News for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood and beyond

My Ballard header image 2
 

Group submits petition to FAA regarding airspace

Posted by Gladys on January 28th, 2011

The Magnolia Community Club reports that it has collected and forwarded 74 pages of petitions to the FAA  in opposition to the proposal to lower the Class B airspace over Magnolia and parts of Ballard and Queen Anne. 

Well over one hundred people showed up at a Community Club meeting last November to express concern about the proposed change that would lower the floor from 3000 feet to 2000 feet above sea level.  That would mean larger planes flying lower and with more frequency over Magnolia.

 

The FAA will accept written comments (in triplicate) until Monday (1/31).  If you would like to submit your comments, click here for the information.

Tags: Ballard   Share

28 reader comments so far ↓

  • 1 Guest // Jan 28, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    I guess that the FAA hasn’t quite made it into the 21st century… “Send comments on the proposal, in triplicate, to:…”. Makes you wonder ‘what world they are living in?’.

  • 2 Snoopy // Jan 29, 2011 at 3:16 am

    what a surprise, magnolia complaining about something.

  • 3 Blas // Jan 29, 2011 at 3:30 am

    Well, hey, guess what? Complaining, having Community Meetings, knowing and supporting our neighbors… actually DOING SOMETHING is why we love Magnolia.

  • 4 Duke Ofthe Land // Jan 29, 2011 at 4:04 am

    This is a major city, not Mayberry. You going to have to live with some noise.

  • 5 Snoopy // Jan 29, 2011 at 5:48 am

    sounds like you fit right in there. just stop trying to take down the rest of this awesome city.

  • 6 Snoopy // Jan 29, 2011 at 5:48 am

    sounds like you fit right in there. just stop trying to take down the rest of this awesome city.

  • 7 Storm // Jan 29, 2011 at 7:32 am

    I moved to Jet City, now all these aeroplanes are bothering me….

  • 8 Someguywhoflys // Jan 29, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Actually, the FAA is pretty much in the 1940s. Those of us who deal with them regularly know this.

  • 9 Anon // Jan 29, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Since the airports in this area are older than my grandparents, I pretty much have no right to complain. If it really bothered me, I’d move out of the city. But than again, I’m a rational, thinking person and not a typical Magnolianite.

  • 10 FK // Jan 29, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    I live in Crown Hill/Sunset Hill area and it seems like the noise from large jets has been much louder since New Years. A very low thunder like sound followed by the whooshing of the jets. Was there a change in flight paths in this area? I never noticed it until recently. I am trying to see if there is any relationship between that and this proposal, and trying to decide if I should submit comments.

    Thanks

  • 11 gts206 // Jan 29, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    Anyone have a spare flux capacitor, I need to go backto 1979 and get some carbon paper at Pay n Save for my triplicate copies

  • 12 Kim Jong-il // Jan 30, 2011 at 3:53 am

    In P’yŏngan, the floor from 1000 feet from sealevel. Lower than japan!

  • 13 Dweezil // Jan 30, 2011 at 5:01 am

    I noticed the same exact thing after New Years and assumed these new lower flights had taken place. Glad to know I wasn’t imagining things.

  • 14 Reasonable Debate // Jan 31, 2011 at 5:37 am

    I am a bit surprised at the reaction against Magnolia residents. Why wouldn’t they try to organize against this? Especially since, if I remember correctly, the FAA remained ambiguous at the meeting about the reasons for lowering the ceiling 1,000 feet. Such a significant change to the current policy should be accompanied by some pretty sound (and clear) reasoning and research. I would hope that Ballard would react similarly to Magnolia, if, hypothetically, an agency wanted to decrease bus service to Ballard by 1/3 and failed to make their case.

  • 15 Anon // Jan 31, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Reducing bus service affects my life directly. Planes that have been flying overhead for more than 80 years do not affect my life directly.

    It would be like buying property next to the train tracks and complaining when they increase service. You knew the train tracks were there when you bought the property and you knew very well that the status quo could very well be changed. Therefore, your right to complain will likely fall on deaf ears.

    Now if there is someone in Magnolia/Ballard that has owned their house since 1928 (when Boeing Field was built), they would have a legitimate reason to complain.

  • 16 Phil Dirt // Jan 31, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Seems to me these aircraft(s) are a good thing. The day they stop or are cut short we have real economic issues. They’re probably bringing goods that most will be buying. There are real people (jobs) flying ‘em. There are real people (more jobs) unloading/re-loading ‘em. So it looks to me as if a few are actually attempting to stifle growth. Yup, the same folks bitching about no jobs. Todays jet engines are much quieter than ever. Or do we need to remember the 70’s? Used to be people would move if they didn’t like something. Now it’s easier/common to complain. Is this really the hill you want to die on? Really? I am pro-choice when it comes to jets/economy!

  • 17 Ballard Girl // Jan 31, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    What I’m hearing is that it’s not the amount of air traffic but the change in the level of noise it makes when they fly so low. I live in the southern edge of Sunset Hill and have noticed a significant increase in airplane noise. I frequently run to my door to see what is going to land on my roof. Don’t hold it against the people of Magnolia just because they were frustrated enough to organize. I’m happy to find out I’m not the only one who has noticed an increase in airplane noise.

  • 18 Mr. President // Jan 31, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Why do you democracy or do you just hate it when a certain group of people practise it?

  • 19 Mr. President // Jan 31, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    I’m pretty sure all those jobs will be there if they fly at 3000 feet instead of 2000 feet

  • 20 Anonymous // Jan 31, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    It would be more like buying property near rarely used train tracks and then have them change it into a railyard operating 24-7.
    Sure there is some public benefit in changing the infrastructure or operations, but there is also an impact as well and we should at least take a look at what that will be before we make the change.

  • 21 Reasonable Debate // Jan 31, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    In that case, you are free to determine what you believe impacts your life directly, just as the Magnolians are. They have indicated that a drop in the ceiling affects them. So why shouldn’t they demand stronger justification from the FAA?

    As for the buying into a neighborhood under an air transit corridor, I think you raise a valid point. But the residents are not calling for an increase to the ceiling or for a decrease in the number of planes. I had a teacher who would always say in these cases, “the burden of proof lies with those who call for a change.” The question is not the fact that planes are flying overhead, something about which the residents wouldn’t rightfully be able to complain (the corridor is established and works within existing regulations); rather, it is the height and noise of the planes (a change to existing policy). It’s not the volume; it’s the volume. The FAA is a public agency administering public policy. By definition this is a decision that impacts all stakeholders.

    So, I can understand why you might not care about the lowering of the ceiling, or perhaps why you even might want the ceiling to be lowered. Yet, to call into question the legitimacy of the most impacted groups to oppose this policy seems unclear.

  • 22 Anonymous // Jan 31, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    I know there are a lot of Boeing employees around here and that they’ll stand up and salute anything in the air, but let’s at least take a look at what the FAA changes will mean to both the air traffic and the people who live on that flight path.
    As far as economic growth, what if that change in flight path results in 25-50% devaluation of the homes under it, while not changing the cost or frequency of air transport? Is that worth it? What if the flight path change results in almost no increase in noise or frequency, but provides a safer alternative under certain conditions? Totally different story. Let’s at least hear what the FAA plans and also listen to the concerns of the people as well.

  • 23 Anonymous // Jan 31, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    The dirt under your feet is older than your grandparents too. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t sweep it up when it gets in your house.

  • 24 Reasonable Debate // Jan 31, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    I like (and agree with) your adaptation of anon’s analogy

  • 25 Anonymous // Jan 31, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    I live in Seattle. You work for Boeing. We both have our own interests here.

  • 26 FK // Jan 31, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Ballard Girl,

    I posted earlier; has there been a change in the aircraft paths over Sunset Hill recently? Do you know if anyone is commenting about this as a part of this comment period?

    Thanks

  • 27 stupid old lady // Feb 2, 2011 at 7:32 am

    It sounds similar to when the residents of the laurelhurst neighborhood complained about emergency helicopters that were moving kids to and from the children’s hospital. We should expect noise! we LIVE in a city!! Seriously, you selfish assholes. Don’cha want the planes to fly ’round these parts to bring your relatives to visit you. . from where ever your tight ass, stupid, ignorant people come from.

  • 28 Anonymous // Feb 3, 2011 at 5:20 am

    Yes, because flying children to a trauma unit is exactly the same as arbitrarily changing a flight path with no explanation.

Leave a Comment (read our comment rules)






News from the Seattle Times