In a pathetically out-of-touch editorial in the Monday Virginian-Pilot (reproduced below), the Editorial Board quite incredulously challenges the Navy to demonstrate that there have been -- and continue to be -- substantial numbers of noise complaints relating to NAS Oceana jet aircraft operations - as if complaints alone definitively describe the depth and breadth of the problem in this community.

Where, pray tell, have you been hanging out, Editorial Board members?

Haven't you read the numerous news accounts on the jet noise issue appearing in your own newspaper, over the past six years?

Are you even aware that there has been a citizen advocacy group, some 6,000 + strong, in existence during that period, which has been proactively and visibly engaging both the Navy and the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake?

Have you not been listening to the shrill cries wafting north across the North Carolina border in opposition to the proposed Outlying Landing Field, which would, when constructed, directly impact only 144 residents of that State?

Are you unaware that the Department of Defense's position on encroachment is a national position - not local? Thus, the Navy's recent stronger language is a reflection of the fact that the City has for the past several decades simply shut its eyes to the Navy's concerns regarding encroachment - and simply did as it pleased!

Do you not read the Letters to the Editor appearing on your own Editorial Page?

Moreover, regardless of the numbers of "registered" noise complaints , there is a plethora of empirical research which unequivocally demonstrates the harmful health effects and learning deficits arising from both high level single event impacts and chronic noise exposure.

And still further, is the Pilot aware of the monumental efforts and the billions spent by the federal government (FAA-Part 150) to provide extensive noise abatement relief in hundreds of communities around the country? And is the editorial staff aware of the significant cost of $100 billion (Stage 3) borne by our nation's civilian carriers to comply with federally mandated reduction of jet noise? A sound reduction from levels that are dramatically lower to begin with, in contrast to F/A-18's!

And then, for this Editorial to imply that residents who have registered their complaints regarding aircraft noise by joining a law suit are doing so solely for monetary award. To speculate in this way on motives is outrageously poor journalism - while not recognizing that these citizens have legitimate property rights (as well as health, safety, education, and quality of rights) and concerns of their own!

The Pilot must think its readers are too naïve to consider that the basis for the Pilot's editorial concern might well be influenced by the leverage demonstrated by the real estate and residential development industry in this community!

Further, a reading of the Editorial (again, produced below) leads one to conclude that it is highly unlikely that any Navy empirical evidence of any sort would register with those who hold -- and wrote -- this incredible Opinion. It seems apparent that the Pilot simply seeks to engage the Navy in a mindless numbers game, so that it may then continue to minimize any potential responsible Navy response.

Worse, the Pilot Editorial staff has once again shown itself to be non-adverse to mischaracterizing "facts," in what appears to be deliberate attempts to misrepresent the overall issue, both in this and in previous editorials.

In an editorial of December 16th, the writers falsely asserted that commercial aircraft were significantly louder than military jet aircraft, in order, it would seem, to heighten community anxiety over a hypothetical "Virginia Beach International Airport" scenario as being a far worse alternative to NAS Oceana.

Therefore, with this message, we are constrained to remind all CCAJN's -- and others who are concerned about this ongoing, vexing public issue -- to continue to speak out -- and to register appropriate complaints, through established channels:

1) A Letter to the Pilot Editor, Letters@pilotonline.com.
2) Oceana Jet Noise Hotline, 433-2162.
3) Oceana Website Complaint form --http://www.nasoceana.navy.mil/NoiseConcern/

It is quite amazing that it is the Editorial Board itself that now reminds us -- in its own, convoluted way -- that we must continue to remain vigilant.

Do not be intimidated by the Pilot's Editorial Board!

Continue to exercise your rights as Americans!

Responsible Dissent is the true Sound of Freedom!

Editorial

BACK TO TOP

Navy should release Oceana noise complaints
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 29, 2003
To make sure that home buyers around Oceana Naval Air Station had the full story on jet noise, Virginia Beach City Council years ago adopted a noise disclosure ordinance.

Now it’s the Navy’s duty to make a noise disclosure — on the number of complaints it has received about the thunder Oceana training flights.

The Navy told Virginia Beach officials last week that its tough new stance against building around the airfield is based on rising public intolerance for jet noise.

“We finally realized we were getting too many complaints,” said Alan Zussman, director of base development for the Navy in a meeting with council members. Zussman is the Washington official who wrote the policy.

To keep the peace with its neighbors, Zussman worries that the Navy will have to reduce Oceana’s usefulness as a master jet base by restricting flight patterns or airport hours. To keep the complaints down, it wants to curb new housing.

“The reality is,” Zussman said, “it’s loud outside.”

That’s not a surprise to anyone who lives within a few miles of the base.

What’s surprising are Navy assertions that noise complaints have risen to a point requiring much more drastic limitations on development than the Navy agreed to as recently as this spring.

So far, the Navy has not backed up its claim by making public the actual numbers of noise complaints. Given the consequences from its policy, Beach leaders ought to insist on knowing a lot more about the complaints, where the Navy draws the line and how it arrived at the breaking point.

A lawsuit against the Navy over jet noise is often cited. But this is hardly evidence of a popular uprising. It originated with nine residents of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake who alleged that jet noise had diminished their property values.

When their lawyer advertised the possibility of collecting money from the Navy, 2000 more joined the class action lawsuit. But they had nothing to lose; they were not required to put up any money.

A federal judge has ruled they must file individual suits, a far more expensive proposition. His decision is on appeal.

Based on the hot real estate market, it’s hard to argue that jet noise is slowing sales or holding down property values.

Most Beach residents dismiss jet noise as the “Sound of Freedom.” The popularity of “I love jet noise” bumper stickers contradicts Navy portrayals of an angry citizenry.

Because the Beach is home to tens of thousands of active duty or retired sailors, most civilians understand and admire the sacrifices made by Navy families from long deployments.

So, by comparison, most people accept jet noise as a small price for supporting the Navy.

The apparent public indifference is borne out in regular municipal attitude surveys.

Every few years, city officials take the public’s temperature. Jet noise was barely a blip in the samplings of 500 people in 2000 and again earlier this year.

When asked what is “the most important thing the city could do to make residents more satisfied,” 0.6 percent of residents said the council should “solve the jet noise problems.” It was 1 percent in 2000. The top five concerns this year were traffic congestion, (12.6 percent), building, finishing and improving roads (12.6 percent), lower taxes (6.4 percent), solving storm water drainage problems (5.8 percent) and helping the homeless (4 percent). Jet noise finished behind 30 other issues.

If there’s an uprising in Virginia Beach, the Navy is keeping it a secret. The Navy could make a more credible case for an encroachment crackdown if it made a full noise disclosure.

END