It doesn't feel like its a question of which right is greater. If bike lanes or golf courses caused such widespread noise disturbances I'm sure we would be talking about restricting their use on the east end. Its just that airport noise causes a lot of people a lot of frustration. So I think that is why we are talking about restricting it. It also seems like a no-brainer to allow the town to control the flow of aircraft into the east end. The town controls the ability of developers to install golf courses and it controls which roads have bike lanes. why shouldn't the town be able to control the number of aircraft? " Nov 14, 14 4:46 PM
well the town conceivably could control the number of aircraft by closing the airport. So its not right to say they have ZERO control. (but I get the point.) And closing the airport is a drastic measure. But come on!! if pilots threaten to endlessly circle the skies in response to reasonable measures put in place by the town that address widespread concrete concerns articulated by the population and supported by a noise impact study... what is a reasonable person supposed to think? If time slots are a bad idea... fine. What would be a better idea to reduce the number of flights into and out of that airport and address the noise complaints that a sizeable portion of our community share> " Nov 14, 14 5:06 PM
well the town conceivably could control the number of aircraft by closing the airport. So its not right to say they have ZERO control. (but I get the point.) And closing the airport is a drastic measure. But come on!! if pilots threaten to endlessly circle the skies in response to reasonable measures put in place by the town that address widespread concrete concerns articulated by the population and supported by a noise impact study... what is a reasonable person supposed to think? If time slots are a bad idea... fine. What would be a better idea to reduce the number of flights into and out of that airport and address the noise complaints that a sizeable portion of our community share> " Nov 17, 14 12:07 PM
Finally a sensible dialogue on noise pollution. Well done E.H. " Jan 21, 15 8:23 AM
The "real" culture of Montauk is being put together by a city-folk transplant...? " Jan 26, 15 9:24 AM
Does anyone take Bill Wilkinson seriously anymore? He has set up a mini 'K' Street on the East End and walked directly from office to paid lobbyist. I mean he is using his "former town supervisor" title to convey authority on this issue but he is just another paid shill! I'm so sick of politicians and former politicians sticking their hand out, taking money, and preaching nonsense. I don't care where you land on the airport issue. Seeing a former supervisor in the pocket of one of the parties here is enough to turn your stomach. " Feb 10, 15 8:29 AM
I don't think that's right. I mean 20 years ago I think I would agree with you but the current level of traffic into East Hampton is staggering. The airport has been abused. I can't think of another word for it given the volume of helicopter and plane traffic we endured this year. It has become a quality of life issue and the majority of the community here feels that there should be some limit reasonable limit on airport noise. There is nothing patently unreasonable about the town's suggestion and there is no reason it can't be further modified if it proves successful. I for one support both the restrictions proposed by the town board and the continued existence of the airport. They aren't mutually exclusive. Let's not condemn the airport and reason just yet. " Feb 10, 15 8:48 AM
Classic drivel. If you can't discredit the ideas, try to discredit the person. The fact is, a majority of residents are sick of airport noise and the town board is finally responding. But why take the time to engage with that reality when you can pedal rumors so easily? " Mar 19, 15 1:41 PM
Is it just me or have there been an inordinate amount of structure fires in the past three years on the east end? Any thoughts as to what is going on?" Apr 16, 15 9:45 AM
I think a pretty strong argument could be made that there was a very objective poll on this question in the form of the last town board elections that saw a number of candidates run on this precise issue. The candidate supporting some form of airport restrictions won decisively. " May 19, 15 10:19 AM
Its hard to understand the vitriol animating those seeking to block the town's restrictions. The restrictions are specifically addressing a problem articulated by a considerable segment of this community. Perhaps the restrictions could be better refined... and that seems like a conversation worth having (the local pilot exception seems a good place to start) but the lawsuit takes the position no restrictions are acceptable. That makes it hard to find common ground. " May 19, 15 11:44 AM
Those complaints all seem valid, but they are overwhelmingly related to funding at the airport. That seems like a separate topic that the town needs to address.
Question 1: How does the town address the very real noise concerns of the community?
Question 2: How does the town provide necessary funding to make the airport safe?
Suing the town to compel it to take FAA funding is no middle ground. FAA funding will pay for necessary improvements at the airport but by taking the money the town will lose the ability impose any regulations at all on aircraft noise. A middle ground would see the town self-fund the necessary improvements at the airport and impose reasonable restrictions on airport noise. The lawsuit explicitly prevents the town from addressing the latter. Instead why not focus on building support for the former? " May 20, 15 12:39 PM
You know what would be really nice? A functional commuter train. You know... that ran more than twice a day." May 20, 15 4:33 PM
Isn't that exactly what the board did? The original proposal was a complete ban on helicopters. That was modified to allow helicopters during certain periods. The definition of "noisy" aircraft was also modified to allow smaller planes to escape the restrictions. Those "modified" restrictions are still rejected by certain members of the pilot community. Where does that leave people looking for middle ground? What restrictions could the private plane and helicopter community live with and why aren't the current modified restrictions which represent a middle ground of sorts reached after tedious debate sufficient? At least to try for a summer? " May 26, 15 4:06 PM