Aviation Conspiracy: Class War Over Santa Monica Airport Pollution!!!

The graphic (website) version of this newsletter can be accessed at: http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter200.htm

Quote of the Week: 'our safety is endangered for these incredibly rich people who use this airport as a playground' Nina Menkes

Rich? Most of us are middle-class people, who use airplanes as transportation and enjoyment, just like automobiles. You can buy a plane for less than a RV.

Once again, Bill gets it WRONG! It was not the airport which built homes up to its borders, but politicians, caving in to the pressures from developers, who let those homes be built, posing a danger to everybody! Land developers are a threat to the populace, building on every square foot of land that should never be built upon

Bill, which came first..the houses or the airport? I would bet you some *serious* money that the airport was there first. I have seen several of these 'debates', with people whining about how the airport has been infringing on the quality of their life. We had one of these at my home airport, when some neighbors in $400,000 new homes that were built 3/4s of a mile from our airport were moaning about the noise the airplanes make. The airport had been located on the exact spot since 1930. Airports are usually located in places where land is cheap, and there is plenty of it. Then what happens is that people see the cheap land that attracted the airport, and decide to build homes *near an existing airport*.

Bill, it is astonishingly simple. Don't like airport noise? Don't buy a home near an airport. When I bought my home, I passed up several cheaper homes because I didn't like what was near them. If the people buying them chose to accept the economic incentive caused by the fact that these homes were near highways, then the buyer has *chosen to accept the noise*. These people buy homes near an airport. Any third-grader knows airplanes make noise. If you dont' want the noise, don't but a home near an airport. Why on earth is this a difficult

I think you have raised a critically important question. We must pursue this point here and now. It is inherent common sense that a home buyer uses discretion in selecting the location of his 'crib'. Therefore a lot of the complaining we have herd for decades is in part a result of bad judgment in part. Now, I realize that it is impossible to avoid some bad decisions throughout life so that a only a small percentage of the population will be in this category. The point to pursue is development of remedies to this situation.

Given that cities and other owners of airports derive economic benefit from full operation of airports, it is incumbent on them (in my opinion) to aid these unfortunate individuals in securing a 'remedy'. At this late date, the remedy is less and less likely to include exclusion of aircraft of average noise emission. That, too is only common sense.

What has been glaringly missing in all this dialogue has been, and still is, that the complaining individuals be given administrative and financial assistance at relocating their place of residence to a quieter environs. There is no doubt that property values will diminish to some extent around airports, but isn't that to be expected in any circumstance where environs are compromised? There is no doubt in my mind that the percentage value diminishment will be less that many predict around airports, since the homes will otherwise be quite inhabitable, and there re those that will cherish such proximity to transportation.

Preventative measures to avoid persons buying homes where the environment will not suit them also has been rarely discussed, but that indeed is yet another part of the 'solution'.

Let's get real here and get some discussion going in this area.

Angelo Campanella

Over here in Holland, the government has a simple solution for airport-related noise issues: The largest airport, Schiphol, is situated near the largest city, Amsterdam. Both grow, and it's a small densely populated country,so there's not much room to move either the airport or the city, and both are important, economically - the airport being the life-line of the country, vested interests etc...

What the relevant authorities do when aircraft noise exceeds acceptable levels is to change the the way in which noise measurements are interpreted, and if that fails even abandon physical measurements altogether, and rely solely on statistics to come up with 'acceptable' noise levels in domestic areas , to a point where people who have lived in their house for thirty years and can't sleep because of the noise are being told that because the models predict X dB, it can't be noise they're experiencing. The commision for airfield noise even resigned because of the govt's unwillingness to accept physical measurements.