I came across an interesting site this afternoon, that demonstrates a perfect example of “not in my backyard”. Yet another resident that moves in near an airport that existed even before the neighborhood did, and then tries to close the airport as a nuisance. While the argument is well written, the arguments he puts out are seriously flawed:

1) he contends the airport did not exist before the housing development… although he clearly states that there was a privately owned (but open to the public) airfield in that location prior to the housing, and the county bought the airport and took over its use after the housing development was built. (so because the city didn’t own it it didn’t exist?)

2) Most of his calculations of statistics or facts or figures are pulled out of the air.. almost all are based on his assumptions, not science or actual hard numbers.

3) (and this is the one that I find particularly offensive) Since most of the residents of the neighborhood don’t use the airport, it shouldn’t be there, since it is only a playground for the rich. I suppose we should also close all the public golf courses, marinas, racetracks, stadiums, etc.

4) Having the airport in the neighborhood increases poverty and crime (he bases this on studies that say property values are lower than neighborhoods that are not close to an airport) I’m sorry, but that is just stupid. While an airport may decrease property value relative to other neighborhoods, there are a lot of factors which increase crime in a neighborhood. Last I checked there wasn’t an airport near the tenderloin, hunters point, and on the flip side, redwood shores is pretty nice… and directly under the pattern of KSQL… so whatever dude.

5) The part which really puts this to rest for me is that he goes on to say that KRHV should close and the traffic should be moved to Moffet (actuallly, opening up Moffet to GA would rock), San Jose, San Martin, Palo Alto, etc. In other words all that air traffic is just fine, as long as it isn’t over MY house. I say you don’t like your neighborhood? MOVE and quit your whining — You KNEW the airport was there when you moved in. Nevermind the fact that San Jose is pushing out small planes and training and there are three year waits for tie downs at many of these “alternates”

6) And of course there is the ubiquitous noise complaint. I never have been able to figure this one out in relation to a small airport. The FAA has set limits on how close residences can be to the airport based on the noise contours. My house is directly under the pattern for San Jose and Moffet Field and under the straight in for Palo Alto. I work directly under the pattern at KSQL. I know what airplane noise is. In fact, when the National Guard is flying the C-130s they are above my house at about 500 feet as they turn final. Those are the only planes I hear (and the C-130 with four engines/props tends to be loud). Even when they are landing over my house into SJC I can barely hear the 757′s an they go overhead somewhere around 1500 feet or so. And they rarely fly later than 9 pm. Now you take an airport like RHV or SQL and you are talking about small single engine planes that are probably registering less noise inside your house than your television set. Granted, there are probably a few twin and jet operations each day… well before I say that, lets see what airnav has to say about Reid:

-NO PURE JET AND NO SURPLUS MIL ACFT EXCEPT THOSE MEETING FAR 36 NOISE CRITERIA.
-NO TURNS BLO 500′ WHEN LEAVING PATTERN EXCEPT RWY 31R DEPARTURES – AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER DEPARTURE MAKE A SLIGHT RIGHT TURN TO AVOID SCHOOL ONE HALF MILE OFF DEPARTURE END.
-NO TOUCH & GO LNDGS BTN 2100-0700.
-NO SIMULATED EMERGENCIES IN ARPT TFC AREA

Well, no jets there, and no touch and goes between 9pm and 7am. Yes, the airport worked with the residents to institute noise abatement procedures to keep things quiet. It’s funny, but at the office, I hear one airplane a day… it’s a twin that comes in at around three in the afternoon. Otherwise the only thing I hear are the cars blasting their stereos outside the building. Our friend here cites a Cornell university study about noise pollutions effect on health and well being, then turns around and says that it was in relation to a German airport with primarily jet aircraft, but we can apply the results to Reid. Mmmkay. He als says that an EPA installed noise monitor in his backyard registers 70 – 80 db. Well that is about equivalent to someone yelling or a vacuum cleaner. My neighbor makes more noise with his lawnmower.

Well I could go on, but fortunately, the FAA, AOPA, and the county supervisors agree — RHV should remain open.

UPDATE: I finally found the noise maps as published by the airport commission… the location of the EPA monitor mentioned above is well outside of the 60db contour (by about 1.5 miles, it is near the school in the extreme north of the yellow area on the map. It is however, directly under the pattern for departing aircraft.). The data from the 2002 study shows there were some individual peaks in the range he claims, but the hourly noise level generally ranged in the 40 – 60 decible range (ambient noise levels range from 40 – 52). This is about as loud as normal speech.

View the 2007 data
View the 2002 data