Airport Expansion Plan Irks Some Neighbors
* The costs and benefits described in your “noisy airport” editorial of Dec. 19 illustrates, yet again, the perceptions created by the misinformation back alleys of politics. The writer stated, “some of us are well acquainted with the pitfalls of living near an airport,” as if he were one of us in the Valley, to make his words appear to be representative. The sub headline referred to flights over Burbank. Wrong! The problem that the city of Los Angeles and other residents of North Hollywood, Studio City, Valley Village and Sherman Oaks are suing about is the insufficient information supplied by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority and their misrepresentations in the environmental and “Good Neighbor” reports, not flights over Burbank.
The 10 p.m. to 7 p.m. flight curfew, they will admit if you ask them, is merely a guideline, but not a rule that recent new flights have had to abide by. Nor is it one that the “good neighbor” airport authority has to enforce when the number of planes almost quadruples out of this ever-more-densely populated area. The authority didn’t even take into account the increasing number of private jets now and later, in and out of the airport and the added pollution of heavy ground traffic where smog already builds up toward the foothills.
Your position on thinking the new terminal should go forward should be revisited. The airport’s contribution to the local community in terms of jobs and dollars spent has not been a boon to our weakened economy and the increase in air traffic will further discourage the studios from filming and producing in this East Valley area. That is an economic impact much greater than the very small number of jobs at the airport during “these tough recessionary times.”
Referring to this airport as a regional resource, is in the least, disingenuous. Most major regional airports grow with planned expansion, acceptable to surrounding communities or with rights of imminent domain where private property is bought from its owners at fair market value for the good of the community, like west of LAX.
JACK ABRAMS
Valley Village
* Nearly three years ago my husband and I bought a nice home in a quiet neighborhood in North Hollywood. That quiet is bombarded daily by increasing airport traffic noise from Burbank Airport. It is now affecting us so much, I dread summer when the windows and doors will again be open, letting the noise enter.
What amazes me is what I read in the paper. The airport is planning to expand with . . . (no regard) to those of us who deal with the constant noise. To quote The Times article of Dec. 14: “The number of passengers using the airport will continue to grow with or without a new terminal. Any increase in air traffic will be caused by passenger demand and airline business decisions, regardless of the size of the terminal. Thus, they concluded, the new terminal itself will not significantly increase aircraft noise.”
Isn’t that swell. Seems to me there’s already too much noise from this airport. And of course “demand will increase.” The airport is conveniently located and it’s less hassle than traveling to LAX, but that doesn’t make it right or safe.
Children demand chocolate all day. Just because it is demanded, doesn’t mean that it’s right.
This airport is a noisy, inconsiderate and unsafe neighbor. I guess the thing that irks me the most is that Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena are loudly using my airspace in their names and they could care less about its impact on me.
LORI STREET-TUBERT North Hollywood
