Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Charles Simpson of Burlington.
The FAA requires public airports to regularly assess the noise impact of aviation on surrounding areas and plan for mitigation when noise is excessive. The last such study of Burlington’s International Airport of which I am aware was completed in 2008 by a consultant, Harris MIller Miller & Hanson Inc.[1] It is revealing to examine this study in the light of the possible basing of a wing of F-35 aircraft at the airport. The shortcomings of the study are revealing and of concern to property owners, taxpayers and the general public.
First, there is no provision in this study, standard practice in the city planning process, to address the issue of affordable housing as a totality in the region around the airport. Houses subject to noise impact are considered only as individual properties. Thus built into the process is a disregard of the differential impact of a structure acquisition and demolition program generated by airport expansion/intensification-of-use on less wealthy residents. Compensation in the form of market price plus relocation expenses does not guarantee that the dispossessed will find adequate alternative housing in the area where they now live and at a price they can afford.
Second, the impact on the tax base of South Burlington and Winooski is ignored (p. 50) as something outside the scope of the study. With so many land uses deemed incompatible with the 65 dB shadow necessitating property purchase and structural demolition, it is apparent that the tax base of these impacted communities will fall but their officials are given no data on this impact.
With the F-35, noise levels are known to increase yet again. As a result, this study is has not predicted present noise levels and a Noise Compatibility Update is mandated.
Third, the map of the area projected to be blighted by >65 dB in 2011, their Figure Three, and thus eligible for public acquisition and demolition, assumes that a diminution of noise from F-16 military jets will take place by 2011 due to the replacement of their present engines with quieter GE motors. This hypothetical reduction in noise levels did not take place because, among other things, of fuel tank reconfiguration and the increased use of afterburners. With the F-35, noise levels are known to increase yet again. As a result, this study is has not predicted present noise levels and a Noise Compatibility Update is mandated.
Fourth, the study’s premise includes acknowledgement that noise levels above 65 dB are incompatible with residence and schools. At the same time, it takes an either/or approach to the choice between noise mitigation of structures and acquisition/demolition, due to funding constraints. With this in mind, what will be the fate of schools within the 65 dB shadow of the F-35 as learning environments, including Wheelock School and the Community College of Vermont? If sound mitigation is required but “off the table” as an airport/FAA cost, do the taxpayers assume this additional cost? Or do students simply “suck it up” as increased and chronic stress?
Fifth, the study process seeks to achieve a “compatible growth of airports and their communities” (section 5.5) and so appears to be designed for places where in empty land surrounds existing airports and land-use planners are considering various use alternatives. What we have in South Burlington/Winooski is a largely built-out area surrounding an existing and expanding regional airport. Interest groups, primarily commercial interests and the military, are seeking to intensify airport capacity/use by elbowing out existing residential users. The structure acquisition/demolition process is one in which government implements a”voluntary” buy-out program (at public expense) with sellers placed under the gun of noise-generated stress and damaged property equity. In effect, the City of Burlington, as the airport owner, is asked to implement the interests of commerce and the military over the property rights and well being of existing residents. This is essentially an exercise of eminent domain by government in favor of one set of land uses over another. As there is no demonstrated public good involved in intensifying airport use and noise in this way, facilitating airport expansion in this way would seem an improper act by the City of Burlington.
Finally, city planners know from the tragic excesses of urban renewal in the 1950s-1970s, including “slum removal” of the Italian neighborhood in downtown Burlington, that such neighborhoods are sociologically real entities. They are important geographic lattices of extended family ties, friendships, local entrepreneurship, education, religion and recreation. As Jane Jacobs reminds us, such neighborhood are the best guarantee of street safety and the quality of urban life. They cannot be reduced to the market value of their housing. Torn apart, such intimate communities cannot be recreated by fiat.
The local governments involved with and impacted by the Burlington International Airport have the moral and, under FAA mandates, the legal requirement, to revisit the issue of airport noise intensification in a manner that includes the voices of all residents and interest groups.
Source
[1] Burlington International Airport 14 CFR Part 150 Update: Noise Compatibility Program Update. HMMH Reprot No 301321.006, April 2008
