- RELATED ARTICLES
- > State Adds East Hampton Airport Hazardous Waste Site To Superfund List Jun 11, 2019 11:50 AM
- > Helicopter Traffic Continues To Swell As East Hampton Town Seeks Options To Reduce It Feb 5, 2019 4:37 PM
- > East Hampton Helicopter Traffic, Soaring Since Curfews Lifted, Continues To Increase In 2018 Aug 14, 2018 4:35 PM
- > East Hampton Town Town Pleads With Helicopters To Fly South Aug 7, 2018 4:50 PM
- > Helicopters Asked To Split Their Routes To East Hampton Jul 17, 2018 1:20 PM
more
Sep 18, 2015 8:11 AMThe East Hampton Town Board on Tuesday increased to nearly $1 million the total amount of money it has dedicated this year to the legal fight over its management of East Hampton Airport.
With town officials heading to New York City on Wednesday to take part in a mediation session with an aviation industry group that has sued the town over airport restrictions, the board voted to increase the spending limit for its primary legal counsel in a half-dozen legal actions regarding the airport by $450,000, bring the total amount allocated to $875,000 for the year. The firm, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, has already billed the town for $694,000 in legal work this year alone, Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez said on Tuesday.
The town has also alloted up to $100,000 for attorney Kathleen Sullivan, who is acting as the town’s legal counsel for the appeal of a federal injunction of a law adopted by the town that barred any single aircraft from making more than one takeoff and landing at the airport in a given week. Ms. Sullivan is also defending an appeal by the aviation group of two other laws setting curfews on the use of the airport.
The town spent approximately $226,000 on legal fees for airport issues in 2014.
The funding for the legal fees comes from the town's airport accounts, which are funded by airport operations fees, a step that the aviation groups have also raised issue with.
“While we anticipated that there would be lawsuits,” Mr. Burke-Gonzalez said at the Town Board work session on Tuesday morning, “it’s unfortunate that these airport users are forcing the town to spend airport funds to defend these restrictions rather than working cooperatively to help us achieve the best balance between users and residents.”
The town faces a federal lawsuit brought by a group representing and funded by aviation industry interests, the Friends of East Hampton Airport, as well as three separate cases brought by aviation companies or representatives claiming the town violated the requirements of past Federal Aviation Administration grants by enacting restrictions or raising fees, as well as a state court lawsuit brought by Sound Aircraft, the sole fuel supplier at East Hampton Airport, over increases in fuel and landing fees. Ms. Gonzalez said that the town has also petitioned to become a party to a lawsuit filed by the aviation industry group against the FAA.
Friends of the East Hampton Airport spokesman Loren Reigelhaupt countered Ms. Burke-Gonzalez's characterization of the various legal challenges.
"It¹s disappointing and frustrating to hear such claims, as many of the residents are in fact airport users too and we have always been open to talking about rational solutions," he said in a statement. "The truth is, if town leaders had invested in the upkeep and safety of the airport and not passed illegal bans, there would no need for any of this."
Also on Tuesday, board members reviewed reports on usage of the airport this summer. According to airport manager Jemille Charlton, the number of flights into and out of the airport increased by 14 percent overall in July—including a 20-percent jump in the number of helicopter flights—and by 7 percent in August, compared to 2014 levels. Through the end of July, the total usage of the airport had swelled by 29 percent.
Complaints about airplane noise received by the town in July were up 21 percent from 2014, Mr. Charlton said, though he noted that the actual number of households from where complaints were received actually declined by 6 percent that same month. For the year, thus far, complaints about aircraft noise are up nearly 60 percent, despite the curfews imposed this summer.
You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Why bother? Close it down. Once the commercial aviation interests realize that their aircraft will never land in EH town again, they will abandon their suits.
It's a shame that the airport employees and the innocent recreational pilots will be impacted but that's not the fault ...more of the town (which would protect their interests, if it could.)
In an ideal scenario, where the town was working directly with all types of residents (pilots and non-pilots, business owners etc.) how would you address the issue of noise that has been caused by the increased demand for commuter aircraft coming and going to EH airport?
Noise is a problem.
How would you seek curb the increased noise levels?
2. Don't let people with a financial interest in the closure and development of the airport land be in charge. If they have said they want to develop the land, then they should be excluded from participating in any efforts to resolve the noise issue.
3. Take closure of the airport off the table - permanently. ...more Stop threatening and bullying everyone with the nuclear option, it's not productive. Anyone who has said they want to close the airport should also be excluded.
4. Perform the desperately needed maintainence - NOW. These are life safety issues that they town has intentionally ignored for years based on the guidance and urging of Gruber and Dalene. It is a ticking time bomb until someone tragically dies. K. Burke-Gonzalez just illegally pulled $400k out of the fund that was supposed to pay for this maintainence to pay for her attorneys, and said that she'd "look into" getting a bond to pay for it sometime in the distant future. This shows how reckless the town is being, and makes us wonder if she and others are wanting someone to die so they can take drastic action to close the airport (just like was done with rwy 4/22). If you really want to get the cooperation of pilots, perform this maintenance NOW.
" how would you address the issue of noise that has been caused by the increased demand for commuter aircraft coming and going to EH airport? "
So what would you do about the noise? what steps would you take to improve the (noise) situation?
You've managed to use a lot of words to specifically not answer the question.
To quote:
"so I personally think limiting the number of commuter helicopter flights per day is a solution"
"working out more approach routes for helis would be useful. Funneling them all into the November route is likely annoying for those under that route"
"Limiting the number of helis and jets over the 91db range is reasonable too"
"Plus charging them ...more a noise surcharge"
"Other solution ideas would be welcome if they are reasonable and tailored towards noise reduction"
Do you realize, localEH, that if you had started being this reasonable years ago, that we might have already reached a consensual solution, and that no lawsuits might have been required to be filed?
There is plenty of blame to go around for the polarized state in which we find ourselves, but now the local pilots may be learning that they picked the wrong bedfellows when they lay down with the out-of-town commercial chopper interests years ago.
Some lessons come hard, but if the airport is ever closed, you can be reasonably sure that the blame will come full circle to those who took this long to wake up to the fact that NOISE IS A PROBLEM !!!
Great quote below from Lonesome Dove -- sorry you crossed the line . . .
Your post contains two facts that are actually true. First, that the town cannot control aircraft in flight, and, second, that seaplanes may continue to land in nearby waters. The rest of it is misdirection and outright falsehood.
All flight traffic to OTHER destinations will continue whether or not the EH airport is shuttered but ALL of the noise from EH flights will vanish the moment the airport is closed. Let's ask residents suffering under the current aerial ...more assault if they prefer the status quo or the alternative.
Like virtually everyone else, I would like to see the EH airport remain open as a facility serving recreational pilots and small, local businesses, (as it had been for its entire existence previously.) However, if you are representative of this group, localEH, you and your colleagues have chosen to cast your lot with non-resident, commercial interests (because they have all the money[?]).
That's too bad. As Gus McCrae says to his old friend, Jake, in the film “Lonesome Dove”, just before he hangs him, “You know how it goes, Jake. You ride with an outlaw, you die with an outlaw. Sorry you crossed the line. “
"I never seen no line, Gus. I was just trying to get through the territory without gettin' scalped."
Gus: "I don't doubt that's true, Jake."
Metaphorically speaking, I am afraid that that is too much to hope for.