Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto opts not to sue FAA

Original post made on Apr 10, 2018

Palo Alto officials decided after a closed session Monday not to launch a lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration over airplane noise, which has become a growing nuisance for residents.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, April 10, 2018, 9:11 AM

Comments (46)

4 people like this
Posted by AllYouCanEat
a resident of Mountain View
on Apr 10, 2018 at 9:26 am

Ear plugs. There, all fixed.


63 people like this
Posted by Wrong choice
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2018 at 9:32 am

"We have not identified any legal flaws that are anywhere as significant as anything that happened in Phoenix," Kniss said.

Kniss either has no idea about the term "significant" or doesn't care.

Unless this was a choice guided by Palo City Attorney who is also former General Counsel for San Francisco Airport


26 people like this
Posted by yKa
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2018 at 11:34 am

Liz Kniss seems to be the messenger of bad news. I think she was instrumental in getting our Superhighway since she was instrumental in saving PAO, which the FAA now runs to guide all the 300+ planes a day over Palo Alto into SFO. So I dont see any hope for Palo Alto, all they care about is building more housing and getting more people in here to live , while quite a few of us are now working on exiting Palo Alto. This can be termed a Success/Disaster!


12 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 10, 2018 at 11:48 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"PAO, which the FAA now runs to guide all the 300+ planes a day over Palo Alto into SFO."

Wrong - virtually none of the planes landing at SFO enter PAO airspace and hence they are not controlled by the PAO tower.


66 people like this
Posted by Bob Gleason
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 10, 2018 at 11:53 am

Well, well... the wealthiest set of zip codes in the country has decided to fold and let all of it's residents look forward to a long, ineffective, waste of time "regional committee". I just don't understand what the thought process is here. File a freakin lawsuit.. Wake someone up at the FAA just like we are at 1:30, 3:40, 5:15 every morning..


8 people like this
Posted by HitTheMoney
a resident of another community
on Apr 10, 2018 at 2:04 pm

MONEY is their god. If there continues to be "a finding of no significant impact" on their profits this will not stop and it will continue to get worse. Too many elected officials are industry captives.

Cut flying and shipping by air to the absolute minimum. It wouldn't take much to achieve a significant impact if enough people did this.


9 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 10, 2018 at 2:35 pm

Good news. I think it would have been a waste of our tax dollars to sue the FAA. We would almost certainly loose.


24 people like this
Posted by Novelera
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 10, 2018 at 2:36 pm

Novelera is a registered user.

I guess the city can't afford to sue the FAA; they've spent it all tearing up and ruining Ross Road.


5 people like this
Posted by Roshongo
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Apr 10, 2018 at 2:55 pm

[Post removed.]


20 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkMike
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 10, 2018 at 3:00 pm

We have seen this kind of problem resolution process before-San Franciscito Creek and its potential for another flood. Our city, county and Federal bureaucrats are happy to move at glacial speed at best.

It seems to me they have no meaningful stake in these issues themselves and therefor have little motivation. I don’t like lawsuits as a solution for most problems but maybe that’s the only way to get people in power to solve this sufficiently motivated.

The noise from flyovers seems to have gotten worse again in the last 7-10 days.


41 people like this
Posted by Nancy Martin
a resident of Los Altos
on Apr 10, 2018 at 3:43 pm

What happens to people when they are elected to a public office like a city council? Do they become deaf to the needs of the people who elected them? Do they slowly begin to feel part of some elite class that can’t tell us the truth? I just don’t get it.
All of the effected cities have a city attorney (Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mt. View, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Portola Valley and more)
Get them all together and file a class action or group lawsuit. The attorneys are already on the payroll, what’s the problem? I’ll be happy to set that meeting up tomorrow!
By doing nothing, the FAA can proclaim their plan is working and Congress can do nothing to help us. We have to litagate. They have left us with no other option. The expansion of SFO Terminal One opens in 2019 and believe it or not, it will get even worse.
I was at that meeting and spoke about the horrendous impact NextGen has had on Los Altos as well.
It’s heartbreaking to see this happen because the FAA made an irresponsible decision. Any good class action attorneys out there willing to help? You will make history and give thousand of people their lives back!



28 people like this
Posted by John L
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm

Palo Alto residents although living in the heart of Silicon Valley must be stupid so ......The case in Phoenix, she said, was an anomaly because the FAA had made "many errors" in failing to conduct an adequate environmental review

So the planes flying low over Palo Alto approaching SFO having us and kids breathe their plane exhaust (VOCs, particulate matter, etc) is not an environmental danger???? When was airplane exhaust considered healthy did I miss thing here?


If I can read the tail logos (Southwest, British Airways, Laufthansa,etc ) and see their engines they are really flying too low.


33 people like this
Posted by Nancy Martin
a resident of Los Altos
on Apr 10, 2018 at 3:53 pm

Well.... the title sums it up “Officials conclude legal challenge is unlikely to succeed”
To the city councils everywhere.... You do know that you are what you believe, right? You can’t win unless you try and you’re already defeated if you don’t believe you can.

Why are our officials so afraid of failure? Take a stand, defend your people. That’s what they elected you!
You might benefit by reading the biography of Teddy Rosevelt. Leaders don’t back down from doing the right thing. Your people need you to fight for them!


17 people like this
Posted by John L
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 10, 2018 at 3:53 pm

If the city's legal team can't hack it (can't believe Palo Alto of all places is throwing in the towel) maybe the city can work with one of the many powerful Silicon Valley law firms on PageMill or by 101 freeway to get the job done.

What happened to the "can do" spirit of the city? Isn't this the city where Hewlett Packard was founded??


44 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 10, 2018 at 4:20 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Liz Kniss has been on a mission to turn Palo Alto into a very dense metropolis for many years now. No other local politician is more responsible for the destruction off this town and it quality of life. She has been pushing development and urbanization for decades. There was zero chance that P.A. would sue the FAA with her as mayor. I suspect she would have pushed for an international major airport in Palo Alto if she could get away with it, and if the planes didn't fly over her house.


25 people like this
Posted by Steve Dabrowski
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 10, 2018 at 4:27 pm

Three rubes went to Washington, got rolled by the FAA and come back full of fire. Really stuck with it didn't they.


6 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 10, 2018 at 5:17 pm

Suing the Trump administration will just cause him to respond with a barrage of Twitter bullying, which will be terrible for local businesses.


7 people like this
Posted by Ensey
a resident of another community
on Apr 10, 2018 at 9:27 pm

What about the class b problem? They rolled out a program that added major noise and pollution because they did it wrong on so many levels.


22 people like this
Posted by Local Guy
a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 11, 2018 at 7:40 am

Thank you not wasting money on litigation that was likely to fail and that frankly does not represent the slightest of concerns for the overwhelming majority of citizens of this city. How on earth can people think that jets that cruise a mile over our city (typically with engines running on relatively low idle which emits less pollution and with winds that usually run out towards the Bay) are a source of air problems relative to the tens of thousands of cars idling on our jammed local streets/highways is beyond me. Thanks again and lets now press on with the real issues that influence the quality of life in this town, like zero affordable housing, terrible traffic, etc.


14 people like this
Posted by Welcome to PalAereotroplis
a resident of Community Center
on Apr 11, 2018 at 7:57 am

"Liz Kniss has been on a mission to turn Palo Alto into a very dense metropolis for many years now. No other local politician is more responsible for the destruction off this town and it quality of life. She has been pushing development and urbanization for decades. There was zero chance that P.A. would sue the FAA with her as mayor. I suspect she would have pushed for an international major airport in Palo Alto if she could get away with it, and if the planes didn't fly over her house."

Welcome to PalAerotropolis where developers and airports come together

Aerotropolis.com
Web Link

"Dr. Kasarda defined the term "aerotropolis" and works with airports, cities, and countries worldwide to leverage airports and aviation for commercial development and economic growth."

PalAerotropolis is where you can drop $$$$millions on a City Hall "tech" upgrade so that more developer and airport deals can be made

Assuring housing and traffic management to leverage all the ASSETS the City has


9 people like this
Posted by Welcome to PaleRotropolis
a resident of Community Center
on Apr 11, 2018 at 8:32 am

Planning for the future

Web Link

"Aerotropolis planning principles are provided to improve (1) people and logistics mobility, (2) airport area land use and community development, and (3) firm and regional competitiveness. Focus is on creating new "economies of speed" in goods and services trade through better local and global aerotropolis connectivity with coordinated business siting."

"Economies of Speed"! wohooo!


6 people like this
Posted by Oh well...
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 11, 2018 at 2:20 pm

Palo Alto is a terrible place to live. Why do folks put up with airport noise, traffic concerns, parking, freeway noise, incredibly stupid housing costs, uncontrolled development, an ineffective city council and city manager (and senior staff ), no plan to fix infrastructure, etc, etc, etc., and basically a very poorly run city? Sitting back and complaining is always fun and somewhat absurd but I guess that is the Palo Alto way! Good luck! Revolution Now!


17 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 11, 2018 at 3:14 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Palo Alto has indeed become a terrible place to live. Polluted, overcrowded, incredibly noisy and tacky, out of control traffic, too many rude and inconsiderate . Living in P.A now is truly an act of masochism. I'm so glad I left two years ago. I'm sorry I didn't leave much earlier.


10 people like this
Posted by NO MORE ROOM!
a resident of Green Acres
on Apr 11, 2018 at 11:57 pm


Really~ the majority of rude people and people trying to enter into the business and social norms of our beloved old Palo Alto ways are the ones who come her with a desire to make money ~at any cost~ to our once laid back town.


8 people like this
Posted by Fed up
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2018 at 10:47 am

SFO had been there since the 1930s and jet aircraft began serving SFO in 1959. The early jets were much more noisy than modern ones. Since the airport was there before most of us moved in, people should stop complaining.


35 people like this
Posted by To stop complaining
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2018 at 10:55 am

In my case, I specifically looked for a quiet house. I’m about as far away from a major airport as I can be on the peninsula.

The low, frequent planes overhead have eliminated enjoyable time in my yard; another criteria for my choice of house.

The planes prevent me from quality sleep. It’s a major impact on quality of life.

Stop complaining about people who want to reduce this problem.

What can your goal possibly be?


17 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 12, 2018 at 10:32 pm

We should sue. Just today I read an article in "The Guardian" online: Web Link

Living near heavy traffic increases risk of dementia, say scientists

Study tracking 6.6 million people estimates one in 10 cases of Alzheimer’s among those living by busy roads could be linked to air and noise pollution.

--

Maybe the folks who say they don't care or do not hear the airplane noise pollution are telling the truth or they could be demented.


38 people like this
Posted by hopeless
a resident of Community Center
on Apr 13, 2018 at 7:32 am

KAL8213 and ASA1893 rumbled over Palo Alto last night around 1:30am. The ASA1893 airbus 320's signature whistling and air brake screeching was absolutely horrific !!


11 people like this
Posted by HitTheMoney
a resident of another community
on Apr 13, 2018 at 10:10 am

Perhaps it’s time for the FAA NextGen program’s NorCal and SoCal Metroplexes to meet NorCal and SoCal class action lawsuits.
Some encouragement in this direction from our neighbor to the north.

"Class action lawsuit over noise pollution at Trudeau airport gets green light" by Anne Leclair (Global News Canada, April 11, 2018), link to article:

Web Link

"We want to be able to sleep at night."

Sounds like a basic human right to me for our elected officials to protect. Further on that, check out Russell G. Foster at the University of Oxford (England), Director of the Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute and Fellow at Brasenose College, who tells people to make time for sleep. I do! But the 24/7 low flying aircraft won’t let me sleep! Anyway, no cause for alarm, right? We just whiners who need to move or wear earplugs all the time, which BTW don’t suffice. Foster states that "disruption of the sleep/wake axis results in a broad range of interconnected pathologies such as poor vigilance and memory; reduced mental and physical reaction times; reduced motivation; metabolic abnormalities; immune impairment and even a greater risk of cancer." See? Nothing serious stop your complaining and just MOVE, THE AIRPORT WAS THERE FIRST, blah, blah, blah.

"The World Health Organization considers anything above 55 to be a health hazard."

65 DNL annual average must be abolished and maximum per event limits determined by real, not computer simulated, on the ground measurements made the standard. A healthy sound environment should not be a billionaire right but a human right.

"We are looking for a complete curfew from 11 in the evening to 7 in the morning"

Ah, I haven't had one of those since the NextGen program started. Can't even remember what that's like...

Best wishes to our neighbors up north!


18 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2018 at 9:01 pm

April 13, 2018 9:00PM:

Very loud jet noise every 5-10 minutes for the last three hours.


10 people like this
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2018 at 9:19 pm

Can people get off their high horses with this "basic human right" nonsense? There are three international airports in the area. Airplanes are going to be flying over people's houses.


13 people like this
Posted by May
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2018 at 9:35 pm

Good read from reputable sources below it's not just the noise it's the exhaust

Web Link

Web Link


22 people like this
Posted by Lawson
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Apr 13, 2018 at 11:47 pm

Mary

Thanks for sharing the articles, air pollution is definitely a concern, have to why people get lung cancer but they never smoked. Wonder if the great minds at Stanford have any research on Nextgen and air pollution/health effects it would be a good research project. We have a lot of schools around here and kids are getting exposed unknowingly.

Yes airports won't go away but the increased frequency
, consolidated paths, and lower attitudes didn't exist a few years ago our city was a quieter city then and now a dumping ground to SFO. When your quality of life suddenly changes to bad you have to speak out. I didn't move to Palo Alto to be close to SFO.




19 people like this
Posted by Trust in government
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 16, 2018 at 1:51 pm

"supporting regional roundtables relating to aircraft impacts"

Roundtables are the government style (like Palo Alto's) to pretend they are listening to us, but allow us to talk only to a few people around a table.
This keeps the group from recognizing a consensus and the city can continue doing what it wants.
Divide and conquer.

No wonder trust in Palo Alto's government is so low,


1 person likes this
Posted by @Bob Gleason
a resident of another community
on Apr 16, 2018 at 9:17 pm

"Well, well... the wealthiest set of zip codes in the country has decided to fold and let all of it's residents look forward to a long, ineffective, waste of time "regional committee"."

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving set of zip codes.


11 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2018 at 2:15 pm

Lawsuit will work, don't know why local elected officials are supporting NextGen routes?

news for Phoenix residents impacted by NextGen route shifting!
Effective March 29, 2018 the FAA has essentially reverted back to two former routes for aircraft that depart Sky Harbor to the west and either continue west or turn north. The routes are the first step in implementing an agreement between the FAA, City of Phoenix and historic neighborhoods northwest of downtown Phoenix, after the City and the neighborhoods SUED the FAA over flight path changes. The new routes approximate the paths that were flown prior to September 2014.
Residents return to the peaceful pre 2015 environment while awaiting the FAA's execution on the feasible items.


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 17, 2018 at 3:00 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

A law suit might work if all of the underlying jurisdictions are parties to the lawsuit. In the case of Phoenix the city basically constitutes all of the underlying areas so it was easy to have a unified position. In the case of the peninsula communities they each one of them have a different objective - move the noise over someone else's community.


17 people like this
Posted by Jetman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2018 at 10:30 pm

Carpenter said:

"In the case of the peninsula communities they each one of them have a different objective - move the noise over someone else's community"

This sounds like projection on your part. Atherton worked quietly to have the air traffic shifted from southern Sam Mateo County to Northern Santa Clara County. Dr. Crystal's analysis of the FAA's radar flight data proved the shift.

Residents of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Portola Valley been working together and pushing for an "Over the Bay" solution, but their is no political will to force the FAA to act. The Party "leadership" in SF and San Mateo County like the noise right where it is... in northern Santa Clara County.




10 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2018 at 3:10 pm

Atherton has it all. Political might to move the jet traffic, no worry about "affordable housing", density, traffic calming, office buildings and all the other aggravations that are given to us by our elected officials.

Return the jet highway to pre nextgen and the problem is solved.


19 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 18, 2018 at 10:05 pm

And the problem is not just noise. As I was walking about by the Baylands today one of those extremely loud mutli-engine prop planes came in over Byxbee park for a landing as I was headed back to the parking lot choking on what smelled like diesel fuel or kerosene for half a mile. Someone also mentioned that these aviation fuels for propellors planes still contain lead in them. Palo Altans go out there to walk and run and we do not expect to be gassed.

This needs to stop. Get rid of the Palo Alto airport and put some reasonable limits on planes going to SFO and SJC.

Stop this backsliding on the environmental cleanup and pollution.


6 people like this
Posted by HitTheMoney
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2018 at 12:23 pm

Thank Congress for giving the FAA the following power with NextGen's implementation:

The categorical exclusion (CATEX) effectively means that the FAA is "not required to follow its own rules" and that the administration can implement the change without filing otherwise required permission requests under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (Phoenix's historic neighborhood "win" better pay attention to this, because the modest changes they've recently gotten can be undone overnight with this.)

This all out attack on human health and the environment is by no means news to members of Congress; it's their own handiwork as enthusiastic industry captives.

Don't let them fool you.


2 people like this
Posted by HitTheMoney
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2018 at 3:24 pm

Here’s a link to the bill by Congress for anyone interested, H.R. 658 (112th): FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
Web Link

The bill was introduced Feb 2011, it passed both chambers in identical form, House and Senate, in Feb 2012, and was enacted into law by the President (rather than vetoed) in Feb 2012 as well. It’s amazing how fast the wheels of government turn for industry. Here’s a link to the bill’s brief timeline from introduction to passage where you can see how your reps in the House and Senate voted (Feinstein and Boxer – both yea):
Web Link

Of note in the bill is the granting by Congress to the FAA Administrator the power declaring a "categorical exclusion" or CATEX of the human environment when implementing NextGen procedures. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the bill:

213.
Acceleration of NextGen technologies
(c)
Coordinated and expedited review
(1)
In general
Navigation performance and area navigation procedures developed, certified, published, or implemented under this section shall be presumed to be covered by a categorical exclusion (as defined in section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations) under chapter 3 of FAA Order 1050.1E unless the Administrator determines that extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to the procedure.
(2)
Nextgen procedures
Any navigation performance or other performance based navigation procedure developed, certified, published, or implemented that, in the determination of the Administrator, would result in measurable reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a per flight basis, as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace, shall be presumed to have no significant affect on the quality of the human environment and the Administrator shall issue and file a categorical exclusion for the new procedure.


4 people like this
Posted by Lawsuti by lawsuit
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 23, 2018 at 12:56 am

Hitthemoney,


Lawsuit by lawsuit FAA will still do more if they are not allowed to abuse NEPA laws. If you turn a blind eye and you let them break the law sure they can do it again.

Phoenix won the case challenging a CATEX and they could win again. Looks like FAA is being more careful now.

See the new CATEX that they are doing in Phoenix Web Link. It has more information and the community is not objecting this time, but this would never ave happened unless FAA got caught.

What really stinks is that Congress makes communities go by way of Roundtables which are official "turn a blind eye" organizations.


2 people like this
Posted by HitTheMoney
a resident of another community
on Apr 23, 2018 at 5:22 pm

Lawsuit by lawsuit,

Thanks for the link re CATEX as relates to Phoenix case. I agree, no fight is not the answer. How fights are framed in terms of goals and precedents however is what’s key to gaining and sustaining momentum for a real nationwide rectification of NextGen's significant impact on human health and the environment. In the case of Phoenix, for instance, regardless of whether people live in a historic neighborhood they should not suffer the noise and air pollution of low altitude flight paths, nor should they suffer this because they don't live in a particular Santa Cruz Mountains community with unique topographical features and remarkably low ambient noise levels. People are fighting in NYC against this incessant low-altitude barrage.

The problem with CATEX, including as pertains to Phoenix, is the situation of the fox guarding the hen house. "The FAA determines..." "The FAA must consider the potential for extraordinary circumstances..." and "FAA determines if an EA or EIS is merited." And beyond the utter lack of checks and balances to the process as a whole, and the far from officially acknowledged, horrendous suffering that's gone on for years now I can't fathom what the FAA's definition of extraordinary circumstances would be.

And those suffering nationwide are supposed to consider it a win that Congress members included a stipulation in the latest FAA budget approval that the FAA analyze its standards and metrics as relates to the program's impact on human health and the environment. Congress is the fox guarding the hen house too.

The FAA's annual budget is about 16 billion. And it fights the public with the public's money and the branches of government's ultimate backing. We're coming up against government at every level effectively representing industry over the citizenry as a whole. Someone from a group fighting in Boston asked, What do you do when your government is against you? Well put.

Definitely fight. But if we keep electing people who sell us down the river and we keep helping this industry's year on year profits go up I'm not confident about the direction this is going.

Here's a link to the FAA’s FY 2018 budget:
Web Link

Over 700 pages, but here are some callouts:

p. 607, 723 "NextGen Wake Turbulence Program" – to avoid runway construction cost and public resistance, and increase takeoff and landing frequency and decrease time at airport surface and terminal; wake RECAT; this is why they’re not budging on altitude – the low altitude flight paths are the airports’ invisible tarmac (Atlanta is the brag e.g. – world’s busiest airport in 2017, 104 million passengers)

p. 636, 639-640 "Grants-In-Aid for Airports" / Airport Improvement Program (AIP) – FY18 request 3.35 billion, funding to airports as a means for expediting environmental review and associated permitting, continued funding to enhance capacity and efficiency at all airports, funding helps remove delays for modernity projects

p. 617 – 620 "The Environment and Energy (E&E) Program" – it’s noted that community acceptance is an obstacle to aviation capacity expansion and airspace design objectives and that it's anticipated that resistance will grow with "new entrants such as unmanned aircraft systems and supersonic aircraft"; it's stated that "community concerns . . . are having an impact on the realization of NextGen"

So given that last quote the fight is having an impact, but the FY18 budget doc as a whole is full steam ahead regardless with "stakeholder collaboration" and commitment to plan. Meetings with the public, the citizenry, basically amount to, This is what we're doing to you, or, This is what we're going to do to you next. (And dishonestly presented at that.) Attrition game. UAS and supersonic are next . . .

The only environmental "protection" that the "stakeholders" intend to tolerate is that which allows for "sustained aviation growth." And we all know what that feels like and it's set to get worse. So if we don't first challenge the assumption that aviation should be allowed to keep increasing capacity I fail to see where the fight is ultimately going.


Like this comment
Posted by HitTheMoney
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2018 at 1:34 pm

One other callout from FAA’s FY 2018 budget:
p. 641 - vast majority of public-use airports in the US are owned and operated by municipal, city, and state gov. agencies or independent public authorities

There's A LOT more that officials at these levels of governing could be doing for the communities in which they live and claim to represent rather than lending their weight to those at the federal level operating as the blunt instrument for industry.


5 people like this
Posted by HitTheMoney
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2018 at 9:47 am

From "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: CDC 24/7 Saving Lives, Protecting People" (US Dept of Health and Human Services)

Really? Where are you on the NextGen 24/7 low altitude aircraft assault shore to shore then?

What should I do if I can’t sleep? (Warning: there's no advice if the robber of sleep and peace is the government's NextGen program)
Web Link

How much sleep do I need? (Adults 7 to 10, and for those younger the need only increases, and it's not just the total hours but the quality, i.e. uninterrupted, restful sleep.)
Web Link

And for those who drive. Drowsy Driving:
Web Link

How to prevent drowsy driving?
#1 "Get enough sleep! Most adults need at least 7 hours of sleep a day, while adolescents need at least 8 hours." (We want to CDC 24/7 Saving Lives, Protecting People but another branch and agency of government has obliterated that basic human right and need! Again, where are you with your saving lives and prevention motto?)

And AAA Traffic Safety Advocacy and Research: “missing just two to three hours of sleep can more than quadruple your risk for a crash, which is the equivalent of driving drunk.”


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Retail's Real Estate Glut is Growing
By Steve Levy | 11 comments | 2,031 views

Munchie Movement
By Laura Stec | 9 comments | 901 views

 

2018 guide to summer camps

Looking for something for the kids to do this summer, learn something new and have fun? The 2018 Summer Camp Guide features local camps for all ages and interests.

Find Camps Here