HICOP to have a booth this Sunday 11-6 at Makuu

[Lee M-S]

I used to live off Kahakai. That is one noisy road!

It's the only place on this island I ever got home mail delivery. I guess there's a price for everything!

><(((*< ... ><(("< ... ><('< ... >o>

[Obie]

Barking dogs piss me off !!!!

[My 2 cents]

We are growing by leaps and bounds. We have our first lawyer member who told me that we have a constitutional right to peace and quiet at our homes. He thought a class action lawsuit would prevail with damages awarded.

I have always thought a class action would be successful. Royalties. They profit from the viewing of our properties at great discomfort to us. Also, I think precedent has been set in that the national park charges them to fly through their airspace and view their property. However, I would hope that the royalties would be too expensive for them and they would choose to fly around us. That is a gamble. Others have suggested money for our roads as consolation. Given the choice between bad roads and constant noise from above, I'll take the bad roads.

[leilanidude]

Others have suggested money for our roads as consolation.
-------
Would that royalty money be given to the various corrupt subdivision boards that have been squandering their road maintenance funds for 50 years?

[My 2 cents]

quote:

---

Originally posted by leilanidude

Others have suggested money for our roads as consolation.
-------
Would that royalty money be given to the various corrupt subdivision boards that have been squandering their road maintenance funds for 50 years?

---

Indeed there are many flaws to this, perhaps the biggest being that it probably wouldn't stop the noise, which is the main objective.

In reading through all of the ideas presented here, there are 2 that stand out to me as most viable:

1. Relocate the heliport to a place closer to the viewing area, and

2. Enforce this by voter initiative. Cheaper and probably faster and more to the point than a lawsuit.

[kalakoa]

Enforce this by voter initiative.

Would that be anything like the "lowest law enforcement priority" initiative which County simply ignored due to "Federal pre-emption"?

[My 2 cents]

I don't think it would be the same because a private entity is less likely to ignore it, and the money structure is different. The tour companies will not get additional money from federal grants, etc., by ignoring the rules. It would only create more problems for them.

But I get your point.

[kalakoa]

I don't think it would be the same because a private entity is less likely to ignore it, and the money structure is different.

I think it's exactly the same: aircraft are regulated by FAA, not the State or County.

[My 2 cents]

Obviously, a County law that says they can fly at 100' agl would be in violation of Federal law, but requiring them to fly at 5000' agl or not at all in a specific airspace would not violate the Federal rules. Is there anything in the FAA rules that says that the State or County cannot place FURTHER restrictions on flights that do not conflict with existing FAA rules?

[leilanidude]

Of all the pictures and videos that people take of helicopters supposedly flying way too low, it is apparent to me that they are above 1500 feet to begin with, which is why the photos and videos are so blurry. The rare exceptions being reen harvest and HELCO line check flights.