Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
quintol
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:05 am

Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:36 am

viewtopic.php?t=264357#p2810651

According to the linked post, YYZ and IAD have contracts with residents near the airport that prevent them from bringing legal challenges against any future expansion of the airport. However, I've been unable to find such a contract, or any evidence of their existence, online. Do these legal releases really exist? If so, are they not made public? If not, how come?
 
dr1980
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:55 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:51 am

I’m not sure about legal releases, but the City of Mississauga has these signs posted in the meadowvale area, which is on the approach to runway 23 at YYZ.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6338412 ... 384!8i8192
Dave/CYHZ
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:17 am

I'm all for passing a law that limits lawsuits by residents against airport expansions to people who have lived there since before there was an airport (obviously including inheritances). All other lawsuits are just frivolous.
 
Jerseyguy
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:36 am

Nimby's in Bucks County, PA and Mercer County, NJ have been going after TTN (Trenton, NJ) for years and years, they lost every case they have ever brought and even though they represent less than 1% of the towns effected they continue to go and request assistance from their towns. Lower Makefield Township (Yardley) has formed a task force and hired a high priced aviation lawyer from LA to represent the town. Trenton should have replaced its terminal years ago (actually they should have replaced it in the 2000s when the same NIMBYs ran Southwest out of town) but the NIMBYs have the county crossing its Ts and dotting its Is to be sure they won't get screwed by the people who thought that "hmm..i live by an airport that has had on and off commerical service and I live between the 1st and 5th biggest cities in the US but it will stay a small airport forever right?" I wish the FAA would just offer them soundproofing so we can move on with the development of the airport. Some people who live right next to the airport have been offered for them to have the county buy their house but thats not good enough for them.

They say their homes feel like war zones and that Trenton will become like Newark or Philadephia if left unchecked. *smdh*
 
2175301
Posts: 2052
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:50 am

One solution I know was done in, I believe in central Wisconsin, years ago. The airport authority purchased all the houses and farms in the planned future expansion area over the years and surrounding area. Then they resold them with a very specific deed restriction in effect until the end of the airport that the property owners cannot sue the airport for airport operation noise or other issues; and that the property would be available for future airport expansion if needed without challenge.

The county had some extra money that year and borrowed the idea from a power plant where the neighbors complained about the noise and lights from the new power plant unit built there. The Utility company actually made a profit by the time they had purchased and resold all the properties. I believe that the county only broke even.

Sometimes some foresight solves a lot of things.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14248
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:21 am

aviationaware wrote:
I'm all for passing a law that limits lawsuits by residents against airport expansions to people who have lived there since before there was an airport (obviously including inheritances). All other lawsuits are just frivolous.


Well being near an airport is one thing, the airport getting bigger with let's say aircraft now flying over your house isn't the same thing.

I agree that you can't complain if there hasn't been significant change since you moved there.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:21 am

Aesma wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
I'm all for passing a law that limits lawsuits by residents against airport expansions to people who have lived there since before there was an airport (obviously including inheritances). All other lawsuits are just frivolous.


Well being near an airport is one thing, the airport getting bigger with let's say aircraft now flying over your house isn't the same thing.

I agree that you can't complain if there hasn't been significant change since you moved there.


If you move to an airport under the assumption that it will stay like it is you are a moron and don't deserve better. I know that may seem harsh to some, but I believe in personal responsibility and those people clearly took advantage of the benefits of the real estate by the airport without taking potential pitfalls into consideration.
 
Jerseyguy
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:04 am

aviationaware wrote:
Aesma wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
I'm all for passing a law that limits lawsuits by residents against airport expansions to people who have lived there since before there was an airport (obviously including inheritances). All other lawsuits are just frivolous.


Well being near an airport is one thing, the airport getting bigger with let's say aircraft now flying over your house isn't the same thing.

I agree that you can't complain if there hasn't been significant change since you moved there.


If you move to an airport under the assumption that it will stay like it is you are a moron and don't deserve better. I know that may seem harsh to some, but I believe in personal responsibility and those people clearly took advantage of the benefits of the real estate by the airport without taking potential pitfalls into consideration.


I don't know that I'd say moron but you certainly put your head in the sand and didn't want to consider what the area has the opportunity to turn into. I personally find the people who find "gems" to be fooling themselves, it might be a gem now but it likely wont stay that way for 10-20 years+. Oh yeah, I found this quiet area and its off the freeway and its not that far from the city so its a fairly easy commute. If you've found it then guess what other people are going to as well.

And atleast my nimbys at TTN , they are always exaggerating and twisting facts to suit their needs, like there was a temporary spike in general avation activity and then they say they are even above their current projections. They imply that they are talking about the commercial side which is why their fighting the new terminal but its not its the pilot training schools and general learn how to fly operations. And do things like take the amount of commerical traffic numbers and then compare them to the overall numbers like. Oh there are 90,000 movements for he commerical side and the total combined movements in 2035 is 170,000 and they say the airport wants to expand from 90,000 movements to 170,000 movements in 2035. When the real thing is that the commercial side is moving from 90,000 to 105,000 and the general avation is moving from 55,000 to 65,000. but rather than use the 90,000 to 105,000 numbers they use two completely different numbers that aren't related to bolster their claim and scare people.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9413
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:42 pm

2175301 wrote:
One solution I know was done in, I believe in central Wisconsin, years ago. The airport authority purchased all the houses and farms in the planned future expansion area over the years and surrounding area. Then they resold them with a very specific deed restriction in effect until the end of the airport that the property owners cannot sue the airport for airport operation noise or other issues; and that the property would be available for future airport expansion if needed without challenge.


That's fine in the context of U.S. law, but it requires foresight, money now, and all willing sellers. An owner can add deed restrictions before reselling.

IMHO (and I'm not a lawyer) taking private property by eminent domain - without a plan for public use - would be a problem and find attorneys on the right quite ready to fight it. (They love the Takings Clause only less than the Second Amendment). If you want to start building a new concourse in two years, fine - going ahead with property acquisition by eminent domain. If you're just talking about acquiring land for a project the city/county might want to undertake in 30 years - not so much.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4794
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:13 pm

Washington State has some sort of quirky law in that in effect forbids any improvements on certain properties on which future roads may be built. It puts property owners in a possibly decades period of uncertainty. (any WA ST attorney out there to clarify this). It amounts to a fuzzy eminent domain. Washington has used eminent domain for economic development, a most extreme example was assembling acreage for the Tacoma Mall. Most authorities now would say that was illegal according the the state constitution.

For some reason oil and gas companies, even from Canada, are granted rights to eminent domain over US citizens and their properties. No one on the right ever complains about it.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1219
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:28 pm

Denver International Airport also does the same thing. Remember when everyone b****ed and moaned about how the new airport would be "almost in Kansas"? And now the Denver metroplex has spread out to the airport.

And one of the papers that must be signed states, "you are acknowledging that there is an airport nearby; you are acknowledging that you are NOT allowed to complain about operations; you are acknowledging that this airport brings in more money to the region and the state than you EVER will, and you are NOT going to sue because you want it to move".

As long as ambulance-chasing attorneys will represent groups like these "on contingency", you will continue to hear the crazies scream about the apocalypse of noise:

* Long Beach, CA, is perhaps the largest port on the west coast, and the 710 freeway is filled, night and day, with semi-trucks loaded with trailers, bringing all the cheap imported junk Americans thrive on to the various markets. Between that and the 405 freeway (which is appropriately named: you only go 4 or 5 miles an hour), Long Beach still considers its barely-utilized airport to be the ONLY source of noise and pollution. The seething hatred and contempt the residents have for this airport - that none of them minded when LGB was the site of McDonnell Douglas manufacturing - borders on psychotic rage. But they're oblivious to the road traffic around them - only the airport is a problem, and nothing else.

* Many years ago, EWR proposed a change to its approaches from the south to runways 4L & 4R. And southern New Jersey lost their minds. Even though the aircraft involved wouldn't be below 5,000 feet (I can't remember the details), the NIMBY zombies were out screaming about the apocalypse. One woman even said for the camera, "I don't care about anybody else's children, I only care about mine!"

* And then there's Chula Vista's single complainer about SAN. For many years, 99% of the noise complaints for SAN were traced to one person in Chula Vista. For those who don't know, Chula Vista is suburb south of San Diego (between downtown and Tijuana) that most eastbound departures fly over at a significant height. Planes take-off to the west over the ocean, then make a 180 degree turn and are at about 5,000 feet or so above the city. This one "person" literally called and complained about every single airplane flying over his house.

Every single airport should have their municipality require a "there's an airport here in case you're too stupid to notice" clause in all purchasing paperwork, and it should be expressly clear that you better get used to it, and changes in departure/arrival patterns might happen in the future. In situations where noise levels change, due to different approaches, yes, soundproofing should be given to those formerly not affected, such as places in Minneapolis had done. But moving in and THEN complaining? Yeah, no - please remove yourself from the gene pool.
 
KBOS
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 9:46 am

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:38 pm

My house is three miles off the end of runway 23 at KPVD. When we were looking at it for the first time we were sitting outside waiting for the sellers agent. A Southwest 737 went right over low and loud, our real estate agent turned white as a ghost figuring he just blew the sale, I turned to him and asked "Did you catch the tail number?" Personally, I love living that close to the airport, I'm sitting at home 15 min after I land every single flight :)
I don't care if the sun don't shine, I do my drinkin in the evening time when I'm in Rhode Island
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15135
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:40 pm

quintol wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=264357#p2810651

According to the linked post, YYZ and IAD have contracts with residents near the airport that prevent them from bringing legal challenges against any future expansion of the airport. However, I've been unable to find such a contract, or any evidence of their existence, online. Do these legal releases really exist? If so, are they not made public? If not, how come?

If they exist they would be deed restrictions or easements. Basically something regarding air rights, noise thresholds, times, etc.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Toinou
Posts: 331
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:21 am

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:56 pm

It could be an option if you live in a place where people have a lot of choice about where to live at affordable price. If you live in an area with a shortage of housing, you cannot consider that people chose completely freely to move in, so you could not really argue about there right to complain.
Generally speaking, there is also they question of balancing every interest. If the decrease of the value of houses is over the benefits to expect from the airport (directly and indirectly), it is not economically fair. Some cases can be vastly disproportionate: I live in Switzerland where thousands of lands (including in large cities) along a rail line are restricted on construction matters because a single company is using rail to transport chlorine which it could produce itself but does not for save just half a million dollar a year (and the saving is producing absolutely not return for the public, pure corporate greed). Talk about public interest!
 
DFW17L
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:53 am

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:11 pm

Could be worse...

Image
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:28 pm

aviationaware wrote:
I'm all for passing a law that limits lawsuits by residents against airport expansions to people who have lived there since before there was an airport (obviously including inheritances). All other lawsuits are just frivolous.


Speaking to the law in Canada (and likely the UK, where Canadian law is largely derived), "statutory authority" is a defence to nuisance claims (which would include "your airport noise interferes with the enjoyment of my property"). Where a public authority does something pursuant to a statute, and there is an inevitable consequence, it can't be liable for damages unless you can prove that it was done negligently.

Common fact scenario is a sewage flood. If a sewer backs up onto your property because of an extraordinary / unforeseeable rain storm, you can't sue the City because it chose to put the sewer near your house. But if the sewer backs up because the City did something wrong, you can. Under this rule, can't see how an airport could be liable. Noise = inevitable, and I can't imagine a legitimate fact scenario where an airport could be "negligent" for planning runways and approach paths.
 
User avatar
proudavgeek
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 9:29 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:42 pm

KBOS wrote:
My house is three miles off the end of runway 23 at KPVD. When we were looking at it for the first time we were sitting outside waiting for the sellers agent. A Southwest 737 went right over low and loud, our real estate agent turned white as a ghost figuring he just blew the sale, I turned to him and asked "Did you catch the tail number?" Personally, I love living that close to the airport, I'm sitting at home 15 min after I land every single flight :)



I live 20 minutes from PHL, across the river, and love the planes taking off or landing, especially when the landing gear is out.... Even bought the paid app for FL24 to see where the planes are going. With PHL becoming a bigger TATL hub for AA, the geek in me is very happy with the house we bought.
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1521
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:10 pm

I've lived near airports (some small, some top 25) all my life. Never have I had a noise complaint. Once in a while there's some unique flight that is annoying, but hardly the norm.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:15 pm

Jerseyguy wrote:
(actually they should have replaced it in the 2000s when the same NIMBYs ran Southwest out of town)


Can you explain this part, please. I don't recall WN serving TTN. Was it they were considering it, but ran off by the NIMBYS?
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
blockski
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:17 pm

quintol wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=264357#p2810651

According to the linked post, YYZ and IAD have contracts with residents near the airport that prevent them from bringing legal challenges against any future expansion of the airport. However, I've been unable to find such a contract, or any evidence of their existence, online. Do these legal releases really exist? If so, are they not made public? If not, how come?


I'm not aware of any such blanket restrictions at IAD. However, there is a substantial amount of planning at Dulles to avoid noise complaints. The airport itself is large and has a large noise buffer. Additionally, land beneath the most common approach paths is zoned for non-residential land uses. All of these tools are aimed at shaping future development; they don't prevent someone who was living there before the ordinance from bringing a legal challenge, or for suing to stop airport development on different grounds.

Loudoun County, VA has an airport noise overlay zone, that sets out the decibel contours for the planned build-out of the airport, and for property within a certain contour, any new buildings must provide a certian level of soundproofing as well as an 'Avigation Easement' which would give the airport the right to the airspace, and therefore the right to make noise.

Avigation Easements. For all residential dwelling units to be
constructed between the Ldn 60-65 aircraft noise contours.
Prior to the approval of a Record Plat creating residential lots or
for existing lots of record, prior to the issuance of a zoning
permit, the owner(s) of such parcel or parcels shall dedicate an
avigation easement to the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, indicating the right of flight to pass over the property,
as a means to securing the long-term economic viability of
Washington Dulles International Airport.


Now, that only applies to lots created after the adoption of this ordinance.

Starts on page 353 of the PDF: https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/ ... 003?bidId=

You can see the maps here: https://www.flydulles.com/iad/iad-dulle ... -decisions

The Green area is where you have to dedicate the Avigation Easement to the airport; the orange area is where no new residential uses are allowed.
 
aklrno
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:28 pm

Truckee, California has required some newer subdivisions to include airport easements in recent years so buyers recognize they are potentially in the flight path, but older residents (like me) bought before this was a requirement.

I get very upset at those who would say I live near an airport so I have no say in changes to that airport. I should have known it was coming. Ridiculous! If you buy a house down the street from a convenience store with 2 gas pumps and 20 years later the owner decides to enlarge to a Wal-Mart with a truck stop and parking for 100 semis do you just accept your fate? You should have known it was coming?

When I moved into the neighborhood the runway was 5000 or 6000 feet long. Seems like a lot, but at 6000 elevation with density altitude sometimes 9000 it was limited to pretty small , mostly piston/ turboprop aircraft. The airport said they wanted to add 1000 feet "for safety" for these aircraft. Well, it is safer for them, but also allows lots of large business jets, much noise, flying much larger patterns, sometimes 500 feet above my house. That expansion completely changed the nature of the airport. A couple of years ago the airport said that "for safety" and noise abatement(!) they wanted to add another 1000 feet. I told them my neighbors and I would sue. This being California we would have been in court until we all die. The expansion was cancelled.

The airport taxes us residents, 99% of whom gain nothing from jets at the airport. They are rolling in cash and that tax money is burning a hole in their pockets. They can't stop building when they should just stop taxing us and rely on users to finance the airport. Let the jets fly to RNO and have a 11,000 foot runway then take a 15 minute helo ride directly to their homes!
 
Jerseyguy
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:18 am

727LOVER wrote:
Jerseyguy wrote:
(actually they should have replaced it in the 2000s when the same NIMBYs ran Southwest out of town)


Can you explain this part, please. I don't recall WN serving TTN. Was it they were considering it, but ran off by the NIMBYS?


Yes, Southwest wanted Trenton to build a new terminal in 2006, they got the FONSI/ROD but there was a lawsuit and Southwest pulled out.

Page 30 from this document
(https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 202008.pdf)

Trenton-Mercer Airport ROD Withdrawn and Third Circuit Challenge Dismissed
On June 6, 2006, the Board of Supervisors of Lower Makefield Township and Bucks Residents for Responsible Airport Management challenged FAA’s April 2006 issuance of a FONSI/ROD for the construction of a new replacement terminal and other capital projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan at Trenton Mercer Airport in Board of Supervisors of Lower Makefield Township v. FAA, (3rd Cir. No. 06-2929). The associated Environmental Assessment evaluated the construction of a replacement, 2-gate terminal building, taxiway improvements, additional parking spaces, demolition and removal of the existing Tennis Center, and the construction of a storage and maintenance building. These projects would enable the airport to meet existing and potential future aviation needs and to meet FAA guidelines and policies with respect to airside and landside facilities. The petitioners alleged that the FONSI/ROD failed to consider, or consider adequately, the environmental impacts and the purpose and need for the project. Specifically, they argued that FAA failed to consider the potential increased overflights affecting their community and the resulting noise and pollution. They claimed that the FONSI/ROD arbitrarily limited the scope of FAA review. Petitioners requested that the court direct FAA to conduct a full environmental impact study and to prepare an environmental impact statement. In April 2008, the sponsor advised FAA that it had no current plans to proceed with the terminal project. As a result, on June 9, the FAA issued an order withdrawing its February 2006 FONSI/ROD. On June 24 FAA and petitioners jointly filed a joint motion to dismiss the pending litigation over the terminal replacement project and on June 30, the Third Circuit granted the motion.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Legal Releases for Residents Living Near Airports

Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:30 am

Nice joke, DFW17L.

I spoke to a guy living close to Munich airport what he thinks of expansion. He was against it.
He actually didn't live there before and told me that a lot of houses were built in the village he lived after the airport came.
I believe an airport expansion leads to new jobs which require extra housing. Unemployment in Freising county is low and housing prices/ rents high.
If one flies into Munich one mostly sees greenery. Around Munich airport it's even more so. Housing markets are no functioning markets as there is massive government interference. (However functioning markets lead to urban sprawl.)
I wonder how acceptable airport expansions would be if they had to be accompanied with massive housing expansion?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos