June 20, 2000
Ms. Donna M. Meyer
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260
College Park, GA 30337-2747
Re: DEIS for Proposed Runway 5L/23R, Piedmont Triad Airport, Possible Land
Use and
Social Impacts Mitigation Measures; Volume 1,
Section 6.2.2, Page 6-8 to 6-11
Dear Ms. Meyer:
The section referenced above appears inadequate, unresponsive to demonstrable local needs and unworkable as a basis for moving forward in accord with accepted minimum procedural standards. The project as proposed may involve partial takings of private property rights without adequate measurement in the EIS of the full extent of the detrimental affects proposed on proximate local residents. Therefore, it seems probable that full compensation will be denied. In terms of daily life as well as market value, these local neighborhoods will be transformed. For areas near the proposed flight paths, the proposed expansion may significantly devalue local residential properties rendering them unfit for habitation. The EIS contains no concrete, measured plans to mitigate these affects. Logically and legally, appropriate mitigating measures should be detailed here, but they are not. What is there instead is an inventory of potential actions, but without any commitment for their implementation.
It would also seem, at least to the proposed receivers of these combined environmental insults, that reasonable due process is being denied. The sheer absence of reasonable specifications is harmful. The proposals themselves, including budget provisions, seem to preclude the anticipation of meaningful redress. No structured land use remedial program is specified. No recommendations from the local community resulting from the conduct of an effective outreach or community participation program are in evidence. In fact, no community relations work appears to have been undertaken. Even the public hearing apparently denied adequate opportunities for local residents to testify to their concerns.
In this case, three sequential partial takings of residential market value may occur, all potential violations of the Fifth Amendment provisions on public confiscation without adequate compensation. This process, outlined below, works adversely against the interests of thousands of existing homeowners.
Ms. Donna Meyer
June 20, 2000
Page 2
The airport expansion process necessarily involves the potential for creating an industrial slum. Market values for local airport vicinity real estate may be progressively diminished until the area is converted as a whole to another use. At the point of eventual conversion, the land use may often change to one of higher value potentially generating profits, but current home owners are unlikely to realize any of this. The potential for regional economic gain is substantial, but seems unlikely to include those who are most subject to future local environmental degradation.
This process of devaluation begins with the issuance of the plans included within the EIS. The unfortunate consequences for local airport neighbors begins with the larger community becoming aware of the adverse future effects of the expansion plan. Local neighborhoods immediately suffer reduced marketplace appeal. This awareness expands as a consequence of the homeowners’ efforts to draw attention to the perceived injustice. Local homeowners now have reduced incentive to invest and maintain their properties since some properties may be acquired. However, the specification of which properties are likely acquisitions is omitted. Thus many property owners may become reluctant to make long-term investments in their properties and improve their dwellings since they may be unable to enjoy the long-term benefits. Decision-making even on the community level tends to exclude long-term considerations. Affected neighborhoods may suffer out migration as the economically mobile promptly relocate. The remaining citizens have little choice but to bear the full costs of efforts to defend themselves and their property rights. Their non-monetary losses include the time, effort and emotional distress that result from resisting an entrenched regional public intent.
A second taking occurs with the establishment of a public right of way in the local airspace. This action involves the imposition of height limitations that in some specific locations are impressively low. These areas are necessarily there to protect aircraft. However, these flight-way clearances clearly infringe on local property rights where the imaginary surfaces are less than 1,000 feet above the terrain.
Finally, there is the inevitable imposition of ever worsening intrusive environmental noise impacts. The realities of aircraft design are such that we are facing the limit of diminishing returns in aircraft noise reduction. Modern aircraft are exceptionally good in terms of reduced noise emission as compared to older designs, but fundamental aerodynamic realities dictate that only limited further progress can be made in terms of noise reduction. A steadily worsening situation will occur through time as traffic expands, but source noise emissions remain the same. Assurances offered in the EIS indicating strict limitations on over-flights of areas to the northeast appear overstated. A worst-case analytical benchmark is needed as the basis for an articulated mitigation strategy.
Ms. Donna Meyer
June 20, 2000
Page 3
Historical noise compatibility guidelines that have been inherited from the past are patently inadequate in situations such as Greensboro. In the 1960s and 70s, enormous cumulative impacts resulted from the operation of a limited number of very noisy aircraft. This meant a fully protective and inclusive compatibility standard would have been impractical. It would have created an enormously expensive remedial processes creating localized social upheaval. It would have also generated substantial litigation and/or unacceptable constraints on the air transportation system. Now these ancient acoustically insensitive standards are being applied to evaluate the environmental impacts of an essentially private expansion project with modest public benefits as opposed to facilitating essential public transportation. Thus, not only is a meaningful mitigation program unspecified, but also the expected standards of compatibility are such that thousands of local residents will be unprotected in terms of suffering potential negative social, economic, and health effects. Combined with the systematic takings of private property rights mentioned above, the proposals discussed in the EIS are destructive to local residents’ interests. The document currently sidesteps mitigating these effects almost entirely. Substantial and substantive improvements to the EIS are warranted and recirculation of the revised document is in order.
Sincerely,
Henry A. F. Young