PUBLICATION: Newsday (New York, NY)
DATE: March 14, 1999
SECTION: News; Page A06
BYLINE: Valerie Burgher
DATELINE: Islip, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dan Lifavi, resident; Deborah Slinkosky, resident and president of Committee for the Enforcement of MacArthur Airport Control; Dorothy Schultz, resident
Newsday reports residents of Islip, New York, are protesting late-night flights at MacArthur Airport and asking for a night-time flight curfew.
According to the article, members of the Committee for the Enforcement of MacArthur Airport Control organized a protest to demonstrate to Islip Town leaders that they do not want flights between 11 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. at the town-owned airport. "Islip has been very cavalier in allowing flights very late into the evening," said Legis. Steve Levy (D-Holbrook), who attended the rally. "The majority of the residents do not have a problem with Southwest so long as they respect the residents desire to get a good night's sleep." Resident Dorothy Schultz, who attended the rally said, "I've lived here for 27 years and when I first moved here you couldn't even tell the airport was there. Now I can't even sleep through the night." When Dan Lifavi moved to his home east of MacArthur Airport in 1996, he was prepared for the occasional jumbo jet flying by. But he wasn't ready for flights that would wake him and his 7-year-old daughter after midnight. "If I knew that it was going to be like this, I would have never moved here," he said. Wearing a sign with the words, "We are suburbia, not a borough," Lafavi joined dozens of local residents yesterday who rallied at the airport's entrance for flight curfews on the eve of Southwest Airlines inaugural launch from the airport at 6:30 this morning.
The article reports Southwest expects to send 12 flights a day from MacArthur. Currently, Southwest's scheduled departures run from 6:30 a.m. to 8:20 p.m., according to Dan Jerman, operations supervisor for the airlines. Southwest does not have plans to schedule flights between 11 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., Jerman said. Jerman said Southwest has one of the newest fleets in the industry and that the new airplanes make less noise. Town officials said MacArthur meets all Federal Aviation Administration standards in terms of noise levels. But supporters of an 11 p.m. cutoff say that noise studies done at MacArthur were based on a limited number of quieter jets, not planes comparable to Southwest's 737 Boeings.
The article goes on to say while the addition of Southwest Airlines to MacArthur has been promoted as an economic boon for Suffolk County, local residents fear that it will mean more late-night flights. Local residents don't deny that the added service and convenience will be beneficial, but they said the town reneged on promises to limit flight times and build a sound barrier on the eastern side of the airport. "We don't mind that Islip is bringing in new business to the airport, but they're ignoring their constituency," said Deborah Slinkosky, a Holbrook resident and committee president.
PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
DATE: March 14, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Seth Mnookin
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ellen Lohr, resident and founder of the Boca Raton Airport Action Group (BRAAG)
The Palm Beach Post reports Boca Raton, Florida, resident Ellen Lohr who lives northeast of the airport, wants a nighttime ban on all planes and wants a complete ban on what the Federal Aviation Administration calls "Stage One" planes, the loudest and oldest of aircraft. The FAA recently allowed the Naples airport to ban Stage One planes at night. The number of jets taking off and landing at the Boca Raton airport has dramatically increased in the last ten years. In 1990, there were just eight jets based at the airport. Today there are 45. And takeoffs and landings have jumped 42 percent in that time, from 96,000 in 1990 to 136,700 last year - one every four minutes if spread over every hour of every day. The airport's noise hot line logged 318 complaints in January and February, more than triple the amount from the same period last year. About half were for nighttime flights, though most flights occur during the day. When Ellen Lohr moved to Boca Raton in 1990, she fell in love with a relatively quiet South Florida suburb. Now, she's afraid it's turning into a transportation hub. "The planes here, they zoom over the houses," she said. "You can't talk, you can't sleep. It's gotten horrible. Since I've been living here, the quality of my life has severely deteriorated as a result of the noise from the airport," said Lohr, who founded the Boca Raton Airport Action Group (BRAAG) in 1996.
The article reports noise at Boca Raton Airport is a problem without an easy solution. Airport director Nelson Rhodes cautions that BRAAG is unlikely to attain its lofty goal of grounding nighttime flights and noisy planes. The Naples airport spent $600,000 on federally required studies just to ban Stage One night flights. To ban all night flights would cost $1 million, Rhodes said; no non-commercial airport has ever done it. "It makes a lot more sense, and is a lot more effective, to spend our time and money focusing on other things," according to Rhodes. Furthermore, federal rules make it nearly impossible for local airports to enact curfews. The Boca Raton airport does have a voluntary flight curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. "The bottom line is, if a plane is hired to take off at 5 a.m., it will take off at 5 a.m.," said Diane Gullo, the noise abatement officer. "But the people based here do their best to be considerate."
The article reports Rhodes asserts noise is currently the major focus of the airport. Later this month, the airport, in conjunction with the FAA, will begin a study of air traffic and neighborhood noise levels. The results of the study could lead to changes in flight patterns. The airport, with only one runway on about 200 acres, caters mainly to corporate and personal jets; no commercial airlines use it. Its $1 million budget comes primarily from a lease with a private airport operator and other businesses on airport property. About one-quarter of that money is spent dealing with noise, including the salary of the noise abatement officer and mailings to residents. But Rhodes says more education is necessary. For instance, he says, most residents probably don't know there is only one Stage One jet based at the airport. Airplanes have gotten quieter over the years. "Noise is a funny thing," Rhodes said. "Some people are very sensitive to it, and others don't get nearly so upset." Though the noise hot line has been busy, the airport says many calls are made by the same people. About 200 people, it says, are responsible for the 1,170 complaints recorded since June 1997. "People view it as an invasion of their person," Rhodes said. "When airplanes fly in their airspace, they perceive it as a taking of their rights."
The article states the airport plans to build a control tower this year, which should help organize runway traffic, preventing planes from circling as much over neighborhoods. Still, even this move is controversial. Lohr worries that the control tower could actually increase traffic at the airport. "There are a lot of mixed feelings about the tower in BRAAG," she said. Meanwhile, the Boca Raton Airport Authority may add another voice. It is now made up of four appointed city residents and one from the suburbs. Two area legislators have proposed a bill that would add two more seats, one of those for the suburbs, because of the increase in noise complaints west of the city limits. On Tuesday, city voters approved a straw-ballot referendum saying they wanted to maintain or increase the city's level of representation on the airport authority. Only the state legislature can determine the makeup of the authority.
PUBLICATION: Agence France Presse
DATE: March 20, 1999
SECTION: Financial Pages
DATELINE: Washington, DC
Agence France Presse reports the US Transportation Secretary will travel to Europe to tackle a US-European dispute over airplane noise.
According to the article, the United States has condemned a directive by the European Parliament to ban jet aircraft in the EU that fail to meet certain anti-noise regulations. The House of Representatives on March 3 voted to ban Concorde flights to the United States if the European Parliament directive is endorsed by EU transport ministers on March 29. US Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater told reporters here Friday that the dispute has the potential "to really make for difficult relations as we move forward. I would hope that this would be an issue that we could resolve and move forward from," but he acknowledged that a breakthrough was unlikely on his visits to Germany, Belgium and Britain.
The article states the EU directive would bar EU- and foreign-registered aircraft outfitted with "hush kits," as are many US-made aircraft. The kits are devices designed to reduce aircraft noise. But the European Parliament contends that the kits are polluting and not as effective against noise as are the anti- noise features of new engines. By using hush kits, according to the EU executive commission, carriers can extend the life of airplanes that are more than 25 years old.
The article reports Slater also said he hoped his meeting with British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott next week would lead to a resumption in negotiations on an "open skies" agreement with the United States. Under open skies, market forces determine civil aviation prices, flight frequencies and routes rather than government regulations.
PUBLICATION: The Denver Post
DATE: March 20, 1999
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A-25
BYLINE: Susan Greene
DATELINE: Denver, Colorado
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hiawatha Davis, councilman
The Denver Post reports a Denver city councilman is pushing for stricter enforcement of the city's noise ordinances.
According to the article, Councilman Hiawatha Davis wants better enforcement of the city's noise ordinances and is proposing ways for citizens to report disturbances without fear of retaliation. His effort comes in response to ongoing rallies outside a Planned Parenthood center in his home district, where protesters regularly shout anti-abortion statements to clients. "The neighbors have had to endure that screaming for years," Davis said. "Somebody's got to put an end to all the noise. "
The article reports Denver has three sets of noise ordinances that fall under the jurisdiction of three separate agencies. One set deals with animal noises, and is enforced by city animal-control officials. Another group, written for the Department of Environmental Health, restricts noise in residential neighborhoods to 55 decibels - the level of a typical conversation between two people standing 5 feet apart. It generally applies to nonhuman sounds, such as those made by wind chimes and air conditioning units. Noises from concert venues, bars or construction sites also are restricted, but at higher decibel limits. The Environmental Health Department has one employee who works part time monitoring noise levels in response to such complaints. The third set of ordinances falls to the Denver Police Department and concerns human noises that are said to disturb the peace. That includes protests, domestic disputes, loud parties and generally raucous behavior.
The article states police each day receive scores of complaints about such disturbances, but charges rarely are pressed, police say, because the majority of people complaining about noise levels refuse to sign complaints. The city's current law prohibits officers from pressing charges without a signed complaint. Davis said some residents disturbed by the Planned Parenthood rallies are afraid to complain because they fear reprisals by protesters. "They're scared to have the police come to their house or to file a formal complaint because they're scared the protesters will harass them or harangue them with verbal abuse," he said. "You shouldn't have to take a risk like that to make a complaint."
According to the article, Davis wants more cops equipped with decibel meters and a greater effort by police to enforce noise laws. Currently, the police department owns some sound meters and has trained a few officers to use them. But the meters rarely are used. Davis has called for officers on each shift in each district trained to monitor noise, just as officers are trained to handle gang activity and domestic violence. "That would allow us to have a service that everybody in the city can rely on without exposing themselves to the wrath of their neighbors," he said.
The article reports police officials are considering Davis' proposal, but say it may be overambitious. They say the police force already is strained dealing with more serious problems, and cost also may be a problem. Decibel meters range in price from $1,000 to $1,500 and cost about $200 to $300 a year to calibrate - a procedure required so that results are acceptable as evidence. Furthermore, police note, there could be First Amendment issues. They worry about selective enforcement - charging protesters outside the Planned Parenthood clinic, for example, and not loud fans at a Super Bowl rally. Davis rejected those concerns, saying it's volume, not content, that needs to be regulated. "We're not asking people not to speak, just not to scream," he said.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: March 20, 1999
SECTION: Part A; Page 19; Metro Desk
BYLINE: Jean O. Pasco
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times reports Orange County, California, supervisors will decide March 30 whether to grant final approval for several commercial test flights at El Toro air base.
According to the article, officials hope to fly several airliners from El Toro runways in June to demonstrate how loud flights might be from a new commercial airport planned for the base. The county would pay for the two-day flights by Boeing 737-400, 737-300 and 767 aircraft, as well as a McDonnell-Douglas MD80 and Airbus A300. The noise tests are expected to cost from $2 million to $3 million. County planners would install eight noise monitors along the departure and arrival paths to track the noise. Initial studies showed the most noise from the airport would be generated in Laguna Woods, which sits just to the south of the runways that would be used by arriving jets. Supervisors approved the tests in January as a way of showing residents near the airport how much noise might be generated by aircraft on arrival and takeoff. Average noise levels have been estimated, and figures on the probable loudness of individual jets is expected to be released by county officials in April.
The article reports South County airport foes argue that the tests will not be valid because the planes will not be as heavy as if filled with passengers and that the test cannot simulate the effect of flights estimated to take off or land on an average of every five minutes. They also contend that the quietest planes would be used instead of louder aircraft such as the wide-body Boeing 747.
The article states County supervisors are planning to convert the Marine Corps base to an international airport that would serve as many as 28.8 million passengers by 2020. The first phase of the airport is expected to be opened in 2005 to serve 9 million passengers a year.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: March 19, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein,
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports participants at a recent forum on a new terminal at California's Burbank Airport could not agree on whether to seek local or federal solutions to long-standing noise, safety, and regulation issues.
According to the article, at a contentious public summit, airport Executive Director Thomas E. Greer said the facility "will pursue all reasonable, feasible and legal options, including caps and curfews" to resolve the long-running terminal issue. But Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority President Joyce Streeter would not commit to implementing mandatory flight restrictions if the airport were granted authority to do so. Airport officials insist that only the Federal Aviation Administration can mandate such restrictions. When state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) asked Streeter if the airport would impose flight restrictions if the FAA gave Burbank such authority, she said the airport would not do so without first seeking input from the airlines and other aviation interests.
The article states airport neighbors in Burbank and elsewhere contend that the new terminal would bring too much noise and traffic to the east San Fernando Valley. The Burbank City Council is now suing to block the project. Burbank city officials have offered to drop litigation, however, if the airport's governing board agrees to limits on flights, mandatory curfews and a 16-gate terminal. They also argued that the size of the new facility should be driven by passenger demand, now 4.7 million travelers per year, and not other considerations. However, "Noise is neither appropriate nor justified as a reason to jeopardize construction of this project," airport spokesman Victor Gill said before the meeting. "This airport meets national airport policy goals of the quietest jets, and secondly, we are committed to insulate all remaining homes impacted by noise under law."
The article reports airport director Greer said the current terminal is in a virtual "crash zone" near the east-west runway and could never be built under modern safety standards. But Burbank Mayor David Golonski, who wants to limit airport growth, said Greer and others are hyping the safety issue to ram a larger terminal down the city's throat. "If safety were the only issue, a replacement terminal would already have been built," Golonski said. But Diran Torigian of the Airline Pilots Assn. said Burbank faces a real threat of a passenger jet piling into a terminal. "A minor incident at some other airport could turn into a major catastrophe at this airport," said Torigian, a United Airlines pilot. "This has the potential for the worst aviation accident in the country."
According to the article, because aviation is a federal domain, however, it was not clear what impact, if any, Thursday's meeting would have on the terminal controversy. The meeting, attended by more than 200 people, was convened by Schiff to allow state legislators to participate in the debate over the planned terminal. Among those listening to the debate were state Sen. Betty Karnette (D-Long Beach), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, and Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch), who chairs the lower house's Transportation Committee. Schiff said he believed the state might be able to provide financial aid for possible noise mitigation measures. He also said the community should not wait for Washington to provide a solution, but develop one locally. "My sense is that the FAA is loath to intrude on a local issue," Schiff said. The Airport Authority wants to build a 19-gate terminal that would serve 5 million passengers annually. Last August, Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey came to Burbank and pledged that her agency would work with local officials to find a solution to the bickering over aircraft noise. Garvey's deputy chief of staff, Marie Therese Dominguez, said this week the agency has agreed to review whether the airport can impose mandatory noise restrictions without completing a costly federal study.
The article goes on to say some meeting participants expressed skepticism over Schiff's motives, which they said were related more to a possible bid to challenge Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale) for his 27th District seat in the 2000 election. Schiff, however, said his motivation was not political and said he is willing to work with Rogan on a solution. Rogan has pressed Garvey to clarify Burbank's argument that there is a loophole in federal law that will allow Burbank Airport to impose a mandatory 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on passenger jets, replacing the existing voluntary restriction. In February, he also called a summit on the airport, inviting Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.), chairman of the powerful House Aviation Subcommittee, to meet with local officials. That session is scheduled for May. "It's interesting that at the same time we are pushing for a local solution that Congressman Rogan is pushing for a federal solution," said Peter Kirsch, special counsel to Burbank on airport issues. "Administrator Garvey's support would certainly be helpful, but we aren't going to solve this debate unless there is an agreement locally on what the proper solution should be."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)
DATE: March 19, 1999
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Jill Rosen
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports Florida's Boca Raton Airport Authority received a federal grant Thursday for a noise study.
According to the article, the grant from the Federal Aviation Administration will help pay for a Part 150 noise study, something the airport must complete before it can impose curfews or bans on noisy aircraft. With airport noise complaints at an all-time high, the grant money will be put to use immediately. Reports show that complaints logged on the airport's noise hotline reached a fever pitch in February. A total of 162 people called to complain, mostly about jets passing in the night. Only 48 people complained during the same period last year.
The article reports work will begin Wednesday with a study measuring noise levels at points throughout a three-mile radius of the airport. Airport Director Nelson Rhodes said starting the study now is key in order to record the airport during the busy season. "The credibility of the study necessitates that we do not miss the March air traffic, as it is normally the busiest month of the year," Rhodes said. The $200, 000 FAA grant will pay for almost all of the $260,000 Part 150. The Florida Department of Transportation will contributed $10,000 and the airport will cover the rest of the costs. The study takes anywhere from a year to a year and a half to complete.
The article reports this week the Airport Authority also added two representatives to the Noise Compatibility Advisory Committee, a noise discussion group comprised of residents and those who do business at the airport. The committee is now made up of 15 members, each serving two-year terms.
PUBLICATION: Canada NewsWire Ltd.
DATE: March 18, 1999
SECTION: Domestic News
DATELINE: Toronto, Ontario CANADA
Canada NewsWire Ltd., reports the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) celebrated victory with the Ontario Municipal Board's (OMB) decision to reject a residential development proposal in the City of Mississauga, which falls within the GTAA Operating Area.
According to the article, the ruling concerns an application to re-designate industrially zoned lands to a residential subdivision under the flight path of Lester B. Pearson International Airport's (LBPIA) east/west runway, 06L/24R. The GTAA objected to the zoning amendments because a significant portion of the lands falls within the 30 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) noise contour, and all the lands fall within the GTAA Operating Area. The NEF contours measure noise annoyance, while the GTAA Operating Area is an extended boundary around Pearson Airport that relates the 30 NEF contour to tangible physical and identifiable boundaries. The OMB ruled that while it was possible to construct residences that meet the bare minimum noise reduction standards, the residential development was not in the public interest due to the availability of reasonable alternatives. "This decision strengthens the ability of municipalities to refuse residential developments that are located within the 30 NEF," GTAA President and CEO, Louis A. Turpen. "The ruling by the OMB sets a clear benchmark regarding the development of lands within the vicinity of the airport, and means we have at last ended the encroachment of new residential development around Pearson."
The article states the Board also ruled that the proposed re-designation of these lands, originally planned for industrial use, was unsatisfactory as it would remove well-situated employment lands that satisfy a need to both the municipality and the airport. The GTAA, along with the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC) in objecting to the re-designation of industrial lands to residential use stated the importance to airport operations and future development that there be an adequate, if not an abundant, supply of employment lands in close proximity to the airport. Plans for expansion and redevelopment of the airport could be compromised by the continuing loss of surrounding industrial lands.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: March 18, 1999
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. N17
BYLINE: Joyce Streator
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles published an editorial by Joyce Streator, president of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. In her editorial, Streator calls for the city of Burbank to stop holding hostage the safety of airport users and return to the bargaining table.
According to the editorial, the summit that will be held tonight by state Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, is welcome by Streator's group. "Now that the Airport Authority has launched a Part 161 study to seek the restrictions on air carrier operations that Burbank is demanding, the city should be willing to cease holding the terminal hostage." However, Burbank officials have said they will continue to attempt to block the project until they get the caps and curfews they want, despite the study's results. "That could be a long time. Some Burbank officials have said they don't care if it would take decades. Do we really have that much time?"
The editorial states that a month ago, a business jet made a crash landing at the Van Nuys Airport, veered off the runway and crashed into several parked airplanes. No one was seriously hurt. That same Gulfstream II aircraft has made many landings and takeoffs at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport over the years. Streator contends, "But at our airport, such a crash landing could have been much more serious. The terminal at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport is as close as 313 feet from the center of the active runways, more than 400 feet too close to meet FAA safety standards. That is the primary reason behind the airport modernization plan to build a new 19-gate facility farther from the runways. We think the traveling public should be afforded the level of safety that the FAA intends for them to have. Certainly there is good reason to reach a settlement sooner, rather than later." Streator applauds Schiff's efforts to end the stalemate by bringing state transportation officials and mediation experts to the summit tonight. And Streator says she is encouraged by the efforts of Rep. Jim Rogan, R-Pasadena, who has convinced Tennessee Congressman John Duncan, chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, to meet with the parties in May to discuss what can be done. "Certainly, federal officials have a better chance of actually doing something to end the stalemate because of the federal law governing restrictions on air carrier operations."
In her editorial Streator goes on to say the Airport Authority has indicated that it will agree to any restrictions that result in construction of the 19-gate terminal that we have proposed, as long as they don't violate the law or drive the airlines away. "We were not appointed to the commission in order to run the airport out of business, and we know no one, certainly not the Burbank City Council, wants that to happen. The Airport Authority understands that Burbank is concerned about the impacts of airport operations. The Airport Commission has done much to reduce those impacts and is continuing to study and implement alternatives to reduce noise. And we've been very successful, cutting noise impacts by 90 percent since the airport was publicly acquired in 1978." Streator says her group is grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate to Schiff and other state officials its continuing willingness to deal with airport noise and to reach an agreement now with the city of Burbank.
The editorial concludes with Streator saying she cannot however be optimistic that Burbank will resume negotiating in light of recent news accounts. "These stories told of a memo by Burbank's public relations consultants outlining a campaign to undermine the Airport Authority's credibility. This campaign of issuing statements and running newspaper advertisements would gain momentum, according to the reports, and culminate just before the Glendale city election. That doesn't seem to indicate any desire at all to reach a settlement." Streator says she hopes that the city of Burbank doesn't use the opportunity provided by Schiff's summit to further a public relations gambit. "Both sides should view this event as an opportunity to move toward a solution that provides the community with a safer, quieter airport now - not decades from now."
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: March 18, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Tiffany Bartish
DATELINE: Richmond, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports the town of Richmond, Rhode Island, voted to approve amendments to its noise ordinance, creating a "noise-sensitive area" around certain public buildings.
According to the article, last night the council voted 4 to 0 to approve the changes to the town's noise ordinance after a public hearing devoid of any commentary from residents. The amendments to the ordinance create a new 24-hour decibel limit in every town zone. They also make a special "noise -sensitive area" 500 feet around churches, schools and the library. The revised ordinance prohibits any disruptive noise in these areas, regardless of decibel limits. The council voted against including group homes in the noise-sensitive category. "It's a residence and should be the same as other residential areas," Councilman Kevin Gosper said.
The article states certain activities, such as lawn mowing, are exempt from the law during daytime hours. Any person violating the ordinance faces fines up to $500 and could be imprisoned for up to 30 days.
PUBLICATION: The San Diego Union-Tribune
DATE: March 18, 1999
SECTION: Opinion Pg. B-14:7,8; B-10:1; B-12:2,3
DATELINE: Solana Beach, California
The San Diego Union-Tribune published an opinion article charging that the negative reaction to the recent Navy flyover at Solana Beach, California, is creating much more noise than the criticized incident.
According to the article, ever since the opening day of Solana Beach's Little League season, there has been a lot of flak about the flyover by a Navy F/A-18 Hornet just after the National Anthem. "The resultant crescendo of complaints from outraged residents has dwarfed it in decibel count. And that has gone on for nearly two weeks now." The article acknowledges the flyover was unusual -- and inappropriate if it was arranged because of the friendship between Bill Driscoll, the league president, and Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Escondido, who flew combat missions together in Vietnam. Both Driscoll and Cunningham, who participated in the Solana Beach ceremonies, have denied that any undue influence was used to get the Hornet flight from North Island. "The role of Cunningham, a member of the House National Security Committee, may be entirely coincidental, but it is somewhat suspicious."
The article goes on to say equally suspicious are some of the complaints from Solana Beach residents and officials. One council member warned that the noise from the low-flying Hornet could have triggered a collapse of the city's fragile ocean bluffs. "That's like saying someone dropping a stone in Rancho Santa Fe could trigger 'the big one' in La Jolla's Rose Canyon earthquake fault zone. If and when the lifeguard center above Solana Beach's Fletcher Cove tumbles onto what little is left of the beach, it won't be because a plane flew overhead. It will be because of the relentless onslaught from the ocean's waves." Also in question are claims about the plane's altitudes. While some eyewitnesses say the Hornet was at "treetop" level, the Navy, after a preliminary investigation, insists it was flying at 1,000 feet.
The article contends that what exacerbated the situation is the timing of the flyover: two days after the acquittal of a Marine captain after his low-flying plane severed a ski-lift cable in Italy last year, killing 20 people. And it also was two weeks after the Marine Corps agreed to re-examine the flight patterns of its Miramar helicopters to settle a suit by residents from Rancho Bernardo to Del Mar. "It is quite likely that many of the Solana Beach complainers were reacting because of those two unrelated military air events; many, in fact, confused the Navy Hornet with a Marine fighter." An apology by the Navy to Solana Beach for the noise and fuss has not ended the outcries. The article says that's unfortunate because "What was an attempt by the service to build a little community good will, not to mention giving the Little Leaguers the thrill of their lives, has now turned into a witch hunt."
The opinion article concludes with, "We'd like to see the matter die quietly, as it should. Ten seconds of nerve-jangling noise on a Saturday is not worth the amount of barking it has elicited. The latter simply tells you if that's the biggest problem in Solana Beach, life there must be very good."
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: March 18, 1999
SECTION: St. Charles County Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Tommy Robertson
DATELINE: St. Charles, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pat McDonnell, member of St. Charles Citizens Against Airport Noise (CAAN)
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports a leader of a St. Charles, Missouri, group fighting the expansion of Lambert Field said more people are joining St. Charles in filing court papers opposing the expansion plan.
According to the article, Pat McDonnell of St. Charles Citizens Against Airport Noise, or CAAN, told the St. Charles City Council on Tuesday that representatives in the aviation industry have filed court papers opposing the plan. Earlier this month, a National Air Traffic Controllers Association local that represents about 50 approach controllers restated its previously voiced opposition to the "extremely expensive, technically inferior" plan. St. Charles filed suit in federal court last fall seeking relief from noise that officials say would be created by a new runway two miles closer to the city. St. Charles County joined the city in that suit in November. Both entities argued that additional air traffic would generate much noise, cause loss of property values, and disrupt the Main Street business area.
The article reports after McDonnell spoke, the council passed a resolution condemning a bill in the Legislature that would "allow St. Louis to ignore any land use plan or applicable zoning rules of any other county or city." Mayor Bob Moeller endorsed the council's resolution. The resolution also urges the Missouri Municipal League to oppose the bill as a threat to the zoning laws of cities and counties across the state. The resolution is in response to a bill sponsored by Rep. O.L. Shelton, D-St. Louis, that would allow St. Louis, which owns Lambert, to ignore "any land use plan or applicable zoning" rules of another county or city. That bill came in response to a lawsuit filed against the city of St. Louis by Bridgeton after the Federal Aviation Administration gave final approval last year to the expansion. The project, known as W-1W, would consume about 12 percent of that community. Bridgeton, immediately west of Lambert in St. Louis County, already had filed suits to block W-1W for expanding Lambert. That plan would add a third runway southwest of the current runways and require demolition of 2,000 homes and businesses in that city. Bridgeton charges that St. Louis would violate that city's zoning ordinances.
PUBLICATION: Western Daily Press
DATE: March 18, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg.17
BYLINE: David Humphrey
DATELINE: Salisbury, England
The Western Daily Press reports a public meeting is being called over families' complaints that their weekends are being ruined by noise from light planes using Britain's oldest working airfield.
According to the article, Council bosses at Salisbury have faced pressure for several years to take action over the noise problem at Old Sarum, on the city's northern outskirts. In the 1980s, Old Sarum became home to the Edgley Aircraft Company, makers of the bubble-nosed Optica spotter plane. Production ended a decade ago but the grass airstrip has continued to be used by recreational fliers. Now many residents are calling on the council to clamp down on the noise nuisance, claiming the number of aircraft using the airfield has increased. Residents are asking Councilors to consider: restricting commercial flying to 9 am-6 p.m. Monday to Friday; ending circuit flying after 2 p.m. every Sunday; ordering pilots taking off to turn before they reach Old Sarum Castle, so avoiding built-up areas. Meanwhile, a strong band of airfield supporters say the fliers are being persecuted. The council says it can take "discontinuance" action but there could be compensation demands.
The article reports a "public consultative forum" has been arranged for next Tuesday to hear the outcome of a noise survey by experts hired by the district council. A consultant has been studying information from movements data obtained from logbooks from the control tower and more detailed technical logs kept for each aircraft. The computer has produced contour lines on a map showing noise levels around the airfield in a 12-month period. These have been verified against actual sound meter measurements taken in the vicinity of the airfield.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 18, 1999
SECTION: Metro Northwest; Pg. 7B; Zone: NW
BYLINE: Morgan Luciana Danner
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Stephen Daday, committee chairman of the Arlington Heights Village Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise
The Chicago Tribune reports the Arlington Heights Village Advisory Committee on O'Hare Noise plans to meet with O'Hare officials in an effort to convince the airport to turn down the volume.
According to the article, Village Trustee Stephen Daday, committee chairman, said he plans to represent the advisory committee Tuesday before the Technical Committee of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. The commission is comprised of suburban mayors and school officials who advise the city on soundproofing grants and other efforts to reduce O'Hare noise in surrounding communities. Members of the Arlington Heights panel say Chicago should be doing much more with the air traffic controllers who direct flights to and from O'Hare.
The article states Bill Enright, deputy director of the village's Department of Planning and Community Development, said in the village's January Noise Monitor Report that air traffic controllers at night seemed to be ignoring the city's "Fly Quiet" noise-abatement effort. Between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., controllers have been asked to direct departing aircraft away from Arlington Heights. However, 42 percent of the time, controllers assigned late-night departures to runways that point toward Arlington Heights, according to Enright. "Clearly, the procedures are not being followed," Enright said.
PUBLICATION: The Baltimore Sun
DATE: March 17, 1999
SECTION: Local ,3B
BYLINE: Sheridan Lyons
DATELINE: Union Mills, Maryland
The Baltimore Sun reports a Maryland county judge will visit the site of a gun range before ruling on the noise case.
According to the article, Carroll County Judge Luke K. Burns Jr. will visit Deep Run Rifle & Revolver Club Inc. near Union Mills before ruling on a lawsuit by some nearby residents who are seeking a court order to reduce the noise level. Several residents testified when the trial began in January that they lived in peace with the gun range until several years ago, when the club started holding bowling-pin shoots and cowboy-action events that draw more contestants, last longer, and produce thousands more shots a day. "The trend throughout the shooting sports is toward these very dynamic activities," said club President David Reazin, one of several members who testified Monday. "This is very clearly the trend throughout the country." Deep Run is the only club in the area that offers such events, Reazin said. Interest has flagged in target and trap shooting that have been offered for decades, he said. "It would be very hard to return to unpopular activities that were dying out," he said.
The article reports, on the other side, the issue is noise rather than trends. "The issue is related to sound -- nothing more, nothing less. Whether from a gun club, a carousel, a swimming pool or a rock band is irrelevant," said Michael P. Darrow, attorney for the 22 residents who called the noise level excruciating. A noise-expert witness from the state said decibel readings were the highest he had seen among numerous cases, including gun ranges. "It's enough to drive someone nuts, in layman's terms," he said.
The article states testimony ended yesterday in the nonjury civil trial. Circuit Judge Luke K. Burns Jr. did not indicate when he might rule on the case, but both sides asked him to first visit the site on West Deep Run Road. Burns denied a motion to dismiss the case by Thomas E. Hickman, who argued that state law exempts the club from noise and nuisance laws because it has existed since 1946.
Hickman said no solution is apparent, "short of building an incredibly prohibitive indoor facility. The club has tried to be a good neighbor. We really are at a loggerhead on which we need the court to rule."
The lawsuit was filed one day before the July 1, 1997, effective date of a state law that protects gun clubs from such private-nuisance actions, Darrow and Hickman said.
Hickman argued that no evidence beyond that date should be considered, while Darrow said the unhealthy noise levels have been continuous since 1994-1995.
PUBLICATION: The Commercial Appeal
DATE: March 17, 1999
SECTION: Metro, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Willam C. Bayne
DATELINE: Southaven, Mississippi
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Barbara Cleveland, president of the Greenbrook Homeowners Association
The Commercial Appeal reports a Mississippi homeowners association has renewed its plea for trees and berms to mitigate noise from the Memphis International Airport.
According to the article, the Southaven Board of Aldermen heard a renewed plea for a berm and the planting of trees along the southern edge of the airport buyout property immediately north of the Greenbrook subdivision. The last remaining house targeted for acquisition in the old noise abatement program for Memphis International Airport was destroyed Friday morning. Mayor Greg Davis said construction began Tuesday on improvements to convert Greenbrook Parkway to boulevard status. He said it will have a new planted median, distinctive Victorian replica street lights, trees and shrubs. "We are doing this to encourage the homeowners in that neighborhood to reinvest in their homes and to make this neighborhood as outstanding as it once was," Davis said.
The article reports former alderman Barbara Cleveland, president of the Greenbrook Homeowners Association, asked for the berm and the trees. "We've waited patiently - for 12 years we've waited - but now we'd like to have the berm and the trees to help knock off the noise" from the airport, Cleveland said.
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, PA)
DATE: March 17, 1999
SECTION: Bethlehem, Pg. B1
BYLINE: Matt Assad
DATELINE: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Phillip Roeder, resident
The Morning Call reports Bethlehem residents were heard Tuesday as the city council enacted one law to discourage noisy peace-breakers and started work on another to restrict BYOB clubs.
According to the article, the council's new laws couldn't come quickly enough for residents who in recent months have complained of being driven from their porches, beds, and in some cases, forced to leave their homes to escape noise. "Excessive noise, trash and disorderly conduct have become more than a nuisance," Phillip Roeder said, referring to a north Bethlehem neighborhood. "This is a neighborhood in crisis. It needs immediate relief." By a 6-1 vote, the council passed an ordinance that will fine violators up to $300 and jail them for up to 90 days for a noise from a building, car, or portable radio that can be heard 40 feet away. Some residents and Councilwoman Jean Belinski, who voted against the law, lobbied that the distance should be as little as 15 feet, but council decided on the less restrictive measure. Repeated false alarms by car security systems would bring the same penalties. First offenders will face a $50 fine; two-time violators will be fined $100; and a third offense will bring a $300 fine.
The article states the city council also gave preliminary approval to a second ordinance designed to heavily restrict bring your own bottle clubs. "The quality of life of residents starts at the smallest levels," Mayor Don Cunningham said, "whether it's unnecessary noise coming from a stereo, or loud and unruly behavior coming from a club. If we want people to come here to live and work, we have got to address these types of issues."
PUBLICATION: The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
DATE: March 17, 1999
SECTION: News; Pg. B3
BYLINE: Joanna Kakissis
DATELINE: Raleigh, NC
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Greg Morris, resident
The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) reports a Raleigh, North Carolina, City Council subcommittee has drafted a new version of a much-questioned noise ordinance.
According to the article, after more than three years of research and rewrites, the city's Law and Public Safety Committee on Tuesday presented a revised ordinance that would allow the city to monitor any amplified noise from clubs, restaurants or bars. The council referred it back to committee for some minor changes, but it will probably come up for a vote April 6. Requirements include keeping sounds from an establishment at a set limit, including "low frequency noise" that can be heard in deep booming music, and cleaning up the business' property by 7:30 a.m. each day. Currently, under a trial program, establishments in downtown and other entertainment districts are allowed to have outdoor amplified music, as long as it stays within reasonable limits. Outside of those districts, business owners must apply for an entertainment permit that requires the businesses to be away from homes, along with other requirements.
The article reports at least one change in the proposed ordinance left some homeowners unhappy: shortening the distance requirement from 1,000 feet from the door of the establishment to a residence, to 500 feet from the establishment's property line to a home. Some residents, including the Brentwood Neighborhood Association, wanted the distance requirement increased from 1,000 feet to 1,000 yards. Residents there say they've suffered from loud crowds overflowing the Plum Crazy nightclub. Homeowner, Greg Morris of Five Points, has had problems with a couple of bars on Glenwood Avenue. He said his wife must sleep with earplugs to drown out the noise outside. And, he said, there are other problems: beer bottles and trash in yards and drunken patrons urinating on nearby school buildings. "They have to understand that the sound is out of whack with the neighborhoods," Morris said.
The article states the homeowners found an ally in council member Julie Shea Graw, who says the ordinance "still needs a lot of work." She says that the distance requirement should be increased, and that not more than 99 people should be allowed in areas with 10 homes per acre or less. In addition, she said, the city should consider requiring entertainment businesses to renew special-use permits every year, in order to weed out businesses that are being "bad neighbors." But Mayor Tom Fetzer said the 500-feet distance requirement could unfairly penalize establishments that are neighborhood-friendly. He said the distance requirement seemed to take aim at problematic clubs. "It's like you have two children and one crosses the street and you spank both of them," Fetzer said.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: March 17, 1999
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Tiffany Bartish
DATELINE: Richmond, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports the Richmond Town Council will resume a public hearing tonight on a proposal to strengthen the town noise ordinance.
According to the article, proposed changes would establish decibel limits in residential and general-business zones from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. and in neighborhood businesses, light-industrial and industrial zones from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., which, in effect, creates a decibel limit in one zone or another over 24 hours. Any person violating the ordinance would face fines up to $500 and imprisonment for up to 30 days.
The article reports Town Solicitor Howard Sweet also suggested adding a severability amendment to the ordinance, which means that if one section of the law is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the law would still stand.
PUBLICATION: Asheville Citizen-Times (Asheville, NC)
DATE: March 16, 1999
SECTION: Local; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Sandy Wall
DATELINE: Canton, North Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Norman Medford, spokesman for Citizens for Improving Mountain Living
The Asheville Citizen-Times reports an embattled speedway project may still happen in Haywood County, North Carolina, now that commissioners have lifted the racetrack moratorium.
According Dr. James Kasin, of Aiken, SC, said the 3-2 vote by Haywood County commissioners to rescind a 90-day moratorium on racetrack construction will allow him to reconsider his decision to withdraw from developer John Huffman's project. "The project is not a dead issue, but for it to go forward, we would have to sit down and reevaluate how we would proceed. From our point of view, if it's a doable project, we would want to go ahead and do it." Kasin's comments came after Haywood commissioners voted to lift the racetrack moratorium that they had imposed on March 1. The move was applauded by nearly 150 racetrack supporters, who have argued that a racetrack would bring economic development and family activities to the Canton area. "All the moratorium did was run economic development out of the county," said White Oak resident Greg Gray.
The article reports speedway opponents have charged that supporters have oversold the track's benefits, and say it will generate unwanted noise to their communities. They successfully persuaded county officials to impose a moratorium earlier this month to give leaders time to strengthen the county's noise ordinance and look at prospective economic impacts. Monday's reversal by commissioners angered speedway opponents, who charged that the board had caved under pressure from race fans. "Intimidation works every time," said Norman Medford, a spokesman for the speedway opposition group Citizens for Improving Mountain Living.
The article reports Huffman said he is trying to persuade investors, including Kasin, to reconsider a Haywood track. He said he hoped to have some sort of announcement later this week and also said he was impressed by the continued support of Western North Carolina race fans. "It's overpowering," Huffman said. "It just continues to amaze me the support in this area. It's kinda humbling."
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: March 16, 1999
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Phoenix, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Don Hopkins, resident
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports safety and noise drive the airport encroachment debate in the Phoenix, Arizona, area as crowded airways rival congested freeways.
According to the article, Arizona state figures show the skies above Phoenix are becoming increasingly crowded as more planes fly out of the general aviation airports that sit amidst the expanding urban sprawl, The Arizona Republic reported Monday. The result is more noise and, some say, an increased potential for tragedy. Activists believe it's only a matter of time before a plane goes down in a neighborhood. "That's the only thing that hasn't happened," said Don Hopkins, a Scottsdale resident who has battled the city over airport noise. "There have been crashes, but they haven't been severe enough yet for elected officials to understand there is a problem." In November, two planes collided near Scottsdale Municipal Airport, killing two men and scattering debris across an apartment complex and a golf course. In January, a plane in a mock dogfight failed to pull out of a dive and crashed in the desert northwest of Phoenix, killing two. Last month, high winds dragged a hot-air balloon across rooftops in Peoria, seriously injuring a passenger and damaging two homes. Since October, four F-16s flying out of Luke Air Force Base have crashed near the increasingly populated area. Despite these statistics, airport officials note that crashes are fairly rare, and say safety doesn't really drive the encroachment debate. "Flying is dangerous, because you have to drive to the airport to get to your airplane," said Deer Valley Municipal Airport Manager Walt Fix.
The article reports the key issue, according to airport officials, is aircraft noise, which brings hundreds of complaints from residents living beneath the flight path. Airport executives take those complaints seriously because they can be fatal to small airports. According to a national aviation group, some 50 to 70 small airports close each year, and encroachment is the No. 1 reason. "Airports that take the approach 'We were here first' are playing a very short-term game," said Scottsdale airport Manager John Kinney, "and they'll lose." Airport officials employ multiple tactics to deal with encroachment: meeting with residents, encouraging low-density development, and sometimes buying land to block new neighborhoods. There are also laws that require builders to tell prospective home buyers about airports, though they don't always work. People continue to buy homes near airports. Some do so knowingly. Some don't. "I had a gal on the phone a few months ago, and she literally was crying because she realized she was too close to the airport after she built a custom home," said Mark Meyers, manager of Falcon Field in Mesa. "She didn't realize we were here, and she's three-quarters of a mile away from the airport."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: March 16, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 4; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank,California
The Los Angeles Times reports the FAA is considering the city of Burbank's claim that that Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport can impose a mandatory noise curfew under an exemption.
According to the article, the Federal Aviation Administration expects to make a decision soon on whether Burbank Airport officials can expand their noise curfew. Burbank city officials want a mandatory 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on passenger jets to replace the current voluntary restriction. But officials with the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority claim they cannot take such action without a costly FAA study. But in a March 4 letter, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey told Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale) the agency is now examining the issue. "For the last several months, we've been looking at all of the possible solutions that have been presented to us, including the city of Burbank's legal argument in favor of grandfathering under the 1990 law," said Marie Therese Dominguez, deputy chief of staff and counsel to Garvey. "We expect to reach some kind of conclusion about the grandfathering arguments raised by the city in the next few weeks."
The article reports Rogan said, "We're pleased to see administrator Garvey is going to take an active role in working with local, state and federal officials," said a Rogan aide. "We need to find an equitable solution to this issue that protects the safety of the traveling public as well as the concerns of area residents." Burbank officials claim the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 explicitly exempts Burbank Airport from having to conduct the so-called Part 161 study.
The article states Peter Kirsch, Burbank's special counsel on the airport, said officials would be wise not to read too much into Garvey's letter. "I think what Garvey is saying is that they are examining the legal issue in great detail," Kirsch said. "It is not clear from Garvey's letter whether she intends to issue a formal opinion or otherwise to jump into the fray." Kirsch added that Garvey's comments indicated "she wanted to alert the congressman to the legal issues without giving any indication on how she was leaning. She also wanted to communicate that her decision would be a legal more than a political decision."
The article goes on to say for years, the Airport Authority has been involved in a political and court fight with the Burbank government and residents protesting aircraft noise. Since the early 1990s, the battle has included the authority's attempts to build a 19-gate terminal, which anti-noise forces have fought, saying it will increase noise. The Airport Authority counters it is trying to comply with the FAA's urgings to replace the current terminal because it does not meet modern safety standards.
PUBLICATION: The Times-Picayune
DATE: March 16, 1999
SECTION: Metro; Pg. 4B
DATELINE: New Orleans, Louisiana
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Winne Nichols, resident
The Times-Picayune published a letter written by Winnie Nichols, French Quarter resident, and Paulette R. Irons, State Senator from New Orleans. The writers urge New Orleans city officials to appreciate the toll of noise on residents and take action to protect residents of the historic French Quarter neighborhood:
"Many people fear taking a position and standing up for what is right. Thank God, the residents of the French Quarter are willing to fight for the quality of their neighborhood even at the risk of their safety. Our city's history is that important.
"The residents of the French Quarter have spoken out for years about the excessive noise in the Quarter. As a consequence, at least four residents have been the victims of bombings or other violent harassment, and many more have suffered silently. The level of noise allowed in residential areas of the Quarter is the same as for industrial districts. If you are a resident in the Quarter, you must endure permissible noise at 10 decibels higher than the maximum noise tolerated in other city neighborhoods. Despite repeated pleas from residents and state officials, the city government has not taken the threat this causes to the Quarter's residential character seriously, even despite pleas from the National Trust for Historic Places. Similarly, city officials have dismissed residents' claims about documented violence leveled against those who have spoken out against the noise. City leaders use the assets of the French Quarter but don't want those who actually live there to have the ability to worship and live with any quality. In fact, a proposal before the City Council makes it the responsibility of St. Louis Cathedral priests to tell noisemakers when to quiet down during services. Otherwise, the parishioners' right to worship in peace is not guaranteed. The French Quarter is the city's first neighborhood. Its resident base has decreased from more than 10,000 in the 1980s to fewer than 4,000 individuals this year. That residential base is continually shrinking because of the unbearable, constant noise invading residents' homes. We know the French Quarter has survived many tragedies and disasters, but the average individual finds it impossible to live in an area where acceptable noise levels are double what's considered to be normal by experts. We hope every person who loves New Orleans will call their council representative and tell him or her to work for the French Quarter, not against it. Reduce noise, don't tolerate it. We need laws that protect our safety and our quality of life, not destroy it."
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: March 16, 1999
SECTION: Mchenry County; Pg. 3; Zone: Mc
BYLINE: Mitch Martin.
DATELINE: Fox Lake, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports directors of a waterway in Illinois are planning to adopt an ordinance that will fine boaters for creating excessive noise.
According to the article, Fox Waterway Agency directors hope to approve by April an ordinance that would allow fines of up to $500 for boaters creating loud noises on the Chain o' Lakes. For several years, the agency has received numerous complaints about late-night boaters waking waterfront residents with loud music and conversation. Two board members will complete a final draft of the ordinance in consultation with the McHenry and Lake County Sheriff's Departments. "People are paying extra taxes to live near the water, and in the summertime they can't even enjoy it," board member Wayne Blake said.
The article reports the ordinance would fine boaters for excessive noise along the Fox River and the interconnected lakes that form the Chain. The waterway agency controls the section of the Fox and the adjoining lakes from the Wisconsin border to the Algonquin Dam. The area is popular with boaters traveling to and from waterfront bars until late in the night. The agency recently passed a similar ordinance prohibiting boat exhaust over 90 decibels and noise-increasing muffler systems for boats. A third offense results in a $500 fine and revocation of boating privileges. The new ordinance would likely have the same fines, according to executive director Ingrid Enriquez.
PUBLICATION: The Arizona Republic
DATE: March 15, 1999
SECTION: Front; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Bill Muller
DATELINE: Scottsdale, Arizona
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Lou Torres, resident; George Tandy Cook III, resident
The Arizona Republic reports Arizona's population is growing along with air traffic, spurring noise and safety concerns.
According to the article, Arizona state records indicate an increasing number of planes flying out of the Valley's general aviation airports, which may be on a collision course with urban sprawl. Census figures show the population is growing steadily, right along with the air traffic. As sprawl continues in once-remote areas of Maricopa County, conflicts have erupted between homeowners and airports: In Gilbert, residents are suing U.S. Homes, claiming that the developer did not disclose the impact of Williams Gateway Airport. Traffic has steadily increased at the airport, which has been touted as a future alternative to Sky Harbor for cargo and passengers; in Chandler, the city will ask voters to approve a controversial plan to lengthen the runway at the city airport. Residents who oppose the plan say the city's ultimate goal is to attract larger corporate jets; in Glendale, airport officials abandoned plans for a second runway, mostly because of noise concerns. The city recently bought 200 acres just south of the airport to stop a development that would have put 600 homes close to the runway. Airport officials have also restricted training flights at night; and in Mesa, city officials ended a bitter fight by buying about 134 acres that buffered the residents of Red Mountain Ranch from a helicopter plant and nearby Falcon Field.
The article states while builders are required to disclose the airport's location to home buyers, the airport continue to get scores of complaints. "It's become more and more of an issue over the last four and half years," Deer Valley Municipal Airport Manager Walt said. "As the residential areas grow near the airport like they have, we get more complaint calls . . . and calls from prospective home buyers wanting to know more about the airport before they purchase a home." Yet, the number of people living near Valley airports continues to grow. For example, at Falcon Field, air traffic has increased 50 percent since 1988. Between 1990 and 1995, the population around the airport rose 98 percent. Traffic at Glendale Municipal Airport has risen 24 percent since 1998. The population near the airport grew by 142 percent from 1990 to 1995. The success of the smaller airports has lured small air traffic away from larger airports. General aviation at Sky Harbor dropped 33 percent between 1988 and 1998. Diane Johnston, a Sky Harbor spokeswoman and pilot, said small airports are just "easier and quicker" for general aviation pilots to use.
The article reports airports haven't always been in competition with neighborhoods. When they were first built, they were in the middle of nowhere, used by the military for training. "If you look at the evolution of an airport, it starts in an isolated area," Scottsdale airport Manager John Kinney said. "Development takes place, in part because of the airport, in part because of businesses located near the airport, and it has that ripple effect." In Chandler, George Tandy Cook III says the city airport was nothing more than a small strip when he moved into his log home in 1986. City officials told him it was going to stay that way. "There was only one runway, and they didn't have any tower at all," Cook said. "They didn't have a fence around it. We used to ride horses on the runway, and sit out there for hours waiting for a plane to land." Times have changed. Today, there's a heliport about 100 yards from Cook's home, though the city has promised to move it. The little airstrip has grown up into a thriving airport with nearly 200,000 takeoffs and landings each year. "They say they don't want jets, they just want a bigger runway," Cook said. "We know that's a lie."
The article states despite being surrounded by neighborhoods, airports seem determined to expand their operations. In Glendale and Deer Valley, there are plans to extend or improve runways, add hangars and attract more businesses. In the East Valley, both Chandler Municipal and Williams Gateway are gearing up to grow. All the airports are big economic engines for the Valley. A recent study by Arizona State University found that the Scottsdale airport generates about $119.6 million while Williams Gateway adds $113 million. With the helicopter plant, Falcon Field generates about $866 million, while Sky Harbor has an economic impact of $16 billion per year. Lou Torres, one of the Gilbert residents who is suing over Williams Gateway, said he knows why the city wants to expand the airport and lure cargo and passenger business from Sky Harbor. "They want the money," he said. "They think that this is the cash cow that's going to save their city bankrolls, that it will bring in hotels, industry, and high-tech businesses. "No one's going to turn it off . . . that's the problem." Deer Valley continues to expand. The airport plans to spend $15 million to build hangars, remodel the terminal and reconstruct the south runway. That's nothing compared with business owners, who are preparing for the arrival of the Outer Loop, which will slice through the area in the next few years. "It's been incredible," Fix said. "Even right across the street on Deer Valley Road, we have businesses going in, in all the infill lots across the street, from 19th Avenue to Seventh Street."
The article goes on to say Scottsdale Airport Manager John Kinney said officials have worked hard to encourage low density development, such as golf courses and industrial parks, around the airport. The city also employs a full-time noise abatement officer. "(Residents) see we don't have horns and a tail and we will work with them," Kinney said. Yet Don Hopkins, a Scottsdale resident who has battled the city over airport noise, writes off such statements by Kinney as PR. "These guys are employees of the city of Scottsdale, and it's their business to keep that airport open and operating and making money," Hopkins said. "And the bottom of their list is noise abatement and safety issues."
According to the article, Fix, says growth is inevitable around airports, no matter how hard government officials try to manage it. Even in the once-isolated area around Deer Valley, neighborhoods are springing up. "We obviously can't stretch our arms out beyond our land use boundaries," he said. Kinney, the Scottsdale airport manager, says Barry Goldwater summed it up. "He said, 'You can take an airport and build it in the absolute middle of the Sahara Desert, and within five years, you'll be completely surrounded by homes. I guarantee it.' "
PUBLICATION: News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
DATE: March 14, 1999
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. F3
BYLINE: Hildegard Kuehn
DATELINE: Greensboro, North Carolina
The News & Record published a letter to the editor from resident Hildegard Kuehn who sees the proposed FedEx cargo hub along with subsequent noise, third airport runway, and other changes as severely detrimental to the quality of life in Greensboro, North Carolina. Ms. Kuehn writes:
"When our family moved here almost 30 years ago, we fell in love with Greensboro's combination of small town charm and its cultural, educational and economic opportunities. Our neighbors couldn't have been friendlier or more caring. The vegetation was so abundant that for the longest time I believed that's how Greensboro got its name. It was a wonderful place to raise a family.
"Over the years the city has grown tremendously, and lately I have become concerned with the direction in which growth and development have taken us. Last summer we came close to running out of water, our schools are overcrowded, and large wooded tracts have been completely denuded to make room for multiple housing complexes and mega store shopping centers. But in my view, the greatest threat to our way of living is the proposed development of the FedEx cargo hub and related industries.
"It is a common misconception that only those residents who live near the airport will be harmed by the hub and its nighttime operations. Air pollution will affect everyone, especially children, the elderly and the sick. Up to 60 additional flights and 120 additional trucks will create smog-like conditions, especially on hot, humid summer days. Often, the planes will be stacked in a holding pattern, waiting to land, which will further add to the pollution.
"Excessive noise also will negatively affect the entire city. We live about five miles from the airport in New Irving Park. Under certain weather conditions, planes take off in a northeasterly direction, starting between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. The noise will definitely wake you, especially if you are sleeping with an open window. Imagine this at 4 o'clock in the morning, when, according to the FedEx plan, 20 or more flights would take off, one after the other!
"In Europe, all airports are closed between midnight and 6 a.m. because legislators are aware of the stress noise pollution causes. Our city government does not only NOT protect us from excessive noise, but we were never even consulted if we wanted FedEx in our community. Most of us learned that we had "won" over other cities when it was a done deal. But it is not too late for concerned citizens to be heard.
"Our water system is already stressed to the limit. The FedEx hub would adversely affect both the quantity of water collection due to the paving of vast areas for runways, taxiways, parking aprons and roads, as well as the quality of water because of run-offs of toxic chemicals and from fuel spills.
"The majority of jobs created by FedEx pay below the average wage in the Triad. With the unemployment rate around 2.5 percent, where will these additional workers come from? Who would relocate here for a strenuous night job at about $10 per hour? It has been estimated that - between tax incentives, construction costs, noise mitigation for residential areas and home purchases - the FedEx deal could cost us as much as $1 billion! I feel our tax dollars could be better spent than to pay a company to ruin our quality of life and to destroy entire neighborhoods. Let me stress that I am not against growth and development, if it is the right kind of growth.
"Once the quality of life in our community has been compromised, though, it will be impossible to attract "desirable" industries. Whatever problems with growth we may have had in the past, they were not beyond fixing. But once the first shovel of dirt has been moved to start construction on the third runway, there will be no turning back: The quality of life in Greensboro will have been damaged forever."
PUBLICATION: The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News (Stuart, FL)
DATE: March 14, 1999
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Eric Alan Barton
DATELINE: Stuart, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Donna Mainini, resident
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News reports the Martin County, Florida, noise ordinance is the most restrictive of its kind in the area and could make enforcement difficult.
According to the article, the law, passed by Martin County commissioners in October, sets noise levels more conservatively than any government on the Treasure Coast. The law makes it illegal to create noise heard on property lines at a level that's lower than normal conversation. While a majority of commissioners say they may need to revise the rules, sheriff's officials are wondering how to enforce the ordinance now. "They passed the law, and we've got to enforce it," said Capt. Bob Pryor of the Martin County Sheriff's Office. "But we've also got to use common sense." The ordinance sets daytime levels for homes at 60 decibels, businesses at 65 decibels, and industrial or agricultural land at 70 decibels. Nighttime levels are slightly lower. Those who violate the ordinance probably will be warned before they receive a citation to appear before a judge, Pryor said. If found guilty, violators could have a misdemeanor on their criminal record and could be fined $500, plus court costs. Prosecutors are considering whether to pursue the cases, which could be difficult to prove in court. Accused violators could hire experts to contradict the sheriff's office findings or challenge a law that limits homeowners' rights to enjoy their property. "We'll have to wait until we actually get one to make a decision on this. We'll have to see what kind of cases come in," said Kathy Roberts, the assistant state attorney in charge of misdemeanor cases for Martin County.
The article reports Pryor used a noise meter to take readings for The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News last week. According to the three tests, everything from a lawn mower to screaming children could be considered a violation of the noise ordinance. For example: Morning traffic at U.S. 1 and Monterey Road registered up to 83 decibels when a concrete mixer passed by. A jeep's tires registered 81 decibels. A lawn mower at a county baseball field off Martin Luther King Boulevard averaged 67 decibels from about 40 feet away. It tapered off to 59 decibels as it traveled from right field to home plate. Children yelling and laughing on the playground of the First Baptist Church Christian School ranged from 63 to 76 decibels. One boy who yelled directly next to Pryor's meter rang in at 89 decibels. "My two-year-old daughter can hit mid-80s when she lets out a good scream," Pryor said.
The article states when told of Pryor's test, commissioners said they would reconsider the limits they initially set in response to residents' complaints about noise made by businesses in their neighborhood. Elmira Gainey said the 17-page ordinance would not be effective if the readings were correct. "That was not the purpose of the noise ordinance," Gainey said, after learning a lawn mower could violate the law. Dennis Armstrong said he and fellow commissioners were led to think the levels were similar to other city and county government ordinances. Although Palm Beach County's law is similar to Martin's, it is rarely enforced. St. Lucie and Indian River counties, along with Port St. Lucie, have sound ordinances that set levels 10 to 15 decibels higher than Martin County's. Deputies in St. Lucie have identified problems with a noise ordinance that sets maximum decibel levels. In one case, Fort Pierce homeowners complained about loud noise from a teen club, but the pounding bass that shook neighbors' walls did not register on the decibel readers, Pellegrini said. Adjusting the levels in Martin County might be needed to "fine-tune" the law, he said.
According to the article, Commissioner Donna Melzer said she doubts the sheriff's office will start charging people with violating the law for normal activities such as mowing their lawns. "It's difficult to try and do what residents want sometimes and get it right the first time," Melzer said. "I'm sure we'll review it on a regular basis and revise it, if need be, after input from residents." Deputies have been told to try to work out disputes between neighbors, Pryor said. But if the person accused of making a loud noise refuses to comply, even if the sound is coming from a lawn mower or a screaming child, deputies will issue citations, Pryor said.
The article goes on to report the law in Martin County could end up costing local businesses thousands of dollars to comply, said Ron Spillman, vice president of HFP Acoustical Consultants in Houston. Spillman's company, and dozens of similar sound experts across the country, help businesses comply with local and federal laws by buying silencers for equipment or building enclosures to keep in sounds. In upstate New York, Spillman helped a construction company plan a quieter project after residents complained that putting gas pipes under the Niagara River would be too noisy. The result was a barrier erected around the construction site and mufflers installed on noisy equipment. However, some small businesses that can't afford silencing equipment. For them, moving their operation is cheaper than complying with stringent rules, Spillman said. Scott Mele, owner of Custom Touch Landscape Maintenance in Palm City, said quieting his work would mean returning to less efficient equipment. Although leaf blowers are quieter than they used to be, silencers aren't available for lawn mowers or weed wackers, he said. "The county needs to differentiate between people making a living and ones just blasting music at 1 a.m. to bother their neighbors," said Mele, who attended a commission meeting at the beginning of debate over the noise ordinance. " o go out and crack down on people making a living is totally ludicrous."
The article states the cost of forcing businesses to comply shouldn't outweigh the need to keep companies from disrupting the lives of neighbors, according to Donna Mainini, a Stuart resident who lobbied commissioners to pass the ordinance. Mainini said Stuart Skateway shook the walls of her home before it burned down in October and upset residents who had to live with the bass that reverberated from its metal walls during weekends. Changes to the ordinance should take into consideration the residents whose lives are interrupted by the noise from nearby businesses, she said. "Not only do I think the law should be kept on the books, but they still need to make an attempt to enforce it," Mainini said after learning of the results of Pryor's test. "Some people think it's a personal choice issue, but it's not if it negatively affects other people."
PUBLICATION: The Salt Lake Tribune
DATE: March 14, 1999
SECTION: Utah; Pg. C1
BYLINE: John Keahey
DATELINE: Salt Lake City, Utah
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bill Brown, resident; Dick Arner, resident; Mario Westphal, resident
The Salt Lake Tribune reports noise walls are a contentious issue in Salt Lake Valley, Utah. Some residents applaud their effectiveness against freeway noise while others decry their unsightliness.
According to the article, giant concrete slabs along noisy freeways are becoming commonplace throughout the Salt Lake Valley. To some, these noise walls, as high as 16 feet, deaden freeway sounds in neighborhoods -- much to the relief of residents who say they now can have normal conversations in their back yards. To others, the slabs block views of mountains and sunsets -- the reasons they moved into homes "with a view" in the first place. Tuesday, folks on both sides of that contentious issue, including state highway representatives and Sen. Karen Hale and Rep. Lamont Tyler, will meet in Eastwood. The community runs south of Parleys Canyon, along the east side of Interstate 215 and up the slopes of Mount Olympus -- an area known as Olympus Cove.
The article reports it seems the meeting is being held long after the horses escaped the barn. Giant noise walls already stand along that portion of freeway, from near the mouth of Parleys to points beyond 3900 South. The walls, after nearly four years of debate, were built in the past two years. The lower reaches of the upscale neighborhood now look like a hillside ringed in concrete. Folks who live along or just above Wasatch Boulevard lost their views. Those higher up still have views, but some are protesting the loss of views as they now jog, walk or drive along the "concrete-tunnel-like atmosphere" that now permeates Wasatch Boulevard. In other portions of the valley, noise walls are only placed along freeways or major arteries.
The article states there's a great deal of finger-pointing over who is responsible for the walls in question. Salt Lake County officials claim they are surprised by the extent of the noise wall placement, and say they never asked for such eastside I-215 walls north of 3300 South -- or even along Wasatch Boulevard itself. "I am as surprised as anyone," says assistant county transportation engineer Andrea Pullos. Meanwhile, UDOT justifies the extensive project north and south of 3300 South by producing two requests for noise walls "from both Salt Lake County . . . and the Chairperson of the Mount Olympus Community Council, Carrie Dickson," says an executive summary of a noise wall justification report. But a review of those documents contradicts UDOT's claims. The county's request, submitted by Pollus' predecessor Ann Bowers, as Pollus described it: Noise walls were requested only between 3300 South and 3900 South, and only along the east side of I-215. And Dickson's request only asks for a proposed site study. "There is no way I requested those walls," Dickson says. "I only wanted a UDOT representative to attend one of our community council meetings and lay out the pros and cons. The council never filed a formal request for walls. And why did they put the walls along both sides [of Wasatch]? That's the part I need a clue for," Dickson says. The county's Pollus has no explanation. She wonders why UDOT installed the walls along a county road, since Wasatch only becomes a state road, SR 210, between Big and Little Cottonwood canyons miles farther to the south. The walls north of 3000 South -- an area clearly excluded in the county's 1995 request -- "are a surprise," Pollus acknowledges.
According to the article, angry homeowner Bill Brown, who lost his view of sunsets and gained what he claims is more noise at his house on Wasatch claims, "Noise walls are for freeways, not residential streets, and Wasatch Boulevard is a residential street." Residents lower down the slope, like Brown, now believe that while freeway traffic may have been muffled, increased noise from Wasatch traffic is bouncing back off the walls and into their now-viewless front yards. Brown and others -- along with some allies with homes higher up - organized Tuesday's meeting. Organizers argue that the Utah Department of Transportation and its politically appointed state Transportation Commission did not, in their case, follow procedure in deciding where such walls belong. "It's politics, pure and simple," says resident Dick Arner, who lives in Olympus Cove. "Some people higher up in the cove, whose property would not be affected by the view, had the right people putting pressure on UDOT."
The article reports David Alvarez, UDOT's regional environmental engineer, maintains Arner's assertion is not true. "We followed an extensive, years-long procedure to gauge support or opposition. We went door to door, collected petitions and held meetings." UDOT does not take noise wall decisions lightly, he says. "We are road builders, and we would prefer to have nothing to do with noise walls," Alvarez says. "They cost money and decisions to place them are emotionally charged. "People either hate them or demand them," he says. "UDOT is caught in the middle."
The article states to anyone who has attended a state Transportation Commission meeting in the past few years, it is evident that commissioners are tired of hearing about noise walls -- from either side. Friday, resident Mario Westphal presented the commission with a petition he said contained 98 names of north Cove residents who opposed the walls. UDOT and the commission a few years ago relied on a petition of 88 names from throughout the Cove area to build the walls in the first place. Clyde picked up the earlier petition in support of the walls, dated in 1994, pointed to a name on it and said: "Whose name is this?" Westphal looked at it and replied: "It is my name but I did not sign it." The commissioner responded. "You have just proven my point" that some early supporters are detractors now that the walls have been built. "But that is not my signature; I did not sign that petition," Westphal responded, alleging that his name was added by someone else. But Commissioner Clyde said, "Thank you," cutting off Westphal's explanation. "Methinks thou dost protest too much!" UDOT staff also are frustrated. They said they followed proper procedures since the issue first was raised in 1994 to hold numerous public hearings to gauge citizen reaction to the proposed walls. Now that the walls are up, UDOT's Alvarez says he and his crews will return in June to take new noise readings along Wasatch Boulevard. "Often, it is simply a matter of perception," he says. "One person will tell you the noise is gone; another next door will say it is worse than ever. We can't win."
Previous week: March 7, 1999
Next week: March 21, 1999
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