Damon 1

Mason Damon

Jackie Burr, Instructor

English 1010, Section 2

11 December 2017

The Effects and Nuisances of Aircraft Noise on Property Value

Aircraft noise has been a problem for decades to pass. The loud uproar of engines has

disturbed neighboring residents to not only large, but small airports. The public has not stood

silent, there have been protests and complaints about such noise. Complaints insist that the

property value of nearby land and homes are being dropped due to the noisy airports. This

problem continues to be an issue with the immense development of this modern way of traveling.

Certainly there must be a solution, but has anyone caught on yet, has there really been enough

research behind this topic? If so, why haven’t public officials, mechanics and airline

manufacturers found a way to quiet these massive planes down?

Should it really be the airports problem to deal with? None of these protests are going to

the manufactures or owners of these planes. Why is everyone blaming the airports for something

airport officials might not have control over. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), are

the ones who judge aircraft pattern requirements, noise producing limits, distances from

structures and almost anything along the lines of regulation. These protests show that not

everyone cares to research before complaining about their problems. The public sees a problem
 Damon 2

and simply wants to fix it without any context to what is actually happening behind the scenes of

these airports. Instead of going to the airports, the public should turn to the FAA to report these

issues if it’s becoming such a nuisance. Surely if protesters were to report the issues the correct

way, the problem could be solved at some point.

Within an interview with my Commercial Aviation professor, Lloyd Nielsen, he

described a situation at Provo Municipal Airport. There was a woman with a house located

directly under the flight pattern. Patterns are used for go arounds, departures and approaching, all

together, making an oval flight pattern about the airport. This woman was tired of the aircraft

noise every hour of every day. She contacted the FAA in an unfriendly manner, asking for them

to change the flight pattern or she would sue for property value loss. The FAA took this into

consideration noting that if they were to change the pattern, it would go directly over a lake, that

being Utah Lake. Pilots can only fly over bodies of water if the altitude they are at will allow

them to glide to shore if the engine were to quit. This is a problem because the altitude of the

Provo pattern is so low that it would be unlawful to fly over Utah Lake. The FAA decided to

make the pattern very squeezed to prevent further complaints and everything still works out fine.

Though, you must imagine how many airports like Provo Municipal there are in the entire

country. These complaints happen every single day.

It might or might not be what the airports want, but it we were to let it be known that

these airports are loud, people will reconsider the property value when buying property near the

airport. According to an article by Christian Bröer, professor sociology and anthropology from
 Damon 3

the University of Amsterdam, he states, ‘Airport planners and professionals intentionally

introduced the issue of noise annoyance to a wider audience’. That being said, it’s been brought

up to the public that the annoyances are present and will continue to happen. It has already been

implied that the value of your property may go down if you buy property near the airport. With

all of these warnings and issues made clear, the public is still complaining for a problem they

stepped themselves into. There is no clear fix to this problem, yet people continue to complain

for their own mistakes. Not to mention living next to an airport is an excellent way of

transportation and surely increases property value in some way. Just like the location of any

other property, there are pros and cons, but living next to an airport takes greater consideration

before making the action to buy property.

Bröer stated, ‘Airport planners extended the practice of ‘mapping’ to the new area of

aircraft noise. Mapping brought with it certain kinds of solutions, depicting areas where houses

should not be built or where planes should not fly’. This being a complicated fix, it would work

for new airports. Property owners would no longer need to complain because there would be new

‘maps’ to prevent from airplanes making such a loud noise. The disturbances will have faded or

died down by the time it reaches neighborhoods. This way if individuals were to sue the airports,

these new regulations are going to suffice as a great backup to the airports claim. This would also

remove or at least reduce property value loss because of the nearby airport.

Another large problem is the liability with this annoyance. Assuming property value is

lost, who is liable for this ‘damage’? Donald Harper, professor of transportation and logistics
 Damon 4

management at the University of Minnesota wrote ‘The Continuing Dilemma of Aircraft Noise’.

In it, Harper hences the theory of the most successful legal approach at court would be that the

airports are taking away value without fair compensation. Harper states, ‘This theory claims that

aircraft noise has resulted in loss of property value and hence the taking of a property right for a

public use without paying just compensation and that this violates either the fourteenth or the

fifth amendment of the federal constitution or a similar provision in a state constitution’. This is

quite a good way to approach the issue in court, but it isn’t going to solve much in the end. I’m

sure there are airports paying this fair compensation to neighboring residents, but that doesn’t

mean every airport can afford and or jump onto this theory. I believe this compensation was

already included in the appraisal. Realtors were clearly already aware of this issue so it is taken

into account. So, if you were to move into a house, you can't ask for money back just because

you got it back differently. Of course this issue would be far different if an airport is in

construction, that would require direct compensation within a set time to allow for the noise

adjustments.

All of this noise isn’t exactly good for public health either. Noise annoyance leads to

depression and anxiety. This shouldn’t only spark initiative for manufacturers to fix the noise.

Airports should be working on a solution for the noise not for the sole reason of clearing up legal

manners. The article, ‘Noise Annoyance Is Associated with Depression and Anxiety in the

General Population’ by Manfred Beutel et al. states that ‘In general, aircraft noise has been found

more annoying, and with stronger effects on sleep, than road and railway noise’. To think that

this a bigger problem than even road traffic, it’s out of this world to think it hasn’t been fixed.
 Damon 5

Road traffic is one of the most common complaints today. Seeing that aircraft noise has

surpassed, it needs a solution for the sake of a healthy community.

The FAA doesn’t set a general regulation on noise. So, how do airports, or even railroad

officials for that matter figure out what their limits are? Well, the government has put together

‘contour lines’. These lines govern, limit and set a general noise level for specific levels. This

makes it much easier on banks giving loans for the construction of houses. By using the noise

level, they can figure out how easily the home will sell in the market. This is how the noise level

is properly included in the property value during the initial appraisal. Cara Johnson, a reporter

from Virginia stated that ‘The appraiser’s market data analysis must include a consideration of

the effect on value, if any, of the property’s proximity to the airfield, available comparable sales

must indicate market acceptance of the subdivision in which the property is located’. This is

proof that residents can’t complain for fair compensation for something that is indeed included in

the initial value.

To conclude, airports and public officials are working on ways to solve this continuing

issue. It is a problem with pros and cons, but there any many solutions, it just takes large actions

to make them work for the locations they are placed. Aircraft noise will continue to be a nuisance

to the public. If you aren’t satisfied with a house that was already dropped in price before you

bought it, don’t complain for fair compensation after you move in.