, avoid revving engines and leaning on car horns, pause during noisy neighborhood activities such as mowing the lawn, to suggest but a few.
In an annual tradition, the time set for the quiet minute today is 2:15 p.m. to 2:16 p.m. in your time zone. (Who knows - we might even be able to hear the roses. French Quarter street bands, among many other noise producers, kindly note!)
Noise, once defined by Ambrose Bierce as "stench in the ear," is not just an offensive nuisance that diminishes the quality of life. It can disrupt, and therefore degrade, the broadest range of human activity from productivity in the workplace to education in our schools. Moreover, excessive noise is a hazard to safety and health.
These are some of the things that noise can do, and often does:
Damage the hearing organ in the inner ear permanently.
Undermine health by a variety of mechanisms, ranging from raising blood pressure to diminishing the amount and quality of sleep.
Compromise safety in many situations - for example, by masking speech, PA announcements or audible warning devices. This can be particularly critical in the workplace, in transportation and in public places.
Increase psychological and social stress in individuals and communities. Some scientists contend that there may be a link between relentless high noise levels and criminal violence in the home, in the street, in schools and in the workplace.
I urge educators, managers, civic, business and industry leaders, working people and, indeed, all responsible and thinking members of our community to inform themselves about the harmful effects of noise and what best to do about it and to play their part in raising awareness of today's widespread and serious noise pollution problem.
Please speak out (there's no need to shout!) and act, today and every day.
PUBLICATION: The Times Union (Albany, NY)
DATE: April 29, 1998
SECTION: Capital Region, Pg. B5
BYLINE: Jane Gottlieb
DATELINE: Albany, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Barbara Atkins, resident;
The Times Union of Albany, New York, reports an angry crowd of Turf Community Park residents Tuesday night protested a proposed go-cart tract and urged the Town Board to side with them.
According to the article, residents of Turf Community Park predicted the go-cart project will be noisy, smelly and destined to grow. Neighbors fear more amusements will follow approval. "I have already been told by unsympathetic members of the Planning Board that I will have to get used to it," said Barbara Atkins, among 150 residents who filled Town Hall. "Our goal should not be to become conditioned to things that are not supposed to be there." Ostoja Vucetic, owner of the Clifton Park Golf Driving Range, needs a zoning change to build the track he and his engineers say has the barriers needed to largely block out noise and visual impact. The Town Board, which asked about the details, won't make a decision before its May 19 meeting.
The article reports during his presentation, James Dunn, whose architecture and engineering firm designed the track, said sound tests had shown the carts would nearly blend with the noise already present in the neighborhood. He could not promise residents would near nothing, but said that during tests calculated that earthen berm that will circle the track combined with a fence and more than 150 fast-growing trees planted close to the homes would muffle most of the sound. Vucetic has scaled the project back during months of work with the planing board, which recommended approval to the town board. In addition to noise, neighbors fear the fumes from the carts will endanger their health. Town Supervisor Lawrence DeVoe asked for more data on the impact of the gasoline emissions. So far, only Councilman Kevin Tollisen has publicly opposed the track. DeVoe said the noise will be difficult to predict. "I don't know how it can be verified until after the construction," he said. "It's a very difficult situation for us."
PUBLICATION: Airports(R)
DATE: April 28, 1998
SECTION: Vol. 15, No. 17; Pg. 161
DATELINE: Brussels, Belgium
Airports(R) reports the European Union plans to define a common approach to nighttime movements of aircraft and created a new policy, particularly for cargo shipments, at Europe's airports.
According to the article, Neil Kinnock, European commissioner for transport, said last week that environmental and competitive "level playing field" considerations are behind the policy move. The policy will complement a new EC position paper on air transport and the environment to be unveiled later this year. Kinnock said the document's objective will be "to set out a work program of technical standards on noise and emission stringency and complementary measures to accelerate their introduction. About the nighttime guidelines, he said, "We must develop a new framework of guidelines for nighttime movements in Europe, particularly for the cargo sector. There is no consistency across the EU in this area," Kinnock told journalists in Brussels after a meeting April 21 with representatives of ACI-Europe.
The article reports that on the agenda for the once a year meeting between the chiefs of Europe's largest airports and the EU's transport commissioner are: airport charges, noise and environmental norms, the abolition next year of duty-free sales in Europe, and slot allocation rules. The need for aircraft movement guidelines comes as competition is growing among Europe's airports to attract airlines and passengers. The increased competition and threat of revenue loss have combined to compel a number of mid-sized and small airports to relax their nighttime restrictions to attract charter and air cargo carriers. At the same time, Europe's largest and busiest airports find themselves forced by growing consumer protests to restrict nighttime noise. Global courier TNT, for example, has taken advantage of liberal rules at Bierset, the municipal airport of Liege, Belgium, to set up its European headquarters where it operates dozens of flights a night. Meanwhile, at Amsterdam Schiphol - about 25 minutes away by air - national authorities are forcing the airport to limit nighttime movements. In Italy, all the airports except international airports serving Rome and Milan face a national ban on nighttime flights under a new law to take effect in July.
The article reports ACI-Europe officials said action is needed. "We've reached a situation where some of our members find themselves competing against nearby airports with completely different nighttime operating rules," said Willi Hermsen, president of ACI-Europe and chief executive of Munich Airport. "This can't go on." Kinnock said it was the airports who requested the EU's intervention. "The airports themselves recognize there should be a coherent framework for nighttime movements. But it must be flexible." Philippe Hamon, ACI-Europe's director general, said defining guidelines or rules for nighttime aircraft movements constitutes a "very sensitive" issue for airports. "The risk is that the lowest common denominator would prevail. We've all grown addicted to the convenience of sending small packages overnight whenever we like. The rules, whatever they are, will have to be flexible," he said. Yevgeny Pogorelev, ACI- Europe's spokesman, said the key issue facing the commission was to avoid overly detailed rules. "We don't want any regulation that would lay down restrictions on the number of frequencies allowed at a given airport. There are too many variables involved such as local population densities or weather conditions for that to be effective or efficient," Pogorelev said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: April 28, 1998
SECTION: Nws; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Gilbert Jimenez
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Jack Saporito, leader of the Arlington Heights-based Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare; Ron Wietecha, Park Ridge Mayor
The Chicago Sun-Times reports O'Hare critics are angered by a plan to add 53 daily commuter flights at O'Hare Airport. Their protests are fueling arguments for a third airport at Peotone.
According to the article, O'Hare critics, long annoyed by noise and air pollution from the airport, say the federal government is discouraging the third-airport development while using short-term answers to problems best addressed by a new facility. "Even one more aircraft is too many when you consider all the air, noise and water pollution and the safety impacts that additional airplanes are going to create," said Jack Saporito of the Arlington Heights-based Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare. Saporito, the Suburban O'Hare Commission and the Natural Resources Defense Council contend that O'Hare is the largest polluter in Illinois. Meanwhile, U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater announced last Tuesday that four commuter services linked to United and American airlines would be exempt from current operations limitations at O'Hare, allowing the extra flights. Slater said his department wants to "stop unfair exclusionary practices by dominant carriers against low-fare competitors."
The article reports that Saporito does not buy Slater's explanation. "If they truly wanted to increase competition, wouldn't they build another airport in this market? They added the slots simply to increase the number of flights into O'Hare," said Saporito. Park Ridge Mayor Ron Wietecha, whose community is one of 15 members of the Suburban O'Hare Commission, said the new flights will encourage Mayor Daley's efforts to expand O'Hare. "The people who'll pay are those on the ground," Wietecha said. Under the "high density rule" dictated by the FAA in 1968, O'Hare may not conduct more than 155 takeoffs and landings per hour between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. The new slots are exceptions to the rule. Therefore, the almost 20,000 a year new operations will increase O'Hare's load by about 2 percent. Already heavily congested, some say this increased in activity at O'Hare further supports the need for a new additional airport.
The article goes on to say city Aviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney is against a new airport. Loney said scheduling new commuter flights in an airport 40 miles from downtown Chicago is misguided. "It would no more discipline fares or increase competition at O'Hare than it would if we added these 53 slots at Bloomington or Kankakee (airports)," she said. She said short-hop commuter passengers want to come to O'Hare because it serves connecting flights as well as those originating and ending here. "If this service were added to some remote airport, it wouldn't be feeding into anything," Loney said. She denied that O'Hare is running out of capacity to handle additional flights. "And the slots are only awarded to carriers that are going to provide service with Stage 3 aircraft, which are the quietest" in use, Loney said. On Friday, Slater said that issues of airport and regional flight capacities are matters for local officials to decide. So far, there has been no agreement, and the FAA has removed the Peotone proposal from its funding list.
PUBLICATION: Asbury Park Press (Neptune, NJ)
DATE: April 27, 1998
SECTION: B, Pg. 2
BYLINE: Scott Goldstein
DATELINE: Toms River, New Jersey
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ann Grebe, resident
The Asbury Park Press reports a Beach Haven bar and restaurant in Toms River, New Jersey, which has been fined three times for violating the borough's noise ordinance, had those violations overturned in Superior Court last week.
According to the article, Judge Peter J. Giovine said there was not enough detailed evidence against The Marlin Bar and Restaurant to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The only Beach Haven resident who complained, Ann Grebe, had claimed she could hear the sound of drumming in her Center Street home after midnight. The bar was fined $100 for each charge.
The article reports Mark Schneider, a Beach Haven special prosecutor who represented the borough, said, "In her testimony, Mrs. Grebe said she lived down the street and other people heard it, but they didn't want to complain. "It also wasn't clear on the record how far she lived from the bar." Grebe said she has lived on Center Street for 53 years. Michael Battista is the owner of the bar, which has operated for the past three years. Deborah C. Whitcraft, a member of the Board of Commissioners, said there have been numerous complaints regarding noise coming from virtually all of the town's bars. "We're working on establishing zero-tolerance zones and enforcing existing ordinances to curb unruly visitors, bar patrons, and people in general," she said.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: April 26, 1998
SECTION: Neighbor; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Timothy S. Rooney
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports the Des Plaines City Council opted against joining the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. But a vote for one group doesn't necessarily mean disapproval of the other group, according to city officials.
According to the article, the council approved a resolution in support of the agreement to maintain membership with the Suburban O'Hare Commission until 2005, when the current agreement expires. However, 8th Ward Alderman Anthony "Tony" Arredia opposed the vote, saying it was unnecessary and made the two informational presentations by the groups last week look like a competition between the two groups. And the resolution approved by the council does include that Des Plaines "does not wish to join the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission."
The article reports Arredia said the language was sending the wrong message. "If we wanted O'Hare Noise to come in on another issue, I think we would have a hard time getting them to come in after this," Arredia said. Arredia originally asked the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission members to come and outline their stance and goals for handling noise created by O'Hare International Airport. Des Plaines Mayor Paul W. Jung said he is optimistic they will be able to continue working with the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. "I don't think there is anything that prohibits our attending their meetings," Jung said. Arredia said he plans to continue attending O'Hare Noise Compatibility meetings.
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: April 26, 1998
SECTION: Community Close-Up, Pg. 3
BYLINE: Robert Nolin
DATELINE: Parkland, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports Parkland, Florida, city administrators are drafting a law aimed at reducing "loud and raucous" noise.
According to the article, in a city that devotes much of its energy to preserving low housing density, landscape buffers, and a rural atmosphere, the new effort is no surprise. "If you're wondering why we used the words 'loud and raucous,' " City Attorney Andrew Maurodis told city commissioners, "a Supreme Court case found that those words were not vague." The first draft of the proposed ordinance declared that "excessive sound is a serious hazard to the public health." Anyone who makes noise that "annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, health, peace or safety of reasonable persons" could be cited and fined $500.
The article goes on the report the other restrictions outlined in the law: The proposal would ban any construction noise earlier than 7:30 a.m. or later than 7:30 p.m. during the week, and earlier than 9:30 a.m. or later than 7:30 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Lawnmowers could not be operated during the prohibited time, nor can horns, blowers, pile drivers or other power equipment. Outlawed on all days between 11 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. would be "yelling, shouting, whistling or singing at any time or place so as to create a loud and raucous noise. " The ordinance was proposed by Commissioner Mark Weissman. Weissman said some residents had complained to police about noise, but the officers told them they could do nothing because the city has no law against loud noise. Maurodis said the proposed noise ordinance could be a legitimate law enforcement tool invoked on a case-by-case basis. " Generally, the police officer uses the rule of reason when he goes out there" to a complaint, the city attorney said.
The article states Mayor Sal Pagliara said the proposal might be unfair to residents in the agriculturally zoned Ranches section of the city, where people keep animals and grow small crops. "You get out in the Ranches there, guys got tractors and they're out there early," Pagliara said. "They want to get their work done before the sun comes out." The mayor also said that animal noises abound in the Ranches, including peacocks. Since people who live in the Ranches accept the sounds of agriculture, the commission decided to rewrite the proposal to exempt that section of the city from enforcement. Commissioners will schedule a final vote on the proposal at a later meeting.
PUBLICATION: Charleston Daily Mail
DATE: May 2, 1998
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. P4a
BYLINE: Dmedit
DATELINE: Charleston, South Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Fred Snuffer, chairman of Public Safety Committee of Charleston City Council
The Charleston Daily Mail published an editorial questioning the proposal for Charleston police to use decibel meters to enforce noise ordinances.
The editorial recognizes that it's annoying when a neighbor hosts a loud party, and asks who hasn't prayed that electrical trouble would cut off booming music from the car in the next lane? The proposal to equip Charleston police with decibel meters was inspired by the practice in Morgantown. Members of the Public Safety Committee of Charleston City Council would like to adopt the practice.
According to the editorial, Morgantown's noise abatement ordinance requires people to get permits to exceed a certain decibel level. This gives police advance knowledge of parties and an address if neighbors start complaining. Morgantown police officers carry their own decibel meters to help them enforce the ordinance. A first violation results in a warning, and a second violation in a citation for a misdemeanor - making an "unreasonably loud" noise or "disturbing the good order and quiet of the community." Councilman Fred Snuffer, chairman of the Public Safety Committee, is interested in Morgantown's approach to boom boxes and loud parties. He says he gets one or two complaints about noise every week. "I do consider it to be a problem, especially when I get a call from a neighbor telling me the noise is a block away," Snuffer said.
The editorial acknowledges loudness is an annoyance, and it might help the police to be able to show people what their stereos measure on a decibel meter. But Charleston has a lot of public safety problems, the editorial says. Trying to shut down juveniles with booming stereos would be a misapplication of resources.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: May 2, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Lisa Ocker
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Palm Beach Post reports the Boca Raton Airport is trying to buy property close once planned for residential development to provide a noise buffer between the airport and nearby neighborhoods.
According to the article, property targeted for residential development just 1,500 feet from a runway could become part of the airport if the transaction goes through. Boca Raton Airport Executive Director Nelson Rhodes said Friday he will ask the airport authority to buy the land and leave it undeveloped. Pulte Home Corp. had planned to build 66 homes in the Spanish River Woods neighborhood, south of Northwest Spanish River Boulevard between the El Rio Canal and Northwest Fifth Avenue. Pulte's plans were contingent on its contract to buy the property from the Pugliese Co., which expired Thursday, Pulte Vice President Tim Hernandez said. The homes would have been closer to the airport than any others.
The article reports the planned development concerned airport managers who are already sensitive to noise complaints. Rhodes told members of the airport's noise -compatibility committee Friday that the authority could buy the land with $2.9 million it has, plus proceeds from the sale of an easement for a street to the city. "I think there's a good chance we can put this thing together," said Rhodes. He will propose the deal to the authority at its meeting later this month.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Sun-Times
DATE: May 1, 1998
SECTION: Nws; Pg. 18
BYLINE: Dan Rozek
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rev. Gerald Riva, pastor of Immaculate Conception Church
The Chicago Sun-Times reports city administrators tentatively agreed to pay for an estimate of the costs of soundproofing a Catholic school and church in Elmhurst that are suing the city over O'Hare Airport noise.
According to the article, Immaculate Conception wants the City of Chicago to pay for modifying the church and school buildings. But Chicago officials say they are responsible for less than half the costs of the noiseproofing. Two years ago, church-hired experts estimated that the modifications could cost $7.5 million. At a court hearing Thursday, attorneys for Chicago requested time to do their own detailed design studies to come up with an updated cost estimate. The design work is expected to cost about $100,000. City attorneys had sought to have Immaculate Conception pay half the costs of the design work, but attorneys for the church argued the city should be liable for the full cost of the study. Ultimately, Chicago agreed to pay, although attorneys said some details remain to be negotiated.
The article reports the conflict dates back to 1996 when Chicago agreed to pay all noiseproofing costs for DuPage County public schools and one Catholic school in Bensenville affected by jet noise. Immaculate Conception contends Chicago orally promised to pay all its soundproofing costs as well. Parishioners are frustrated by the pace of resolving the dispute, church officials said. "We are seeing some progress, but it's slow progress," said the Rev. Gerald Riva, pastor of the church.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: May 1, 1998
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. N23
BYLINE: Ellen Bagelman
DATELINE: Van Nuys, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ellen Bagelman, president of the Lake Balboa Neighborhood Association
The Daily News of Los Angeles published the following editorial by Ellen Bagelman, president of the Lake Balboa Neighborhood Association. It's Bagelman's opinion that noise complaints from residents who live near the Van Nuys Airport are ignored. Bagelman wrote:
A member of the Van Nuys Airport Tenants Association recently wrote an opinion column praising the Van Nuys Airport for its contribution to the community. As a resident who lives near the airport and as president of a local homeowners association, I think there is another side to this story.
Battle lines appear to have been drawn: homeowners vs. the airport fixed-based operators. The airport operators praise the airport, while residents criticize it. Both sides have valid points and both, unfortunately, see the situation only from their point of view. How can both sides feel that their needs are being met and find a way to peacefully coexist? What exactly would homeowners like?
First, residents want issues pertaining to Van Nuys Airport to be heard at the airport site. Residents feel that in order to participate in the process, they must take off work, make child care arrangements and travel in rush-hour traffic to Los Angeles International Airport, where hearings and meetings are held. This is unfair and denies residents the opportunity to be a part of the system.
Because residents are unable to attend hearings, airport management concludes residents aren't bothered by the airport. If meetings and hearings were scheduled at a time and place where residents could attend, this would be equitable.
Second, residents are frustrated by airport management who claim to be open to complaints. Calls made to the noise hotline at (800) 560-0010 are rarely, if ever, returned, and usually end up in a black hole. Letters and faxes are not responded to.
Additionally, the criteria for recording noise complaints has changed. Every phone call, regardless of the number of noise incidents reported, is counted as one complaint. Residents who maintain a log of noise complaints, who submit such logs on a regular basis, will now have each log counted as one complaint, although the log may contain 30 noise incidents. Therefore, noise complaints will show a decrease in number. This is unfair, and does not reflect the true nature of noise experienced. Those at Van Nuys Airport, the Board of Airport Commissioners and at the Department of Airports are responsible for compounding residents' frustration.
Third, the Van Nuys Airport Tenants Association claims that it works with residents on airport issues. Residents perceive the association's resident population to be hand-picked, and not composed of those most affected. So, there is no credibility to the assertion that "they" work with "us."
If a pro-aviation entity conducts a survey, and "affected parties" are not included, how can the results be deemed credible? Congressman Brad Sherman, D-Woodland Hills, surveyed 40,000 of his constituents, and the results showed airport noise a major concern to residents. The Van Nuys Airport Tenants Association then conducted its survey, showing residents were not highly concerned with airport noise . It's obvious that the association's survey population was again hand-picked; those truly affected were not contacted.
In touting the airport, the Van Nuys Tenants Association speaks to revenue generated, jobs created, and a positive environment for all. This statement deserves a comma after it, followed by "at the expense of nearby residents." Media helicopters based at the airport may be great for the business community, but they are a nightmare for residents. Helicopters take off as early as 5:15 a.m., flying over homes, at low altitudes, to cover breaking stories: a car has a flat tire on the westbound Ventura Freeway - stay tuned for live coverage. And why are media helicopters based at Van Nuys, and not elsewhere? Because Van Nuys has no policy against 24-hour-a-day takeoffs; other municipal airports (i.e. Santa Monica) do. Residents have no issue with emergency police or fire helicopter use of the airport; public safety is a priority and we support use of the airport and airspace for public safety needs 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The tenants association sings the praise of businesses flying in their aircraft for refurbishing, maintenance and other services. The problem is that they arrive or depart whenever they choose. Why? There is only a partial curfew, and this applies only to the noisiest of jets; the rest of the jets can come and go as they please. Being awakened at 3 a.m. is not uncommon. Couple that with 5:15 a.m. departure of media helicopters, and residents simply cannot get a good night's sleep.
The Van Nuys Tenants Association hawks the "Fly Friendly" program that it volunteered to participate in. Residents know this program is not monitored. There is no consequence for flying "unfriendly," so compliance is poor. Seeing a pilot wave at residents is not the definition of fly friendly.
There is now a pending ordinance. Residents want (1) a curfew, (2) the phasing out of loud/screechy Stage 2 jets, and (3) protection from media helicopters. A hearing is promised, hopefully in the next month or so.
Residents have long been accused of wanting to see the airport closed down. This is not true. Residents want the airport to operate, to prosper, to employ, but not at the expense of its neighbors. Residents want restrictions on hours of operation and noise levels generated by particular aircraft. If the craft exceeds acceptable noise limits, it should be replaced or grounded.
It's time that residents be given the same consideration as airport tenants. We should be able to attend meetings, lodge complaints and have input into the operation of the airport. Biased surveys and hand-picked committees that exclude affected homeowner associations and residents lead to distrust and dissatisfaction. Compromise is needed. Both sides must "give" a little; both sides must be involved and listened to. Residents feel they've dealt with deaf ears up until now. Hopefully this will change, as Mayor Richard Riordan and his administration seek to woo the San Fernando Valley back.
PUBLICATION: The Evening Post (Wellington)
DATE: May 1, 1998
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 2
DATELINE: Wellington, New Zealand
The Evening Post reports a New Zealand senior advisor said widening a State Highway would add to already unacceptably high noise levels for residents and most likely result in serious health effects.
According to the article, prompted by health concerns about excessive noise, Dr. Philip Dickinson surveyed the Mana Esplanade for the Ministry in 1994. Yesterday he presented the results to commissioners hearing Transit New Zealand's request to widen the State highway. Dr. Dickinson said overseas surveys showed people living by similarly noisy roadways experienced neurological illness and mental breakdown. "These cannot be taken as absolute scientific evidence but it is something we are worried about," said Dickinson.
The article reports Dr. Dickinson's tests at Paremata measured noise levels of 68 decibels on average. These average readings are within Transit's maximum of 70, but some readings went into the 80s. That was "far too high", with the average at least 15 decibels above World Health Organization recommendations, he said. The tests were taken with a grade one instrument that is computerized and more precise than Transit's equipment.
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: May 1, 1998
SECTION: Section A; Page 26; Column 4; Editorial Desk
DATELINE: Greenwich Village, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Carole Hale, resident
The New York Times published the following letter to the editor, from resident Carole Hale who praises the efforts of the police enforcing the noise ordinance. Hale wrote:
Re "Crackdown Turns the Village Quiet but Wary" (front page, April 27): Although my heart bleeds for the young men who were ticketed for blaring their car radios too loudly, my heart bleeds more for residents of Greenwich Village who, like me, must live with the noise.
People who play their music loudly are not concerned with the right of others not to listen to it. If they want to play their music loudly, why don't they wear earphones? I'm sorry if the police are ham-handed, but I cheer them in their efforts to control the noise level and restore peace to the Village.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: May 1, 1998f
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Rebecca Goldsmith
DATELINE: Palm Beach, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Vivian Brooks, resident and local politician; Robert Hanna, resident and local politician; Al Zucaro, city commissioner; Frank Benevento, a leader of the Palm Beachers
The Palm Beach Post reports Palm Beach International Airport received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration this week to lengthen its main runway. Airport expansion and noise continue to be a source of conflict among residents, city officials, and county commissioners.
According to the article, the FAA Tuesday issued a "finding of no significant impact," meaning that the project won't affect the water supply, air quality, or noise levels. The airport plans to lengthen its main runway from 8,000 to 10,000 feet. Extension opponents say a longer runway will bring more flights, bigger planes, and more nighttime landings. Supporters say the longer runway will actually decrease noise because the planes will be able to gain altitude faster.
The article reports despite FAA approval, political and possibly legal hurdles remain. While there is no administrative appeal process for the FAA's finding, anyone who disagrees could file suit against the FAA in federal court or sue the airport in state court, said Cathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman for the agency. Although West Palm Beach Mayor Nancy Graham supports the expanded runway, the city's five commissioners do not. Commissioner Al Zucaro said Tuesday's approval puts the burden on the city to counter the airport's plans. The city has budgeted up to $150,000 to hire an aviation law specialist to help evaluate the runway project and a planned Interstate 95 exchange that would lead to the airport's terminal. Besides the runway extension and the I-95 exit, the airport also plans to expand its air cargo facility and its terminal.
According to the article, opposition to the runway extension was mostly a grass-roots issue until the March elections in West Palm Beach. During the election campaign, challengers Vivian Brooks and Robert Hanna made the expanded runway a main component of their platform. Although Brooks and Hanna lost, city commissioners decided to hire an aviation lawyer to represent their constituents' noise concerns. In response, county commissioners stopped planning a downtown West Palm Beach convention center. The move prompted Graham, a supporter of downtown development, to seek reconciliation with the county. County officials have said they plan to move forward with the runway regardless of opposition.
The article reports residents who live under the flight path said they feel like they're not represented. Brooks said she won't give up, but she wishes city officials would make a greater commitment. Some anti-airport residents shrugged off the importance of the runway's approval, saying it was long expected. "As far as we're concerned, this is a non-event," said Frank Benevento, a leader of Palm Beach residents who are suing the county over noise, not the expanded runway. The Palm Beachers are backing anti-airport candidates in upcoming county elections. "It's a little premature to pour champagne," said Benevento. "The current conditions are intolerable from our standpoint. The extension is simply the final nail in the coffin of civil existence."
PUBLICATION: The Sentinel (Stoke, England)
DATE: May 1, 1998
SECTION: Council: Action
DATELINE: Stafford, England
The Sentinel of Stoke, England reports an extra officer is being added to the Stafford Borough Council's noise control team to help cope with the expected rise in complaints. The council faces its busiest period in the summer months.
According to the article, the council has been dealing with an "alarming" rise in complaints about noise. Latest figures show there were 125 complaints in the January-March period this year. Most complaints relate to barking dogs, loud music, alarms and neighbors shouting and arguing. In one case, an officer was called to an address in Stafford to witness a dog bark 350 times in just five minutes.
The article states environmental health officer Bob Ball said an extra officer is needed. He said: " Noise complaints are ever-increasing it seems. They trebled in one recent quarter. They are primarily about residential noise but also concern pubs, clubs and industry. During the summer there is usually a rise because more people are outdoors and windows are left open." The new officer will join a team of 16 who deal with noise complaints and run a special out-of-hours service launched last year. The service provides on-duty officers from 7pm-2am on Friday and Saturday, and 7pm-12midnight on Sunday. Ball said: "If it is a chronic problem then it can affect people's physical and mental health."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: May 1, 1998
SECTION: Metro Du Page; Pg. 2; Zone: D
BYLINE: Ted Gregory
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports the city of Chicago was ordered to pay for engineering plans showing the differences between its proposal to soundproof Immaculate Conception Schools in Elmhurst and the proposal submitted by school officials. Chicago will pay about $100,000 for the comparison.
According to the article, the city was ordered to pay for the plans by DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Rodney W. Equi on Thursday at a hearing in the conflict that led the Roman Catholic Diocese of Joliet to sue the city in September. The lawsuit charges that Chicago "reneged on its promise" to soundproof the high school and elementary school and adjoining church, which are about 5 miles southwest of O'Hare International Airport. Attorneys representing Chicago had asked Equi to order that the costs of the engineering plans be split between the diocese and the city, but the judge declined. "It's hopefully going to show the City of Chicago that when our architect made his cost estimates (for soundproofing the buildings), they weren't pie in the sky," said Joseph Karaganis, an attorney for the diocese. Attorney Joseph Laraia, representing the city, said the drawings will clarify both sides' positions and determine whether a compromise can be reached. If the two sides cannot reach agreement by mid-July, the case is expected to be set for trial.
The article reports the two sides disagree on the amount of work needed at the Catholic schools and church. Immaculate Conception acoustical consultants estimate nearly $7.6 million in work. But city officials, who are offering up to $4 million in soundproofing at Immaculate Conception as part of a $180 million sound-mitigation program for communities around O'Hare, contend several areas of Immaculate Conception's plan are ineligible for soundproofing funds. In its lawsuit, Immaculate Conception is asking the court to order the city to pay the entire $7.6 million in noise abatement, $50,000 "to compensate the diocese for other nuisance injuries not abated by soundproofing of the buildings" and the diocese's legal costs. Rev. Gerald Riva, pastor at Immaculate Conception, said the city had promised to soundproof the schools and church two years ago.
PUBLICATION: The Evening Post (Wellington)
DATE: May 1, 1998
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 2
DATELINE: Wellington, New Zealand
The Evening Post reports a New Zealand senior advisor said widening a State Highway would add to already unacceptably high noise levels for residents and most likely result in serious health effects.
According to the article, prompted by health concerns about excessive noise, Dr. Philip Dickinson surveyed the Mana Esplanade for the Ministry in 1994. Yesterday he presented the results to commissioners hearing Transit New Zealand's request to widen the State highway. Dr. Dickinson said overseas surveys showed people living by similarly noisy roadways experienced neurological illness and mental breakdown. "These cannot be taken as absolute scientific evidence but it is something we are worried about," said Dickinson.
The article reports Dr. Dickinson's tests at Paremata measured noise levels of 68 decibels on average. These average readings are within Transit's maximum of 70, but some readings went into the 80s. That was "far too high", with the average at least 15 decibels above World Health Organization recommendations, he said. The tests were taken with a grade one instrument that is computerized and more precise than Transit's equipment.
PUBLICATION: Western Morning News (Plymouth, U.K.)
DATE: May 1, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 13
DATELINE: East Devon, England
The Western Morning News reports that British county planners have recommended that plans for a recycling facility in East Devon, England be approved, despite objections by local residents and the parish council. The article notes that the project will be considered by the county's development control committee on Wednesday.
The article reports that the proposed site of the facility is at Greendale Barton, in Woodbury Salterton. The site originally was developed to be used in connection with agricultural activities, but now accommodates a number of non-agricultural uses, including a haulage yard, waste oil transfer station, waste transfer station, and an indoor go-cart track, according to county environment director Edward Chorlton. The applicant, BFI Ltd., wants to use an existing building at the site as a facility for storing and sorting recyclables. The company already was awarded a contract from East Devon District Council to collect plastic items, paper, glass, and cans from local households.
The article reports that 12 objections were registered against the project. Most of the objections claim the project would further intensify the non-agricultural activities on the site, and would be better located on an industrial site. Members of the Woodbury Parish Council said the project would place a further industrial intrusion into an agricultural site, which would be detrimental to the amenities and character of the area. Other objections were raised about traffic increase, noise, dust, pollution, and erosion of the rural character of the area.
The article goes on to say that according to Chorlton of the county, the proposed facility could be housed in one of the existing buildings, and restrictions could be placed on the times of operation to reduce the noise. John Glanvill, a county and district ward councilor, said he understood the concerns of the parish council, but if the recycling facility could be housed within an existing building, he could see no reasonable objection to the application. He said, "Recycling facilities are essential for this county and there is a similar center at Torbay, which I have visited and where the sorting all took place inside, that I was impressed with. Because Greendale Barton has its own private road to the A3052 [highway], there would be no traffic movements on country lanes and there would be conditions governing hours of operation."
Previous week: April 19, 1998
Next week: May 3, 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