Our first meeting with the Airport Issues Roundtable
Ben DuPree
Last week, Sam and I attended our first meeting with the Airport Issues Roundtable (AIR). We both received a good introduction to the issues associated with the airport, including concerns by residents of the Wilkes neighborhood.
After his introductory remarks, Sam asked, “We’d love your feedback but, since I’m here now, what can I do to help?”
Several AIR members spoke passionately about the need for alternative arrival flight paths over the Wilkes neighborhood.
Sam underscored that the only way these problems will be adequately addressed is if AIR’s members work in close connection with the FAA, the Citizen’s Noise Advisory Committee (CNAC), and the Port of Portland. Sam said, “We must consolidate our efforts in order to more effectively, and creatively, address concerns.”
AIR’s members readily agreed that we need more duologue between advisory committees and must get others involved. “AIR and CNAC need to cooperate,” stated Maryhelen Kincaid of AIR, “and we must bolster citizen involvement.”
Sam promised to work closely with AIR in its efforts to increase participation and on the cross-cutting issues that affect AIR, neighborhoods around the airport, the Port, and the FAA. At the same time, Sam promised to fight for AIR. “I will make sure that AIR’s specific concerns are not diluted,” he asserted.
Currently, AIR is working to update its charter, mitigate concerns surrounding the Wilkes neighborhood, and discuss the delays in the city’s June 18 land-use planning processes.
What do you think about airport noise? Do you have any concerns regarding airport issues that you would like addressed by AIR?
Posted by Ben DuPree on July 29, 2005
(3) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under 100 Hours, North Portland
Comments by site visitors
Since the late 1930s, air traffic has been going to/from PDX in its current location. Many homes along its flight paths were in place already....many more were not. For many current homeowners, we are the ones that moved into the flight paths of PDX.....not the other way around. I am one of those homeowners whose home has small FedEx-type aircraft over its home every single evening...providing our city with air freight service that we all appeciate having....you know, send a package today and it's across the country the next morning. I can also hear the trains throughout the night as they move freight along the rails bringing a much-needed boost to our economy. The noise is almost comforting in some strange sort of way....I just love hearing the trains in the night, even though they wake me up. I also enjoy the airplanes overhead, kind of nostalgic, I guess.
To me, if you want to start working on "noise" that doesn't belong, I guess we should begin enforcing our city's noise regulations with regard to loud stereo's in cars driving up and down the streets....or consistently loud neighbors/homeowners who have parties and such that regularly that disturb those around them.....or vehicles whose exhaust systems are not legal are SO loud....you know the type. Noise pollution is definitely an issue. But with regard to airplane and such, I can't see it. It's so momentary...so short-lived. And it's such a boost to our struggling economy here in Portland.
Posted by: Arnie | Aug 2, 2005 10:26:43 AM
Arnie,
I don't believe the concern demands removal of air traffic; it would seek the use of alternative flight pathes and routes. Some could argue that the issue is not a temporary, moment-by-moment one, as the airlines use those flight paths with enough regularity to create a semi-constant situation.
Posted by: Ben DuPree | Aug 2, 2005 2:28:06 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
In my humble opinion, flight paths over neighborhoods should be okay during the day (i.e. 9-5) but not during the hours of family time.
Absurd definitions of family time not welcome.
Posted by: Benjamin Kaplin | Aug 1, 2005 6:29:51 PM