Letters to the Editor: Airport 08.25.16

Expanding Noise Plague

East Hampton

August 21, 2016

To the Editor, 

The aviation noise pollution plague over the East End has continued this summer, and in some neighborhoods it has been worse than in prior years, with burgeoning seaplane taxi service and increased Uber-like helicopter operations. 

This has happened despite the East Hampton Town Board’s enactment of airport curfews and a regulation intended to limit noisy aircraft to one operation per week at the airport. North Fork and South Fork communities are in an uproar, as they have every right to be. 

Why has this happened, and what will the East Hampton Town Board, as owner and operator of the airport, do about it? 

As has been well reported, the out-of-state helicopter interests persuaded the local federal district court to enjoin the once-per-week rule, and the town’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is pending. That decision, however, is not expected till later this year, perhaps later. Pending that appellate ruling, the town has been advised by counsel to avoid making any regulatory change that might complicate the case. The town board is following that advice. 

While it is understandable that, even in the face of the advancing aviation noise plague, the town would enact no further noise regulations that might damage its litigation position, it seems obvious that the board should be planning for further noise reduction enactments to be imposed after the appeal is complete. Such planning, of course, must include various alternative scenarios that would depend on the appellate court’s decision — favorable, unfavorable, or something in between. That planning is necessary now because of the time it takes for the town board to announce proposed legislation, hold hearings, and finally vote, a period of many weeks or even months after the court decision. Planning options must be complete and ready for public announcement right after the court decision, or the process will likely last into late spring or early summer of 2017 — much too late for any noise relief for next summer. 

Since the East End must not be subjected to another year of the expanding noise plague, the newly reactivated airport noise citizens advisory committee has begun an effort to assist the town board in formulating that planning process. The committee, now acting on its own, is made up of the same citizens the town board appointed to its original noise advisory committee in early 2014. Like the original committee, the reactivated committee’s meetings are open to the public. 

The next meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 29, at LTV, 75 Industrial Road, Wainscott. 

CHARLES A. EHREN JR.

Settlement Is Critical

East Hampton

August 21, 2016

Dear David,

This is episode four of the legal misadventures of the town’s aviation lawyer, Peter Kirsch. I have written previously about two of his blunders. My list includes 13 such. His legal advice and tactics have been so consistently wrong that I am hard pressed to think of a single thing he has gotten right.  But this one is the big enchilada, a mistake so obvious and staggering that there are no superlatives sufficient.

This is the sad tale of how Mr. Kirsch managed to hobble the town’s ability to defend its authority to regulate the airport while collecting additional fees from the town for doing so. Some history is required.

Those who have paid attention to the tortured history of the East Hampton Airport will recall that the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion reached a settlement with the United States that shortened from 2021 to 2014 the duration of certain contractual Federal Aviation Administration grant assurances. It is that settlement that allowed the town to adopt airport access restrictions in 2015 without F.A.A. interference.

The settlement arose from what was almost surely deliberate fraud by the Town of East Hampton, with the complicity of the F.A.A. In 2001, the town wanted to settle a fraud lawsuit brought by Sound Aircraft arising from the town’s 1997 grant of a hangar lease to the low bidder rather than to Sound, the high bidder.  All part of a long history of, let us say, noisome dealings surrounding East Hampton Airport. To settle that case, the town proposed to build Sound a jet apron, on the federal dime.

But the town had no adopted and F.A.A.-approved airport layout plan (ALP), a federal legal requirement to obtain an F.A.A. grant. Why? Because in a previous suit by the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion, the court ruled that the town had never adopted the 1996 ALP on which the town had obtained F.A.A. money for its 1998 main runway expansion. The town had lied to the F.A.A. in its 1998 grant application.

The next part is incredible. The town, claiming it could not find a signed copy of the last duly adopted ALP (that of 1989), doctored the 1989 ALP to allow for the jet apron, re-signed the doctored version, and then insisted that it was merely re-signing a true copy of the original. Pat Trunzo, the former town councilman who oversaw the drafting of the 1989 ALP, told both the town and the F.A.A. that the 1989 plan had been retroactively altered. The then-town attorney, Eric Bregman, publicly called Trunzo a liar.

Eventually, in response to a federal criminal grand jury subpoena, a signed copy of the true 1989 ALP was found in the airport’s files, completely vindicating Trunzo and proving that the town had obtained the 2001 FAA grant on false documents. Imagine that! The true copy was in the airport’s files all along, the one place the town never thought to look. 

See a pattern here? The amazing thing is that no town officer was ever indicted.

The reason why the settlement shortened the term of certain grant assurances to 2014 was that F.A.A. grant agreements last for 20 years, and the F.A.A. grant of 1994 was the last issued legitimately, upon a duly adopted ALP.  A possible outcome of the lawsuit would have been a declaration that the 2001 grant agreement, expiring in 2021, was completely void. Thus, the settlement shortening only certain grant assurances was a compromise. That’s what happens in an out-of-court settlement. A compromise is reached.

Needless to say, the United States did not want to reduce the term of the 2001 grant agreement. But having F.A.A. complicity in the fraud aired in court would likely have been worse.

Fast-forward to 2015. After the town adopts its first-ever airport access restrictions to control noise, the helicopter companies sue the town to overturn them. Separately, they sue the F.A.A., claiming that the United States had no authority to enter into the settlement, although our federal government enters into settlements all the time when there is substantial evidence that federal officers have violated federal law.

The kicker is that the only defendant in the latest case is the F.A.A., although the previous suit was not settled by the F.A.A. but by the Department of Justice on behalf of the United States. Is it not obvious that the F.A.A., itself complicit in the fraud, might actually want to lose the new case against it so that the grant agreement giving the F.A.A. control would remain in full force until 2021?

Given that the settlement was and is critical to the ability of the town to adopt airport noise restrictions, you would think that the town would want to be in a position to defend the legality of the settlement agreement. Bizarrely, the helicopter company plaintiffs were going to help the town do so. Early on, the plainiffs moved to consolidate the two cases, the one against the town and the other against the F.A.A., which would have made the town a defendant in both, able to defend the settlement agreement.

The United States said yes. Mr. Kirsch said no. I and various other of the lawyers who have long been involved in this matter pleaded repeatedly with Supervisor Cantwell and the town board airport liaison, Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, to say yes to the gift, the tactical blunder by the plaintiffs.  It would have cost the town nothing, and there would have been no obligation on the part of the town to submit papers in the case going forward unless it was in the town’s interest to do so.

Mr. Kirsch said no; they said no. Then Mr. Kirsch filed motion papers in opposition to consolidation.

But here’s where it goes over the top. Realizing their blunder, counsel for the helicopter companies then withdrew their motion to consolidate. The gift was off the table. Some weeks later, Mr. Kirsch, on behalf of the town, moved to intervene as a defendant in the F.A.A. case! Having walked away from the free gift of defendant status when offered, he was subsequently forced to ask the court for what he had turned up his nose at, and no doubt got paid additional fees by the town to do it. The court granted the motion to intervene, but in a very circumscribed way, leaving the town unable now fully to defend the settlement agreement against helicopter company attack and the possibility of a halfhearted defense by the F.A.A.

    It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of Mr. Kirsch’s blunder or how disastrous the consequences may be for the town’s efforts to control airport noise. If he were actively trying to blow the case, he could hardly have done worse. Why then does he continue to represent the people of East Hampton?    Sincerely,

DAVID GRUBER

Over the Causeway

Orient

August 21, 2016

To the Editor:

The amount of air taxi helicopter service to and from KHTO, the East Hampton Airport, continues to be a major issue for areas nowhere near East Hampton. I live in Orient, and in past years saw little helicopter traffic. That changed for the worse this year when the Eastern Region Helicopter Council and KHTO officials changed the chopper route map to include the causeway as a transition point for the twin-engine heavies; the loudest helicopter model. The causeway is a pencil-thin sliver of land 1.5 miles long that connects East Marion and Orient. The Long Island Sound is on one side of the causeway and the harbor on the other. People have spent decades and significant amounts of money to preserve much of the causeway acreage. As such, there are very few houses on the causeway. 

Most see the causeway as a scenic viewshed, a place to clam, a spot to swim at Truman’s Beach or a place to kayak. The cynical aviation industry saw it as an area with low-population density that would not be able to generate significant complaint numbers by virtue of the fact that there are only a couple dozen homes on the causeway. 

I have spoken to East Hampton Town Board members, and they are also frustrated that preserved lands and bodies of water are being exploited by the aviation industry as they fly in and out hundreds of operations per week. 

For some reason the politicians and aviation interests have hoodwinked the public into thinking that flights “over water,” or at a 3,000-foot altitude, are somehow quiet. One mile offshore at 3,000 feet offers very little noise abatement. Anyone who has spent time around the water knows what an excellent sound conductor it can be. Eighty percent of a problem is still a problem. 

In Orient a typical flight goes like this: First you feel the horrible low-end-bass noise reverberating through your body, then you hear it shaking your walls or the air around you, and finally you see the helicopter in the distance coming toward you. From the initial bass shaking noise to quiet is typically about two minutes. Multiply that times 30 flights on a busy Friday, and you have a real quality-of-life problem. Even more frustrating is that the pilots fly the same route every time. The aviation industry loves to talk about how they disperse flights to avoid repeated paths. We get nothing but repeated paths over the causeway. 

Orient is a long way from East Hampton in many respects, but not by air. I’m happy to see the East Hampton Town Board take on this issue, but feel that a much more aggressive strategy needs to be employed going forward. The curfews have simply concentrated flights. The one-flight-per-week restriction that is tied up in courts is easily worked around. There are no route-based fixes; someone always gets the noise and pollution. 

The only solution is to significantly limit commercial air-taxi helicopter operations at KHTO. Those of us on the North Fork are still waiting for noise relief, and we need the East Hampton Town Board to make it happen. 

ADAM IRVING

Duplicitous Agenda?

East Hampton

August 22, 2016

Dear David,

This past week a report about current East Hampton Airport traffic was released. The report gave me great pause and concern as I read it because it does not correlate with what we and so many on the North and South Forks know to be true: Aircraft traffic has increased and many more residents are being negatively impacted by aircraft noise pollution. 

This summer, at the suggestion of Jeff Smith, who resides in New Jersey and is the spokesperson of Eastern Regional Helicopter Council, that while not mandatory, additional routes for helicopters to select from should be utilized by helicopter pilots. The spread of helicopters over new routes merely creates more noise-impacted residents and does nothing to alleviate the problem, noise pollution created by incessant aircraft over homes on the East End. The report puzzles me because I cannot imagine how this information could be contradictory to what people are experiencing by sight, sound, and with the help of website tracking of the aircraft, identification, ownership, altitude, etc. 

The culprit is our town-owned local airport, as it is the destination and departure for people who are more than happy to pay excessively high sums of money to book the aviation taxi services, which in turn are making tremendous profits at the expense of the residents who suffer the noise-polluting aircraft, chiefly helicopters and seaplanes. Private jets are another source of disruptive noise and toxic fuel emissions, but that is another matter. 

Aviation lobbyists have fought to make certain our airport continues to expand services and aircraft traffic for the “high-end-worth individuals” as described by the website for the attorney representing East Hampton Town, Peter Kirsch.

I would like to note that Mr. Kirsch’s own law firm’s website offers this revealing description of his association with East Hampton Airport: Town of East Hampton, New York: Represent proprietor of small resort airport in negotiations, litigation and policy initiatives designed 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. 

I draw attention to the “high-net-worth individuals” reference. You can’t have it both ways. Who is Mr. Kirsch really representing? There is clearly a defense of the 1 percent while the rest of the taxpayers are ignored and forced to endure the noise pollution and this minuscule group’s need for instant gratification. To my puzzlement, I ask why the current town board does not see a duplicitous agenda? Annual compensation to the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch is a hefty sum to pay, especially when the defense is not 100 percent in favor of the people but rather outside aviation lobbyists, corporations, and the “high-net-worth individuals.” Clearly the town is being advised halfheartedly, and at every turn we seem to be on tenterhooks as we await a judge’s decision. Today, more than ever, I am convinced that we must not continue with the current legal counsel if we are to take back our airport and implement meaningful and sensible rules and regulations. 

As I work from our home, I am able to see, hear, and record each aircraft with specific details. The skies are filled with loud noise caused by incessant low-flying aircraft that often crisscross as they pass over our rooftop. Years ago, surrounded by acres of wildlife trails and dedicated land preserves, the only sound was that of nature. That peaceful beauty has been replaced by aircraft noise pollution, which, we are being told in no uncertain terms, is ours to suffer as the “high-net-worth individuals” are more worthy. Translation: The 1 percent have wealth and we will cater to their wishes before the full-time residents’ needs and rights. 

Many of the taxi commuter helicopter and seaplane corporations have formed new partnerships to maximize fleet service. They are enjoying the profits while we are forced to sacrifice our right to peace and quiet. The airport is no longer an asset, but has instead become a burden to the East End. Far too many residents are crippled by the noise pollution emanating from the thousands of aircraft that negatively impact our homes.

A taxi commuter hub is not what the airport was originally intended for. I support the airport for the enjoyment of local aviation enthusiasts, as I myself come from a family of recreational pilots and learned to fly as a young girl. Permitting the indirect expansion of the airport with commuter taxi services is completely unacceptable, and I venture to believe may be forcing the local aviation enthusiasts aside as outside aviation interests/profits take precedent. 

With the advent of day-trippers, the helicopters, seaplanes, and jets are raking in huge profits while inundating our homes with unbearable noise and toxic fuel emissions. Did you know day-trippers are now being offered travel to and from our airport where they are treated to alcoholic libations at the terminal and met by a “concierge” who will squire them about town for shopping sprees, make reservations for lunch and dinner, and offer beverages at the terminal’s new chic bar? These passengers don’t care if the people on the ground are distressed by the noise pollution created. Their only concern is self-serving: How to hurry up and get to the Hamptons. Instant gratification with no regard for others. Still, the day-trippers are only a sliver of the real problem. 

The town board requests that the public report all offending aircraft to support the legal battle to have a modicum of reasonable and sensible control over its own airport. This is years in the making and still we tirelessly report what everyone knows: Aircraft traffic is worse with each year. What the new report may indicate in truth is that people are weary of reporting offensive, low-flying, loud aircraft. People are weary of running inside their homes to make the reports, as the aircraft often are a minute or less apart. People are tired of reporting aircraft only to be told it doesn’t exist, even when we see with our own eyes, hear with our own ears, and describe the type and color of the aircraft. It reminds me of the film “Gaslight.” All too often we are made to feel frustrated by airport personnel who choose to deny what we know we have experienced. 

Telephone calls to the East Hampton Airport manager have gone unanswered. An assistant sent an email to us regardng one report out of nearly 60 our home made. The response was insulting. The assistant suggested the assaultive offending aircraft was flying low and therefore was very loud as it flew over our home because of “weather conditions.” He attached a weather report. “Have a Happy Day” was the last line. The entire day had been sunny, cloudless, and there were no strong winds. It was a pilot’s perfect day to fly.

Recently another person I know received the same message to a complaint he had made. If this kind of response sounds bogus, perhaps it is because it is. The former “Director of Noise Mitigation” once told me if he did not “see it” (aircraft), it did not exist. There seems to be an inherent and pervasive attitude among airport employees (whose salary is paid for by the taxpayers of East Hampton) that arrogance and dismissive responses to the public are acceptable behavior.

Since the Wilkinson administration I have opposed the legal counsel of Peter Kirsch, as I witnessed him mislead the public and town board with regard to aviation law. He managed to successfully thwart any progress for meaningful noise mitigation by having the audacity to pressure the town board to accept F.A.A. funding whereby the federal agency would be the only hope to diminish and control noise. This was a blatant and outrageous piece of misinformation. His advice would have chained the airport to the F.A.A. for another 20 years with no hope of having any control over our own airport. The F.A.A. does not concern itself with noise mitigation, and Mr. Kirsch should have advised the town board accordingly, as he and his firm specialize in aviation law. The F.A.A. is strictly concerned with air traffic control. For the town to achieve any control over noise pollution and the airport, the town would have to allow the grant assurances from the F.A.A. to expire. Four of those assurances did expire at the end of 2014, permitting the town board to implement sensible and reasonable regulations. Only one has been implemented, a curfew, yet the curfew in place does not ease the pain of noise pollution, as aircraft are now crammed into a shorter period of time. 

It has been proven by separate airport committees that the airport can indeed be self-sustaining financially without having to take F.A.A. funding. That is the best decision for the East End if we are to govern our own airport and implement rules that truly serve the whole of the community and not just the 1 percent who utilize the airport that occupies 600 acres-plus. (Imagine what the commercial real estate value of this land would garner and to what other desperately needed uses the land could supply?) 

In closing I would like to let the public know, if they have not already discovered the problem, that the town website to track offending aircraft is useless. There is no real substantive data supplied and it has a 10-minute delay system. The website features only altitudes and can only frustrate the public who have been asked to report offensive aircraft. The only informative website at this juncture is airnoisereport.com. All data are featured: ID number of the aircraft, altitude, time, description of the aircraft, ownership registration. It is user-friendly and free to the public to use. I strongly urge the town board to adopt this source for the public’s use if they want accurate information in the complaint reports. If a judge requests real hard facts and not just assumptions, then airnoisereport.com is the website to use. Another companion website to double-check aircraft is PlaneFinder.net. 

It’s time for meaningful and effective change. It is time to retain legal counsel that has a fresh eye and that will strictly defend the rights of the people who live and work on the East End. It is impossible to represent the local constituency while also representing the 1 percent “high-net-worth individuals” who merely want to hurry up and get to the Hamptons. We need representation that does not pander to those whose only interest in East Hampton Airport is profit. 

It is time to step up to the plate and do what is morally right for the people who live and work on the East End. We have a real and dedicated investment in the future of where we have chosen to live. It must be remembered that the East End is as beautiful as it is because the year-round community members work hard to preserve and protect the East End, not just for today, but for generations to come. We have diligently worked to hold on to the character and health of our wild and marine life, oceans, harbors, and beaches. Now we must protect our skies, because that too is endangering all that we now hold dear and precious. 

We need to stand together when faced with adverse outside interests. The aviation lobbyists and corporations pose a serious threat to our way of life. Their single motivation is profit. Our single motivation is to have peace and quiet. We have to let the lobbyists and aviation corporations know we will not capitulate and hand over our community for their profit or the “high-net-worth-individuals” as Mr. Kirsch describes his clients. Yes, his clients, not you or my family, the people who help pay his firm’s fee.  

We have a right to enjoy our hard-earned homes in peace and quiet. Sadly, and with tremendous reluctance due to the growing airport expansion of aircraft taxi services and no relief in sight, perhaps the only way to solve the problem may be for the people and town to decide whether the airport is really worth all the trouble it is causing for the people of the East End. After all, there are so many uses 600 acres of commercially zoned land could provide. Housing? Jobs? A new school? The possibilities are endless. The real estate value undoubtedly high. 

SUSAN McGRAW KEBER