PUBLICATION: Central Maine Morning Sentinel (Waterville, ME)
DATE: June 30, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Joe Rankin
DATELINE: Skowhegan, Maine
The Central Maine Morning Sentinel reports new laws regulating motorboats, including limiting the noise levels of all powerboats go into effect next week in Maine.
According to the article, the bill passed by the Maine Legislature last spring regulates noise levels of all motorboats and makes it illegal to tamper with a boat motor's muffler. In early July, the minimum age for operating personal watercraft will increase. And the Land Use Regulation Commission, the state's wilderness zoning board, will hold hearings over the next two months on a legislative ban on personal watercraft at more than 200 lakes.
The article reports the Maine Warden Service will phase in enforcement of the new laws. Wardens will respond to complaints about noisy boats, but will not be measuring noise levels of motors during routine boat inspections, Peabody said. Boat owners do not have a place to go to have their craft tested, he said. "We're mindful of that, and we're going to fashion our enforcement around that," Peabody said. "It's a learning curve for everybody." The department is planning to purchase decibel meters.
The article reports the new regulations are the result of years of work by the state's Great Pond Task Force, although the bill finally passed by the Legislature bore only slight resemblance to the task force's proposal. The task force proposed banning personal watercraft from thousands of lakes in LURC's jurisdiction, as well as ponds smaller than a certain size in the organized areas. The debate pitted personal watercraft owners, rental firms, manufacturers and distributors against environmentalists and camp owners. And it prompted a deluge of letters and phone calls to members of the Legislature's Natural Resources Committee and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, which worked jointly on the bill. "There were real deep emotions on both sides," said Sen. Marge Kilkelly, D-Wiscasset, the Senate chairman of the fisheries panel. Kilkelly said she received about 500 pieces of mail on the issue, with 99 percent of writers wanting some type of ban. Noise was a big issue, she said. "There were concerns about improper use, about wildlife, running them too close to the shore, running them onto the shore, a danger to swimmers," she said. "But a lot of it was noise." Sen. Sharon Treat, D-Gardiner, the Senate chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, said she has received more letters on the personal-watercraft issue than any other with which she has been involved. "For a lot of people used to being on a very quiet lake, they're pretty loud," she said about personal watercraft.
According to the article, the bill that finally passed bans personal watercraft on 245 ponds in the 10.5 million acres of Maine under LURC's jurisdiction. While LURC does not have a choice about banning personal watercraft on the 245 lakes stipulated by the bill, the agency can propose additions to the list. LURC plans a series of four hearings on the matter in July and August. Andrew Fisk, LURC's resource administrator, said the commission wants to use the hearings as a "constructive vehicle to discuss issues of surface water use." LURC anticipates strong feelings on both sides, he said. "It's very contentious," Fisk said. The bill also gives the state's towns and cities power to make recommendations to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife on watercraft use on great ponds within their boundaries. Under the bill, towns that want additional boating restrictions on ponds must consider the use to which those waters are put, the depth of the water, the amount of waterborne traffic, wildlife and environmental values, noise, traditional uses of the water body and the safety of people and property. Towns must hold public hearings on the recommendations and say how they intend to enforce any restrictions. The Legislature will have the final say. Kilkelly called the watercraft bill a "creative" approach to dealing with a contentious issue. It also gets towns involved in the process, she said. "Nobody knows more about the community than the people who live in that community," Kilkelly said. Said Treat: "It's a first start at regulating this type of watercraft . It's a first start at giving communities some home-rule authority. We'll just have to see what happens."
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: June 30, 1998
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. N13
BYLINE: Dave Golonski
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles published the following editorial by Dave Golonski, a Burbank City Council member. In his response to a recent commentary about the expansion of California's Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, Golonski contends his constituents will pay for the current plans for airport expansion in noise, traffic, and pollution.
The headline on a recent commentary in the Daily News, "Airport expansion will go forward; the only question is at what price," had it half right. The article was written by the executive director of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, Thomas Greer. At what speed and in what form expansion may take place is certainly in question. What is not in question is that it is the residents of Burbank, Glendale and parts of the San Fernando Valley who will pay the price of the airport's growth-at-any-cost expansion plans. And that price is paid in noise, traffic and pollution.
Let me set the record straight. The city of Burbank favors a new, modern terminal relocated to a safer position. No one cares more about a safer airport than the residents and businesses that surround it. But a safer airport is a very different thing from one that handles twice as many passengers. The issue is one of balance. What must be determined is the appropriate level of expansion at the airport weighed against the adverse impact that growth will have on the noise, traffic and pollution in Burbank and the region. Greer ignores those consequences. That's been the problem all along and why this dispute has ended up in the courts. Like the big screen's Godzilla, the Airport Authority is carelessly trampling everything that gets in its way as it attempts to satisfy its expansionist appetite. As justification for its expansion plans, the authority cites what it says is steadily increasing passenger demand. Conveniently ignored is that passenger traffic has decreased significantly for two consecutive years.
The concerns of local residents and businesses are like the buildings in the Godzilla movie, haphazardly brushed aside or crushed as minor annoyances. The thousands of people negatively affected by unrestrained airport expansion cannot, should not and will not be cast aside that easily. From the inception of the publicly owned airport in 1977, area residents were promised Burbank Airport would not be allowed to grow. Back then, the people of Burbank were concerned about increases in noise, pollution, and traffic. They remain concerned today. Yet, the Airport Authority chooses to ignore these promises.
Greer's column urges the city of Burbank to find a way to "assist creating the best possible terminal." But every time Burbank has offered counterproposals over the last two years, the Airport Authority has rejected them and offered no alternative of its own. The authority's response is a cavalier "that's impossible" or "the airlines won't support that." Airport commissioners effectively fold their arms and say our way or the runway. The public might as well turn over management of the airport to the airlines for all the concern shown by the Airport Authority to the people most negatively affected by this grandiose expansion plan. Greer decries the cost of litigating this dispute; yet it is authority that has sued the city of Burbank a number of times, and it clearly has been the authority's strategy to take actions to force the city to file other lawsuits. The most recent legal action filed by Burbank, to compel the authority to abide by the city's land-use laws, would have been unnecessary if the authority had simply acknowledged it would follow the law. That was the simple request the city made in writing after the authority presented a terminal plan that violated zoning designations that are more than 20 years old. The authority, however, refuses to make that simple, unequivocal statement. We have to ask why.
The Airport Authority also knows full well it could take a number of actions, without Federal Aviation Administration approval, to lessen noise at the airport . For one, it could simply enforce its own noise rules. It has refused to do so. Again, we have to ask why.
In a recent legal brief, even Caltrans attorneys questioned why the authority does not impose additional noise abatement procedures. The attorneys have said the authority seems to cite "only fear of rejection by the FAA, not any need peculiar to users of this airport." The city of Burbank's goals are clear, attainable and reasonable. We want controls on some type of airport growth so noise, traffic and pollution will not increase. We want an enforceable late-night curfew rather than the current totally ineffective voluntary curfew on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Why? For example, right now, with the phony curfew, jet noise from a gamblers' special out of Las Vegas lands at Burbank Airport four nights a week, jolting people awake at 1:27 a.m.
Balance is the watchword. The City of Burbank simply wants the Airport Authority to accept the legitimate concerns of Burbank and other residents affected by airport. Ignoring or denigrating those concerns and refusing to compromise on any core issues will only assure years more in the courts.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: June 30, 1998
SECTION: Local News; Pg. B2
BYLINE: Kery Murakami
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rosemary Unterseher, resident; Randy Eatherton, resident
The Seattle Times reports yesterday, after months of community protests over noise from Washington's King County International Airport, a King County Executive proposed a compromise that some residents already consider inadequate.
According to the article, several times a day, cargo jets landing or taking off at King County International Airport interrupt all talk and rattle the windows at Rosemary Unterseher's home in an Allentown neighborhood. And on the other end of the airport, in Seattle's Georgetown neighborhood, on many nights, Randy Eatherton's sleep is shaken by the jets that cause his floors to vibrate. The situation seemed to get worse for these residents last fall, when the county said the planes would not only come more frequently but closer to some homes. Part of the county's 20-year plan calls for moving the airport's runway 800 feet to the north, that much closer to Eatherton's home. County officials say heavier traffic at Boeing Field is inevitable as the region grows. And the Federal Aviation Administration is ordering the runway be moved because its southern end is too close to Interstate 5 and railroad tracks.
The article reports King County Executive Ron Sims and Metropolitan King County Councilman Dwight Pelz said the best the county can do is try to soften the noise. Sims' proposal would set aside $5.5 million in this year's budget to design and build a "hush house" - an enclosed structure, in which jets will rev their engines for tests, instead of in the open air. "It's like if you have a kid who plays electric guitar and you build an insulated room for them to play in," Pelz said. The proposal also directs the county to study ways to reduce the noise impact from the airport, including insulating nearby homes, and to come up with a plan and timetable for the work next year. A public hearing on Sims' proposal at 2 p.m. Thursday. However, neighbors like Eatherton want the county to take even more steps to mitigate the noise, for instance, requiring jets to use a quieter engine similar to ones adopted by United Parcel Service. And Unterseher said she certainly doesn't want more cargo air traffic at the airport. The county expects the number of cargo planes taking off or landing at the airport to increase from over 16,000 times a year to 23,000 a year by 2015.
PUBLICATION: AAP Newsfeed
DATE: June 29, 1998
SECTION: Nationwide General News; Finance Wire
DATELINE: Perth, Australia
AAP Newsfeed reports Australia's Perth airport owners have given in to pressure from anti-aircraft noise activists, imposing several restrictions on the use of a proposed runway extension.
According to the article, Westralia Airports Corporation's (WAC) master plan for the expansion of the international airport was announced after what the company described as the most comprehensive public consultation process ever undertaken in the state. "WAC has achieved a plan which has carefully considered noise and environmental concerns raised by stakeholders and community members," WAC chief executive Graham Muir said. Approval to extend runway 06/24 would be subject to restricting use to emergencies and extreme weather conditions.
The article reports the proposal to extend the runway met strong criticism from residents of suburbs south-west of the airport, who were concerned about its potential noise impact. "Given Perth's status as one of the world's most isolated cities, it is critical that the airport's terminals and runways are capable of being expanded to meet projected increases in aircraft operations," Mr. Muir said. WAC will also answered environmental concerns by agreeing to set aside for a reserve one-third of the area available for development at the airport, Mr. Muir said.
PUBLICATION: AP Worldstream
DATE: June 29, 1998
SECTION: International News
DATELINE: Paris, France
AP Worldstream reports the French government on Monday agreed to phase out noisier jetliners at Paris' Charles de Gaulle Airport by 2002.
According to the article, the French government promised the phase-out agreement when it announced construction of two more runways at Charles de Gaulle despite local protests. The first runway will open next spring and the second two years later. Beginning this year, airlines at the airport must reduce noise from its "Chapter 2" jets by 15 percent from last year, followed by 20 percent each year through 2001, Transport Ministry Jean-Claude Gayssot announced. France has already agreed to comply with a call by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to eliminate the Chapter 2 jets by April 2002. The regulation affects about 12 percent of the jet traffic that emitted 37 percent of the jet noise at Charles de Gaulle and was responsible for 85 percent of residents' noise complaints, the ministry said in a statement. "It's an important improvement for the environment," said Jacques Reder, spokesman for the airport authority Aeroports de Paris.
The article reports Chapter 2 jets include older models of Boeing 747s, 737s, and 727s among others. Some airlines have fitted those planes with newer engines to comply with the tougher noise regulation. All Airbus jets are among the quieter Chapter 3 jets. However, the noisy supersonic Concordes, which Air France and British Airways each fly in and out of Charles de Gaulle twice a day, are "in a category apart," Reder said.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: June 29, 1998
SECTION: Local (News), Pg. 2B, The Intrepid Commuter
DATELINE: Baltimore, Maryland
The Baltimore Sun reports last week, The Intrepid Commuter column released the results of an unscientific survey of commuters' opinions on aesthetics of the new sound barriers that were erected along portions of Interstate 695. Most drivers who responded found them distasteful.
According to the article, Frank F. Braunstein lives behind the walls, and wrote the following description: "I feel like I'm in prison," says Braunstein, who has lived in the Stevenson Village Condominium complex in Pikesville for 15 years. "It cuts down on circulation. If we have a snow, it'll lay there, because there's no breeze coming through . It really takes away a lot. I also see or hear no difference from when the walls weren't there. I believe that the walls were, and are, a waste of taxpayers' money that could have been better used for more or better mass transportation to cut down on car travel. I walk for exercise and you still hear the truck noise. "
The article goes on to say Intrepid did interview homeowners who live behind the walls and say they are now shielded from Beltway noise. The newest concrete barriers are part of the $55 million highway expansion project to widen the Beltway from six to eight lanes over a four-mile stretch between Reisterstown Road and Interstate 83. The expansion is necessary to handle traffic coming from the suburbs into the city and Baltimore County. With traffic at peak levels almost 24 hours a day, the State Highway Administration and the federal government were called on to help muffle the noise. More barriers are planned for other areas of the Beltway and along interstates in Howard, Montgomery and Prince George's counties.
PUBLICATION: Gloucestershire Echo (Gloucestershire, England)
DATE: June 29, 1998
SECTION: Environment: Pollution, Pg.3
BYLINE: Pat Smith
DATELINE: Evesham, England
The Gloucestershire Echo reports complaints about noisy neighbors are on the increase in the English towns of Vale of Evesham and Broadway.
According to the article, the increase was noted in statistics compiled for the Wychavon District Council. Environmental health officers are now dealing with around 20 per cent more noise-related problems across the district. There were 750 recorded complaints between April 1996 to March 1997 which increased to 900 between the same period in 1997/98.
The article reports to observe Noise Awareness Day on Wednesday the council is urging people to consider their neighbors. Environmental protection manager Melanie Bloyce-Ellis said: "It's very often a simple case of people not realizing how far sound travels and what kind of an effect it can have on those living nearby. The complaints include dogs barking, car alarms going off at unearthly hours, industrial noise and deafening dins from DIYers." The council is supporting the creation of a local mediation service for residents to solve noise disputes as an alternative to the courts. Under current legislation, persistently noisy people who cause a nuisance can have their equipment confiscated and face a fine and/or a prison sentence.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: June 29, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Metro Desk
BYLINE: John Canalis
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Pacific Amphitheater at Orange County, California's fairgrounds is still a source of tension, even now that a noise lawsuit is over.
According to the article, the noise lawsuit was brought by residents against a company named the Nederlander Organization. Nederlander sold the theater to the county for use on the fairgrounds, and included noise restrictions. The county has said that these restrictions are impossible to meet and were illegally inserted. When they discovered this, they sued Nederlander and won a $16-million award. Still, the county didn't know how loud performers at the 18,500-seat theater should be able to play. A public hearing will be held Tuesday, and a judge will decide whether the "sound covenant" written into the contract by Nederlander should hold. Neighbors think it should be maintained, or even strengthened. Attorney for residents said "They're being pigs, groveling in the trough of noise. The fair was there first and we'll give them the seven to 10 days a summer. But this stuff pounding it out every weekend is certainly not a good use. It was called a bedroom community for a good reason."
The article reports that the fair wants to keep one sound limit -- 86-decibels at the wall closest to residents -- while eliminating a 92 decibel limit for the soundboard. They say the latter limit is irrelevant, since residents can only be affected by the noise level nearest them. This limit will also adhere to county noise laws.
The article says that the Fair's Board of Directors will decide what to do after the judge rules on the noise covenant. Several options include limiting seating so sound doesn't have to reach the back rows, putting a dome on the theater, or having quieter acts. Residents say they don't want a repeat performance of past problems, when "concerts... determined whether they slept with windows open or closed or fled their homes to escape the noise."
According to the article, some fair board officials think there will be problems no matter what the decision is. One official notes that traffic and parking could still be problems even if the noise issue is resolved. A Board member said "I think it ought to be made into a parking lot. The minute that thing opens you'll have so many lawsuits it'll make your head spin."
PUBLICATION: New Straits Times (Malaysia)
DATE: June 29, 1998
SECTION: National; Pg. 7
BYLINE: Pasir Gudang
DATELINE: Malaysia
The New Straits Times reports there is an urgent need to reduce noise pollution in Malaysia, according to the Society of Occupational Safety and Health.
According to the article, Dr. Jagdev Singh, vice-president of the organization said Malaysian authorities are not giving noise pollution as much attention as other types of pollution. He said it was time for the Department of Environment, OSH institutions, and local authorities to take a more pro-active role to contain noise generating sources and minimize the adverse health effects of noise on the people. "Millions of people and workers are exposed to the hazards of noise in the environment due to rapid industrial development and the wide use of vehicles. The negative impact caused by noise pollution is mental stress which ultimately leads to health problems," Dr. Jagdev said when presenting a paper on Noise and Vibration Impacts On Societal Environment. Dr. Jagdev said the effects caused by sudden or prolonged exposure to high noise level were pain in both ears, momentary or temporary hearing impairment and rupture of the ear drum. "Although there are specific regulations to check and control industrial noise, these are not effective due to lax enforcement."
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: June 29, 1998
SECTION: St. Charles Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Ralph Dummit
DATELINE: St. Charles, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Don Ohlms, co-chairman of St. Charles County Citizens Against Airport Noise (CAAN); Pat McDonnell, spokesman for CAAN
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports Missouri's St. Charles County will file a lawsuit to stop any expansion plan at Lambert Field unless it gets an agreement that aircraft noise will be lowered from present levels.
According to the article, opponents of W-1W, the Lambert Field expansion plan favored by airport and St. Louis officials, are asking the St. Charles County Council for money to help pay for a public relations campaign to fight the project. Members of CAAN - St. Charles County Citizens Against Airport Noise - are seeking a commitment by the County Council similar to the one made by the St. Charles City Council to spend $125,000 on billboard, radio, television and newspaper advertising. However, Chairman Bob Schnur contended a public relations campaign "would not seem like a prudent use of taxpayer dollars." Schnur explained his position in a letter Thursday to Don Ohlms, a co-chairman of CAAN. While agreeing that W-1W "represents a potential threat to the quality of life in St. Charles County," Schnur believes a public relation campaign is unlikely to change the minds of the decision-makers who favor W-1W.
The article reports Schnur expects the County Council to pursue its own strategy of trying to reduce aircraft noise. He pointed out that County Council members had had discussions with airport officials earlier this year, obtaining an agreement to have early morning departures take off from Lambert's northernmost runway to avoid low-level flights over heavily populated parts of St. Charles. In other discussions with St. Louis officials, Schnur said, "We are asking them for a strict, enforceable, written noise agreement in which they guarantee that the noise suffered (by) St. Charles County residents is reduced to levels lower than they are today, with or without expansion." If the county does not get such an agreement, Schnur said, "We will not support W-1W or any expansion plan, and we will litigate." Ohlms did not put much stock in airport director Leonard L. Griggs' agreement to shift departing aircraft to the airport's northernmost runway for takeoffs. "There was no give there" on the part of Lambert, Ohlms said. "That's where the cargo flights already take off. That's no concession." Ohlms, who lives near Pitman Hill Road, said he is awakened at 4:53 a.m. by flights "that obviously are not using the north runway." Pat McDonnell, a CAAN spokesman, said Friday that the county's efforts to get a noise agreement are doomed. "Griggs has no intention of a noise agreement because it would diminish the capacity of the airport," McDonnell said. In a statement attributed to Griggs last year, he said, "The St. Louis airport Authority has never proposed signing an individual noise agreement with any community in the St. Louis metropolitan area."
PUBLICATION: The Columbian (Vancouver, WA)
DATE: June 28, 1998
SECTION: Clark County/Region; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Thomas Ryll
DATELINE: Vancouver, Washington
The Columbian of Vancouver, Washington, reports Friday afternoon thunderstorms caused several dozen complaints about aircraft noise from downtown Vancouver and north Portland residents.
According to the article, planes leaving Portland International Airport were routed around the storms by Federal Aviation Administration air traffic controllers. Bob Noble of the airport's noise abatement office said the rerouting put aircraft over Vancouver and north Portland at relatively low altitudes and at locations where planes are not normally seen. One downtown resident reported seven low-flying jets overhead in less than an hour in the early afternoon.
The article reports the flight-pattern shifts were the result of safety measures taken as a result of weather. They were not a resumption of a controversial test, started in late April and abandoned in May, of revised aircraft flight paths, said Port of Portland spokesman Darrel Buttice. "The test has been stopped," said Buttice. With the exception of occasional weather- or maintenance-related shifts such as Friday's, "the departures and arrivals are now on the same paths as they have been for the past several years." To minimize noise impacts on both sides of the Columbia, aircraft generally fly approach and departure paths following the approximate middle of the river. The April-May test was an attempt by a citizens committee to cut noise above Clark County and Portland. The theory was that certain departing passenger jets could be turned north or south at lower altitudes and closer distances than under typical procedures. The test brought several unintended consequences, including more than 1,500 complaints, and was cut short.
The article states one result of the noise test is what Buttice called the "sensitization" of the Wilkes neighborhood of east Portland to aircraft noise. Neighborhood residents are expected to turn out in large numbers at a meeting Tuesday of the citizen Noise Abatement Advisory Committee. Unfortunately for the neighbors, the answer to their complaints will be difficult if not impossible to find: Wilkes, just four miles from the airport, has been, is, and likely always will be almost directly beneath the approach path to the airport.
PUBLICATION: Daily News (New York City)
DATE: June 28, 1998
SECTION: Suburban; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Dick Sheridan
DATELINE: New York City, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Mark Lefkof, member of Community Board 8
The Daily News reports Congress and the White House have approved a multi-million-dollar spending for transportation projects aimed at easing New York's traffic flow along Queens streets, and reducing noise pollution for neighbors of the borough's highways.
According to the article, the money is part of a new six-year transportation act signed into law by President Clinton earlier this month. Referred to by the acronym TEA 21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century authorizes $203 billion for highway and transit improvement projects in New York and around the nation. Under terms of the legislation, seven projects in Queens will receive backing. Altogether, more than 30 projects around the state will benefit from $ 14.8 billion in federal funds. Calling word of the money "excellent news at a fortunate time," Dan Andrews, spokesman for Borough President Claire Shulman, said many of the projects that will receive funding "are long-delayed and long-needed." City and state transportation budgets also will get much-needed funding for long-overdue projects. Dave Billig, spokesman for the city Transportation Department, which has three Queens projects included among the beneficiaries, said, "We're just getting used to the idea that we're going to be getting federal funding for these projects. These three are just some of the 40 or so projects that we have on the drawing board."
The article states three state DOT-sponsored projects in Queens are due to share more than $2 million in federal funding. According to state Department of Transportation spokesman Alex Dudley, the state is in line to receive $1.5 million to construct sound barriers on both sides of the Grand Central Parkway from 172d St. to Chevy Chase Road in heavily residential Jamaica Estates. "We're only in the very preliminary stages of design with this project," Dudley said. "Along this section of the highway, the roadway runs on the same level as the surrounding houses," said Mark Lefkof, who lives four blocks from the Grand Central Parkway and is a member of Community Board 8, which takes in Jamaica Estates. "You can hear the ambulances with their sirens and then the horns whenever the traffic is heavy," he said. "And there's always the swishing sound [of tires]." The state is also scheduled to receive funding to erect sound barriers along the Grand Central Parkway between 244th St. and Douglaston Parkway, Dudley said, which is also still in the design phase. "If you drive through Douglaston on the Grand Central you'll see a lot of homes," said Anne Marie Ryan, district manager for Community Board 11. "There have been a lot of complaints about noise from the highway." A third sound barrier project will receive funding as well. This is for the construction of sound barriers on the east side of the Clearview Expressway between 15th Road and Willets Point Blvd. in the Bay Terrace area, Dudley said. "We've had a tremendous number of complaints from the residents of three condos about the noise, " said Marilyn Bitterman, Community Board 7 district manager.
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
DATE: June 28, 1998
SECTION: Section 14; Page 7; Column 3; The City Weekly Desk
BYLINE: David Kirby
DATELINE: New York City, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lew Todd, resident; Carol Yankay, board member
The New York Times reports a large group gathered Tuesday in Greenwich Village, New York, to talk about noise from motorcycles with altered mufflers.
According to the article, more than 120 people, motorcycle enthusiasts and disgruntled residents alike, packed a meeting of Community Board 2 on Tuesday. Residents say that the noise problem is getting worse. "It's like a lawnmower in my living room, making my life hell," Lew Todd said. "It makes car alarms go off, and they don't care. It's got to stop." Bikers jeered at a suggestion by board members last fall that the city ban motorcycles in the district. The board chairman, Alan Jay Gerson, said such a plan should be "a last resort after exhausting other alternatives."
The article reports motorcyclists contend only a small number of them alter their bikes to obtain the deafening noise. One way is to create a "straight-pipe exhaust" by removing noise-curbing bafflers from the pipe, a practice that is illegal in New York State. Clive Dillard, who belongs to a local bike club, NYC Moto, said that most motorcyclists were "self-policing and respectful." And, he said, "If people make loud exits from a meeting, we let them know it's not appropriate, not what we stand for." However, David Yanvary, a police detective from Edison, NJ, said, "I'm one of those big, bad Harley owners with a straight-pipe exhaust, and I'm going to ride on your streets and there's nothing you can say or do to stop me." Despite the conflicting outlooks, there were attempts to be civil. "Let's try to understand each other and each other's hurts and feelings," one board member, Carol Yankay, said. "We're not against motorcycles as such. It's the removal of bafflers that bothers us. When people rev their bikes for attention at 3 A.M., that's a dynamic statement."
The article went on to say the issue was so charged that the American Motorcyclist Association sent one of its officials, Sean M. Maher, to the meeting. "We recognize the noise problem," Mr. Maher said. "The answer is to aggressively enforce laws, stiffen fines and increase personal responsibility among offenders." Officer Mike Singer of the Sixth Precinct said "half of all noise summonses citywide last year" were issued in his precinct. He said the police occasionally set up checkpoints with decibel meters, but that, "Our top priority is fighting crime, then enforcing quality-of-life laws." Tom Castele, an aide to City Councilwoman Kathryn Freed, said she may introduce a measure that would allow police to inspect exhaust pipes, so they will not have to rely solely on decibel readings to monitor loud bikes. "The current situation is a Catch-22," board chairman Gerson said. "The police can do little or nothing with parked bikes, and it's too dangerous to chase a moving bike."
PUBLICATION: Portland Press Herald (Portland, ME)
DATE: June 28, 1998
SECTION: Sports, Pg. 1D
BYLINE: Roberta Scruggs
DATELINE: Augusta, Maine
The Portland Press Herald reports as Maine's busiest boating season begins next weekend, game wardens are gearing up to enforce new boating laws - including restrictions on noise levels and the minimum age for operating personal watercraft.
According to the article, Wardens will be stressing safety and education as they begin enforcing the new minimum age of 16 to operate personal watercraft, popularly known by the brand name Jet Skis. The minimum age for operating other boats is still 12. When the law goes into effect on July 9, wardens will issue warnings rather than citations, except for repeat offenders. "We're not into bringing kids into court," Peabody said. "But yet the law is there. So we're going to hope to be able to deal with it with warnings and educating the parents and the kids, too." Another law that takes effect July 9 changes the noise levels allowed on all watercraft. Boats powered by engines manufactured before Jan. 1, 1998, are allowed 82 decibels at a distance of 50 feet; those manufactured later, 78 decibels. Peabody calls it "very problematic legislation," because wardens received no money for equipment to check decibel levels. So this summer wardens will issue citations only if a boat's muffler system has been altered.
The article reports new restrictions on personal watercraft are in the beginning stages. Of the 133,529 boats registered in Maine last year, only an estimated 7,000 - half of 1 percent - are personal watercraft. But no boat generates as much controversy. Some people love their speed, maneuverability and relatively low price tag. Others abhor their noise, speed and the bad behavior of some operators. So two other provisions of the new law are as hotly debated as the machines themselves. One bans personal watercraft on 245 waters in the unorganized territories; the other allows towns to petition for restrictions on other waters. The ban won't be enforced this summer because the law still must go through the state's rule-making procedures. The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission will hold four public hearings this summer. The article states after the hearings, LURC could recommend additions or deletions to the list of waters where personal watercraft are banned. "I hope they (the hearings) won't be free-for-alls," said John Williams, LURC director. "I encourage people to come and I think they will. . . People have strong opinions one way or the other.''
Both supporters and opponents are preparing for the hearings and the new petition process, which would allow restrictions on any boats, not just personal watercraft. Essentially, all the towns on a water would have to agree on restrictions before petitioning the state's fish and wildlife commissioner. Petitions must be sent to the fish and wildlife department by Nov. 1 to go before the Legislature next January. Petitions also will be accepted until Nov. 1, 1999, for the next legislative session. "There's just this two-year window that's open," said Dick Spencer, an attorney representing the Mooselucmeguntic Improvement Association and Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust. "If people want to do something about regulating surface water use on a Great Pond, they need to do something this summer." Spencer has organized a July 18 seminar on the petition process, using a grant from the State Planning Office. Spencer said participants will receive "a very detailed kind of cookbook for how to go through the process, whether they want to protect loons nesting or create a Jet Ski-free area." Personal watercraft supporters aren't happy to see the state fund a conference to help their opponents. "I think that's inappropriate," said Dan Riley, an Augusta attorney who represents the Personal Watercraft Industry Association. "Mr. Spencer is an attorney at a private law firm, and he's running this conference. He's not doing this under the auspices of the state."
According to the article, the industry supports the idea that pristine or remote waters should be protected, Riley said, but believes protection should come from horsepower restrictions, not by banning personal watercraft. Supporters also are putting together a manual to help owners defend personal watercraft. They cite the fact that none of last year's 10 boating fatalities involved personal watercraft. There have been four deaths involving personal watercraft in the past decade and 91 accidents, according to state statistics. But the number of accidents has dropped from a high of 23 in 1995, to 18 in 1996, and 12 in 1997. "There are lots of folks in the LURC territories who own personal watercraft and have been using them responsibly," Riley said. "They're not going to be happy with the state taking away their ability to use them, especially on some of the big lakes."
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA),
DATE: June 28, 1998
SECTION: Commentary, Pg. J4
DATELINE: Norfolk, Virginia
The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, VA, published the following commentary advocating for stronger rules for personal watercraft.
According to the editorial, over-regulation of Americans' daily lives is a legitimate concern. But, as situations change in our environment, regulations are needed to assure that those new conditions are managed in a manner that maintains peace and safety for the greatest number of citizens. The editor cites the popularity of personal watercraft, commonly known by the trade name Jet Ski, as an example. When misused, the popular machines have the potential for injury or death. That reality came home to this region of Virginia just this week when a popular Chesapeake scholar and athlete died at age 17 after hitting a pier while riding a kneeboard that was being towed by a personal watercraft. The craft was piloted by a 15-year-old friend of the victim.
The editor acknowledges that many activities also carry risks. People die in rock-climbing, scuba-diving and bicycling accidents. "But vehicles propelled at high speed by powerful engines have a greater potential for mishap, and for injury to bystanders as well as to participants." For this reason, automobiles, motorcycles, go-karts, mopeds and other motorized forms of transport are regulated when used on the public byways. And "Personal watercraft should be no different." Personal watercraft are fast - many will run at highway speed - and are nearly always used in shared public waters. "For those reasons the operators should be required to undergo specialized training and to hold, at minimum, a driver's license. [L]icensing would do more than is done at present to ensure that the operator is at least familiar with the concepts and consequences of a machine moving at speed."
The editor goes on to say although the Virginia General Assembly raised the age of operators of personal-watercraft this year, more is needed. (Effective in January, the new rules will require an operator to be at least 16 years old, although 14- and 15-year-olds could operate one if they've attended a boating safety course.) The editor contends more restrictions are needed when it comes to personal watercraft. "There has been tension all along between the enthusiasts for this growing sport and the fishermen, swimmers, boaters, canoeists and shore-loungers who share the water environment. Poor manners and lack of common sense among a small number of the personal-watercraft operators is one source; the noise the machines make is another." Efforts have been made by manufacturers to reduce noise, but because a sense of responsibility can't be built into a machine, further regulation and heightened enforcement may be necessary.
PUBLICATION: Sacramento Bee
DATE: June 28, 1998
SECTION: Neighbors; Pg. N1
BYLINE: Molly Dugan
DATELINE: Weimar, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pamela Lampkin, real estate broker and resident; Dan Maggard, resident
The Sacramento Bee reports Weimar, California, residents were pleased Thursday morning when the Placer County Planning Commission voted 3-2 to deny Manuel Brothers Inc. a conditional use permit for a concrete batch plant on Canyon Way. Residents oppose the plant relocation based on concerns about noise pollution, increased traffic, and property devaluation.
According to the article, although members of the county planning staff recommended the permit, residents spent three hours making emotional pleas to the commission not to allow the plant to move near their homes. Manuel Brothers Inc. seeks a new location within Placer County because of a controversy over its present location in Colfax. Jeff Bordelon, attorney for Manuel Brothers Inc., said he expects the company to appeal the commission's decision. Although the firm is pursuing another site in Colfax, the Weimar location is the preferred option, he said. The company has 10 days to file an appeal with the Board of Supervisors. "MBI has done everything it can, and more. We have honored and respected the legitimate environmental concerns. This project meets and exceeds all county standards," said Bordelon. Representatives of Manuel Brothers Inc. said the company has agreed to all mitigation measures and environmental review. The company hired a Sacramento County noise consultant to study the effect the plant would have on noise in the area "I conducted an objective analysis, and the conclusions of the analysis were that the project would satisfy county noise standards and not exceed existing noise levels," said consultant Paul Bollard. "People all have a certain degree of passion regarding noise and that has to be respected. There's a tendency to imagine the worst when there's a new industrial project going on."
The article reports Weimar residents, however, were not concerned about whether the batch plant met standards. They said a commercial-industrial enterprise has no place in their community, and the batch plant would have devastating effects on the environment. Many residents dismissed the staff report entirely, saying the figures did not represent the real dilemma. "If it were in your back yard, would you want it there?" asked Lorraine Sexton. Residents' concerns included noise, air and water pollution, and the effect on traffic, safety and property values. Residents feel this way despite the planning staff report that says, "The proposed activity ... will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons working or residing in the area." Still, residents maintained that the batch plant would cause far-ranging problems. "It doesn't just affect the neighbors adjacent to this plant," said Pamela Lampkin, a real estate broker and Weimar resident. "Property values will definitely go down and affect your county's income." Other residents agreed. "It's going to impact people way beyond those boundaries," said Dan Maggard, who owns property 50 feet from the proposed plant site. "They never talked to us and we're going to be the most impacted. I'm worried about the integrity of this company and the people that run it." Representatives of Manuel Brothers Inc. denied that residents were not notified of the proposed plant relocation. Only one resident spoke in favor of allowing the batch plant to locate in Weimar. Pat Rudger, who lives adjacent to the proposed plant site, said the wrecking yard south of the site already has decreased the value of her property and the landscaping proposed outside the plant would beautify the area. "We welcome Manuel Brothers. It would be an improvement to our neighborhood," she said.
The article goes on to say the location being considered by Manuel Brothers Inc. has been designated a C3 zone for heavy commercial use since 1981. But many people said the plan needs to be updated to reflect the area's demographics, including a housing boom. "C3 is not the proper zoning for that parcel," said resident Sonja Maggard. "It's a very urban residential area." Other people at the hearing also argued that industrial zoning for the property is inappropriate. "My concerns are having to do with zoning," said commissioner Judy Creek. "I'm just real conflicted." Though the majority of the commission agreed an environmental impact report was unnecessary and that a negative declaration was appropriate, other environmental issues concerned commissioners. Frank Aguilar and Ron Coleman voted for the conditional use permit and Gerry Brentnall, Judy Creek and Jim Forman voted to deny the request. "There's a real dispute here," said Brentnall. "Many of the issues brought up were unknown. The nature of the community has changed. I don't feel I have enough information to make an informed decision." Residents said they are concerned that if an appeal is filed, the Board of Supervisors will not be as sympathetic to their arguments as the planning commissioners. They have vowed to continue to work to assure the batch plant does not move to Weimar. Likewise, representatives for Manuel Brothers Inc. said the company will pursue the conditional use permit.
PUBLICATION: Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, CA)
DATE: June 28, 1998
SECTION: Neighbors; Pg. N1
BYLINE: Walt Yost
DATELINE: Shingle Springs, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Don Berger, resident; Mike Holland, resident
The Sacramento Bee reports plans for an expanded preschool in Shingle Springs , California, were rejected Thursday by the El Dorado County Planning Commission. Opponents pressured commission to reverse its initial approval, citing the inappropriateness of the site in a neighborhood and pointing to noise and traffic concerns.
According to the article, the planning commission voted 3-2 to continue the request for a special use permit until the Shingle Springs Montessori School redesigns its plans to make them more acceptable. "If this is to work, you're looking at a major redesign. I don't think we're close to that today," commissioner Tom Mahach said. Mahach, Jim McKeehan and Alan Tolhurst voted for the continuation. But commissioners Doug Noble and John Wolfenden voted against it, arguing that the expanded preschool is in the wrong spot-a residential neighborhood. "It's the location itself, not the quality of the school," Wolfenden said in explaining his opposition. Candy Coats, owner of the school on the east side of Ramada Way at the intersection with Meder Road, has requested a permit to expand her facility to 36 children. Coats has operated a preschool for 12 children on the 2-acre site since January.
The article reports members of the county planning staff initially recommended approved the special use permit. But after opposition from residents, they revised their recommendation and advised the commission to deny it. Senior planner Bob Britzman said planners had received numerous letters and telephone calls from residents living adjacent to the school site. Residents expressed concerns about increased traffic and noise, inadequate parking and inconsistency with the county's general plan, Britzman said. "We are not anti-children ... we support the need for day-care facilities," Britzman said of the recommendation to deny the permit. But the overriding issue, he said, is the intensity of the development and whether it fits the site. A special use permit grants a special privilege, Britzman said, and "such privilege should not be granted at the expense of the neighborhood." Britzman said he suggested several options to the applicant, including moving the play area away from residences, reducing the number of children to 14 and regularly monitoring noise and traffic with a review after one year.
The article states one of people speaking against the expansion was Mike Holland. Holland said effects on land use, traffic, noise and safety can't be alleviated. He and other residents, Holland said, moved to the neighborhood to avoid "commercial operations." Don Berger, a neighbor of Holland's, said he moved to Ramada Way to be in a quiet residential neighborhood. Another resident said she worries about her children's safety while they wait on the side of Ramada Way for their school bus as "45 rushing parents" drive to the preschool to drop off their children. "It's an accident waiting to happen," she said. Opponents also questioned the need for an expanded facility in the Shingle Springs area. Mary Warrington said she called four local day-care centers and all said they had vacancies.
The article goes on to say an equal number of people spoke in favor of the preschool, including parents whose children attend the school. "I feel privileged the school is in our neighborhood. I feel it's an attribute to our neighborhood," said Susan Ferris. Jennifer Lawrence, director of Choices for Children in western El Dorado County, said, "Children are a part of the neighborhood and have a right to go to school in the neighborhood." She said a drastic need exists for more child-care services in the county, particularly with the advent of welfare reform. Coats said her expanded preschool would operate from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays and create no noise in the early morning or evening when most people are home. She also said the traffic impact would be "minimal" to neighbors, and parents of students will be told not to park on the street. Coats told the commissioners that children in the community need "a nurturing place to grow."
PUBLICATION: Knoxville News-Sentinel (Knoxville, TN)
DATE: June 28, 1998
SECTION: Anderson County; Pg. Ac1
BYLINE: Bob Fowler
DATELINE: Clinton, Tennessee
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Delilah McGhee, Bena Seivers, Ruth Taylor, residents
The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports that more than 20 residents of the Eagle Bend neighborhood in Clinton, Tennessee say their property values have fallen and the assessments on their homes should be reduced because of the air and noise pollution coming from the nearby Carden Farm Industrial Park. The residents appeared before the Anderson County Board of Equalization recently, and presented a petition to the board contesting what residents say are the "high property tax reappraisals" on their homes.
According to the article, Delilah McGhee, an Eagle Bend resident, said fumes, noise, and increased traffic from the industrial park are having an adverse effect on the value of her house and her health. She said her doctor told her "to stop smoking and sell my house and move out of that polluted area." McGhee said her home was recently reappraised for $93,900. If the neighborhood was clean, she said, she would have no problem with the reappraisal.
Bena Seivers and Ruth Taylor, also residents of Eagle Bend, appeared before the equalization board as well, the article says. Seivers said, "What used to attract people to the area now repels them. Our quality has depreciated so much that these assessments on our houses aren't realistic." She added that the $76,800 value placed on her property would be appropriate if it were in another neighborhood. Homes in Eagle Bend take up to two years to sell, Seivers said.
The article explains that board members said they would need hard evidence that pollution in the area exceeds federal standards. Charles Oldham, the board chair, said, "We need proof that backs up these complaints. We're somewhat hamstrung just on opinions." Byron Hale, a board member, agreed, saying, "I'd like to see something that says they [Carden Farm industries] are in violation. We need something to hang our hat on."
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: July 4, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A01
BYLINE: Mary Ann Milbourn
DATELINE: Irvine, California area
The Orange County Register reports that members of the Air Line Pilots Association, the nation's largest pilots union, believe if a proposed commercial airport is built at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station near Irvine, California, county officials should build two new runways to address potential safety problems. The association suggested that the existing north/south runway should be used for landings, and the proposed southeast/northwest runways should be used for takeoffs. Meanwhile, county officials called the proposal unreasonable because it would create new noise problems over at least a dozen cities.
According to the article, the association's proposal renews a debate over plans to take off to the east and north at the proposed airport. The pilots union, along with the Allied Pilots Association, has criticized that plan, saying that the runways go uphill, go toward mountains, and go into tailwinds, making takeoffs unsafe. Jon Russell, safety officer for the union, said, "They are putting noise in front of safety and trying to tell you everything is hunky-dory."
Meanwhile, Courtney Wiercioch, county El Toro reuse program manage, said county studies show the planned takeoffs are safe and would be over areas where few homes exist. The article explains that the Federal Aviation Administration ultimately will have the final say on the matter.
PUBLICATION: The Capital (Annapolis, MD)
DATE: July 4, 1998
SECTION: Police Beat; Pg. A10
BYLINE: Allison Foreman
DATELINE: Annapolis, Maryland
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ray Ringgold, resident
The Capital reports the Mary land Aviation Administration monitors noise daily from BWI Airport to make sure aircraft stay within the allowed noise levels. Residents commend them for these noise abatement measures, but they say it does nothing to reduce the amount of noise they are exposed to.
According to the article, noise monitors throughout the county capture hundreds of decibels of aircraft noise every day. The monitors can identify noise levels and changes, but they haven't stopped residents' complaints over the amount of noise they face. "They're doing a good job with what they have to work with," Ray Ringgold, a lifetime Severn resident said of the overall system. "The noise monitoring system is doing a beautiful job. But that's not reducing the noise."
The article reports more than 10 years ago, the Mary land Aviation Administration began installing computerized aircraft noise -monitoring systems to track airplane noise over communities. "It's one of the things we do that the public can relate to the most," said Wayne A. Bryant, director of BWI Airport's aviation noise and abatement office. Twenty-three posts are connected by telephone lines to a computer in the airport terminal. "We can hear the sound of them here," Mr. Bryant said, pointing to a large speaker next to the panel. The monitors also help identify the nature, time, and length of the noise an aircraft makes. "The monitors let us know if the noise abatement programs are working," Mr. Bryant said. "They're a way of measuring results."
The article states community leaders assist the airport in picking sites for the monitors, which are placed near homes, schools and on the side of some roads, Mr. Bryant said. Residents say one of those sites, Delmont United Methodist Church in Severn, has given the community ammunition as it pushes for better noise controls. "It's been a very good location as far as we're concerned," Mr. Ringgold said about the Delmont. "We knew that we had a problem as far as the noise is concerned, and by having the monitor, it shows the airport what's happening." A group of Severn residents recently used the results to complain about noise from United Airlines flights. If the airport finds that a plane is not abiding by the noise abatement standards, it provides a copy of the report to the airline, which has an interest in fixing the problem, Mr. Bryant said. "(Airlines) communicate with their pilots, remind them that they weren't following the noise abatement procedures and ask them to perform better," Mr. Bryant said.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: July 4, 1998
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Lorenza Munoz
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hanna Hill, a Web site volunteer for the Project 99 anti-El Toro airport group; Jack Saporito, co-founder of U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch; Leonard Kranser ,El Toro Web site co-founder; Debi Wagner, co-founder of Citizens Aviation Watch; Philippa Edmunds, member of Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise
The Los Angeles Times reports that those fighting El Toro Airport in Orange County, California have found allies over the Internet in the U.K., South Africa, and Australia who are fighting the same airport problems.
According to the article, wisdom from elsewhere in the world shows them that if an airport is built, it will be extremely difficult to have any significant impact on reducing pollution, noise, or other expansion-related problems. It is also noted that occasionally, drastic tactics are used such as tying oneself down to runways slated for expansion (Sydney, Australia), tunneling under runways to delay construction (Manchester, England), and even launching homemade rockets at an airport (Japan).
The article notes that the anti-El Toro group Project 99 has created their own website, and have learned about things such as property value decreases in Seattle, and studies on air and noise pollution and their related health problems. Just as important, people are learning that residents everywhere are standing up to oppose pro-airport forces. Head of Chicago's U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch noted that "Around the world, we are saying enough is enough." That group has over a million members. A kind of national community among anti-airport forces has been created.
The article states that airport supporters, such as the Airport Transport Association, note that airports are expanding not to draw passengers but to handle an increasing demand that will increase with or without airport expansion. The choice is whether to allow the expansion in an atmosphere that is cramped and unsafe or state-of-the-art and efficient.
According to the article, most anti-airport groups are supported by donations from members. The money is used for publicity and hiring lawyers to bring lawsuits against airport authorities. Authorities in Orange County, Seattle, Chicago and Baltimore have all been sued recently over expansion issues. A London activist notes ""It is very difficult to fight it because big business has all the lobbying power, "Money is the great god, and they always play the job card."
The article notes that health concerns are a major worry of residents near airports. Studies haven't been done, but pollution from Seattle's airport is suspected to have contributed to an unusually high number of leukemia cases and brain tumors. Pollution comes from jet fuel and from de-icing chemicals. Seattle-Tacoma Airport plans to expand nevertheless, to handle 31.4 million passengers by 2004 instead of the current 22.8. Department of Health officials could not directly correlate the health problems to the airport.
The article reports El Toro airport opponents are watching what happens at Chicago's O'Hare Airport as politicians there begin working against proposed expansion there.
PUBLICATION: The Orange County Register
DATE: July 4, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A18
BYLINE: Mary Ann Milbourn
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Orange County Register reports the Air Line Pilots Association this week released its response to two Orange County, California, safety studies of El Toro Airport's takeoffs.
According to the article, ALPA, which represents 50,000 pilots at 49 airlines, supports an El Toro airport and the closure of John Wayne Airport, but continues to oppose the county's proposed plan for takeoffs. Basically, the union is concerned about safety risks. Orange County's plan is for 70 percent of El Toro flights to take off to the east toward Foothill Ranch and 30 percent to go due north over Irvine Lake. The union is concerned that jets would have to take off on runways that go uphill toward mountains. Easterly departures also would have to contend with a tail wind, which hampers lift.
The article reports the union's response was prompted when the county released two studies in May that looked at the safety issue. One study by a consultant recommended by ALPA concluded that modern jets are so powerful they can easily get the altitude to clear the nearby mountains. A second study determined that jets could take off to the north or east and land safely even if an engine failed. ALPA does not dispute the data, but argues it is unnecessarily risky to fly toward mountains if there are other options. At El Toro, the union says, there are safer options in other directions.
The article states the union's criticisms specifically say the county's plan to take off due north is a problem because jets would be heading directly into the 1,000-foot Loma Ridge, just four miles from the runway. The county's study recommended that if a jet loses an engine on takeoff, the pilot make an immediate left turn to avoid the mountain. The Marines routinely make the turn for safety reasons, but the county doesn't want commercial jets to turn because of the potential noise impact over North Tustin, Orange Park Acres and Lemon Heights. To the east, there are foothills within two miles of the runway and Saddleback Peak 10 miles out, obstacles the pilots believe represent unnecessary dangers to takeoffs. The county believes the terrain is not a safety problem. But ALPA's proposal is for the county to dig up the existing runways and build two new southeast/northwest runways 4,300 feet apart, which would allow simultaneous landings. As an alternative, the pilots would have the county keep the existing north/south runways, which would use the existing landing pattern over Dana Point, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo and Leisure World-Laguna Hills. Takeoffs would be on the new southwest/northeast runways towards North Tustin. There is no cost estimate for building the new runways. The county opposes this idea, they say, mostly because of noise. If the county uses the existing north/south and east/west runways, it can take advantage of buffer zones where homes generally have not been allowed. The union's alternative would rotate the flight paths just enough so that homes from Mission Viejo to Villa Park potentially would be affected.
According to the article, although the union's position was based on an analysis by its aircraft performance and safety experts, and the concurrence of its top management, several local pilots who have campaigned for an El Toro airport disagree. Newport Beach Councilman John Hedges, who flies for Northwest Airlines, called the ALPA letter "hack comments." He said ALPA is trying to design its own airport rather than work within the parameters of the existing base. Hedges and 13 other current and retired pilots held a news conference Thursday endorsing the safety of the county's takeoff plans.
PUBLICATION: The Tampa Tribune
DATE: July 4, 1998
SECTION: Florida/Metro, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Peter E. Howard
DATELINE: Tampa, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Frank Canto, president of the Terrace Park Civic Association; Richard Beckner, resident; Gary Lore, resident
The Tampa Tribune reports people living near Busch Gardens are complaining about noise from a giant roller coaster, but the amusement park plans to correct the problem.
According to the article, the noise comes from screaming fans. Richard Beckner's home is just east of Busch Gardens' parking lots and within earshot of the large, inverted roller coaster. He moved into his home six months before Montu started up in May 1996. Now, every three minutes the screams of Montu's riders fill the air as the coaster begins its 130-foot drop into a series of twists and turns over 4,000 feet of track. "I had friends from Orlando over here last weekend and they said they couldn't imagine how we put up with that every day," Beckner explained. "The screams off the top of the roller coaster are the worst," he said. "It's really annoying." When Beckner goes to bed early, he turns on a loud fan to mask the noise from Montu. He's even gone to his mother's house to get some sleep. One street over, Gary Lore wears earplugs to bed. The state Department of Corrections employee works a swing shift and often has to get his sleep during the day. "It's terrible, terrible," says Lore. "I can't say it's unbearable, but it's a constant annoyance."
The article reports residents living near the park used recent public hearings to voice their concerns about excessive noise and traffic. During the past month the Tampa City Council held public hearings on Busch Gardens' proposed plans to build a new hotel and expand parking. The city council approved the park's plans, and a committee of residents and city and park officials was put in place to review the residents' noise concerns. "We're very, very sensitive to this issue and the neighborhood," said Robin Carson, the Busch Gardens' executive vice president and general manager. "We've been working with sound experts and we've come up with what we think are reasonable ways to reduce the noise," she said. The park plans to build a concrete wall between 6 and 12 feet tall between the parking lots and the homes to the east of the park. Carson said that when the state begins its project to widen McKinley Drive, which separates the park from its parking lots, Busch Gardens will build a second barrier wall between the park and the road to help deaden the noise. The barrier, similar to those used along highways, will be 10 to 16 feet high. A berm will be pushed against the wall inside the park, and trees and bushes will be planted on it, extending the barrier higher. The McKinley road-widening project, Carson said, will also allow Busch to have access lanes to its parking lots. Roads leading to the toll booths inside the lots will be extended to help bring traffic off the public streets. "We've been told a masonry wall around the neighborhood will drastically curb the sound," Carson said. "The screams? Well, I'm hoping we will be able to lessen that with the two walls we are putting up there."
Carson said the park tries to be a good neighbor, and it sends out notices to residents when the park is staying open later than usual for a special event. Depending on the season, Montu zips passengers along at 60 mph from about 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. or 9 p.m. On New Year's Eve, the park stays open until after midnight, and some late-night events keep rides operating until 11 p.m. Councilman Bob Buckhorn said Busch officials were receptive to the concerns voiced by neighbors during the hearings. "They are going out of their way to work this out," Buckhorn said. "They understand they are partners and neighbors." Frank Canto, president of the Terrace Park Civic Association, said some of the park's neighbors are concerned about their property values falling because of the traffic and noise from Montu. No one expects Busch Gardens to relocate Montu, Canto said, so the hope is that the walls will bring some relief. "I think Robin Carson is making a very sincere effort to correct some of the problems they have created," Canto said.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: July 3, 1998
SECTION: Valley And State; Pg. B3
DATELINE: Austin, Texas
The Arizona Republic reports because scientists believe noise generated by cars and trucks can damage the hearing of people who live nearby, a group at the University of Texas at Austin is trying to develop the best physical barrier to block noise coming from highways.
According to the article, Penelope Menounou of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues are trying to develop the best physical barrier to block noise coming from highways. Scientists may be able to improve the performance of concrete barriers that are used now by giving them an uneven top, Menounou reported last week at the Acoustical Society of America meeting. The scientists have found that making the top of a noise barrier ragged instead of flat can reduce the highway noise on the other side of the barrier by up to 6 decibels. In a traditional noise barrier, sound energy from the highway reaches the flat top, then is reflected into sound waves that can reinforce one another and arrive loudly at a listener on the other side, Menounou said. In contrast, the jagged edge scatters the energy into incoherent waves that are quieter.
PUBLICATION: Herald Express (Torquay, England)
DATE: July 3, 1998
SECTION: Environment: Noise Pollution, Pg.3
DATELINE: Teignbridge, England
The Herald Express reports the Council in Teignbridge, England, went into action to spotlight Noise Awareness Day launched by the National Society for Clean Air.
According to the article, Teignbridge wants its residents to be aware that they need not suffer in silence if their lives are blighted by noise. Richard Cox, deputy chief environmental health officer, said people should contact his office if they were suffering from noisy neighbors or any other assault on their ears.
The article reports Cox stressed people could do a lot to switch the volume down themselves. One of the biggest noise complaints -comprising 108 of the 427 noise related complaints made to Teignbridge in the last financial year - was barking dogs. According to the law, that constitutes a noise nuisance which could leave owners facing a GBP 5,000 fine. The council will give advice on how to stop dogs barking, and will suggest ways of lowering noise in a range of other areas including industrial and commercial.
PUBLICATION: The Seattle Times
DATE: July 3, 1998
SECTION: Local News; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Kery Murakami
DATELINE: Seattle, Washington
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tim O'Brien, resident;
The Seattle Times reports at a council meeting yesterday, residents in Washington's South Seattle neighborhoods protested a plan that would increase air traffic at Boeing Field and move the airport's runway closer to their neighborhoods.
According to the article, residents in South Seattle neighborhoods around the airport say heavy cargo jets are already rattling their homes and robbing them of sleep. At a special Metropolitan King County Council committee hearing yesterday they protested a plan that would not only bring more flights to Boeing Field, but would also move the airport's runway 800 feet closer to the Georgetown neighborhood. "This is cruel, violent, arrogant, cynical," said Georgetown resident Tim O'Brien. "The community of Georgetown is literally being asked to pay for the expansion with a pound of our flesh." Others compared the noise to a form of tyranny, and residents in communities like Georgetown and Beacon Hill are so angry, the historic Georgetown Steam Plant's board recently kicked airport administrator Cynthia Stewart out of the historical society.
The article reports however, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and several Boeing workers told the council's Commerce, Labor and Economic Development Committee that the airport is economically important. Boeing flies in supplies through the airport, also known as King County International Airport. Swayed by business and labor, the committee yesterday sent the plan on to the council's budget committee. The plan is expected to be approved by the entire County Council on July 13. Hoping to appease residents, County Councilman Dwight Pelz, D-Seattle, added a requirement the county explore noise mitigation and set aside $ 550,000 for that purpose. "We're doing what we can while continuing to have the airport be a vital part of our economy," said Pelz, who represents the South Seattle communities. But residents aren't satisfied, saying they want the county to reduce the noise already there.
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)
DATE: July 2, 1998
SECTION: Viewpoint, Pg. A12
DATELINE: Memphis, Tennessee
The Commercial Appeal published the following editorial contending that the settlement proposed by the Tennessee's Memphis/Shelby County Airport Authority to resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by homeowners is "fair and reasonable." The editorial says:
The settlement proposed by the Memphis/Shelby County Airport Authority to resolve a long-standing lawsuit over airport noise appears fair and reasonable - and more in the interest of affected homeowners than continued litigation.
The $22 million offer seems to strike a rational balance between conceding the potential negative effects of airport operations on the daily lives and property values of residents near the facility, and allowing Memphis International Airport to continue to function as an important engine of regional economic growth.
The plan must be approved by U.S. Dist. Judge Odell Horton, who is presiding over the class-action suit, and by the nearly 12,500 homeowners who belong to that class. Lawyers for many of the property owners, who helped craft the settlement, urge its adoption.
The airport authority would pay homeowners as soon as next year sums ranging from $525 to $4,200, pegged to how long they have lived in the area. That compensation would be funded by higher landing fees for airport users.
Authority officials can withdraw their proposal if a large enough percentage of homeowners reject it. But the alternative would be a long and expensive trial - and an almost certain appeal whatever the outcome - or a spate of individual lawsuits that would be tough to win. Neither course seems more promising than accepting the compromise.
The rapid growth of the airport has had unpleasant side effects for nearby neighborhoods: loud jet overflights, air pollution, increased ground traffic. The authority has spent $120 million to buy and raze 1,400 houses and other properties in the path of airport expansion.
But it's hard to argue that anyone who built or bought a house near the airport in, say, the past 20 years could reasonably have failed to anticipate those problems.
City officials warned as early as the mid-1970s of the impact of increasing airport noise on surrounding residential areas, yet home construction in those neighborhoods continued.
And airport executives have made no secret since then of their ambitious expansion plans. So after-the-fact complaints about the adverse effects on the ground of a stepped-up flight schedule can sound hollow.
The runway under construction at the airport offers the prospect of enhancing Memphis's status as the nation's - and even the world's - distribution center, and of improving the Mid-South's already impressive transportation network.
Demands from airport neighbors for much higher compensation, or even complete buyouts, could jeopardize current airport operations as well as expansion. That could cost the entire region in lost jobs and economic development.
The details of the compensation proposal will need to be thoroughly ventilated in court proceedings and public hearings. At this point, though, a resolution that would give both sides much of what they want and deserve looks preferable to a prolonged, all-or-nothing adversarial process.
PUBLICATION: The Evening Post (Wellington. England)
DATE: July 2, 1998
SECTION: News; National; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Hank Schouten
DATELINE: Lower Hutt, England
The Evening Post (Wellington) reports in England two firemen are complaining that the station where they work is too noisy for tenants in apartments next door. The two firemen happen to also be the landlords of the adjacent apartments.
According to the article, fire officers John Coogan and John Reynolds are the two landlords who bought fifteen former Fire Service apartments next to Lower Hutt's Waterloo Road station nine years ago. Now, they allege the fire station is a nuisance. They oppose Fire Service Commission submissions to Lower Hutt's District Plan which said that under the old District Plan it had the right to designate fire station sites.
The article reports in their submission, the firemen/landlords said station operations caused problems for their tenants. This included noise, late training sessions, and the parking and storage of vehicles. The commission said it was unreasonable for emergency service facilities to be categorized as discretionary activities under the proposed new plan. This would mean the commission could be required to go through the resource consent process if it wanted to change the fire station. This would result in unnecessary costs and delays in redeveloping or establishing new facilities, the commission said. Standards required of emergency services in residential areas would be inappropriate and onerous, according to the commission.
The article states the two firemen argued a fire station should comply as much as possible with rules applying in residential areas. Currently, there are no rules to determine appropriate carparking and traffic movement levels for emergency facilities. Noise rules could restrict the use of sirens. "The essential activities of the fire station are protected by existing user rights. If they want additional rights. . . they should apply for a resource consent. This enables the whole matter to be considered properly." District Plan hearings on residential area activities, including the fire station issue, are expected to be held in August or September.
PUBLICATION: The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec)
DATE: July 2, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. G1 / Break
BYLINE: Heather Sokoloff
DATELINE: Montreal, Quebec
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Gilbert Lavoie, resident; Jose Landry, resident; Nathalie Picotte, resident
The Gazette reports bars and restaurants in residential area of Montreal have become controversial. Residents complain about noise. West End business owners say they are working to peacefully co-exist in neighborhoods.
According to the article, business owners say when a bar moves in, it doesn't have to mean the end of the neighborhood. "Its the trend of the future," said Andrew Taranowski, co-owner of the Claremont, a restaurant and bar on Sherbrooke St. W. near Claremont Ave. "People are tired of going downtown and dealing with parking hassles. They are more comfortable staying in their community," he said. Some bars have been welcomed by West End residents. But bar owners have had to work at their relationship with the community. A few years ago, residents complained about the noise coming from Marco's and Pepe's, popular among the young Westmount crowd. Since then, bar-goers are told to keep it down by waiters and managers if they get too loud, said manager Tony Rao. And according to Westmount bylaws, the terrace must be closed at 11 p.m., no exceptions. "For the past couple of years, there has been no problems with Marco's," said Westmount's director of public security, Richard McEnroe. McEnroe said there had been a noise problem with another restaurant in Westmount, but the owners straightened out the problem once it was brought to their attention. "That's the way we do it in Westmount - problem resolution. We sit down together and work out a solution," he said. McEnroe pointed out that Marco's serves food and is thus classified as a restaurant, as bars are not allowed to operate in Westmount. Just a few blocks down Sherbrooke St., both Crossroads Bar and the Claremont operate under Montreal city bylaws. Both establishments are permitted to keep their summer terraces open late at night, but managers say that noise is not a problem. "We close the garage door at 11 p.m. every night in the summer," Crossroads co-owner Peter Higgins said.
The article reports, however, that one bar, the Typhoon Lounge, has become a center of controversy in the neighborhood. Located on the corner of Monkland and Wilson Aves., the Typhoon has not blended well with the tricycles and flower gardens lining Wilson. Manager Mike Silas said he opened the bar on Monkland, rather than downtown, because he loves the area. "I live just up the street. I love walking down the street and knowing the guy who sells fish and the baker. It's a small town feeling right inside a big city," he said. He claims he is doing everything possible to accommodate residents' concerns about his bar. He has hired a doorman to monitor the noise level of the crowd on the outside terrace. Silas said he plans to put up signs in the lounge and notes on the menus, pleading with patrons to be quiet when going home. He said he has told all of his product suppliers to make deliveries on Monkland, rather than coming around the side on Wilson and disturbing residents with their trucks. He is also in the process of landscaping the side of his property with trees and grass, to better muffle the noise from the bar.
The article states residents say Silas' gestures are not enough. "Three weeks ago, there were live bands and speakers on the terrace until late at night," said Jose Landry, who has lived on Wilson for 15 years. There is so much traffic that she does not let her three young children play on the street, she said, pointing to a noisy beer truck stopped at the top of Wilson at the side of Typhoon, despite Silas's promise to stop them. She also said Silas has not followed through on his promise to finish the landscaping by June 13. Landry is not pleased with the development that has turned Monkland into the West End's commercial mecca. "It brings in people from all over the place. When we go for a walk at night, all we smell are restaurants," she said. But most importantly, she said, there should not be any bars on Monkland. Nathalie Picotte, who also has three young children, is more angry at the city of Montreal than Silas. "That place should have never opened in the first place. The city should not be giving permits to bars in residential neighborhoods." If the Wilson Ave. residents had been consulted, she said, they would never have agreed to it. "We love the area. That's why we bought the house seven years ago. But now we can't sleep at night, and the children can't play outside," she said. She said she does not have much faith in Silas to come through on his promises. "Before he opened, he told us it was just going to be a tea room," she said. She wants Typhoon to move, and she thinks the city of Montreal should pay for Silas's moving expenses. "I feel cheated by the city of Montreal. They tell us they want young families to stay, and not move into the smaller municipalities, but they make it impossible for us," she added, noting that bars that are not part of restaurants are not allowed in Westmount and Town of Mont Royal, but zoning regulations in Montreal permit one bar every 75 metros.
According to the article, Picotte's city councilor, Michael Applebaum, has taken up her cause, but Picotte said the city has not been responsive. "Maybe it is because he is not in the same party as Mayor Bourque," she said. Her husband, Gilbert Lavoie, went to city hall with about 20 other Wilson Ave. residents to voice their concern in the citizens' question period before the city council meeting on Monday night. "I don't care at all about politics," he said. "I have a wife and children. I just want someone to listen to me." The mayor's response to Lavoie's concern was: "If people don't want bars, there won't be any." But the mayor did not offer any solution to the current problem on Wilson, nor did he suggest any action to fix the problem. He did not respond to Lavoie's inquiries about installing speed bumps and permit parking. Lavoie said he feels very discouraged after seeing the mayor. "How can a simple citizen have a say?" he said.
The article goes on to report Silas wants the residents and merchants of Monkland Ave. to come together to form the Monkland Village Association and "demand from the city what we need to develop properly." That includes creating permit parking and installing speed bumps, he said. Even though it will make it more difficult for his customers to park, he said that he wants to build a good relationship with the residents. "This is a period of adjustment," he said. "No one expected Monkland to boom like this, so quickly."
PUBLICATION: M2 Presswire
DATE: July 2, 1998
DATELINE: United Kingdom
M2 Presswire published the following press release stating that the United Kingdom's minister responsible for environmental noise declared the government's support for National Noise Awareness Day. The press release read as follows:
Angela Eagle, Minister with responsibility for environmental noise, today pledged the Government's support for National Noise Awareness Day, which is being coordinated by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA), with support from DETR.
Welcoming the opportunity to publicize the event, Angela Eagle said: "I am well aware of the misery that excessive noise can cause to people's lives. We are therefore grateful to the NSCA for promoting and coordinating this event, as National Noise Awareness Day offers an excellent opportunity to consider the effect which our lifestyles, transport and businesses may have on our neighbors and the wider community, in terms of noise. By offering our support and encouraging local communities to participate in today's event, we intend to make people more aware of unnecessary noise and encourage everyone to become more considerate neighbors.
"We also welcome the survey of local authority environmental health officers, carried out by the NSCA, which gives us an insight into the levels and sources of noise complaints, as well as informing us of local authorities' attitude to noise policy and their intention to adopt the night time noise offense powers under the Noise Act 1996. We will be reviewing the workings and uptake of the powers next year and this will enable us to determine what progress local authorities have made in developing their noise complaint services in light of implementation of the new powers".
The object of National Noise Awareness Day (NNAD) is to raise public awareness and understanding of noise issues by acting as a focus for information and discussion. It is being coordinated by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA), with support from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. NSCA distributed a Noise information pack to all UK local authorities, youth organizations and businesses. All these organizations have been encouraged to undertake local initiatives to educate people about noise.
The NSCA undertook a survey of local authority environmental health officers to investigate the levels and sources of noise complaints, the implementation of legislation, uptake of the night time noise powers set out in the Noise Act 1996 and attitudes to noise policy. Further information on the Survey may be obtained from the NSCA - Tel. 01273 326313.
The Noise Act 1996 made provision for a night time noise offense, and clarified local authority powers to confiscate noise -making equipment. The clarified powers of confiscation came into force on 19 September 1996. The night time noise offense applies to noise from domestic premises only - including gardens, outhouses and yards - between 11pm to 7am. A warning notice will be served warning the person responsible that if the noise, when measured by the local authority, has not been reduced below the permitted level within the time specified, the authority can take further action. The night time noise offense powers have been available for local authorities to adopt since Autumn 1997.
During the passage of the Bill, there was an undertaking to review the workings and uptake of the offense two years after those sections of the 1996 Act came into force. To inform the review, the Department undertook some research to provide the baseline data on the provision of noise complaint services as at October 1996. In 1999, the Department will commission further research to review the Noise Act 1996 which will provide information on the development of noise complaints services in the light of implementation of the new offense.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in conjunction with the Department of Health, are undertaking a program of research, worth GBP 600,000, into the non-auditory effects of noise on health. The program will be managed by the Institute of Environmental Health. Further information can be obtained from Dr. Tuckett - Tel. 0116 223 1611. The leaflet, "Bothered by Noise? There's no need to suffer" is available free of charge from libraries, Citizen Advice Bureau or the DETR's Publication Center - Tel. 0870 122 6236. The booklet gives practical advice to people suffering from noise problems and explains the legislation and controls dealing with noise. The Noise Network, a voluntary body offering independent advice on noise problems, will be available to handle any queries from the general public. People may contact their helpline number, 0181 312 9997, between 9am - 5pm. Alternatively, they may try their E-mail address - noise. network@btinternet.com
PUBLICATION: The San Francisco Chronicle
DATE: July 2, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. A21
BYLINE: Yumi Wilson
DATELINE: San Francisco, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Felix Gonzalez, resident
The San Francisco Chronicle reports San Francisco's Supervisor Gavin Newsom is proposing the city create an entertainment district to balance needs of clubs and residents in the South of Market section of the city.
According to the article, Newsom's plans would allow for certain clubs in a South of Market Nighttime Entertainment District to pump up the volume to 85 decibels. Although the plan is being embraced by many club owners and some residential developers, some residents who live in the area are worried that Newsom's plan will create more nighttime noise. "It's already so bad, I'm looking for a place to move to," said Felix Gonzalez, a 34-year-old resident of a low-income complex on 11th Street. "I have to go to a friend's house in Fremont to get some sleep." Complaints from Gonzalez and other neighbors have led police to force the clubs to keep the noise level down to 45 to 60 decibels. That, some say, is ruining the trademark ambiance of SOMA. "What's happening now is police have their job to do," said Bill Herrmann of the Holy Cow on Folsom Street. "Now, we have to keep our doors closed. You can't even hear our music. It's killing us."
The article reports recent complaints from neighbors, some of them residents of new live-work developments, have increased interest in an entertainment district idea. "We want to turn the 11th Street corridor into San Francisco's version of Bourbon Street," said live-work space developer Joe O'Donoghue. "It's a good piece of legislation." Until now, Mayor Willie Brown and supervisors have avoided the issue -- allowing police to enforce strict noise limits and the Planning Commission to address housing needs by, in part, approving numerous live-work developments in SOMA. Recently, Newsom, an avid fan of SOMA and a businessman himself, has been working with O'Donoghue and other club supporters to come up with a solution. "You've got residential developments moving into commercial areas, and that's creating a conflict," Newsom said. "This legislation is about creating balance." The South of Market Nighttime Entertainment District would run from Howard Street to the north, 13th Street to the west, Bryant to the south, and Eighth Street to the east. It would also extend up Folsom between Seventh and Eighth streets. Clubs in the area could play music that reaches noise levels up to 80 decibels. Clubs in the district's core, along Folsom Street between 11th and 12th streets and 11th Street between Harrison Street and Burns Place, could turn up the volume to 85 decibels.
The article states, in addition to creating the entertainment district, Newsom's plan would require developers of any new residential building to install walls and windows strong enough to keep most of the club noise outside. The plan also would force owners to inform prospective tenants and buyers that the area can be noisy, and those moving in would have to sign statements making it clear they know what to expect. Other provisions would include: temporary street closures to alleviate parking and traffic congestion for residents, and the possible creation of a shuttle system for motorists to reach the clubs from nearby parking garages. If approved at the weekly supervisors meeting, Newsom's plan would go before the Planning Commission and then back to the board for final approval. Because the process could take months, Newsom also is asking supervisors to approve an interim plan that would allow those with cabaret licenses or dance hall permits to play music up to 85 decibels depending on the club's location.
PUBLICATION: Aberdeen Press and Journal
DATE: July 1, 1998
SECTION: Pg.3
DATELINE: Aberdeen, Scotland
The Aberdeen Press and Journal reports the City Council of Aberdeen, Scotland, is addressing the growing noise pollution problem by publishing noise reduction guidelines for residents.
According to the article, the Aberdeen City Council recognizes that noise pollution blights lives and raises stress. In response, the council has written noise -reduction guidelines to help residents live in harmony. The guide was introduced for today's National Noise Awareness Day. Last year, the council received 442 noise complaints, 296 about neighbors. Complaints included stereos and televisions, dogs, burglar alarms and cars. There were also complaints about night clubs, building sites and traffic.
The article reports senior council environmental health officer Alison McDiarmid said: "Noise pollution is a very real problem and one which is affecting more and more people every year. Continued exposure to noise can lead to stress and generally make life miserable for the complainer. Music is a constant source of problems. Today's equipment is very powerful and the music tends to have a strong bass beat. Showing consideration for others is the best way to reduce noise. "
The article states the council's tips include: Keep radio and television volumes as low as possible, especially at night. Set the bass control at a low level. Position refrigerators and washing machines away from walls. If your dog barks when left alone, arrange to leave it with a friend. Use intruder alarms that will cut out after 20 minutes of ringing. Warn neighbors in advance if you are having a party. The council recommends noise sufferers first contact the offender, who may not be aware of the problem. If it continues, the environmental and consumer protection department can be contacted on Aberdeen 523440.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: July 1, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 6
BYLINE: Melissa Knopper
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Daily Herald reports members of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission met with two chief pilots from United and American airlines Tuesday to brainstorm ideas for reducing noise pollution in the Northwest suburbs.
According to the article, a group of suburban residents asked airline pilots Tuesday to be more aware of the people who sleep below them when they fly out of O'Hare International Airport at night. "Most of the people who fly on the planes and live under the planes are affected by it one way or another," Palatine village President Rita Mullins said. Mullins and other members of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission met with the two chief pilots from United and American airlines Tuesday to discuss ideas for reducing noise pollution in the suburbs. So far, as part of the city of Chicago's "Fly Quiet" program, airlines try to use the noisiest planes during daytime hours, then switch to new models with quieter engines at night. The city also financed a hush house to cut down on noise during engine maintenance and testing at the airport.
The article states by tracking the routes of hundreds of take-offs and landings at O'Hare, commission members said they've noticed planes often stray from the quietest path once they're several miles from the airport. As part of the noise prevention plan, air traffic controllers also are supposed to send planes over less populated areas, such as forest preserves, industrial parks and highways. Although they can take some measures to make the skies quieter, such as reducing engine power during take-offs, the pilots said air traffic controllers have the biggest role to play. "The controller can really determine what route we fly," said Carl Price, chief pilot for American Airlines. "We're more than happy to turn in whatever direction he tells us." City aviation officials blamed part of the noise problem on gusty winds, which can make it hard for controllers to keep planes on a specific course. To solve that problem, the department plans to spend $3 million on new global positioning satellite equipment this fall. Once that new technology is in place, suburban residents should notice a drop in noise levels, officials predicted.
PUBLICATION: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
DATE: July 1, 1998
SECTION: Arlington; Pg. 1
BYLINE: Mary Doclar
DATELINE: Arlington, Texas
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports two former mayors and a former city councilwoman spoke to the City Council last night on behalf of a group of nuns who say the expansion of two roads threatens the serenity of their south Arlington, Texas, monastery.
According to the article, the city has started court proceedings to force the nuns to sell about 5 acres of the 52-acre Carmel of the Holy Trinity, a monastery for Displaced Carmelites at 5801 Mt. Carmel Drive, just north of Sublett Road. The property would serve as right of way for the expansion of Bowen and Sublett roads. The nuns, who rely on silence and tranquillity for their lives of prayer, have asked for a noise abatement wall to buffer them from the road, but council members said that doing so would be expensive and that they have to safeguard taxpayer dollars. But Harold Patterson and S.J. Stovall, who served as Arlington mayors during a 10-year period starting in 1977, and Martha Walker, a city councilwoman from 1972 until 1982, want the council to try to reach a more peaceful resolution. "I was there when we made promises and assurances to them that we'd be understanding and were going to respect and protect their way of life," Walker said. "They're such an asset to any community. We need them to pray for us, and we don't need to be impacting them in negative ways. " Patterson asked the council to consider moving the road 80 feet to the west, which would further buffer the monastery from noise.
The article goes on to report Patterson has also asked members to delay any action on the matter for at least 60 days. "I would ask for you to give some thought to a 60-day stay," he said. "We don't need to be dealing with a courthouse with the nuns. This is a serious matter. It's something that needs every council member's attention to make it work." An attorney representing the nuns said last night it could cost between $850,000 and $930,000 "to solve sisters' problems" if the road is built in its current alignment.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH)
DATE: July 1, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 10B
BYLINE: Matthew Englehart
DATELINE: Olmsted Falls, Ohio
The Plain Dealer published the following letter from Matthew Englehart of Olmsted Falls, Ohio. In his letter, Englehart questions the employment of the firm hired to study the impact of expansion of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Englehart also criticizes the FAA for failing to provide checks and balances for airport planners. Mr. Englehart writes:
On June 17, representatives of Olmsted Falls attended the scoping meeting for the environmental impact statement for the proposed expansion at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. We left the meeting very concerned that the Federal Aviation Administration will not be protecting the interests of Olmsted Falls or the Metroparks.
We spent time with representatives of Landrum & Brown, conductors of the impact study. Olmsted Falls has already objected to the FAA that the appointment of Landrum & Brown constitutes an ethical violation of FAA Order 5050.4A, Paragraph76(g), which states that the contractor conducting the impact study should not enter into any agreement with any contractor who had a part in developing the expansion proposal. Since Landrum & Brown had primary responsibility for the development of the proposal, the fact that it is conducting the impact study represents a violation of this order and is an obvious, flagrant conflict of interest. The fact that the FAA has allowed Landrum & Brown to conduct the EIS is a clear warning sign that the FAA is not interested in protecting the interests of the communities surrounding the airport.
In our discussions with Landrum & Brown, we discovered that in addition to increasing the safety of operations, the expansion plan attempts to maximize financial profit for Cleveland and the airlines. We expressed concern that the quality of life in surrounding communities should receive some consideration as well. Landrum & Brown replied that the FAA would provide a check and balance against this single-minded focus on maximizing profit and would protect the interests of the surrounding communities. Landrum & Brown assured us that the company was perfectly willing to modify its plan as needed if told by the FAA that modifications were necessary.
At this point, we had not yet spoken to the FAA. We were optimistic that the final outcome would involve FAA intervention on our community's part, and that the original expansion plan would most likely be modified in some favorable way. To our dismay, we found that the FAA is even more enamored of the business and technology of aviation than Landrum & Brown, and may even require Landrum & Brown to modify its proposal to make the expansion yet more destructive to our community.
Specifically, Landrum & Brown's tentative master plan specifies a "touchdown displacement," whereby planes would not land at the edge of the runway but rather at a point farther down the runway. The effect of this displacement is to have the planes touch down farther from Olmsted Falls, thus reducing the noise impact on our community. Unofficial discussion with Landrum & Brown revealed that one of the primary motivations for including the touchdown displacement in the expansion plan is to mitigate the noise impact on Olmsted Falls, as well as the Cleveland Metroparks. When we broached the topic of touchdown displacements with the FAA, intending to discern whether they could be made even larger than those proposed by Landrum & Brown, we were astonished to hear the FAA express disfavor for touchdown displacements. FAA officials offered some vague reason about lights embedded in the runway sometimes being a problem when touchdown displacements are employed. Since Landrum & Brown is one of the country's premier airport planning firms, it is doubtful that it would have proposed touchdown displacements if they have been found to cause significant technical problems.
What appears increasingly likely is that the FAA shares the same enthusiasm for aviation that airport planners do, yet is not flexible enough to accept even the simplest modifications that provide some relief to surrounding communities. It is absurd to even suggest that the FAA provides a check and balance to the airport planners' single-minded focus on financial objectives. In fact, even Landrum & Brown is making more of an attempt to cooperate with surrounding communities and attempt to inject a minimal amount of creativity into its solutions. Sadly, if this is indicative of the role the FAA will play in this expansion project, Olmsted Falls and the Metroparks would be better off if it were not involved at all.
PUBLICATION: The Plain Dealer
DATE: July 1, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 12B
BYLINE: Alison Grant
DATELINE: Cleveland, Ohio
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Michael A. Dolan, councilman
The Plain Dealer reports Cleveland City Council members are working to make sure residents near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport who have waited years to get their homes insulated from jet noise actually receive the government-financed improvements. The council is also urging the Federal Aviation Administration to block the sale of land north of the airport unless a consultant conclusively determines the land is not needed for the airport.
According to the article, the Cleveland City Council is concerned that some homeowners may become ineligible for sound-dampening doors and windows because the city is drawing an updated noise exposure map to reflect the phaseout of older, louder jets. "City Council is deeply concerned that these residents may not receive the services which they have long anticipated," Council President Jay Westbrook wrote in a letter Monday to the FAA. Westbrook said the residents should not be dismissed from the sound insulation program if they have already signed up for it. Councilman Michael A. Dolan, whose Kamm's Corners-West Park neighborhood has the most houses eligible for improvements, asked the FAA to order mobile noise monitoring near Hopkins. He said it might show that although jets have become quieter, air traffic is increasing and the overall noise is just as insidious. Dolan accused Mayor Michael R. White's administration of ignoring his 2-year-old request for information on noise readings taken throughout neighborhoods near the airport. Councilman Martin J. Sweeney, whose ward is near the airport, concurred that the administration had not produced the readings. White spokeswoman Nancy Lesic said in a statement, "We are surprised to hear Councilman Dolan's comments. We have tried persistently to work with him, and we will continue to do so." FAA officials could not be reached for comment yesterday.
The article reports Dolan and colleague Edward W. Rybka, head of council's Planning Committee, also warn that the airport should re-consider selling 160 acres near Hopkins to Chelm Properties and Cleveland businessman Arnold Pickney, who was White's 1997 campaign manager. Chelm has already purchased 34 acres, the first stage of a proposed $200 million business park. Dolan suggested the land, some of which held houses the city bought for noise abatement, could be used for a new terminal, aircraft support facilities, even a new runway. The White administration says the property is unsuitable for airport expansion and can be used to generate jobs and tax revenue. Hopkins' former director, William F. Cunningham Jr., however, sided with Dolan. "The airport right now is so landlocked. It seems a shame to give away property," Cunningham said. Chelm and Pinkney did not return calls seeking comment.
The article states Dolan supports White's planned expansion of Hopkins runways that should meet the airport's capacity needs for about 15 years. But he said it was "appalling" that White had not undertaken simultaneous long-range planning. White attempted long-range planning that would have expanded the airport's boundaries. But he had to settle for a compromise that allows a new 6,450-foot runway that will be extended later to 9,000 feet, and expansion of an existing runway to 11,250 feet to handle international flights.
PUBLICATION: Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph (United Kingdom)
DATE: July 1, 1998
SECTION: Pollution: Noise, Pg.5
DATELINE: North Lincolnshire, England
The Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph reports complaints about noise pollution are on the rise in the English towns of North Lincolnshire. But the Health and Public Protection Committee can help residents bothered by noise.
According to the article, recently a broken burglar alarm rang for 27 hours solid shattering the peace and quiet of a North Lincolnshire town before it was disconnected. In a similar incident, neighbors were driven to distraction by an alarm which blared for 20 hours. National Noise Awareness Day - a countrywide campaign to highlight growing noise pollution issues and get people to turn down the volume - should not be lost in North Lincolnshire, say council officials, where the sound of silence is all too rare.
The article reports complaints about noise pollution are on the up and if North Lincolnshire is not actually noisier, more people are certainly being bothered by it. Last year noise complaints from residents about loud and unwelcome intruder alarms increased by 193 per cent from 16 to 47. It was a similar scenario in other noise categories with complaints about industrial, domestic, animal, street and railway noises all on the rise. In 1997, 1,065 people called on enforcement officers about intrusive sounds compared with 928 the previous year. Sources that generated less comment than the previous year were noises from construction, leisure, traffic, aircraft, and vibration.
The article states Councilor Darrell Barkworth, chairman of the Health and Public Protection Committee, said people need not suffer in silence. Council officers can sometimes quickly disconnect a burglar alarm that has been ringing too loud for too long. In most cases, the council sends off an informal letter of complaint to the person causing the nuisance. If this doesn't work, the council will investigate the incident and can serve a notice under the Environmental Protection Act which gives them the power to stop the noise, such as seizing a music system. Barkworth said nobody had the right to ruin the lives of their near neighbors with loud and intrusive noise. "The effect of noise pollution on people's lives should not be underestimated, it can become unbearable. The council can and will take action to protect its residents," he added. "But in the first instance victims should talk to the people making the noise as they may not be aware they are causing a nuisance. People should not think there is no answer to the problem and nobody to turn to for help. North Lincs Council takes it's responsibilities extremely seriously and we will do all we can to put a stop to excessive noise."
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
DATE: July 1, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 6B
BYLINE: Mary Lynn Smith
DATELINE: St.Paul, Minnesota
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bobbi Megard, resident; Sue Gehrz, Falcon Heights Mayor
The Star Tribune reports plans by the University of Minnesota to build a women's soccer stadium on its St. Paul campus have nearby residents and some local officials upset. They say it's inappropriate to build a soccer stadium in a residential neighborhood because of the noise, traffic and parking problems it will cause.
According to the article, critics of the plan say they support women's athletics and agree that university women deserve a first-class soccer stadium that's on par with men's athletic facilities. But, they say, a residential neighborhood is not the place for the stadium because of the noise, traffic and parking problems it will cause. Bobbi Megard, a former St. Paul City Council member who served on a task force that examined the stadium issue, lives in St. Anthony Park six blocks from the site. She said she expects "to hear the play-by-play" booming from the stadium. The Falcon Heights City Council plans to vote tonight on a request to the university to delay its decision and look for a better location. The proposal is strictly advisory. Even though the campus and the proposed stadium site are in Falcon Heights, but the city has no authority over the university's land use. St. Paul officials also may request a delay. Tom Fabel, Mayor Norm Coleman's chief of staff, said the city might be interested in working with the university to find a different site that would allay concerns in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood and help ease the city's need for more soccer fields. City park and recreation officials are desperately searching for sites to build six to eight soccer fields to accommodate the exploding youth leagues.
The article reports university officials said that they've examined other sites, but that the 7-acre site on university land at Cleveland and Larpenteur Aves. best fits with the university's $2 million budget and its plan to open the stadium by fall 1999. The Board of Regents is scheduled to vote on the project July 9. University President Mark Yudof, in a letter to Falcon Heights Mayor Sue Gehrz, said any further delay would be a "disservice to the student athletes who have endured years of portable bleachers and portable toilets on game days, and no amenities at all when they practice." In addition, university officials said any delay could jeopardize its written commitment with the federal Office of Civil Rights to expand athletic opportunities for women and provide equal training, equipment and facilities.
The article states the university contends the stadium shouldn't cause the parking, traffic and noise problems that residents anticipate. One reason is the competition field will be used only eight to 11 times a year. The stadium will be built 36 feet from a 93-unit condominium complex at 1666 Coffman St., which houses senior university employees and retirees. The site also is within 40 feet of the lot lines of the University Grove neighborhood. The soccer complex will include a two-story, 7,668-square-foot building. It will also include bleacher seating, which will face away from the nearest residential areas. Up to 1,000 spectators could be accommodated. University officials say the complex won't include lights so residents don't have to worry about night games.
According to the article, opponents predict the increased traffic on Larpenteur and Cleveland Aves. and parking problems will take its toll on their neighborhoods. The stadium doesn't include additional parking. "The whole idea of the stadium is to bring in large crowds, and it's designed to encourage lots of noise," said Gehrz, the Falcon Heights mayor. "That changes the character of the neighborhood." And it could bring property values down in the St. Anthony Park and University Grove neighborhoods, said Gehrz and Megard. The site already includes three practice fields that have been used by the women's soccer team and recreation teams for the past four years. Megard said she and others don't object to those fields but are concerned that the new stadium and the rapid growth of soccer will create problems in the future. She said she also fears that the university may quickly outgrow the stadium.
PUBLICATION: United Press International
DATE: July 1, 1998
SECTION: Regional News
DATELINE: Sacramento, California
The United Press International reports legislation to overturn local controls on leaf blowers has been narrowly approved by the California Assembly's Local Government Committee.
According to the article, the proposal by Sen. Richard Polanco, D-Los Angeles, after rough ride in the Senate, cleared the Assembly panel in another version today with no votes to spare. In its current form, the bill would allow cities to set any noise standard for outlawing leaf blowers down to 65 decibels. They could set a lower standard only if at least two manufacturers could produce machines able to meet it. The bill would overturn current prohibitions against the leaf blowers in Los Angeles and as many as 17 other cities since machines that meet statewide standards couldn't be outlawed in most cases. Polanco told lawmakers he introduced the measure after Los Angeles adopted an ordinance that prohibited gas-powered leaf blowers, putting many gardeners and landscapers out of work. In addition to the noise level provisions, the bill would limit leaf blower operations to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays, and 9 a.m. and 5 p. m. on weekends. The League of California Cities opposed the bill, saying the issue should be left with local residents and their elected officials.
PUBLICATION: The Sentinel (Stoke, UK)
DATE: July 2, 1998
SECTION: Pg.8
DATELINE: Stoke, United Kingdom
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Tom Bird, Brian and Rosalie Bevan, residents
The Sentinel reports that noise pollution is a growing problem in the Newcastle area in the United Kingdom, and residents are becoming more aware of their rights to have a peaceful life. The article goes on to detail the noise problems of two residents in the Stoke area, and to detail how officials at the Newcastle Borough Council advise people to deal with noise problems.
According to the article, officials now have more power to address noise pollution problems. For example, officers at Newcastle Borough Council now can impose noise abatement orders on families or businesses; can turn off burglar alarms; and can tow away cars whose alarms are disturbing people. Alan Hudson, the head of environmental services at the council, said, "Noise pollution has been a growing problem over the last few years, from commercial premises to hi-fis. We try to advise people how to stop a problem first. If there are complaints about loud music we advise people to buy headphones, if it is a dog it is often because the dog needs attention. In industrial cases we carry out investigations into complaints and look to take remedial action. If our advice is not heeded we serve a notice demanding compliance with our standards and we do not hesitate to go to the courts if our orders are not heeded." The article also notes that complaints to the Newcastle Borough Council about car and burglar alarms have risen four-fold in the last year.
The article goes on to explain that Tom Bird, a resident of Sneyd Green, had suffered from noise for years from trucks related to the construction of a nearby residential site. Now, Bird said, that noise is gone, but now there is noise from a sunken manhole cover in the road outside Bird's home that clangs whenever a truck goes over it. Bird said, "It happens six or seven times a day and it is like a thundercrack. At nights it wakes me and my wife up every time a wagon goes over it. It wakes us up every single night, it's terrible. It is the latest in a line of problems, it is like we will never have any peace. We live on Hanley Road and that has got noisier over the years. But you would think a manhole cover could be put right. The council have redone it, but it just sinks again."
Meanwhile, Brian and Rosalie Bevan, residents of Newcastle, are some of the many May Bank residents who live with the ear-splitting sound of crashing steel from British Steel's Shelton Bar. Brian said, "We can't sleep with the windows open in the summer. It's a good job the weather has been so bad. We've been here more than 20 years and it has definitely got worse. You can hear clanging metal and a shushing noise like a huge steam train which they say is the metal being drawn over rollers. It is worse when the wind is in our direction, then we can hear the railway that runs alongside it as well. The worst thing is that it goes on all night. It stops you sleeping, but worse is when it wakes you up suddenly. The noise is terrible." Officials at British Steel said they are taking the problem seriously and are looking into a number of options to reduce noise at the site. Brian Beven said he's heard that before. "We have heard talk that they will do this and that, but nothing happens and we go on living like this," he said. "We just have to go on burying our heads under the pillow."
Previous week: June 21, 1998
Next week: July 5, 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