Letters

I would like to comment on your article “Airport Is Economic Driver” [“Pilots Group Says East Hampton Airport Drives $77 Million Into Local Economy, Supports 800 Jobs,” 27east.com, January 27]. The print headline is very misleading. It assumes that the airport brings great economic benefit to the community — and this is just not so.

It refers to one self-serving study commissioned by an alliance of pilots and plane owners, not necessarily local ones, which points to increased spending and jobs as a result of the airport.

In truth, a far greater number of residents suffer from the adverse effects of the airport than benefit from it. The headline should have read: “Airport is economic driver for pilots, aviation companies.”

I would also like to address several statements contained in the article. You stated that the biased study by those who have an economic interest in the airport “does not detail how its research reached the 872 jobs … and does not explain how it estimated the total in salaries.” The article also stated that pilots and plane owners “think … most East Hampton residents would prefer to have the airport in their midst.”

The pilots and plane owners may think this, but it is not true. Maybe the select few who use the airport would rather have it, but the rest of the residents — not only in East Hampton but almost every one of us in Southampton, Shelter Island, Southhold and Riverhead — find the environmental hazards caused by the airport unacceptable and detrimental to our quality of life.

Your article correctly stated that the Federal Aviation Administration and federal courts have rebuffed local efforts to rein in the din from aircraft traffic, especially commuter helicopters, that has “exploded in volume in the last decade.”

You also correctly stated that Gianpaolo de Felice said the economic study was built to keep the airport here. Obviously, it was self-serving before it was even written. The study allegedly shows the town the “value” of this asset. The asset would have even more value if it were repurposed into a park or even a solar field benefiting far more residents.

Mr. de Felice also stated his group is working to tamp down the noise. Where have you been? The number of noise complaints have been expanding exponentially over the past decade in tandem with the number of flights, which now number more than 30,000 a year! Curfews will only reduce the hours of disruption but not the number of flights or environmental damage.

Finally, Mr. de Felice stated that he is sensitive to the complaints of the “anti-aircraft people.” Where have you been? How are you addressing their needs? How are you working on that?

Why do you wait until you are threatened with closure — which seems to be the logical solution?

Ron Klausner

Water Mill