Hidden away on page 46 of the SMH April 10,1999 was an advertisement for the Bankstown, Camden, Hoxton Park

Airport Preliminary Draft Environmental Strategy.

Contained in that advertisement was the startling statement that noise and pollution of aircraft cannot be addressed in the strategy to manage the environmental issues that arise from the operation and activities of these airports!

This occurred at the same times as a report that in America an entire township 8 km from an airport is going to be relocated (SMH April 10,1999, p 27). - full original text reproduced below.

We all know that the politicians have abandoned up to 1 million people affected by Mascot airport, but it seems that the people who live within 8km of Bankstown, Camden, Hoxton Park and the proposed Badgerys Creek airports (a population which when added to flight path affected residents could top 2 million people) are about to be done like a dogs dinner.

This contrasts with the sickening spectacle when union labour, egged on by the (now) federal Member for Grayndler, demolished most of Sydenham while remaining residents looked on in horror. In his appallingly crass 'survey', Mr Albanese didn't even give the Sydenham residents the option which was given to Minor Lane Heights residents in America.

SMH April 10, 1999, page 27 (originally published by The New York Times, April 9, 1999, Friday under the heading of "Town Relocating to Escape Jet Noise")

Residents move - and stay in place
By Michael Janofsky in Minor Lane Heights, Kentucky [USA]

When Louisville International Airport opened the first of two new parallel runways four years ago, residents of this town eight kilometres away were offered a chance to escape the new waves of noise.

They were invited, along with other nearby residents, into one of the country's most ambitious relocation efforts to alleviate aeroplane noise: a $US285 million ($459 million) program in state and federal grants to buy out 3,760 property owners so they could buy houses in quieter neighbourhoods.

But as the 1,700 residents of Minor Lane Heights considered their options, they made a demand so unusual that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials now say it may be a model for other communities caught in the noisy path of progress.

Rather than break up lifelong friends and neighbours, officials here told the airport authorities that Minor Lane Heights residents would agree to move only if they could stay together.
That meant everything - the 552 households, the nine-member police department, Mayor Fred Williams' bright red maintenance truck, even the Weenie Wagon, which the town purchased to sell hot dogs at picnics.

"We've never encountered this big a deal, a community making a decision to move this way," said Mr Sam Lau, an FAA official.
Each year, the aviation agency spends millions of dollars to ease the exposure of residents near airports to the roar of jet engines. The 1998 budget for the program was $US200 million, a 28 per cent increase over 1995. In some places, the money is used to soundproof houses. In others, houses are bought and razed.

Tests in Minor Lane Heights showed that soundproofing would have been inadequate. To back the residents' request to stay together, the FAA set up a program with a $US10 million grant, which the airport matched, to help pay for a new site for the city.
This enabled the airport to buy 116 hectares of farmland 16 kilometres south-east of here and hire five home builders. By this (northern) autumn, the first 50 families are scheduled to move to their new community, Heritage Creek, which planners say will include 351 hew houses in the first phase of construction.
Bruce Welch

This quote sums up pretty well everything about the airport issue.

"One of President Abe Lincoln's most memorable statements about the government of the United States was to the effect that it is able to fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but that it can't hope to fool all of the people all of the time. He made this statement as an argument for honesty in government: since the government can't fool all of the people all of the time, it is bound to lose its credibility if it tries.

Well, that was about 140 years ago, and things really were quite different in the United States at that time. For one thing, there was no television. ....... we had plenty of liars, of course: plenty of men who aspired to fool as many people as they could for as long as necessary.

These men who aspired to deceive others tended to go into the business of selling used horses or into the ministry or journalism or the practice of law or to run for public office, but for the most part Lincoln's observation about the pitfalls of trying to fool all the people all the time held true, and the amount of damage done by these deceptive men remained within reasonable bounds.

As I said, that was 140 years ago, and things have changed in America.

One of the most depressing aspects of the situation in America today is the extent to which the government and the controlled media, collaborating with one another, are able to deceive most of the people all the time. In fact, if Lincoln were making his observation about deceiving people today, it would sound something like this: "The government can't fool all of the people all the time, but in a democracy that's not necessary. In a democracy all the government has to do is fool most of the people most of the time, and if the controlled media and the government are working together that's easy." "

end of quote
regards, Bruce Welch


last update 24 Oct 1999

This page is maintained by

The Rivermouth Action Group Inc


as a community service.