|
Above: The date and time you logged onto this page.
| How harmful are these fumes? |
|
| Jet pollution... we need complete studies! |
On this page we will put current items dealing with all aspects of
airport pollution.
**************
Below are two different surveys from two opposite
sides of the Santa Monica Airport; one from the Mar Vista Community Council in Los Angeles and the other from the Friends
of Sunset Park in Santa Monica. Each group had fewer than 400 voters participating.
____________________
RESULTS OF 'STRAW VOTE' QUESTIONS ON THE MARCH 15, 2005
Mar
Vista Community Council BALLOT
(The top three items of concern to stakeholders who voted are noted in the left margin)
(1) Should there be a 6 month moratorium on all new construction in order to reassess planning for traffic and other
impacts of new construction on our community?
YES 233 (71.69%), no 70
(21.5%), no opinion 22 (6.77%) - 325 total votes
(2) Should the reconfiguration of LAX be stopped?
YES 176 (54.66%), no 100 (31.0%), no opinion 46 (14.3%) – 322 total votes
#3-(3)
Should the MVCC oppose the use of jet airplanes at Santa Monica Airport?
YES 252 (76.36%), no 60 (18.0%), no opinion 18 (5.5%) – 330 total votes
(4) Should public recreation facilities at North Venice
Little League's site be expanded?
YES 154 (48.4%), no 88 (27.67%), no opinion 76 (23.9%) – 318 total
votes
(5) Should LAUSD be broken up?
YES 183 (56.66%),
no 93 (28.8%), no opinion 47 (14.55%) – 323 total votes
#2-(6) Should all of our major intersections be updated with left-turn arrows?
YES 270 (82.3%), no 47 (14.33%), no opinion 11
(3.35%) – 328
total votes
#1-(7) Should the Expo light rail line
be expanded into Santa Monica by way of the existing right-of-way as soon as possible?
YES
280 (86.2%), no 28 (8.6%), no opinion 17
(5.2%) – 325 total votes
(8) Should Westside
Village (Zone 1) be part of Palms Neighborhood Council instead of Mar Vista
Community Council?
YES 124
(37.5%), no 116 (35.0%), no opinion 91 (27.5%)
– 331 total votes
(9) Should the Stewart
Avenue Gate at the Santa Monica Airport be permanently closed except to emergency vehicles?
YES
153 (47.2%), no 83 (25.6%), no opinion 88
(27.2%) – 324
total votes
(10) Should the Westdale Courtyard apartments on National be allowed to be converted to condos?
Yes 91 (27.9%), NO 174 (53.4%), no opinion 61 (18.7%) – 326 total votes
(11) Has the neighborhood council system in LA been successful to date?
YES 157 (49.5%), no 33 (10.4%), no opinion 127 (40.1%) – 317 total votes
(12) Should the Pledge of Allegiance be recited at the start of the Board meetings?
YES 156 (46.99%), no 112 (33.7%), no opinion 64 (19.28%) – 332 total votes
(13) Should a DASH bus route go through the Mar Vista Community
Council area?
YES 219
(67.59%), no 44 (13.58%), no opinion 61 (18.8%) – 324 total votes
____________________
Santa Monica Airport items are highlighted in yellow below.
Santa Monica Mirror – March 23-29, 2005
|
Friends Of Sunset Park Survey Expresses Views of Residents on Variety of Issues |
|
|
Hannah Heineman, Mirror staff writer |
|
|
Friends of
Sunset Park (FOSP), a Santa Monica neighborhood organization, conducted a 35-question survey in response
to the City’s request for residents’ views of and aspirations for Santa Monica as part of its revision of the land use and circulation elements of its General Plan.
By conducting the survey and distributing the results to
City officials, the organization’s aim is to ensure that the views expressed are reflected in the revision.
The land use element dictates the distribution of different
types of buildings (housing, business, industry, open space, etc.), while the circulation element sets out the location of
existing and proposed roads, highways and other modes of transportation.
FOSP mailed the survey to approximately 600 households,
and distributed 7,000 flyers, and received 324 responses.
The Executive Summary of the survey results states that
residents “are looking for the City and its leaders to begin paying more attention to the concerns of its citizens.
That the focus needs to be less on the City’s image as an influential business center within the Los Angeles Basin and
more on it as a community of residents. The residents want you to refocus your energies on the small-town atmosphere that
we were known for years ago reminiscent of Santa Monica’s
days as a beach community. Yes, we want to be an urban community that makes a difference in Southern California and the country but we do not want to give in to the pressures of growth and an expanding population
and become like everywhere else in Southern
California and the nation. We want a Santa Monica that is unique because it has stood against these pressures and not turned into yet
another indistinguishable gentrified community on the sea.”
The report also
notes that the two biggest issues “in Sunset Park involve … the airport and the college.
Most wanted Santa Monica Airport closed down and redeveloped into parks
and open space, mixed-use development, and a lesser number of respondents in housing and schools. However, a substantial number
of people are willing to continue to cohabitate with the airport as long as the jet traffic is either eliminated or controlled
to our satisfaction.”
Seventy-seven
percent of the respondents “would support an enrollment cap at the college, and 81% of the respondents do not want the
college given access to Airport Avenue for its Bundy Campus.”
Another major issue in Sunset Park is traffic. 59 percent “support the traffic calming
measures that the City has implemented.” A larger majority, 76 percent, supports “a city-funded traffic
plan focused on reducing cut-through traffic in Sunset Park.” 46 percent “of the respondents want the old industrial core of the
city to be down zoned.”
When it comes to large-scale development, 85 percent of
the respondents supported requiring voter approval for large-scale new development “if the City bureaucracy remains
unresponsive to community concerns” on the question.
Addressing crime and safety, “Residents generally
felt safe although noticeably less so at night (56%).”
Respondents also expressed an interest in creating “a
town center of sorts in Sunset Park
that is currently lacking [on Ocean
Park Boulevard]…akin
to Main Street in Ocean
Park or Montana Avenue in the northern portion of the City.”
Seventy-two percent of those who responded to the survey
favored replacing the current street trees with trees with larger canopies.
Another element that garnered strong support, 86 percent,
was the Exposition Light Rail system. However, only 53 percent favored “a higher density development near the
rail line.”
When questioned about the future of downtown, “the
greatest support … was for more performing arts venues e.g. live theatre, music and dance.”
Respondents also favored more resident-serving retail in
downtown Santa Monica and continued growth of the tourist industry. 50 percent
were open to “modest growth in residential development” in the downtown area, but 86 pereent “were against
the original proposal for the redevelopment of Santa Monica Place.”
Seventy-three percent expressed some concern about the
issue of homeless.
The survey
results were submitted this week to the City Council, the Planning Commission, the City Manager and officials
in the City’s Planning and Community Development Department, and FOSP will be posting summary-level results on-line
in the near future at www.friendsofsunsetpark.org.
|
|
____________________
February 22nd, 2005
For Immediate Release
Contact: Jack Saporito, +1 847-506-0670 Cell: +1 847-922-2692
Source: Mothers Against Airport Pollution
GRAVE DANGER FOR EXPECTANT MOMS NEAR AIRPORTS
Arlington
Heights, IL-The Mothers Against Airport Pollution are issuing a dire warning to expectant and new mothers.
It has now been confirmed with
certainty that pregnant women who live near high industrial sources of pollution should protect themselves from breathing
the contaminated toxic air in order to protect their unborn children. Evidence
was also found that children born outside of and moved into the hotspot zones in infancy also had elevated rates of cancers.
This is of particular concern
regarding airports, since areas around airports in the United States
are located generally within heavily populated areas.
Airport and aircraft related operations
are among the worst producers of the specific toxic chemicals listed. And unlike
ground-based sources, aircraft contaminate our breathing air from overhead, exposing people living many miles away from an
airport to these deadly poisons and particulate matter.
Researchers have now linked the
breathing of cancer-causing compounds during pregnancy to a direct increase in the risk of childhood cancer. In fact, they
believe nearly all child cancers and leukemia can be traced back to a mother's inhalation of toxic substances during pregnancy.
The peer reviewed study demonstrates
that there are significant birth proximity relative risks when expectant mothers are exposed to "hotspots" of carbon monoxide,
PM10 particles, VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), nitrogen oxides, benzene, dioxins, 1,3-butadiene, and benz(a)pyrene.
The study confirmed that the places
of children with cancer are often sites of industrial combustion, VOCs, and associated engine exhausts.
According to the study, "Newly
identified specific hazards include the known carcinogens 1,3-butadiene, dioxins, and benz(a)pyrene. The mother probably inhales these or related materials and passes them to the fetus across the placenta,"
other sources cannot be excluded: breast milk or preconception contamination or pollution effects in early infancy.
Smaller airports are not exempt,
since aviation gas still contains the additive lead. In addition, more than 5,000
general aviation airports plan to start accepting jet operations in the near future.
Jets burn more fuel and release more toxins. In another study, according to data from the Los Angeles
School District on Santa Monica Airport, just about 15 jet operations a day cause a significant increase in cancer risks.
According to USEPA and Illinois
EPA figures, Chicago O'Hare airport's aircraft alone, emit more VOCs than those from all Illinois
electric power generating plants combined, with Carbon Monoxide emissions as much as 60% of that total!
The peer reviewed study, "Evidence
Based Public Health Policy And Practice: Childhood cancers and atmospheric carcinogens", by E. G. Knox was published in the
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, (doi:10.1136/jech.2004.0216752005;59;101-105).
For more information on what you
can do, contact Mothers Against Airport Pollution at: 630-415-3370.
-END-
==============
Editor's note:
"Controlling Evidence Based Public
Health Policy And Practice:
Childhood cancers and atmospheric
carcinogens."
http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/59/2/101
----------------------
Airport-Related Air Pollution
(study conducted by 8 US states, many new findings including finding that the
Federal Aviation Industry and United Nations (ICAO) are grossly underreporting ground emissions.)
http://64.2.134.196/workgroup/aircraftport/Aviation_Final_Report.pdf
Toxic
emissions from the airports studied are high when compared with emissions from the largest stationary sources in each of the
three states. While improvement is needed in the method used to calculate toxic
emissions from aircraft, the inventory provides a rough approximation of emissions, indicating that toxic emissions from aircraft
greatly exceed those of the largest stationery sources in the three states. (Pp.
II-13-14)
Table 1. 1999 Aircraft Emissions
at the Airports of Study (Pp. II-11-14)
Tons/Year
Logan
Bradley
Manchester
Oxides of Nitrogen 2,664.1
676.5 187.5
Hydrocarbons 562.1 102.0
35.4
1,3-butadiene
10.7
1.8
0.6
Benzene
15.7
3.1
1.2
Formaldehyde 82.1 12.9 3.7
Acetaldehyde
25.3
3.9
1.1
-------------------
Yet another similar type New York City study confirms Childhood cancers
and atmospheric carcinogens findings:
"When their babies were born,
researchers found about 50% more genetic abnormalities in infants whose mothers had higher levels of exposure to toxics caused
by burning fuels such as gas and coal, researchers said yesterday."
"We already knew that these air
pollutants significantly reduce fetal growth, but this is the first time we've seen evidence that they can change the structure
of chromosomes in [the womb]," said Dr. Frederica Perera, director of Columbia's
Center for Children's Environmental Health."
Source: Urban Air Pollution Linked
To Childhood Cancer In NYC Study. NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 2-16-05. (From the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers
and Prevention.)
____________________
____________________
Concerned Residents Against Airport
Pollution News Item
Los Angeles, California
Regarding Santa Monica Airport:
Santa Monica Task Force On The Environment requests a delay
in development of the Airport Park Project until a Human Health Risk Assessment Can Be Completed:
For over a year, the CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TASK FORCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT has taken on the issue of air pollution impacts on residential areas coming from idling jets
at Santa Monica Airport in response to a number of residents’ concerns. The Task Force appointed a subcommittee
to deal with the issue. Many residents formed a new umbrella group, “Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution”
(CRAAP), to focus on the negative environmental and safety impacts coming from Santa Monica Airport.
CRAAP founder, Martin Rubin, also started a website, jetairpollution.com, devoted to these concerns.
At the June 14th Task Force
meeting, The Task Force unanimously adopted the following motion:
"The Task Force on the Environment recommends
that City Council authorize and fund a human health risk assessment prior to the construction of Airport Park to evaluate the
potential health impacts due to localized air pollution exposure on people using the park."
Concerned Residents Against
Airport Pollution backs this motion, and feels that the study
should expand the study to include the risk to people who live in the neighborhoods that receive the brunt of the idling jet
emissions.
Also of interest is, Task Force member,
Susan Mearns’ Airport Subcommittee report:
Susan Mearns reported on the May 24 environmental
workshop convened by the Airport Commission regarding Santa Monica Airport. She expressed
disappointment that the staff presentations at the workshop didn’t directly address local air quality issues at the
airport. She also noted that an air monitoring study proposed by the City’s toxicological consultant at the workshop
was inadequate and will miss many pollutants of concern. Members of the public Marty Rubin and Stacy Brown both recommended that
if a modeling study is undertaken that it must be comprehensive and involve collection of local air samples adjacent to the
airport and in surrounding areas.
On the agenda for the
Monday, July 19th , 7pm Task Force meeting, is item VII, “Discussion
and Recommendations Regarding Actions Taken By City Staff and/or City Council Regarding pursuit of Grant Funding to Conduct
Air Monitoring at Santa Monica Airport (20 mins)”. Task force meetings are held at the Ken Edwards Center, 1527 4th Street,
Room 103, Santa Monica, CA.
For more information, and to see the agenda
and minutes go to the Calendar page of our website and click the Environmental Task Force on July 19th.
__________________
SM Task Force on the Environment meeting - June 14,2004
Mark Gold, Chair of the Task Force, voiced his frustration with the City of Santa Monica. He told me that although the
Task Force agreed with our desires to have Santa Monica Airport air quality issues looked into, he said that we need to take the matter
directly to the SM City Council. He compared the efforts of the Task Force to have SM Airport air quality
issues addressed by SM City Council to the efforts of the Task Force to have the fluoridation of SM water concerns addressed.
The Task Force did not have their input responded to by City Staff or City Council. I feel that the SM Environmental Task
Force has taken this issue on and they have tried to move it forward several ways. The City representatives continue to sit
on, side step, or postpone each of the Task Force efforts. This is shameful behavior from a city known for being in the forefront
of addressing environmental issues. In the meantime, communities surrounding SM Airport continue to be subjected to toxic
jet emissions, which only get worse as the number and size of jets using SM Airport increase.
___________________
SM Task Force on the Environment – May 17th meeting.
After
well over a year of nothing concrete being done regarding the air quality issue at SM Airport, members of the SM Environmental
Task Force felt like they had let the communities around the airport down.
From the
MINUTES APRIL 19, 2004 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TASK FORCE ON THE
ENVIRONMENT: Subcommittee Update
#################
Brian Johnson presented an update regarding the
efforts to address air quality issues at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). He noted that
SMO staff have been working with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to
include SMO in SCAQMD’s planned MATES 3 air monitoring study. SMO is currently on the “alternate”
list of monitoring sites for the study. As it appears likely that the MATES 3 study will not be a feasible option for
completing detailed air monitoring at SMO, the Task Force passed the following motion:
"The Task Force on the Environment recommends that City apply for an EPA 'National Air Toxics Community-Based
Program' grant to fund an air quality study at the Santa
Monica Airport to better quantify air quality impacts related to the airport operations."
The closing date for the EPA grant is May 17, 2004. The Task Force asked staff to provide an update on action taken
on this recommendation at the May 17 Task Force meeting.
#################
At the May 17, 2004 meeting of
the Task Force, Brian Johnson,
SM City Environmental Programs Manager, reported that a meeting is being planned between Airport Staff, the City Attorney,
and City representation to discuss the feasibility of applying for an EPA 'National Air Toxics Community-Based Program'
grant to fund an air quality study (missing the deadline for the closing date for the EPA grant). In the discussion about
this, Kevin McKeown, Santa Monica Mayor Pro-Tem and member of the Green Party, asked why the City would want to do such a
study. Mark Gold, Chair of the Task Force replied that he might want to know if his son would develop asthma playing at the
proposed new Airport Park. Kevin replied back, words to the effect that the City’s Attorney did not want the
City to pay or request funding for a human health risk assessment that would more than likely be used in litigation against
the City.
_________________
From the MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2004
MEETING OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TASK FORCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Subcommittee
Update
Brian Johnson presented an update regarding
the efforts to address air quality issues at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). He noted that SMO staff have been working with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to include
SMO in SCAQMD’s planned MATES 3 air monitoring study. SMO is currently
on the “alternate” list of monitoring sites for the study. As it
appears likely that the MATES 3 study will not be a feasible option for completing detailed air monitoring at SMO, the Task
Force passed the following motion:
"The
Task Force on the Environment recommends that City apply for an EPA 'National Air Toxics Community-Based Program' grant to
fund an air quality study at the Santa Monica Airport
to better quantify air quality impacts related to the airport operations."
The closing date for the EPA grant is May 17,
2004. The Task Force asked staff to provide an update on action taken on this recommendation
at the May 17 Task Force meeting.
__________________
LAX Expansion
A letter from
CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN
36TH District, California
Dear Neighbor:
Last week, Mayor Hahn
and Los Angeles
World Airports released its final draft EIR/EIS
for the LAX Master Plan. I am gravely disappointed with the final product
and consider it a failure for everyone who uses, lives near, or appreciates the economic significance of Los
Angeles International Airport.
I was saddened to see that after receiving more than 3,000
comments from public officials and concerned residents, the mayor and airport officials made no substantive
changes to their plan. They turned a deaf ear to you, to me, and to countless others who want to see LAX fixed right and fixed
now.
I remain deeply concerned that Alt D does not adequately address security concerns. Any proposal billed as "the Enhanced Safety and Security Alternative" must insure that every dollar spent
on security is being used to its maximum benefit. Mayor Hahn and LAWA officials
have repeatedly refused to hire a reputable firm to perform a cost-benefit analysis examining security improvements at LAX,
including the need for and location of an off-site passenger facility.
Surely area residents would benefit from an analysis that could demonstrate Alt D's security safeguards
could be achieved with less effort and money - or that additional protections could be won for the same amount of money with
a modified design. Supervisor Knabe and I are urging the City Council to commission
such a study to better inform its deliberations in the coming months.
I also see no reason to believe the Mayor's contention that Alt D constrains growth at LAX to 78 MAP. The plan contains absolutely no verifiable means of limiting growth at LAX. Absent such constraints, commitments to a regional aviation system are non-existent. And we all know that any long-term solution requires an aggressive and immediate build-out of a regional
system of airports to reduce the burden on LAX and surrounding communities.
It is still entirely possible to salvage this EIR/EIS and proceed expeditiously with modernizing and securing
LAX. I have called on the council to modify and approve an EIR/EIS that
includes a first phase of immediate safety, security, and traffic improvements; and a second phase with enforceable constraints
on facilities that limit growth to 78 MAP and promote a regional build-out.
I am also deeply concerned by our Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski's airport proposal. While I share her goals and laud her commitment, I cannot support her process. The first step of her proposal requires adoption of an unmodified version of the mayor's EIR/EIS - which
I simply cannot support. And while Councilwoman Miscikowski hopes to defer or halt the more onerous aspects of Alt D through
technical changes in city planning documents, those documents are too easily amended to provide the ironclad commitments we
need for security and capacity constraints.
The sensible solution is for the Los Angeles City Council to
amend the Mayor's EIR/EIS to reflect the changes you and I have been demanding for the past year. Supervisor Don Knabe, former
El Segundo Mayor Mike Gordon and Los Angeles City
Councilman Jack Weiss have joined me in this call. I invite you to do so as well.
I look forward to continuing
to work with you on a sensible solution to the problems of modernization, security, and capacity constraints at LAX.
Regards,
JANE HARMAN
Member of Congress
___________________
Teterboro air study accord is reached
Thursday, March 25, 2004
By DANIEL SFORZA
STAFF WRITER
A coalition of North Jersey
towns has reached an agreement in principle with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to begin a study of the air
near Teterboro Airport.
The Coalition for Public Health
and Safety filed suit against the Port Authority in May 2002 to force the agency to conduct a study that would determine the
effect of jet fumes on the surrounding towns. Last year, Governor McGreevey, who jointly oversees the bi-state agency with
New York's governor, announced that his state and the Port Authority would fund the $450,000 study, ending the lawsuit.
However, legal wrangling over who would do the work delayed the agreement until Wednesday.
"This is everything we worked for," said Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. "This is a big step
for people who live around the airport. We will really get a handle on what the real health impact is from all this pollution
at the airport, which is very important."
The state will pay $150,000, and the Port Authority will kick in $300,000. The New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection will oversee the work.
"The important thing to remember is we are doing this as part of our responsibility to
be a good neighbor to the people who live and work near Teterboro Airport," said Port Authority spokeswoman Tiffany Townsend.
"Air quality is an issue we have been concerned about for a long time, and under the direction of Governor McGreevey we are
doubling our efforts."
All sides have not yet signed off on the agreement, but they are expected to do so soon.
The study, which is expected to begin this summer, will take up to 18 months to complete,
although it could finish sooner. Four monitoring stations will be set up around the airport's perimeter to test levels of
pollutants.
Environ of Princeton will do the work. The firm did a much smaller $47,000 study over
two days in 2001 that found high levels of chemicals in the air, but couldn't pinpoint the source.
The new study is expected to identify where the toxic substances are coming from - the
airport or from automobile and truck traffic on two busy highways, Routes 17 and 46, that border Teterboro.
"I hope to put this thing to rest once and for all as far as what is coming out of the
sky as far as your toluene levels, your benzene levels," said Carlstadt Councilman Craig Lahullier. "Our study plans on pinpointing
the source. It's not going to be what's in the air, but where it's coming from."
Residents were also pleased.
Hasbrouck Heights resident Carol Skiba said: "I am very pleased Governor McGreevey stepped
up to the plate on the issue of environmental impact and diminished quality of life for the residential communities surrounding
Teterboro Airport. It is very reassuring that the concerns of the residents are finally being heard and addressed."
E-mail: sforza@northjersey.com
__________________
______________________________
My
comments on the Stage 4 Aircraft Noise Standards; Proposed Rule
My comments on the Stage 4 Aircraft Noise Standards; Proposed Rule are aimed
primarily at the continued lack of regard for the environmental impacts that aircraft
under 75,000 pounds have on a large section of American society. I am also very concerned with the environmental impacts of
air traffic regardless of their weight.
Section 91.851, Section 91.853, and Section 91.855 state that these rules
apply to airplanes over 75,000 pounds.
The huge increase in Commuter Jet traffic (that use fractional jet ownership
and other unscrupulous methods to circumvent commercial flight classification) has dramatically increased already intolerable
levels of noise and air pollution to the countless American citizens that live around the smaller General, Regional, or Business
Aviation Airports. These commuter jets are almost entirely under the 75,000 pound weight, making them exempt from your proposed
regulations.
It is reprehensible that air traffic is exempt from standards and regulations
other industries must abide by. Who benefits from these exemptions? Certainly not the citizens who endure the noise of aircraft
operations around the clock, seven days a week. Certainly not the citizens who are forced to breathe the toxic emissions from
idling jets and other aircraft emissions.
- Compare Economic Evaluation and Environmental Analysis
There is approximately ten times the space allotted to the economy versus the environment in the Proposed Rule, you
are carrying over to Stage 4 the blatant environmental injustices that already exist. Is it not a fact that the economy and
the value of the dollar would suffer tremendously when our air, water and soil are ruined by thoughtless contamination? And
what about the basic quality of life we Americans are guaranteed? The noise in the skies is ever-increasing. It is becoming
the background noise. To believe that an ever-increasing number of aircraft operations are necessary for our economy to grow
lacks logic. We need to invest in cleaner, safer, more economically sound, and more sustainable forms of transportation that
do not unfairly impact the lifestyles of our fellow Americans.
I agree with the US-CITIZENS AVIATION WATCH ASSOCIATION in calling for the
ICAO to change its mission from protecting the air transport industry to a mission of protecting the health, safety, and welfare
of the global populace first, above industry profits.
I agree too that the United States should be a leader on these environmental
and public health matters.
Martin Rubin – Co-founder of: Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution
E-mail: jetairpollution@earthlink.net
__________________________
What happened at the October 27th, 2003 Santa Monica Airport Commission
meeting?
The October 27th meeting was encouraging in a
number of ways for our communities affected by air traffic in and out of Santa Monica Airport, especially those of us who
live close by to the east of the airport. There was a good representation from east of the airport (five from Barry Ave.)
speaking about how they are bothered by jet fumes, noise, and safety concerns.
I will summarize some pertinent items from the meeting as
I understood them. If anyone attending the meeting wants to add or correct anything, please contact me.
One item of potential significance was brought up by Commissioner
Gebman. Commissioner Gebman, who works for the Rand think tank, made the first
proactive proposals (other than the new noise ordinance) that would potentially help our communities deal with airport impacts.
At this meeting he proposed that airport legal staff look into how the language of the Federal Law regarding aviation might
be changed to better balance the role of aviation and their impacts on residents living in close proximity to airports. The
law he is referring to is TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION. I will give you the links to this document in case you wish
to look at it. You are encouraged to do so, so that we may give our suggestions to what might be changed, added, or removed.
I invite you to participate in this discussion at the November 24th Commission meeting. You will hear what the airport staff,
what the Commissioners, and what the public (including your input) have to say.
* TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION
Link to a significant page:
|
