Posted in Civil Rights, Environment, Ocean Beach

Point Loman Calls for ‘Fair Compensation for Residents Under the Flight Path’

   September 24, 2024  89 Comments on Point Loman Calls for ‘Fair Compensation for Residents Under the Flight Path’ 0 Likes 3211 Views

By Paige Turner

For those of us living in Point Loma and other communities near San Diego International Airport, the constant roar of planes is something we’ve come to expect—day and night. But recently, the noise has been worse than usual. Due to bad weather, planes are landing in the middle of the night, creating a disturbance that’s hard to ignore, especially for residents trying to sleep or focus on their daily routines.

While San Diego International Airport imposes fines on airlines for violating curfew restrictions on takeoffs, the reality is that these measures do little to comfort those of us living with constant noise pollution. Shouldn’t the residents most impacted by this disruption be compensated for the toll it takes on our quality of life? It’s time to rethink how we address this issue, and the solutions should include monthly compensation for affected residents, reduced energy bills, and even property tax relief.

Understanding the Current Situation

San Diego International Airport enforces a curfew between 11:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. to limit takeoffs during these hours. When airlines violate this curfew, they face fines that can start around $2,000 and increase for repeat offenses. But there’s a significant gap in how this system addresses landings, which are still allowed throughout the night and can be just as disruptive—especially when planes are rerouted due to weather conditions, as we’ve seen recently.

While these fines are meant to deter airlines from scheduling late takeoffs, the money collected doesn’t go directly to the people most affected by the noise. Instead, it goes into airport operations or is funneled into noise mitigation programs. This leaves residents like us to bear the brunt of the noise without any meaningful compensation or relief.

Why Residents Should Be Compensated

Residents who live near the airport aren’t just dealing with the inconvenience of the noise. The impact is real and measurable. We work, raise families, and need rest just like anyone else. But it’s harder to focus on daily life when flights disrupt our sleep or make it difficult to enjoy a quiet evening. Here are three key ideas for how residents could be fairly compensated for this disruption:

1. Monthly Compensation from Curfew Fines:

Currently, the fines imposed on airlines are collected by the airport, but residents never see a direct benefit. A portion of these fines should be redirected into monthly payments for residents most impacted by flight noise, particularly during curfew hours. This would act as direct compensation for the ongoing disruption to our quality of life. After all, it’s our peace and quiet that’s being disturbed, so it’s only fair that we see some of the financial penalties collected from these violations.

2. Reduced Electric Bills:

For many of us, the only way to block out the noise is by keeping windows closed, which often means running air conditioning to keep our homes comfortable. This leads to higher utility bills. To offset this cost, residents in the flight path should receive reduced electricity rates, especially during the warmer months when keeping the house cool without opening windows is nearly impossible. A partnership between the airport and local utility companies could make this possible, offering relief to those most affected.

3. Reduced Property Tax:

In addition to noise pollution, living under a flight path can also aGect property values. For homeowners in areas most impacted by airport noise, property tax reductions should be considered as a form of long-term compensation. This would acknowledge the environmental impact on our homes and provide relief for those whose property values might be diminished by constant aircraft noise. Reduced taxes could help oGset the inconvenience and serve as recognition of the unique challenges faced by residents living near the airport.

How Residents Can Take Action

If you’re a resident affected by aircraft noise, there are ways you can help bring about these proposed changes:

1. Join or Organize a Community Group: Start or join a local advocacy group focused on noise abatement and fair compensation for those living under the flight path. Strength comes in numbers, and a unified group can better advocate for policy changes with the airport authority and city oGicials.

2. Attend Public Meetings: San Diego International Airport and local governments often hold public forums where community members can voice their concerns. Attending these meetings and raising the issue of compensation, noise mitigation, and property tax relief could help push these solutions into the conversation.

3. Contact Local Representatives: Reach out to your city council members and other local representatives to make them aware of the impact noise pollution has on your daily life. Ask for their support in advocating for a portion of the curfew fines to be redistributed to residents and for tax and energy relief.

4. Share Your Experience: The more people know about the impact of airport noise, the stronger the case for change. Write letters to local newspapers, share your story on social media, or speak with neighborhood associations to bring attention to the issue. The goal is to build awareness and get others involved in pushing for meaningful reform.
—–
Paige Turner is the pen name of a resident of Point Loma who advocates for fair compensation for those living under the flight path. She believes that communities impacted by airport noise deserve more recognition and relief.

Share: FacebookLinkedinRedditMixEmail
Author: Source

89 thoughts on “Point Loman Calls for ‘Fair Compensation for Residents Under the Flight Path’”

      1. For LAX the powers that be paid for upgrading resident windows for sound proofing under the flight path.

  2. I live right by the pier and directly under the flight path. The planes don’t bother me at all and no one owes me compensation. Besides, I suspect compensation from the sources mentioned would likely result in something being increased to compensate for the compensation.

    /s/ Chris Kennedy

    1. Thank you for sharing your perspective! It’s great to hear that the planes don’t bother you personally. However, for many residents living near San Diego International Airport, the noise is a real disruption that affects their daily life, sleep, and well-being. The call for compensation is about acknowledging that impact.

      While some people might not feel affected, others find that noise pollution significantly harms their quality of life, especially with planes landing during curfew hours. The idea of compensation isn’t just about noise; it’s about recognizing the broader environmental and health impacts of living in high-noise areas. Studies show that long-term exposure to high levels of noise can lead to stress, sleep disturbances, and even cardiovascular issues.

      As for concerns about increased costs, the goal would be to structure any compensation in a way that doesn’t burden other essential services. Instead, it would come from fines already imposed on airlines for violating curfew regulations, so the funds are redirected to the communities affected rather than being absorbed into airport operations.

      It’s a complex issue, and while not everyone feels impacted, the idea is to provide relief to those who do. Would love to hear your thoughts on this!

      1. Thank you for your advocacy on this, Michelle.
        Forced to leave OB due to high housing costs, I am living in a quiet place now. Quite honestly, I felt myself increasingly stressed out by the constant noise directly overhead. Not to mention all the black gunk that constantly appeared on the window sills from flight exhaust.

    2. Thank you for raising this important point. You’re right—compensation discussions often focus on traditional housing, and that needs to change. Your voice can help expand the conversation to include non-traditional living situations like yours.

      Here are a few steps:
      1. Advocacy: Join **San Diego Citizens for Airport Accountability** to push for more inclusive compensation policies.
      2. Noise Complaints: Even without a fixed home, file complaints to show how noise affects you.
      3. Public Forums: Share your story at local meetings to highlight the impact on those in mobile living situations.

      Your participation could help shape more equitable solutions for all.

    3. I used to live right there too for over a decade before moving to Point Loma under the flight path. The noise over here during landings from the west is legit orders of magnitude worse than being in OB by the pier so I’m not surprised by your perspective. We all have zoned out the takeoffs from our brains over the years – these landings are another animal

      1. Actually, landings from the West fly right over the pier, too, and over me at my place at the pier. They still don’t bother me, and in fact it’s sort of neat watching the plane lights then the plane, itself, slowly emerge from the marine layer.

        /s/ Chris Kennedy

        1. I’m aware they still fly over you. The noise level is not nearly the same. They continue to sharply descend and we are also higher in elevation. I can see folks in windows when they land….

    4. I rented a place on the top of the hill for a bit and it’s much much louder there. You can’t even have a palm tree there without it breaching into the plane’s radar map

  3. We all have different levels as to which we are bothered by things like this. Getting the airport to adjust to your sleep is a joke. Then what about the night worker sleeping during the day? I’m sure the airport was there long before the author so?

    1. Anyone living under the flight path should be eligible for compensation, regardless of when they sleep. Whether someone works night shifts and sleeps during the day or experiences noise disruptions at night, the impact is real. When the airport fines airlines for violating curfew rules, that money should be funneled back into the community, directly benefiting those most affected by the constant noise. Compensation isn’t just about night flights—it’s about providing relief to all residents who face daily disruptions from aircraft noise.

      As for the airport being there first, that’s true for many residents. However, urban development and population growth around airports often increase the number of affected people over time. Just because the airport existed before doesn’t mean the noise pollution’s impact should be dismissed or left unaddressed.

      1. “As for the airport being there first, that’s true for many residents. However, urban development and population growth around airports often increase the number of affected people over time. Just because the airport existed before doesn’t mean the noise pollution’s impact should be dismissed or left unaddressed.”

        So due diligence shouldn’t be considered?

        1. Chris, while due diligence is important, it shouldn’t be the only factor considered. Urban development and population growth have indeed expanded the number of people impacted by the airport over time. Plus, with the airport expanding, the noise will only get worse. Acknowledging that the airport was there first doesn’t absolve the responsibility to mitigate increasing noise pollution or other issues as the area grows. It’s about finding a balance between the needs of the community and the airport’s operations to ensure both can coexist in a way that minimizes negative impacts.

          1. Michelle, “with the airport expanding, the noise will only get worse” assumes that there will be an increased number of flights occurring as a result of the increased terminal size and increased number of gates. This assumption ignores the fact that the number of operations is limited by the runway. SDIA currently experiences about 220K operations (departures or arrivals) per year. When that number gets to 240K, congestion on the airfield will result in significant delays and disruptions. The maximum number of operations a single runway is capable of handing is about 260K, but I seriously doubt that we would ever get to that number because of the congestion/delay issues.

            What the expansion is really about is two things – a better passenger experience (every try to fly out on Southwest on a Friday afternoon?) and more shops and restaurants to generate more revenue.

      2. I will agree to disagree. You’re talking about it’s existence that goes back to the 1920’s. International airport status was in 1934. 1962 it transferred to the Port. Buyer beware is my take.

        2. That’s what my law prof said in first year tort class but I respectfully disagreed. You or the law cannot declare an entire community in the wrong when it tries to achieve some kind of reckoning with airport noise. When I ran for city council in 1987, moving the airport was part of my plank. Of course I didn’t win overall but I took Ocean Beach.

          1. And the planes still fly over. Lol. Couldn’t resist.

            The military had a long history in the area contributing towards the airport’s development. Just another pony up to the government trough for reparations. Haven’t seen anybody chained up in Pt. Loma.

            1. If that’s the case, then the Airport Authority shouldn’t charge any fees. The airport should just be open 24 hours a day. However, if they are going to charge fees and use curfew as the reason, they shouldn’t be able to profit from it. No one is talking about reparations. It’s more the mishandling of funds.

  4. Hi Michelle,

    Well put, thank you. I agree with all your points. I’m a resident of OB, raising my child and taking care of an elderly parent, and the airplane noise past curfew is disruptive.

    My question is how can I make myself counted amongst those that will be considered for compensation? Because I don’t live in a building, I live in a van.

    1. Thank you for raising this important point. You’re right—compensation discussions often focus on traditional housing, and that needs to change. Your voice can help expand the conversation to include non-traditional living situations like yours.

      Here are a few steps:
      1. Advocacy: Join *San Diego Citizens for Airport Accountability to push for more inclusive compensation policies.
      2. Noise Complaints: Even without a fixed home, file complaints to show how noise affects you.
      3. Public Forums: Share your story at local meetings to highlight the impact on those in mobile living situations.

      Your participation could help shape more equitable solutions for all.

    2. I’m sorry, but your van can go anywhere. A home cannot. I don’t have any understanding as to why you think you should be compensated when you can just drive your van elsewhere.

  5. The EIR for the SDIA Expansion specifically states-SIGNIFINCANT AND UNAVOIDABLE HARM TO RESIDENTS.

    1. I meant to reply to your message and instead created a new thread…
      “You’re absolutely right, Korla. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SDIA expansion does acknowledge significant and unavoidable impacts on residents, particularly related to noise, air quality, and traffic during both the construction and operational phases. It’s been a major point of concern for local communities, and efforts to mitigate these harms have been a central part of the ongoing discussions. Thanks for highlighting this important issue!”

  6. Great piece! Best idea I’ve heard yet. Years of sacrifice for billions of profit should entitle us lifers to some ongoing compensation. Years of breathing exhaust pollution, damaging our mental health with noise and being woken up repeatedly, for years, should give us just cause.

    1. Here’s a way to respond in third person:

      Thank you for your feedback! The idea behind the piece really resonates with the challenges many long-term residents have faced. After years of enduring air pollution, mental strain from constant noise, and interrupted sleep, it seems only fair that they should be entitled to ongoing compensation. The toll this takes on health and well-being is significant, and it’s time this was recognized on a larger scale.

  7. Did you know that the Federal Aviation Administration was sued by members of the public for creating a severe health hazard when they authorized airlines to fly jet airliners to fly over residential neighborhood. The FAA lost the lawsuit and was ordered by the Courts to mitigate the noise by reducing the sound level to 65dB(A) or lower. Every dang airport in the Untied States has had to pay $$$ billions of dollars to sound proof millions of houses across the United States. These issues you have raised have already been litigated and the FAA lost. I highly recommend you retain a lawyer to represent your rights.

    1. After analyzing decibel levels and airplane altitudes, it’s clear that Liberty Station, Loma Portal, South Park, and Bankers Hill experience the highest noise impacts from airport traffic. Growing up under the flight path in Ocean Beach, the planes typically flew over at altitudes between 1,600 and 2,000 feet. However, at Liberty Station, planes are only about 800 feet high, at Loma Portal around 1,000 feet, South Park about 1,100 feet, and Bankers Hill under 400 feet. These areas, in particular, should receive relief due to the increased noise exposure. There’s an site that tracks altitude and decibels: https://webtrak.emsbk.com/san

  8. The ZZOOO SID departs directly over OB, while the PADRS SID departs over South Mission Beach. However, between 10 pm and 7 am, all departures with ZZOOO flight plans are redirected by Air Traffic Control over the south end of South Mission Beach. There is also a shift north of the nighttime noise in LOMA PORTAL, Pt. Loma Heights and Midway district. These nighttime agreement was implemented as a temporary noise mitigation measure, which has become permanent. This shift in noise without a NEPA environmental assessment is illegal. The FAA is now in the process of formalizing this departure, called the CLSSY SID. Mission Beach has had very little support over the years, given our representative on the ANAC lives north of the roller coaster and is OK with the CLSSY SID. While Mission Beach is not in the 65, there is every reason to believe that the noise levels in Mission Beach are just as disruptive, especially at night, for our residents, and certainly more disruptive for those in Loma Portal and Pt. Loma under the shifted departure track on Elliott and Veleta Streets. It appears from Flight Tracks that CLSSY is now up and running. Given that the FAA has simply ignored our complaints (never provided a rationale for for ignoring NEPA), I would agree that the only way to get the FAA’s attention is by filing a lawsuit. While the other ideas you have mentioned above are commendable, there is virtually no chance they will be effective. Two more points: the airport is approaching capacity in 2025 and the only way the capacity can be increased on the single runway is by modifying the departure curfew. The new T1 gates will allow a total of 22 more departures, but the Airport Authority with a near empty international terminal wants a piece of the Asian traffic that departs up to about 3 am. In the end, I believe it will be put to a vote of the City residents.

  9. I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for someone who demands payment for voluntarily moving into the very well known flight path of Lindbergh Field which has been in existence long before the neighborhoods of Ocean Beach and Point Loma were established.

    One term that does cross my mind is self-centered golddigger.

    Hey Michelle, if you don’t like the noise, move. I hear it’s nice and quiet in La Mesa.

    1. Thanks for your perspective! I understand where you’re coming from, and it’s true that Lindbergh Field has been around for a long time. However, even though the airport pre-dates many neighborhoods, the increasing noise levels and air pollution are more intense than they were decades ago. For many residents, it’s not just about living near an airport anymore—it’s about the cumulative impact over time. Compensation discussions are about acknowledging those long-term effects and finding a fair solution for everyone affected. Also, just to clarify, I’m speaking in general terms about residents impacted by the airport, not necessarily about my personal situation. Moving isn’t always feasible for many families who have deep roots in these neighborhoods, but I appreciate the suggestion!

      1. I’ve worked construction for my life. During that time, my physical capacity has diminished and my ears have constant tinnitus. I had a free choice to circumvent those results, much like you do. But I made that choice to continue. Compensations discussions are about ponying up to the reparations trough (buzz words like long term effects and fair solution), and playing the moving isn’t feasible for those with deep roots, is not a serious counter, particularly with the speaking in general terms and not about your personal situation. Opportunist here?

        1. Thank you for your comment, and I’m really sorry to hear about your tinnitus—I have it too, and it can be really awful to deal with. Having worked at the San Diego Labor Council, I interacted regularly with members of the San Diego County Building & Construction Trades, I have a high amount of respect for the trades.

          It’s like Mike pays Peter every time he hurts Paul. Instead of protecting Paul, Peter keeps taking the money and allowing Mike to keep hurting Paul because Peter is profiting. In this case, the airport is Mike, the community is Paul, and the airport authority is Peter. The fines collected are meant to stop the harm, but instead, the airport authority is profiting from it, and the community continues to suffer. There needs to be a system that holds them accountable, rather than allowing them to benefit at the community’s expense.

          2. There is one thing about living in OB for seven decades, and that’s perspective. Were you around when we had Stage 1 jets taking off from Lindbergh? Bottles in my medicine cabinet would dance around, windows would rattle, and classes at PLHS would come to. a halt while the Stage 1 aircraft flew overhead. The aircraft today are quiet compared with the old days.

            I still question your motive for what amounts to noise reparations.

            If you live under the noise profile you have already benefited from the Quieter Noise Program. You got free windows, doors, air conditioning and other sound deadening installed courtesy of an airplane ticket tax.

            If you are outside of the noise profile, congratulations you live in a big city with all of the good and bad things that come with your personal choice of where to live. If you want a quiet sky you have plenty of options, it’s just not here in OB.

            1. Thank you for sharing your perspective and your long history with Ocean Beach. I appreciate hearing from someone with such deep roots in the community and your firsthand experience with how aircraft noise has evolved over the decades.

              I agree that aircraft noise has come a long way, and today’s planes are quieter than those in the past. However, it’s important to recognize that while the aircraft have improved, the number of flights has increased significantly over the decades. For example, in the late 1970s, Lindbergh Field handled about 250,000 flights per year, and today that number has grown to more than 500,000 flights annually, doubling the air traffic.

              While some have benefitted from the Quieter Home Program, many residents who live just outside the current noise contours still experience significant noise without access to the same mitigation resources. Homeowners typically receive one round of benefits—windows, doors, and soundproofing measures—but after that, they’re on their own as those materials degrade over time. Meanwhile, the airport authority continues to benefit from the airport’s ongoing expansion and increased traffic, reaping financial rewards year after year while residents are left with the long-term impact of noise.

              And while we’re talking about fairness, it’s hard to ignore the inequities created by Prop 13, which has compounded the disparities between long-time homeowners and newer residents. Those who have lived in their homes for decades have reaped the financial benefits of artificially low property taxes, while newer homeowners face much higher rates. These tax savings have essentially been a form of “reparation” for older residents, while others, especially younger or newer residents, have to absorb the rising costs of living in California cities like San Diego.

              So, while some residents may have benefited once from the Quieter Home Program or long-term tax savings, others are dealing with ongoing noise and financial burdens with little relief in sight.

              At the end of the day, it’s about balancing the reality of living in a vibrant city with the ongoing challenges of increased air traffic and addressing these inequalities so that all residents can be fairly treated.

              1. OMG, please, you really want to digress this subject with prop 13? When you buy a home, you pay the going stepped up tax basis. That’s a choice. Living in Pt. Loma is a choice. And the inequality, fairness buzz words are entitlement propaganda similar to the YIMBY movement. Basically, if you don’t like the airplane noise, move.

                1. He mentioned reparations and living in OB for 7 decades. Assuming he purchased property 5 decades ago, I’m guessing his property taxes can cover the cost of a single pothole in a year. How’s that for contributing to society? The inequality of Prop 13 is another issue we can discuss at a different time. ?

                  1. “Assuming he purchased property 5 decades ago…” and worked hard on a middle class income – or lower – to pay off that mortgage. So the property has increased in value, through no action of his. Now, he’s retired with less income than when he was working. And now people want to hike up his property tax because his home increased in value? Where is the equity in that? Prop 13 does need attention but not in this area.

                    1. In a perfect world, the rate would drop dramatically for everyone, every property reassessed annually and everyone pays the same percentage based on their annual assessed value. I’m talking like 1/8 of a percent. Costs money to drive on roads.

                  2. LOL. That’s advocating for market rate property taxes for everyone. Think rents won’t go up?

                    Much to the same conflict of interest when you said you worked for the building trades council, (the unions, Bridgette Browning, the same unions who did airport expansions) and here you want to advocate for airplane noise reparations? The trades council has a workers climate bill of rights. Which is comical bc they contribute to climate change by their activities to builders.

                    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/663e5570d5a6e357d1f6460c/t/6671b864084d03062cb13aa6/1718728804465/Resolution.pdf

                    Your only real world solution would be to shut all airports down if we’re going to play a climate health game.

                    1. CS – Keep it real amigo and civil. Michelle has raised good issues and now you’re accusing her of all kinds of shenanigans. Issues raised by countless generations of people who have lived below the flight path. C’mon, man. (Did you know “shenanigans” was spelled with an “e”?)

                    2. I worked at the Labor Council during Keith Maddox’s term, not under Brigette Browning’s leadership. I’m expressing my personal views here, independent of any labor affiliations. While I can’t solve global issues in a single discussion, I do believe the Airport Authority should be held accountable in some way.

              2. Michelle, no, no, no, there are not 500K operations occurring at SDIA today, nor has the number ever been that high. IF the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for SDIA is accurate (and forecasts of all types are notorious for not accurately predicting the future) there will be only 290K operations by 2035, which exceeds the current number by tens of thousands of operations. I believe the current number of operations is about 220K.

                You know, you can’t just throw out numbers without having some basis for them. Numbers have meaning.

                I will always question whether the TAF is a good gauge for predicting the future because there have been so many hiccups in the past. Operations at SDIA have been dramatically reduced by such things as COVID, the Great Recession, the dot-com bubble, etc. After every one of these turndowns, there has been a lag in getting back to the pre-existing numbers. I suspect there will be disruptions in the future that will cause setbacks as we have seen in the past.

                1. You’re absolutely right, and I appreciate you pointing that out. The current number is indeed closer to 220K, and even projections like the TAF estimate significantly fewer operations than what I mentioned. Have you heard of any upcoming contracts to increase international flights to Asia?

                  1. I know that the authority would love to have more international flights (as I traveller, I concur!), but San Diego is in the catchment area of LAX and it’s very difficult to get an airline to make a commitment to San Diego when they know passengers can either drive to LAX or take a connecting commuter flight. It generally takes a lot of incentives (read $$$) to get an international carrier to start a new route.

                    Even if there were more international flights, it would only be a small number compared (like one flight a day to two or three Asian destinations) to the number of domestic flights each day. I can remember vividly a former SDIA CEO complaining “I’ve got all the Southwest I want!”

                    1. It was my understanding that runway length did not allow a plane to carry a full compliment of fuel, which was why we did not have international flights. I read about one years ago when they had to stop in Phoenix to gas up before continuing on.

                2. I am fairly sure that 290000 annual operations is overly optimistic for SDIA. If you look at scheduled departures in the early morning, there are about 32 from 6:30 am to 7 am. But, of this number, only about 21 get out. And this is pretty much departures only. So, say 2 per hour, or 714 per day, or 260610 annually. But, you need to factor in the seasonality in San Diego. So, 64998 operations for the three summer months and about 90 percent during the other nine months, or 239998. This would put SDIA at about 83 percent of capacity now. If the rate of increase of operations continues at the same rate, then SDIA will hit capacity in 2025. And likely SDIA is already a constrained airport.

                  1. Assuming your 83% capacity is correct, I think it is quite a leap to assume that it would jump to 100% by next year. That’s just not going to happen.

            2. That program is a scam. We didn’t qualify because the average noise level wasn’t hit. Because I put in a few double paned windows at my own expense.

      2. The airport was not moved for one reason; the tourism industry, specifically that part associated with downtown convention center and hotels have been all powerful, given that it represents 30 percent of San Diego’s revenue. The claim that it is super convenient is true until it approaches capacity. Visitors will find themselves sitting on the runway for a half hour or 45 minutes waiting in line to depart, or find an open gate. There is a 10 dB penalty on operations from 10 pm to 7 am. Right now, there are a lot of departures from 6:30 to 7 am, but not so many from 10 to 11:30 pm. But, if this begins to fill out, watch the 65 contour size increase and the impacted area also will increase, but by moving all of the departures to Mission Beach post 10 pm, it will not increase in size as much as if the aircraft on ZZOOO stayed on ZZOOO.

        1. Gary, it’s easy to blame the tourist industry for the location of the airport but the fact is that back in 2006 62% of voters rejected moving Lindbergh Field. Voters also rejected moving the airport back in 1994..

          To me, Miramar makes absolute sense for our airport, but La Jolla would squeal.

    3. If all you have to contribute to the discussion are insults, then go somewhere else. If you disagree, fine, but don’t be an ass about it.

  10. Loma Portal resident here. I’ve used a white noise machine every night. It’s not perfect, but I sleep better with the constant drone and it does block out jet noise to an extent. Many choices, cheap, small, and well reviewed on Amazon.

    1. We have a couple white noise machines too. I also like the thunderstorm sounds on the Alexa. Soothing.

  11. What is/was this “Quieter Home Program”? The reference to it was confusing.
    One practical problem with doing a compensation program such as this in the world of 2024 is determining who gets compensated. Brightline distinctions (such as location of house along some sort of corridor)would be difficult to establish under the best of circumstances (imagine the complaints if a house on one side of a street is within the corridor and a house on the other side or one block away is not even though the noise difference is negligible), and it’s entirely possible people who are far removed from the main noise areas but still within earshot will demand compensation as well, using the same arguments as those under the flight path. Then there are those who will claim rights to compensation for claimed traumatized pets, purported psychological disorders, prior residency even if now moved, etc.

    /s/ Chris Kennedy

    1. But, there is a twist to Quieter Homes. In order to get the airport to spend FEDERAL funds to retrofit your home, you are required to sign an Avigation Agreement. An aviation agreement, or avigation easement, is a legal agreement in which property owners surrender air rights over their property to the government. If you don’t sign, they won’t spend your own tax dollars to retrofit your home. I refused to sign because it is extortion. Most of the houses on my street have been retrofitted. If they ever want my airspace, it will cost them.

      2. California law doesn’t recognize “air space” above personal property. Even a building developer can’t go over 30 feet in the coastal zone. But I appreciate your unwillingness to just sign off on any liability of theirs.

        1. I had to look some of it up.

          Is it legal to fly a drone over private property in California?
          California law recognizes the rights of property owners to control access to their land. Operating a drone over someone’s property without permission may constitute a trespass, particularly if it interferes with the owner’s use and enjoyment of the property.

          1. As a homeowner do you have the right to the low level airspace above your house and yard?
            In the US, no.

            A landowner has rights to use the “immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.” (US v. Causby)

            As far as it’s been determined, a land owner has a right to put a fence up, or add a story to a house, provided it’s allowed by local zoning. If the federal government is flying WW 2 heavy bombers over your chicken farm at 83? causing your chickens not to lay, you may have a takings issue, but other than that a land owner doesn’t have a right to airspace over their house and yard. And a drone at 83? isn’t really going to cause chickens to panic and kill themselves quite like what happened with Warbirds and bombers flying final approach over Causby’s chicken farm.

            The FAA is responsible for the safety of the national airspace. Part 107 indicates that commercial sUAS (Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems) should stay at or below 400 feet in Class G airspace unless they are near a tall building. In controlled airspace the ceiling for sUAS may be lower.

            In general, US landowners don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy anywhere visible from a public easement, which would include the road in front of your house and the airspace above your house. (Florida v. Riley)

            There are often local laws against harassment or “peeping tom” laws that might be enforceable if a neighbor is harassing or snooping on someone with a drone, but the operator would typically have to be taking an action beyond flying above someone’s property.

            1. Curious, if you break someone’s drone as it’s flying around your backyard, who would be liable for that?

              1. Legally you would be. Although good luck on the drone operator getting police to followup or care. The operator will be able to pinpoint its last location. Unfortunately our privacy laws offer little protection and weren’t written with these current technologies in mind, including tech the police use.

                However, RemoteID is being implemented in the US which will allow anyone to identify a drone and it’s registration number. The big manufacturers are being required to use this tech on newer models and on their flight apps. Older drones and DIY drones could still be flown without it.

              3. You cannot shoot down someone else’s drone (property) if it’s over yours. Let’s say a neighbor kid left their fancy skateboard in your front yard and you got so pissed that you smashed it to pieces. Boom. can’t do that. You’d be liable for the damage. Go further… someone left their car tangling over your driveway – blah blah blah. Drones are a curious lot however. My wife was sunbathing near our pool in the backyard and a drone appeared overhead. As soon as it noticed her watching it, it took off. Definitely a violation of personal and private space.

            2. ” other than that a land owner doesn’t have a right to airspace over their house and yard.” Then, why the avigation agreement?

          2. The FAA governs airspace. Where does airspace begin? For a drone or aircraft it starts at any point above the ground.

            It’s illegal to fly a drone 6 inches off the ground in your backyard in northeast OB, and south by SSCNP. At least not without special permission from the FAA. Anywhere else up to 50-100ft here (400ft elsewhere) you can obtrain automatic flight clearance.

            That includes the legal right to fly over people’s houses. Including photographing them, as long as it’s not into bedroom windows. There is a fuzzy line where it would be subject to harrassment opr stalking laws.

            My drone is barely audible at about 80ft if there is ambient noise.

            I’d love to see what this quieter homes document has written on it. Perhaps it’s just being proactive to deter a lawsuit, even if legally the resident has no standing regardless.

    2. The problem with this is that it’s a one time window replacement per address. The Airport Authority (AA) has contracts with specific companies to replace the windows. Some of the windows they used have been discontinued due to dated technology. If AA replaced your windows in the 90’s, there’s no additional support.

      1. Yes, it is just one time. But this ignores the fact that if you were to do a renovation that would require a building permit or any new construction, you would be required to do the construction consistent with current Title 24 building codes. Because the current building codes require many if not all of the types of construction installed as part of the QHP, new construction is “deemed” consistent with the requirements of the airport noise protections and does not require any additional noise mitigation.

  13. What are the origins of the curfew?

    Be careful what you wish for, if the airlines had it their way they’d probably be fine paying a fee to schedule flights all day and night.

    I’ve done some research on the waypoints and I don’t think the flight paths have changed appreciably. I’d love to see how the noise and number of flights today compares with that of 30 years ago.

    1. Curfew might have come out of the lawsuit by the Pt. Loma folks back in the 1970’s, I think. Keep in mind that the Airport Authority only reports the noise impacted area, housing units, and impacted population. The 65 dB contour is completely different. There is no direct correlation between the two.

  14. I don’t know if it was mentioned in the scores of replies, but arrivals have never been part of the curfew program after Stage II aircraft exited the scene years ago. If you believe the notice maps, I believe the overall noise continues to be reduced as newer, quieter aircraft overcompensate for the additional frequencies.
    This may start going the other way as the airport gets more congested. As the runway gets overloaded, flights will have to be added to slower periods to get in the departures the airlines would schedule to meet demand. This will see an increase in the afternoon and evening. You’ll probably see more redeye departures going east.
    At this point the key to reducing noise is to get a higher percentage of the latest generation of aircraft (737MAX and 320 series neo aircraft).
    Current noise regulations are decades old and do not religate noisier aircraft to 7am to 7pm time frames. The airlines are bringing scores of newer aircraft on every year and there should be a way to have SDIA get more than the average share of these aircraft.

    1. Partly right Paul. Stage II aircraft were 100 percent phased out I believe in the 1990’s, but at least in that time frame, so, not that long ago. Also, I think it is 90-95 percent of the arrivals are on 27 from east to west. East of the airport has not been well represented over the decades, much like Mission Beach, so no one to wave their arms and scream when the curfew went away. While I agree that the overall noise has decreased going back to the 1980-90s, I don’t think it has changed much since the 2012, for example. There is a great place to look at this and many other kinds of data, including the size of the 65 contour (https://www.san.org/Aircraft-Noise/CA-Title-21?EntryId=12354). While the noise impacted area has decreased, the size of the 65 dB CNEL contour has not. It has changed shape, now showing a double peak at the west end, but this could be as much to do with analysis methods. SDIA violates California noise standards and therefore must secure a variance to operate. The State requires a whole waft of data to comply with the variance. Last point, the Airport Authority cannot in general be trusted. The 65 dB contour size for the most recent Part 150 was falsified, or at least it did not agree with the 65 dB contour sent to the State in 2018. A couple of senior people at the SDCRAA lost their positions, not their jobs, while Becker, the CEOwas able to stay on.

  15. I opted in for notifications. How do I get out of this? This whole thread is out of control and I am tired of it. :{

  18. Editordude: the comments to this post are now closed. Lots of great discussion, however. Many tangents too.

Comments are closed.