- April 25, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Dear Editor,
It’s time to dispose of the narrative that only Bear Creek residents are affected by the airport noise. I live by the river well away from the airport and have lived here for 16 years. Until this past year the low-flying planes have been tolerable and more of an occasional annoyance to me. Former Mayor Ed Kelly had to deal with the noise complaints, so this is not a new issue for my area.
Over the last few months the number of flights has increased exponentially so that there is a steady drone of noise from early morning until late at night seven days a week. We have been treated to airplane noise as late as 10 o’clock at night.
Please reconsider this extension until a more thorough impact study is done.
Kathleen Moore
Ormond Beach
Dear Editor:
On Tuesday, May 10, I opted to attend the OB Life "runway extension workshop" by way of livestreaming. Rather than a professional uninterrupted flow of information, viewers were denied an essential component of what "livestreaming" includes: Audio. This, of course, rendered the meeting as a complete sham.
There is no excuse whatsoever for such a preventable glitch to occur. It is the city's duty and responsibility to see that all equipment related to livestreaming be thoroughly tested prior to any meeting so that those who are unable to attend in person would at least have an opportunity to attend remotely. The real reason for lack of audio, so it appears, is the commission's unquenchable thirst for control over every issue that concerns public interest.
As for the topic of the May 10 meeting, have the City Commission and their "buddy system extension proponents" considered the fact that whereas the cost of extension in 2015 was estimated at $1.5 million, the cost in 2022 could possibly be double that amount, especially with supply shortages and inflation running rampant? And guess who pays for it? Right!
The taxpayers — you and me.
Extending the Ormond airport runway another 600 feet, and incurring the cost of dollars and disruption to nearby neighborhoods, is not something that the citizens of Ormond Beach want or need. This idea seeks to benefit only the elite and powerful, not the average citizen.
The overwhelming majority of Ormond Beach residents not only oppose the extension idea, but also the hype and propaganda that surrounds it.
Cathy Wharton
Ormond Beach
Editor's note: The city issued the following statement on Thursday, May 26.
On the night of the OB Life Meeting Airport Focus there was an unpredicted failure in wifi strength at the venue that unfortunately prevented the livestream from broadcasting properly. We apologized profusely to those who contacted us the night of about the issue and also posted the entire recorded meeting the following morning, in full with complete audio, and the questions and polls were left open so that those who chose to participate online would still be able to engage.
Dear Editor:
It's not only a 600-foot extension to the west. It is also 400 feet to the east for an ultimate 1,000 foot extension for larger aircraft.
The FAA informed the city not to mention the 400 foot to east currently or they must stop the Supplemental Environmental Assessment and start over with a new
Environmental Assessment as it will directly prejudge the National Environmental Policy Act determination.
The city said it was anxious to get the 600 foot extension so would put 400 foot in future plans.
On staying on airport property to clear cut trees — this is not true. They want a lot of trees cleared and topped from six property owners for free. They state they will do a taking by zoning with this runway extension. No different than eminent domain that they stated they did not want to do. Perhaps worse.
The reason the north-south runway was to be extended in 2004 is because the master plan stated: "Currently, runway 8-26 (4,000 feet) is marked and designated as the airport's primary runway. ... It was concluded that due to approach obstructions, residential community development/noise sensitive areas, and limited runway extension land available for Runway 8-26, that runway 17-35 (3,695 feet) would be the optimum future primary runway."
The conditions remain the same today for the east-west runway; same trees, same residential community, and same property owners.
It states in the master plan on page 6-13: "Currently RW 8-26 and 17-35 accommodate all of the based aircraft at the airport and most of the itinerant aircraft with little or no operational restrictions, for example, take off weight restrictions (full load and full gas tank)."
On the discussion regarding C-II aircraft and the city stating it will stay a B-II classification airport: C-II aircraft may or may not be larger than B-II but the approach speed into the airport is faster. They have in their draft SEA a table of C-II aircraft and the runway lengths they need for takeoff. What is purpose of this?
Master Plan page 6-8 states: "Due to increased land requirements related to clear areas and the current constraints of the airport, it was determined that the increase in Aircraft Approach Category C-II is not financially feasible 'at this time.'"
Karin Augat
Ormond Beach
