|
Why Complain?
How many time have you heard: "You knew there's an airport near
by, so stop whining" Oh, really? (Read our short essay below)
The Importance of Your Noise Complaint
Like most
people in Milwaukee, your home is probably your biggest single investment. You maintain it. You insure it. You keep it safe and comfortable to live in. You protect the investment you've made because it is valuable to
you.
When something happens that might jeopardize your investment or your quality of life, there is little doubt that you would do your best to control it.
When airplane noise
invades your property it is affecting your quality of life. It could also lead to making your property less valuable. Common sense dictates action on your part. Logging a noise complaint makes a record of your concerns.
Example of an email Noise Complaint
1. When you're ready simply click here to bring up a pre-addressed email message box
2. Type in you complaints similar to the example below --
Please log the following noise complaint(s):
(date), (time) -- Loud jet take-off that disrupted my sleep
(date), (time) -- Low flying plane
(date), (time) -- Frequency and loudness of planes taking off to the (direction - North, South, East, West)
A follow-up letter regarding your investigation into my complaint(s) is requested. Thank you.
Your Name
Your Address
Your City and Zip Code
3. Send the message.
[If you don't
use our link the address is info@mitchellairport.com Be sure to put ''Noise Complaint(s)'' in Subject line of your email]
Example of a Called-In Noise Complaint
Dial 747-4677 Listen to the message,
then after the tone be brief and as accurate as you can:
"This is (your name).
My address is (your address).
I am registering an airport noise complaint that occurred (date and time),
when (describe the disturbance as best you can -- low flying plane, loud
take-off,
ground activity, etc.).
I (want/don't want) a follow-up call from the airport."
Hang up. Remember that if you don't give your
name and address and are just calling anonymously, your complaint might not be registered. YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL THE MOMENT THE INCIDENT HAPPENS. SOME PEOPLE KEEP A LOG OF THEIR COMPLAINTS AND CALL THEM IN EVERY COUPLE
OF DAYS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Stop whining"
Many of us have heard, "You knew the airport was there when you bought your home, so stop whining. If you don't like it just
move."
A radio talk show host keeps saying, "Don't move next to an airport and then complain about the noise." This same guy is appalled when a corner tavern turns into a high
traffic gentlemans' night club, saying the neighbors didn't expect that sort of thing and shouldn't allow it.
Most of us did know the airport was nearby, and we did expect a certain amount of noise
because of it. We were willing to forego some of that inconvenience in order to live in an area that had decent homes, decent neighbors, was a place we could raise our kids without too many worries, and showed a
promise of stability so that our investment would not be squandered. But over the years our equivalent "corner tavern" has been slowly transformed into a "night club."
Many homes around the airport have now been considered to be non-compatible with airport operations. How did that happen? What did those inconsiderate people do to their property that
makes it so "non-compatible" with the airport? Was it their fault that a growing airport now finds it necessary to encroach on their property and their lives in order to provide service to the flying public?
No, of course not! All they did was take part in the great American dream of homeownership. For many, it's their largest single assets. Now the full use and enjoyment of their property has been
diminished because they apparently failed to predict the future.
Should we all pack up and move away, let the neighborhood go to hell, and let the next guy -- if there is a next guy -- deal with
it? Or should we stay and work toward stability and sustainability?
The airport -- Mitchell Field as it was know then (our equivalent "friendly tavern" posing few problems) -- was
designed in and for a different era. Heavy air traffic was not on anybody's radar screen. The City of Milwaukee saw no need to implement a land use program that would limit residential building around the airport.
Besides, who in city government would propose limiting the highest possible use of land (residential) and consequently turn away tax revenues amounting to millions and millions of dollars year after year just to protect
the interests of Milwaukee County's airport and its users? After all, it was a regional airport serving the needs of the community -- that's all. No worries here!
If City officials had reason
to believe land use around the airport need not be controlled, then how can anyone expect home builders and owners -- both recent and for years past -- to know any different? Common sense, you say? Whose are we talking
about?
Most of the homes that are near the airport area were built well before air travel became popular -- well before the jet age came to Milwaukee. Were the builders of those homes
negligent for not anticipating what impact the future airport would produce? How could they have possibly known that their efforts would prove to be "non-compatible"? Shouldn't their have been some sort of
warning? Even a land use plan or a zoning restriction on home building would have been helpful. Apparently local government never had a crystal ball. But home builders and home owners, well, you should have predicted
the future.
Today Mitchell Field awkwardly finds itself in the jet age. It's now known as General Mitchell International Airport and it's the 50th busiest of some 430 commercial airports in the
U.S. with somewhere around 600 operations per day (an "operation" is a take off or a landing). That amounts to about 25 operations an hour – one every two and a half minutes all day and all night. Using our
"night club" analogy, could you imagine a steady stream of patrons coming and going down your street at that rate? Who wouldn't complain (whine)?
If a finger must be pointed, point it at
County government – the entity that is responsible for planning and eagerly growing the airport –- trading short term profit for long term livability -- but not responsible for land use planning. That, of course, would
be the city – which just sat back and let it happen. Why? Remember the highest use of the land and tax revenue?
It would be appropriate to say that if anyone could have predicted the future impact
it would have been local governments – both City and County. Although they don't have a crystal ball, they do have extensive staffs of planners, consultants, and engineers. Both governmental units failed to exercise
common sense -- to this day there is no land use plan or a plan to address the environmental consequences of airport growth. And County government, continues its plans to further expand the airport despite all the
consequences, i.e., livability vs. dubious profit for someone.
Homeowners? Well, we're caught in the middle. We could just move away and let the neighborhoods go to hell. Or we can try to
keep our neighborhoods stable and protect our investment at the same time. But an unwilling and unrelenting County government seems to think that a bigger airport will solve a whole lot of unrelated problems. They call
the airport an "economic engine" for our area. Yet, little by little, year after year, population and businesses are removing themselves from the city that hosts the airport. Where's the economic gain here?
So, next time someone tells you to stop whining, ask them what they'd do if one of their neighbors had a dog that barked all night, or left a diesel truck idling on the street all day -- all with the
blessings and encouragement of government.
Better yet, ask them what they'd do if their corner bar was slowly transformed into a noisy cabaret that was open 24 hours a day. If they cared
about their neighborhood, somewhere along the line wouldn't they have stepped up and said something, like most responsible citizens would do?
Or is that "whining"?
A mutually agreeable solution is possible if both parties worked toward that end.
Your thoughts?
|
