We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning the Van Nuys airport
See our Website and all the Updates are archived on our site.
The misnamed CAC which should called the "Lords of the Noise" is more an airport boaster club made up of LAWA and LA City political appointees with a few out numbered citizen members.
The the Lords of the Noise (CAC) in an agenda item 3 at their 8-1-00 meeting placed by Bob Rodein (Appointed by Mayor Riordan), wants to remove a comment made by a valley resident from the CAC minutes. The claimed "inaccurate or false" statement is "a majority of the residents of the Valley perceived the airport (Van Nuys) to be a noise maker"
Operating like the repressive anti-community group they are, the CAC wants to remove the comments of a resident from the record because the Lords of the Noise have written a rule that overrides the First Amendment and the Brown Act. It states in part "persons are precluded from providing information that is wholly inaccurate or false". Of course the Lords of the Noise determine what is "accurate or false".
I live directly in the flight path of the numerous helicopters who utilize Van Nuys as their home base and for refueling during the day. The constant buzzing I receive from their rotors is extremely irritating and vexing! Police helicopters I can understand, but not a bunch of helicopters flying around looking for the next car chase or motor vehicle accident to satisfy the looky-loos at home. Is there really a doubt that the helicopters are in the air simply for that purpose? What a bunch of hooey about their 1st Amendment rights!
REX HOWEN Valley Village
* Although my home is not in the San Fernando Valley, I can certainly sympathize with those residents who are forced to endure never-ending noise from news helicopters. Seemingly always trying to grab our incredulous attention, whether via reports of otherwise familiar events like daily traffic gridlock or yet another car chase, these swooping hitch vultures are often nothing but annoying.
Swarming helicopters are just another example of a local media that's out of control [and] intruding into our private lives.
STEVE CAREY Burbank
* I couldn't agree more with the writers' viewpoint, although I would extend the impacted area beyond the Van Nuys Airport neighborhoods. I and my neighbors in [Glendale's] Rancho neighborhood suffer daily from increased helicopter overflights, especially those straying from their Federal Aviation Administration-mandated corridors above Interstate 5 and the 134 / Ventura Freeway, which intersect two blocks from our homes.
With the exception of police and fire copters, I have long despaired over the news gathering and traffic reporting justifications offered by TV and radio stations, the nearest one being Disney's new KABC-TV facilities at its Glendale campus close by, complete with rooftop helicopter pad.
Any perceived benefit by TV viewers or radio listeners regarding mayhem, chases and traffic jams is far outweighed by the drastically reduced quality of life of residents, schoolkids, elderly and even animals below. From now on, we'll be supporting officeholders on all levels who will work to reduce this blight on our lives.
JOANNE HEDGE President, Glendale Rancho Homeowners Assn.
* We would like to emphasize that we are not members of a homeowners association or a protester group, and we fully understand and support the need for emergency use of helicopters. However, what seems to be exacerbating the helicopter noise problem are the economic pressures that the Van Nuys Airport and its operatives are imposing on elected officials and local, state and federal governments to permit commercial businesses to fly helicopters, with impunity, as early as 5 a.m. over the rooftops of residents.
We ask that an immediate curfew be imposed rather than a study that would delay decisions and lead to inaction. The business interests are claiming 1st Amendment rights. We claim that private citizens have an implied constitutional right to privacy.
STUART and SANDI KART Sherman Oaks
Re "Van Nuys Airport Gains Key Permit," May 20.
Regarding the Department of Transportation's noise variance renewal for Van Nuys Airport, Judge [Samuel D.] Reyes, in stating that the determining factor in his decision was the economic benefits provided by the airport, casts himself with those who would clear-cut old-growth forests and purse-seine our oceans until fish stocks collapsed.
And yet federal and state lawmakers have seen the wisdom in restricting both. If the god of economic benefit wasn't persuasive enough to win those battles, why is it persuasive enough to subject the residents of the San Fernando Valley to continuing and increasing degradation of quality of life because of noise pollution? Fish won. Forests won. Residents of the Valley lost.
ROBERT FOSTER Sherman Oaks
What are people to do when every level of government fails to respond to their needs?
For the neighbors of Van Nuys Airport, it looks like they are going to have to stay indoors for the time being -- trapped in their soundproofed homes because it's too noisy to use their yards. Their long quest for quiet has stalled with an administrative law judge ruling that the airport can exceed state noise limits as long as homes closest to the runways are soundproofed.
The judge's decision came out of hearings in September to determine whether the nation's busiest general aviation airport should be allowed to operate above noise limits set by the state. The state Department of Transportation required the hearings because measurements showed the airport was too loud for homes near the runways.
In rejecting the community calls for stricter limits on aircraft, the judge acknowledged that the noise is significant and the area affected by the noise will not lessen without curbs. The neighbors asked for restrictions like a helicopter curfew and a phase- out of noisy Stage II jets. The judge said he couldn't order those controls because the Transportation Department cannot directly regulate aircraft or flight operations -- those are Federal Aviation Administration issues.
So he decided that the airport can continue to operate at a level that exceeds state standards as long as it continues to measure the noise, log the complaints and soundproof the closest dwellings. Airport neighbors and Valley activists are left with a bad feeling that no one is taking the noise or them seriously.
Earlier, they had gone to the City Council, and in April, after 20 years, the city took its first step toward controlling noise at the airport by banning the addition of any more Stage II jets and saying it would look into phasing out the aircraft.
Valley activists greeted that move with caution, saying they'd wait and see whether officials actually cut back on noisy jets. The latest decision gives them even less hope of peace and quiet.
Clearly this isn't the end of the airport noise conflict and as the battles move further away from the community, into state courts or to the federal level, residents will have even less ability to sway the decisions.
Surely, the community's political leadership can do better than this. The age of neglect of the Valley is over and it's time for them to wade into the community's real problems and find solutions
Not that easy Even though the March 31 Daily News stole my thunder with "Airport neighbors sound off," I am, like others, dismayed by the callousness of the airport administration's attitude. I've always felt my calls were dismissed, so I've reserved my complaints only for their most egregious displays of intolerable noise. But now I see even those were a waste of time.
Perhaps you saw the recent edition of the PBS show, "Life And Times." It featured one of the airport tenants saying to the residents -- about the jet noise -- that they should just get used to it. Too bad it's not that easy.Alan von Arx North Hills
Phone conversations must be halted, televisions must be on loud, doors and windows must be closed due to the noise from aircraft overhead.
Don't think about a weekend gathering; it's not possible to be heard over the continual drone of the planes preparing to land at Van Nuys. The daily flight activity increases on the weekends. It's the jets, large and small, that affect me, the shrill noises from their engines piercing my serenity.
Rhoda Freigher North Hills
Your editorial "Quiet, please" (April 20), hit it right on the head when you wrote the aviation community stance is that it owns Van Nuys. The fact that the City Council is looking at allowing these noise-polluting jets another 10 years overwhelms me.
It took the council 22 years to finally rule on noisy jets and now it wants to give them another 10 to bombard us. Can someone please tell me why these Stage II jets are banned everywhere else but welcomed in good old Van Nuys. This is the 21st century -- how about bringing Van Nuys airport up to date?
Ken Thatcher Sr., Van Nuys
Re "Aircraft Cap at Van Nuys Will Burden
Area Economy," April 30.
Mark Sullivan seems to think that only Van Nuys
Airport pays taxes and provides jobs in the San Fernando Valley. I and thousands
of other Valley residents also pay taxes and support the local economy when we
buy groceries, go to the movies and have our cars serviced. The residents are
the real mainstay of the economy. How many have left, taking their economic
clout with them, due to the intolerable level of noise and air pollution from
Van Nuys Airport? To suggest that the 300,000 [Some
people think the number is closer to 20,000] people who attend the annual Van
Nuys air show are supporting the airport's perceived right to cause noise is
ludicrous.
GERALD BARNES Granada Hills
Re "City Limits Number of New, Noisy Van Nuys Jets," April 19.
The Times' report of the City Council's recent yes vote on the Van Nuys Airport non-addition rule suggests that it will actually provide relief for residents in the area who are plagued by the constant noise of jet takeoffs and landings.
Here is an analogy that describes the effects of the non-addition rule: Suppose that someone gets a dog that barks loudly all day and night. The surrounding residents report the noise to the appropriate authorities, and nothing happens. The neighbor adds another barking dog, and so the nearby residents take their complaints to the City Council. After 10 years of inaction, the neighbor now has 20 dogs. Nearby residents cannot enjoy being outside in their own yards and often cannot sleep at night. At this point, the City Council approves a new rule that says the dog owner can't acquire any more dogs, but, if one of the current 20 dogs dies or is sold before 2011, [Actually 2005 and he can keep to old dogs until they die] he can get another one to take its place. This is not relief at all.
CHARLES MARK-WALKER North Hills
Perhaps we the people should file suit against the airport, the [airport] commissioners and the National Business Aviation Assn.--they certainly didn't conduct an environmental impact study before they allowed jets to fly in and out of Van Nuys Airport and be home-based there! . . . I guess that's why so many people in this country don't vote; you just can't fight the money interests! [And you would face the billions of dollars that the airport can pay the city attorney to fight against you. The better idea is to create a new city in the valley to control Van Nuys Airport]
PAT KATER Encino
Updates Index
Van Nuys Airport page
San Fernando Valley homeowners