Letters to the Editor: Airport 08.11.16

Target of Choice

Sagaponack

August 8, 2016

Dear David,

East Hampton has now unleashed its aircraft noise problem on Sagaponack as well. Originally intended this spring solely as an exit path — with Georgica Pond remaining the incoming path — Sagg Pond has become a target of choice for both incoming and outgoing helicopters flying the so-called southern route. Why can’t East Hampton keep its noise pollution problem to itself?

Surely the town is not doing its job. Its aviation counsel is one of the reasons. 

I read last week a letter from David Gruber pointing out one important aspect of the incredibly poor job Peter Kirsch, the town’s aviation lawyer, has been doing for the town on this issue. We also know he has deep conflicts of interest on these issues. It seems he is on the side of the helicopter and seaplane industry, rather than on the side of the thousands and thousands of residents of the surrounding communities who have had to put up with the inability of the town’s board to accomplish any alleviation of this scourge. Is the board still listening to him because they secretly don’t want to do anything to help us? I hope not. But if they won’t help, we need a new board.

RICHARD PRINS

Just Terrible

East Hampton

August 8, 2016

Dear David,

This weekend the aircraft noise was just terrible. I, like many other East End residents, have been driven to despair, as these unrelenting, health-threatening, quality-of-life-robbing noise disturbances, and aviation gas emissions rain down on us, beginning on Thursdays and stretching well through Monday evening.

Logging complaints on the town’s new flight tracking feature is frustrating, particularly when an easier, more accurate option exists. AirNoiseReport.com, featured in a front page article by Joanne Pilgrim last week, is a much simpler, more accurate system, as it does not require the noise-affected person to log the offending flights in 10-minute intervals in order to match up with the flight tracking system the town’s site now offers. 

It’s actually harder to log complaints on the town’s website now than it was before its flight tracking system was available. It requires another level of observation and recording on the part of the noise-disturbed individual. Such an inconvenience may have been avoided if the noise-affected had been consulted about such a system before it was adopted, likely at some not immodest cost. 

I’m afraid the board was sold a bill of goods on this system, which is actually a deterrent to collect noise complaints. Surely, that cannot have been their intent. 

It would be a sign of good faith to the noise-affected community if the town board could find a way to integrate the data from AirNoiseReport.com with that of PlaneNoise. That way the already significant burden of reporting noise complaints could itself be mitigated by the ease of execution that AirNoiseReport.com offers. 

At this rate, summer has been ruined by this noise plague. What can August possibly bring? 

Sincerely, 

KATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM

Quiet Skies Coalition Subsidizing Its Airport

Wainscott

August 7, 2016

Dear David,

Here’s a hypothetical question. Would a corporate or municipal board subsidize a business under its purview that 1. is operating at a huge annual loss, 2. generates tens of thousands of complaints from community members near and far, 3. is the source of millions of metric tons of polluting carbon emissions each year, 4. serves a handful of wealthy ignorant people yet disturbs far more wealthy sensible people, and 5. routinely despoils the once-peaceful environment that is an essential aspect of the region in the board’s care?

Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical question. More unfortunately, the answer is yes, when it comes to East Hampton subsidizing its airport. How about a wind farm instead? Plus, the day the airport closes, a rapid movement to high-speed rail service will commence. 

BARRY RAEBECK

One and Only One

East Hampton

August 8, 2016

Dear David,

This is episode two of the legal misadventures of Peter Kirsch, East Hampton Town’s aviation counsel. In our first episode, Mr. Kirsch had obstinately insisted that the town must apply only a single noise metric when defining noisy aircraft for the purpose of applying airport noise restrictions. The problem is that the regulators, including the Federal Aviation Administration, do not rate all aircraft with a single metric. They use at least three different measures.

 The noise subcommittee that I chaired in 2014 warned the town board that Kirsch’s disconnect from reality would allow noise regulations to be evaded by operators shifting to types that were not rated under the sole methodology that Kirsch would permit. This is precisely what has occurred, with significant increases in aircraft operations by Cessna Caravan amphibians and Bell 407 helicopters. 

What else has Kirsch gotten wrong? Plenty. He also insisted on one, and only one, measure to control the frequency of noisy aircraft operations. The result is that for the last two summers we have had none. How did he do this?

To begin with, Kirsch offered the community a “problem definition” that defined the problem of airport noise as the interruption of outdoor summer entertaining. It took Assemblyman Fred Thiele at a public meeting to note that life in East Hampton does not consist principally of lawn parties. Perhaps Kirsch’s let-them-eat-cake attitude lies at the heart of his failure to represent the town effectively.

In response, the noise subcommittee, in its Ninth Findings (which can be found on the web at quietskiescoalition.org), listed 19 distinct reasons why aircraft noise events are disruptive of all aspects of daily life. The first reason listed is “the frequency with which they occur, particularly during peak periods.”

In its 12th Findings, the noise subcommittee offered proposed restrictions that were carefully designed to address the most disruptive aspects of aircraft noise, particularly frequency. The noise subcommittee proposed five different rules addressed to frequency of noisy aircraft operations, to be adopted together, although each of them separately would have provided significant relief to the public.

As the committee explained to the board in its 12th Findings, it was essential not to rely on a single restriction, both because the problem cannot be defined by a single aspect and because there was a lack of sufficient judicial precedent to give firm guidance on what the federal courts would permit. We warned against putting all the eggs in one legal basket, exposing the town to having none if the courts did not approve. 

And this is also exactly what happened. A preliminary injunction was issued against the one rule adopted by the town to address the frequency of noisy aircraft operations. Hence, we currently have none. We argued vehemently at the time against Kirsch’s bet-the-ranch tactic, to no avail. 

The most important single measure proposed by the noise subcommittee was a noise pollution surcharge, a fee to be imposed on aircraft that exceeded certain noise limits, with the explicit goal of using price to reduce the frequency of noisy operations to a targeted level. This is a far more refined tool than the one-trip-per-week rule. But they were designed to work in tandem, first reducing aviation demand by allocating the same number of permitted trips to each individual aircraft, and then using price to reach any target for frequency that the town might choose to adopt. Such a fee could have been tuned to particular periods: peak pricing.

Mr. Kirsch objected to such a fee upon the theory that it would have to be so high, given aviation demand at East Hampton, that the total revenues of the airport would exceed its expenses, in violation of federal law. Now, you could have had a panel of five Nobel Prize-winning economists sitting there and not one of them could have told you what price will achieve a particular level of consumption. This can only be discerned by trial and error. So just how Kirsch could figure this out is a mystery to me. One might question whether this even constitutes legal advice, the area of Mr. Kirsch’s ostensible expertise.

In the case of Air Transportation Assoc. v. Dept. of Transportation, in which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the legitimacy of pricing to control airport congestion, esteemed Judge Douglas Ginsburg explained that there is no fundamental difference between controlling the quantity of usage directly and using price to do so, except that the price needed to achieve a given level of usage must be discerned by trial and error. I know that Kirsch was aware of this federal judicial opinion, because I wrote and sent him a memo about it.

Due to Kirsch’s obstruction, the town relied on only a single measure addressed to frequency, eschewing the best and most flexible single tool available, congestion pricing. The result of this shortsightedness is that we currently have no measure in effect to control frequency, pending the outcome of litigation.

In another local paper, Supervisor Cantwell is quoted saying, “If the circuit court upholds the one-trip limit, it will go into effect next summer. At that point, the full weight of our regulations will be in effect for the first time.” That is quite a big “if” and always was. The possibility still exists that the town may lose on its single measure, as we warned, and be left with none. Worse, the town has absolutely no contingency plan to deal with this outcome, raising the possibility of a third summer without effective airport noise rules.

On second thought, maybe it is better that the town is not doing any additional planning for airport noise control now. With Kirsch still in control, another failure would likely be guaranteed. The town board needs to demonstrate to the public that it does not accept failure as an option. 

DAVID GRUBER

He Tossed the Beef

Wainscott

August 8, 2016

Dear David:

 Elsewhere in these letters pages your readers may find a long and complicated letter from my colleague David Gruber, explaining the failures of the town aviation attorney, Peter Kirsch. 

Accurate and compelling as it may be, I know some of your readers, perhaps even some on our town board, might not read it because of its length and healthy dose of 10-dollar words. 

Herewith follow the Cliffs Notes:

As a member of the airport noise subcommittee, I spent hundreds of hours studying the serious problem of the dramatic increase in noise caused by helicopters, seaplanes, and jets coming \and going from the East Hampton Airport. Then, together with my fellow committee members, we built and proposed a layered approach — a “menu” of noise restrictions aimed at actually reducing the noise. 

Had our findings been a meal, it would have been a cheeseburger deluxe, a hamburger with the works, the Rowdyburger of airport noise restrictions. 

Unfortunately, upon serving it to the town board and the noise-affected communities of the East End, the aforementioned Mr. Kirsch stripped off the onion and tomato, held the bacon, and wiped off the special sauce. Then he tossed the beef! By the time he finished, all the town board had left was a bun with a piece of lettuce and a pickle.

The time has come for the town board to eighty-six Mr. Kirsch. Dear town board: Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, Peter Kirsch must no longer upset us. 

Warm regards,

TOM MacNIVEN

If the Town Loses?

Sagaponack

August 8, 2016

To the Editor:

Aircraft noise generated by the East Hampton Airport is worse this summer than any time before. And this despite efforts by the town board to limit “noisy” aircraft. Those efforts were challenged in court by mostly out-of-town aviation interests. The town is appealing a judge’s ruling that basically eviscerated the restrictions. Hence the greater aircraft activity this year than before.

What happens if the town loses the federal court appeal? What plans are there to protect the East End population from an even worse onslaught in the future? That is an obvious question that I have yet to hear discussed, let alone answered — except maybe by Mr. Kirsch, East Hampton Town’s aviation attorney, anticipating additional fees. (Mr. Kirsch was quoted by The Star on March 24 as saying that “the town board should be happy” commenting on the “success” of the board’s restrictions. He obviously does not live on the East End of Long Island.)

Do any of the town board members make a connection to the existence of national discontent this election season, with the unresponsiveness of government to legitimate complaints of ordinary citizens — as in the victory of outside aviation interests over residents’ demand for local control and for quiet enjoyment of their homes?

STEPHEN LEVINE

Beneath the Assault

East Hampton

August 8, 2016

Dear David,

Noise and pollution from East Hampton Airport is worse than ever. Thousands of residents — from Queens to Orient and Montauk — living beneath the ongoing assault of helicopters, seaplanes, jets, props, and planes have lost their quality of life, not to mention the negative impacts on their health, property values, and the environment. Anyone witnessing the scene at our “local” airport can see, hear, and smell that it is totally out of control.

The town board’s Democratic majority was elected to bring an end to this intolerable situation. But I read in your letters section last week that the town’s aviation lawyer, Peter Kirsch, seems to be doing his best to perpetuate it.

It is reasonable to ask: Why are Supervisor Cantwell and the board members Burke-Gonzalez, Van Scoyoc, and Overby still sticking with Kirsch? 

SHERYL GOLD

Forward and Backward

East Hampton

August 8, 2016

Dear David,

I have been wondering why seaplane traffic over my home has increased so dramatically over the past two years. Now I know. According to a letter by David Gruber last week, it is because Peter Kirsch, the town board’s aviation lawyer, refused to permit more than one measure for defining noisy aircraft (and let me tell you that these seaplanes are very noisy).

He either didn’t know that the Federal Aviation Administration itself does not use a single noise measure that applies to all aircraft types, and that major airports such as San Diego and Paris therefore use more than one measure to control noise, or he didn’t care.

This is the town’s so-called aviation expert? I’d like to get him over to my house on a Thursday or Friday afternoon and evening, and again on Monday morning, so that he can appreciate what a mess his cockamamie legal advice has made.

Why is he advising our town board? We are going forward to expanded profiteering air commuter travel and backward legally and environmentally. 

Lastly, this summer we are now under two flight patterns: ECHO and a new path hat goes directly over our rooftop as low-flying jets, Pilatus piston props, seaplanes, and twin-engine aircraft head in a southeast direction on departure. The new route enables KHTO management to let two aircraft take off at nearly the same time, which doubles the air pollution noise assault on our home. 

SUSAN McGRAW KEBER

A Double Standard

Sag Harbor

August 8, 2016

Dear Editor,

In one of last week’s letters to the editor, I read about Peter Kirsch, aviation attorney for the Town of East Hampton, who is supposedly helping the town gain control of airport noise but thinks that his job is “to achieve a balance between community concerns over noise and need for helicopter service for high-net-worth individuals with weekend homes in the area.” Flabbergasted, I checked the legal firm’s website to verify this was an accurate quote; indeed it is. You may verify the statement yourself, at kaplankirsch.com/People/Peter-Kirsch.

In what insane world is property owners’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of our homes supposed to be “balanced” with the “need for helicopter service for high-net-worth individuals with weekend homes in the area”? What need? The need to shave time from their commute so that they can more quickly get to the peace and quiet they steal from the rest of us; their convenience at the expense of families the length and breadth of Long Island, simply because they are thoughtless and “high-net-worth” and most of the rest of us are not? The legal system may agree to a double standard, it is certainly dragging its feet, as it has not ruled on any East Hampton airport restriction that will bring meaningful relief to residents. 

Meanwhile, the “high-net-worth” bunch is traveling in jets, because crowdsourcing by Blade and such operators has lowered costs, and the riffraff can afford “cheap” seaplane and helicopter rides to their weekend house shares. The departure lounge looks like the scene at the former Cyril’s Fish House. 

The airport is out of control. Go take a look during rush hour Thursday or Friday or Sunday and verify the chaos yourself. But take earplugs and a face mask; the noise is deafening and fuel emission vapors are clearly visible as engines idle for long periods awaiting passengers. It’s an unmitigated environmental disaster. 

In my view, the members of the East Hampton Town Board have a duty to inform their constituents and neighbors whether their aviation attorney, Mr. Kirsch, is proposing “unbalanced” solutions, in which case he should be dismissed for incompetence or, at the very least, for complicity with the aviation industry. If he is doing what the town instructed him to do, the town board should be dismissed for failing to serve their residents, not to mention support the thousands of families in other Long Island towns, above which most of East Hampton’s helicopter and seaplane flights are encouraged to fly. East Hampton Town’s sole method of noise abatement appears to be its cowardly decision to heed Eastern Region Helicopter and other aviation groups’ recommendations to place the majority of the traffic over other towns.

My personal view has evolved as traffic above my home worsens, and after 10 years of complaints to local, county, state, and federal officials, and no meaningful noise mitigation, I no longer believe anyone involved in any way with aviation, including local pilots and the town, has the desire to quell noise or prevent further airport growth. Next they will surely ask for another runway, as traffic now must line up to arrive or depart. Chaos. What’s next, JetBlue?

The dedicated group of people at the Quiet Skies Coalition will no doubt continue their efforts to bring about a balanced reduction in airport activity, but I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that it is time to close the airport. 

PATRICIA CURRIE