The methods used to win acceptability for the intense noises of commerce and industry have not worked. Instead, it has become necessary to promote the "final" solution: move the receiver away from the source. "To those who complain of [traffic noise] nuisance," states a leading acoustical consultant, "there is a reasonable reply. Move."
So far government is listening to that old noisemaker's principle: any noise problem, no matter how intense, can be solved by eliminating the people who complain about it.
The aviation industry tells us that economic and technological considerations preclude any significant reduction in jet noise levels, and therefore there is nothing left to do but compel the jet noise victim to move. The euphemism for this "final solution" is compatible land use.
The thinking behind this noise control technique is that jet noise is no problem if it is "acceptable" to a majority. The passenger in the plane is not complaining, and other than a little resentment about hearing loss, aviation personnel tend to "accept" jet noise. The only fly in the acceptability ointment is the permanent resident. The final solution now becomes absurdly simple: remove the resident from a zone around the airport where complaints can be expected to be most acute. Then rezone this former residential area for commerce and industry, and, believe it or not, recreation. Presto, the jet noise complaint problem is solved.
Government is being urged to give local communities grants or loans for repurchasing residential property, and to bring pressure to bear on them to rezone property adjacent to airports. The FAA is recommending exploring the possibilities for condemnation or direct purchase followed by resale for other than residential use.
All other things being equal, it may seem logical to rezone around new airports. The question arises, how much urban and near-urban land can be withdrawn from residential development because of airports (and highways)? Here we see "terminus hocus focus" at work. Jet noise is a problem not only at the immediate approach zone, but under other areas such as where stacking occurs. These areas can be several miles from the airport.
It is not a simple matter to condemn property adjacent to airports and then rezone it. There are problems of governmental jurisdiction, the problem of stretching the interpretation of "eminent domain" to include property at a distance from the airport, and so on.
It is not a simple matter to force residents out of their homes because the area has been designated as too loud.
Sidney Goldstein, general counsel for the Port of New York Authority, states the case against zoning as a panacea quite succinctly:
"One must always consider the grave sociological, political, and human problems that would follow in the wake of any large-scale attempt to relocate elsewhere untold numbers of people who now live in noise-affected communities...In the long run it may be even cheaper—and it's certainly more worth while—to put money into the development of quieter aircraft than to pay for the costs of acquiring intrinsically worthless easements of flights in ever-increasing numbers throughout the country...The direct approach obviously is to build quieter planes."
Some idea of what is in store for homeowners near major airports is gleaned from the nationwide plea for help sent out by a Los Angeles homeowners association: "Airport Management is sending a corps of appraisers among the 944 homeowners, going door to door...to persuade them to accept depressed residential prices from the airport...The Los Angeles Planning Commission, urged by the airport authorities, has so far denied [the] right of the individual owners to rezone...The Airport Management's continued attempts to obtain the homes through the appraiser tactic is pursued despite no legal condemnation action. Tragically, most of these 944 average citizens are ignorant of the law, ignorant of their rights, ignorant of commercial values..."
If this situation is being accurately described, we see a new development, whereby airport management can obtain residential property without condemnation. At least condemnation might bring a fairer price. It may come to where homeowners will be forced to be the ones to fight to have their own land condemned.
Many refuse to take this "final solution" seriously. They believe that the billions of dollars in property values would make such a plan economically impossible for already-built-up areas. But the proponents of compatible land use have an answer: when the area is cleared of residential development, its resale to commerce and industry not only will recoup for the local authority the monies spent on purchasing the condemned property, but will probably earn it a profit. The dispossessed homeowner, who lived for years in a degraded environment, will not participate in this windfall. He will get, like the Los Angeles homeowners, a depreciated market value for residential property.
One of the shocking elements of this "final" solution is the use to which some people are planning to put the rezoned residential property. Mind you, we are talking about property so close to an airport that it is unbearably noisy for human habitation.
What is being recommended is that the residential property be rezoned for commercial, industrial, and recreational use. Forgetting the question of what it means to work under jets at landing or takeoff, what is it we plan to do to the places to which we retreat for recreation and leisure?
A top FAA official, Oscar Bakke, has stated, "Land in the immediate vicinity of airports must of necessity be restricted to uses that are compatible with normal airport operations. Such compatible uses include parks, recreation areas, automobile parking and light industry."
The solution, it is being suggested, is to reverse the noise victim's home and his recreational areas. Action to implement this program is already underway. Is a miserably noisy park better than no park at all?