Trouble ahead over small plane fees

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 06:20 PM


What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.




I agree that libertarianism taken to an extreme would result in no roads,
libraries, health care, etc. I don't want to live in a society that is
like the wild west, nor would most others I think.

Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.
Aircraft noise is an externality that has no cost to the aviator. The
victims cannot even identify the fliers, and if they do, no one is
responsible. A classic catch-22: the FAA says the airport is
responsible, the airport says the FAA is responsible, and most of the
fliers simply say "F- You: Its my right to make noise" or silly variants
like the airport was there first. The cost of noise pollution is borne
100% by those on the ground, and they have little to no political recourse
(in most places). As I said before, there are laws on the books in most
communities that target noise pollution: Only plane noise is exempt.


There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects. So there are in fact
negative subsidies. See the BTS study I posted for info.

You might find the Reason Foundation study interesting, and you'll see its
not that harsh on nonbusiness GA (see pp. 31- from below link). They
propose keeping the current GA avgas tax as the preferred funding method,
even though correctly stating that it generates only 3% of Trust Fund $$.
(They also debunk some absurd Boyerisms, but then come down largely on his
side for funding of FSS, for e.g.).

http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf

Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.

Huh? That doesn't stop the noise. And usually the noise is coming from
whoever they hired, who aren't going to stop either. And it drones on
hour after hour, when one neighbor stops, the other starts. And it's a
whine that is very piercing (all the energy is located in a narrow band
of the spectrum) so a mile away even at low volume it is annoying.
Neighbors who blow leaves basically have the attitude "Its my right to
make noise" coupled with the "need" to blow the leaves instead of raking.

There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects.

The gas tax subsidizes the trains. Why shouldn't the subway riders pay
the full cost of the subway, even if it means ten dollars a ticket?
(There are reasons, and they are similar in nature to the GA arguments)

My point in any case is not that GA is or is not subsidized (or should
or should not be). It is that you are inconsistant in your reasoning,
and your choice of target.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 06:47 PM


Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.

Huh? That doesn't stop the noise. And usually the noise is coming from
whoever they hired, who aren't going to stop either. And it drones on
hour after hour, when one neighbor stops, the other starts. And it's a
whine that is very piercing (all the energy is located in a narrow band
of the spectrum) so a mile away even at low volume it is annoying.
Neighbors who blow leaves basically have the attitude "Its my right to
make noise" coupled with the "need" to blow the leaves instead of raking




Jose: Many communities have noise ordinances that target boom boxes,
harleys with straight pipes, leaf blowers etc. If there is noise that
exceeds the community thresholds, you can call the cops. If you started
blowing leaves in a suburb at 2 am, I'll bet the cops would show up. If
you circle in a Mooney at 1000 feet at 2 am, generating even more noise,
there is no penalty. And, the noise maker is completely anonymous.

As far as transportation cross subsidies: Yes, every time you cross a NYC
bridge in a car, you are subsidizing the subways. They get direct taxpayer
subsidies also. But I was talking about direct federal subsidies by
transporation mode: roadways are not subsidized measured by federal
income (gas taxes) vs outlays.

So, I don't think I am being inconsistent. And, I think some modes of
transportation should receive tax subsidies as they create a general
public good. IMO, GA should not fall into that category because the
subsidies are huge, it benefits an extremely small segment of society
(unlike most forms of mass transit that virtually everybody has used at
some point, and some use regularly), and much of it is not even for
transportation, but for recreation.

Many communities have noise ordinances

.... that are totally ineffectual against leaf blowers. They don't blow
at 2 AM , that's not the problem. They blow all day, from 8AM to 8PM.

If there is noise that
exceeds the community thresholds...

Balderdash on the "community". They exceed =my= standards. Why should
a bunch of noise loving fastidious lawn zealots ruin my quiet so that
they can have pristine green?

If
you circle in a Mooney at 1000 feet at 2 am, generating even more noise...

A Mooney at 1000 feet doesw not generate more noise than a leafblower.

...there is no penalty. And, the noise maker is completely anonymous.

Hardly. Radar tracks are all over the place. You can even get them
yourself on the internet. It's going to get even more pervasive.

Yes, every time you cross a NYC
bridge in a car, you are subsidizing the subways. [...]
But I was talking about direct federal subsidies by
transporation mode:

A subsidy is a subsidy.

And, I think some modes of
transportation should receive tax subsidies as they create a general
public good.

That's the first step.

GA should not fall into that category because the
subsidies are huge, it benefits an extremely small segment of society...

The size of the subsidy is irrelevant to whether it creates a public
good. GA creates a general public good.

...(unlike most forms of mass transit that virtually
everybody has used at some point, and some use regularly)

If everybody uses it, then there is no need to subsidize it. Let 'em
pay for their subway rides. Ten bucks a pop, so be it. Why not?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose writes:

Many communities have noise ordinances

... that are totally ineffectual against leaf blowers. They don't
blow at 2 AM , that's not the problem. They blow all day, from 8AM to
8PM.

If there is noise that
exceeds the community thresholds...

Balderdash on the "community". They exceed =my= standards. Why
should a bunch of noise loving fastidious lawn zealots ruin my quiet
so that they can have pristine green?

For the same reason that a bunch of late-and-light-sleeping pilots, or
programmers, or photographers, or whatever should be able to prevent
people from working on their lawn before it gets hot outside.

Perfectly legitemate desires can conflict.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On 2006-04-11, Skylune wrote:
or silly variants
like the airport was there first.

Why is it 'silly'? I agree pilots should be neigbourly and operate in a
manner not to cause undue noise, but really - if you don't like the
sound of aircraft, don't live close to an airport or under busy flight
paths. It's common sense to do at least that much due diligence when
buying a house (almost certainly the most expensive purchase you'll ever
make).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

by Dylan Smith Apr 12, 2006 at 11:19 AM



Why is it 'silly'? I agree pilots should be neigbourly and operate in a
manner not to cause undue noise, but really - if you don't like the
sound of aircraft, don't live close to an airport or under busy flight
paths. It's common sense to do at least that much due diligence when
buying a house (almost certainly the most expensive purchase you'll ever
make).




It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument. It is
irrelevant, even if true. Lots of things existed that are no longer there
because they were deemed no longer in the best interest of the community
(mills, landfills, etc.).

And if that is the argument, Native Americans would have legitimate
grounds to throw all our asses back across the pond to Europe.

I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships. They must not rely
on taxpayer subsidies, but should be funded by the users unless the local
community finds it beneficial to subsidize the airstrip.

This FAA funding creates a huge mess, and a welfare state, which is what
GA is in this country.

This FAA funding creates a huge mess, and a welfare state, which is what
GA is in this country.

You seem to come from the POV that any shared expense system is a
welfare state. This is not so.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield?

I agree that pilots should do everything in their power to reduce the
impact of what they do - that's just Doing The Right Thing and being
neigbourly (regardless of whether the airport was there first or not).
However, to buy a house near an airfield and kvetch about aircraft noise
seems to suggest that the complainer wasn't smart enough to do their due
diligence - and now expects aircraft operators to pay the price for
their own poor research. This is what seems 'silly'.

I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships.

It works both ways too - townships that get built around existing active
airfields also must co-exist with the airfield. House buyers must accept
some responsibility for doing due diligence and not buying a house near
an active airfield if they find aircraft noise bothersome.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

by Dylan Smith Apr 12, 2006 at 03:29 PM


On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield



In that scenario, of course the new homeowners have no right to bitch.
But there are many other scenarios that are much different.


What about the long-term residents living next to (or in the vicinity of)
a small airport that grows into a noise spewing monster? Was not the
resident there before the expansion?

And, how on earth are nonpilots supposed to know where flight paths are
located? These can extend many miles from the airport. Should people
have to become experts in right and left traffic patterns, be able to read
sectionals, etc. when purchasing a home?

Lastly, a group that Boyer attacks as radicals, Stop the Noise, is not
located near any airport. Stunt planes have picked this bucolic (Groton,
Mass) area to practice over. The noise is horrific on sunny weekends. I
have heard it. But these homeowners have no rights under existing FARs.
So they sued in State Court, which AOPA tried to have moved to Federal
Court on pre-emption grounds. (AOPA likes FAA regs when it shields the
industry.) Much to the AOPA's dismay, the court in a remand order ruled
that state statutes do apply, and the case is currently awaiting trial.