Letters to the Editor: Airport 09.29.16

Poison F.A.A. Cake

East Hampton

September 26, 2016

Dear David:

As the summer of 2016 came to an end, the second in a row where the community continued to be assaulted by commuter aircraft noise despite having elected a town board ostensibly committed to relief, it is worth reflecting on just how East Hampton got itself into such a mess.

The community never decided that it wanted a commercial airport serving commuters from New York by helicopter and seaplane. To the contrary, in the 1989 airport master plan, it declared in no uncertain terms that it wanted to maintain a small airport principally for local and recreational pilots. Further, when in 1997 a Republican-majority town board, in violation of the adopted master plan, voted to widen the main runway to business jet standards, it was sent packing by the voters in a campaign dominated by the airport noise issue.

Even aviation interests know perfectly well that the community rejects — and would at every opportunity continue to reject — a commercial airport. That’s why they claimed, falsely, in 1997 that widening the main runway would not increase jet traffic. Of course, how many remember now that as soon as the widened runway opened jet traffic increased 25 percent year over year?

This community never decided to have the commercial airport with which we are now afflicted — with airport noise stealing from many, not just in East Hampton but in all of the East End towns and even as far away as Nassau and Queens, the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. It happened, because many years before jets or helicopters or seaplanes ever appeared at East Hampton Airport as more than a rare freak, the town made a Faustian bargain to take grant money from the Federal Aviation Administration. 

With that money came F.A.A. control and the loss of the power of local government to control access to its own publicly owned airport. When the jets and then the helicopters and then the seaplanes came, there was nothing to be done because the town had long before surrendered its authority to the devil with whom it had made the bad deal.

I have no doubt that, had people understood back when we first ate the poison F.A.A. cake what it would mean for East Hampton down the road, it never would have happened. But that does not mean that we are stuck. Under a settlement reached with the F.A.A. in 2005, it agreed no longer to enforce the relevant contract provisions or grant assurances beyond 2014. It is now possible (if our town board has the will) to return the airport to a facility primarily serving local and recreational pilots. We don’t have to live forever with a mistake made 50 years ago. 

Can such an airport be financially self-supporting without F.A.A. money? Of course it can. There are 20,000 airports in the United States. Seventeen thousand of them aren’t even eligible for F.A.A. grants, and pretty much every single one of them has a clientele far less wealthy than that of East Hampton Airport. If Podunk can afford to be independent of the F.A.A. and the federal teat, so can East Hampton.

I know that out of years of frustration there is now a movement to close the airport completely. While I fully understand and sympathize with the motivation, I don’t support that, because I don’t want a winner take all solution. I think that in the long run it is better for the community if we can find compromises and solutions that respect competing interests. 

That said, a solution to the problem of airport noise, due chiefly to commercial, commuter traffic, must be found, and soon. It is unjust that a tiny well-heeled 1 percent or less, rushing to get to the East End as fast as possible to enjoy the peace and beauty of their houses, should be permitted to steal that peace and beauty from thousands of others. Have so many fought to preserve the unique quality of life in East Hampton so just so that a self-absorbed few can destroy it for their own selfish benefit? 

In 2015, the East Hampton Town Board took some first, tentative, and too-timid steps in the right direction by adopting the first ever airport access restrictions. So far those have had only a very small positive impact. What is needed now is a demonstration by the town board of its iron resolve to relieve us of the affliction of airport noise and give us back the local airport that at least some of us can still recall.

It is not the case that environmental destruction by human beings is inevitable. We have the agency to stop wrecking the place if we have the will.

Sincerely,

DAVID GRUBER

Action Would Be Illegal

East Hampton

September 25, 2016

Dear David,

I was surprised to read that the East Hampton Town Board has approved a plan to clear-cut 21 acres of mature, healthy trees at the airport. 

There has neither been an opportunity for public comment, nor was the Airport Management Advisory Committee informed of the plan. Furthermore, such action would be illegal without an environmental impact statement, the existence of which is unknown. 

Aside from the lack of transparency, ignoring the important advisory role of the airport management committee and what appears as a disregard of relevant law, there is no rationale whatsoever for taking such irreversible actions without first undertaking scientific analysis of the potential consequences to the environment. This includes impact upon the woodlands, the aquifer, stormwater management, and CO2 sequestration in the age of climate change.

While the F.A.A. has in the past submitted a letter about removal of certain tree obstructions from instrument approaches at the airport, I’m not aware of an F.A.A. request for clear-cutting 21 acres. Moreover, it is bewildering that the town further justifies its action that it would be cost-efficient to destroy all trees rather than selectively cull and trim.

Towns and cities across the globe are planting trees and using natural solutions to help mitigate the effects of climate change. The town board should postpone going forward with this project unless and until it prepares or produces an E.I.S. and solicits advice from the airport committee and the expertise of environmental organizations, as well as provides a forum for public comment.

SHERYL GOLD

Disastrous Effects

East Williston

September 19, 2016

To the Editor:

Although I do not live on the East End of Long Island but rather in Nassau County, we as Long Islanders share many of the same aircraft noise issues. With so much media coverage recently regarding aircraft noise out east in the beautiful East End of Long Island, I felt compelled to write in.

Nassau County residents are no strangers to airplane noise, whether it be from helicopters or jets, so we share your concerns and frustrations, as do residents in the Whitestone Bridge area of Queens and those in Manhattan who live near the 34th Street Heliport, who can only helplessly watch that helicopter highway in the sky as it heads out to eastern Long Island.

Before 2012, our residents in Manhasset and Floral Park were subjected to helicopter noise 24/7. So we were relieved to learn of the Federal Aviation Administration-mandated North Shore helicopter route that was going to make everybody happy and provide some relief (even though some of us felt that a south shore route over the Atlantic seemed a better choice, as landing was to be on the South Fork).

Unfortunately, the F.A.A.-mandated north shore helicopter route did not improve the problem of helicopter noise along the north shore of Long Island, so other answers must be found if quality of life is to be restored to residents on the East End.

Nassau County is very concerned about our quality of life, as stated in part in the North Hempstead publication “Aircraft Noise Over North Hempstead,” published in the spring of 2016:

“The new flight paths are unsettling due to the harmful effects they may have on our well-being. The intersection between sound and health has been exhaustively documented in a variety of medical studies. It is well known that sound that is both loud and long-lasting can produce damaging effects on the body. When such noise reaches harmful levels, the body releases stress hormones, which course through the body causing hypertension, stress, circulatory problems, cardiac disease, peptic ulcers and neurosensory and motor impairment. There are notable adverse mental effects that may result, too. This includes social isolation resulting from inability to give and receive information, disruption of work productivity, decrease of cognitive functioning in school-related issues, and sleep disturbances.”

Our report also addressed the fact that a healthy environment is a human right! In the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Charter (1949), observed by 192 U.N. member states, Article 12 says that no one be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, or home, and Article 24 states that everyone has the right to rest and leisure.

As Long Islanders (Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties) we are all, for the most part, experiencing the same disastrous effects of the F.A.A.’s implementation of the Nextgen system. We see logic dictating we work as one, so that together, we can return some sense of tranquility to our communities.

Thank you.

FRANCENE GOULD

Chair, Plane Sense 4 LI

Airport Expansion

Noyac

September 26, 2016

Dear Editor,

I was shocked to learn of the town’s decision to clear-cut trees from 21 acres of airport land. What about the environmental impact, with the airport already the cause of a huge carbon footprint? To meet F.A.A. “safety” recommendations, surely it is unnecessary to remove so many trees from such a large area. Could they not be thinned and/or topped to clear a wider glide path for the huge aircraft already crowding KHTO?

This latest signal of intent to service expanded airport operations brings to mind the strategy employed when the airport installed the air traffic control tower. Aviation users stated at that time that the control tower was an F.A.A. “safety” recommendation, but that it would also be a noise abatement tool. The F.A.A. publicly denied the latter, but local aviation enthusiasts continued anyway to tout their false statement. So, what began as a “safety” proposal with a temporary mobile tower ended with the razing of many healthy trees and the installation of a permanent control tower. Build it, and they will come. Soon after, the number and size of jets using KHTO exploded, and the noise is far worse than before the tower opened.

Why install a costly permanent control tower if it is to be used only a few weeks each year? That decision appears to be part of a far larger, one-step-at-a-time strategy, with the tower intended for more than seasonal use — but before that can come into play, there is a need for a longer runway. Huge private jets using KHTO want more space, and 21 treeless acres would allow for a longer runway, which, if reinforced, could accommodate even bigger private jets, even large commercial jets. Clear a path, and they will come. That’s airport expansion, although it can be vociferously denied because those writing the long-term strategy that successive town boards appear to be following, step by step, are not themselves at Town Hall.

Nevertheless, the flawed decisions the current board has taken on the advice of their aviation attorney (carried over from the previous blatantly pro-aviation administration) are responsible forncreasing both noise and pollution caused by airport operations and their debilitating impact on our health and well-being. Over 34,000 noise complaints were filed on AirNoiseReport. com this year; most were placed by residents living far from the East End, but who suffer disproportionately from Hamptons-bound short-haul, low-altitude traffic from seaplane, helicopter, and other aircraft traveling on North and South Shore and railroad track flight routes to KHTO.

Destroying a large swath of woodlands to maintain an airport which is the cause of a 100-mile corridor of misery from New York City to Orient to KHTO is certainly not in the best interests of the Town of East Hampton. Nor is it in the best economic interests of the residents of East Hampton, given far more environmentally sensitive and beneficial alternatives for year-round use of 628 acres of commercially zoned land.

End the suffering and all the other problems the airport creates for the town. Close the airport and let the trees be.

PATRICIA CURRIE