Observations on the Danbury Airport noise situation
by Pilgrim Vin

The questions and controversies surrounding the growth and operation of Danbury Airport come down to the age old question of culture: how do we balance the needs of the many and the public good, with individuals who claim harm from the representative operation of that good? After considering the upfront impact of noise; (I live directly in the north-south corridor of air traffic) security operations; the needs that the airport fulfills; and the recent public forum conducted on the topic(s) - I think a reasonable person may conclude the following:

1. The noise complaints/concerns are largely from 20-40 Ridgefield/Ridgebury/Danbury residents along the western edge of the airport. The most upfront and vocal of these residents say there are more concerned residents, but that they have been thwarted, defeated and silenced by airport/government sloth at complaint response.

2. That costly ($300,000) studies on noise and untold government man-hours were probably ill-spent, with findings showing that it comes down to enforcing already existing regulations and practices. The airport management demonstrated at the public forum that they have indeed put procedures in place to minimize air traffic (where possible) on the disputed Runway 26 - heading west -- and that in most day-in and day-out operations, the airport is sensitive to these complaints, with the exception of picking up the telephone at all.

2a. Where the airport must take blame is in its belief that it is operating to the letter and spirit of the governing laws (it is) and therefore responding to the complaints of a few constitutes a nuisance that they know can go nowhere, though they are entrusted with the duty of handling said complaints. The airport management is fatigued at fielding complaints that they have no mandate or directive to address, but it undercuts their ethical authority and image with the community when they behave in this somewhat aloof fashion.

3. That the Federal Aviation Administration, the State of Connecticut and the Town of Danbury - design, standardize and execute policy for this airport, and do so in full view of the public -these are the things we must accept in a democratic republic. The people can effect change through petition, the courts and the vote - but the process only guarantees that the grievance will be heard, not satisfied.

4. In lieu of a persuasive argument that "air traffic should be reduced over MY house" AND with the knowledge that many airport neighbors like myself, were heard to say they accept the ramifications of being its neighbors with eyes wide open...the unhappy petitioners have resorted to parsing procedures the administration has indeed gaffed (noise study not on website, noise projections not extended to 2011, standards for jet emissions not up to date) and substituting these for a substantive argument on merits.

Lastly, that this is a matter of the opinions of less than 50 persons in a community of over 75,000 to which there is untold economic and recreational benefit of possessing a regional airport. In some small, and probably immeasurable way, having such a facility in their region has increased the value of the homes affected by air traffic, just as much as having been diminished by disdain on the part of potential buyers by noise. The public forum doesn't always result in changes to the law or even to the administration of it, but it is proper that it has been heard and to this reviewer's mind, it brought vigilance to the issue. We can only hope that the petitioners and complainants will maintain their vigilance, but not pursue quixotic civil redress in lawsuits or similar proceedings. If it comes down to a reasonable judge or arbiter, they are going to say that the airport has performed due diligence, under the operation of law, and that unfortunately, "Sometimes it IS in your backyard."