To RCAA Home Page
To RCAA Library
Page
Chapter IV, Section 6: Social Impacts Comment IV-6-1 -- Social Impacts -- Methodology. The Social Impacts section of the DEIS errs in the respect that it only considers a tiny fraction of the three-county that is directly, adversely impacted by the airport & its activities. The FEIS should address the social impacts on the entire three-county area. The FEIS should not be limited in its consideration of these issue to the primary (construction) area, the Runway Protection Zone, & the area to be acquired by the Port of Seattle in fee. (See discussion, DEIS IV.6-1, under the heading, ](1) METHODOLOGY ). Comment IV-6-2 -- Social Impacts -- Methodology. The DEIS has fallen into the error of considering impacts in much-too- small an area in part because it disregards the noise pollution outside its own, toonarrowly drawn 65 Ldn contours, an issue addressed in our comments on Section 2, Noise, & on Section 7, Human Health, infra. After the noise & health portions of the FEIS are written with proper consideration to accurate 65 Ldn contours, with use of other & more accurate noise metrics, & with actual noise sampling by appropriate technology at appropriate locations, then the Social Impacts section should be re-thought & re-cast. Comment IV-6-3 -- Social Impacts -- Methodology. The DEIS has fallen into the error of considering impacts in much-too- small an area in part because it uses inaccurate & inappropriate data & methods in considering the impacts of air pollution, an issue addressed in our comments on Section 9, Air Quality, & on Section 7, Human Health, infra. After the air-pollution portion of the FEIS is written with the aid of actual field sampling, with analysis based on more appropriate assumptions as to health risks, & with the elimination of analysis based on questionable computer models using questionable assumptions to process extremely dubious data, then then the Social Impacts section should be re-thought & re-cast. Comment IV-6-4 -- Social Impacts -- Methodology. (a) In revising section 6, the preparers should consider those impacts discussed briefly in our comment IV-8-13, that is, the disruptive effect on individuals & on established neighborhoods that might result from large-number, short-time-scale sales of residences to escape overflight impacts. It is here suggested that at a point in time large numbers of people in adversely-impacted nieghborhoods may despair of gaining relief from overflight impact (especially noise). A perception that the third and/or fourth runway is inevitable might well be a preciptating factor. At that point, the rate of placement of houses on the market would rise sharply, as owners seek to sell before property values plummet, & something approaching panic sets in. This is not a unique phenomonon in real-property history. One obvious impact would be a falling-off of property values, possibly a crash. (b) Another impact that merits thoughtful discussion would be a rending of the social fabric, as neighbors scatter to distant places, to be replaced by people with no prior connections with each other or the community. The more prosperous & well established the neighborhood, the greater the disruption caused by such flight from seemingly irremediable harm. Comment IV-6-5 -- Social Impacts -- Methodology. In revising section 6, the impacts just referred to in Comment IV-6-4 need to be addressed in a different context: in some parts of the three- county area there are neighborhoods where the ties of community are weak, where residential land lies unbuilt-upon, where it is hard to attract & to keep needed retail outlets & useful services. In most instances, these neighborhoods are also characterized by an over-representation of people of color, of recent immigrants from outside the U.S., & by people of low income (often all at once). We suggest that, owing to the constraints of topography, the principal flightlines from Sea-Tac pass over the larger part of such neighborhoods, & thus over the largest concentrations of people of color, of poor circumstances, &c.; The social impact of aircraft noise & air pollution, properly measured & properly assessed, falls very disproportionately on people in 'protected' classes, & on their neighborhoods. We adopt here the comments of Seattle Community Council Federation on this matter. Comment IV-6-6 -- Social Impacts -- Displacement. We suggest that the EIS is mistaken in positing in its discussion of displacement (p. IV.6-3) that people leaving the acquisition zones will relocate in near-by neighborhoods. The FEIS should address the possibility (which we think is the high likelihood) that given the chance to escape, displaced families will seek to relocate far, far from the airport. The likely exceptions will be people who feel that they are locked into employment (typically, ill-paid, not infrequently part-time or casual) in the immediate area, & who lack funds for adequate transportation to reach the workplace from remoter neighborhoods. The implications from such a differential displacement require further study. Comment IV-6-7 -- Social Impacts -- General. In the long term, erroneous decisions, such as the one proposed in this DEIS to center all major commercial aviation activity for the State on a crowded site in the center of the metropolitan area without regard to the resulting harm, cannot help but diminish the quality of life of the entire three-county area, as well as creating further erosion of trust between citizens & out-of-touch governments. There is a wonderfully arrogant touch of a "let them eat cake" attitude in all of this. Noise? The DEIS preparers don't hear any noise, so neither do the citizens. Air pollution? It's measured on trick computers, so it doesn't exist. Well, maybe it exists but it doesn't actually violate the law, so it's of no consequence. Health? No one particular person has been shown to have actually died from noise & air pollution, so there are no health problems, & if there were, the methodology of determining cause of death wouldn't appeal, bureaucratically, so disregard it. In a democracy, one would like to feel that government can be trusted. Wrong-headed decisions, justified by bad science & unsound analy sis, weaken the social fabric, with incalculable harm downstream. The FEIS would be far better received -- though opposition to the proposed project would not be lessened -- if it candidly admitted that noise has adverse impacts, that the F.A.A. has spread the noise widely & indiscriminately, that there is no relief in sight, & that the fourth runway is just an EIS away, too. Comment IV-6-8 -- Social Impacts -- Economic Impacts -- Map. (a) There needs to be a map similar to Ex. IV.6-1 (i.e., showing census tracts & ethnic data), but covering all areas of intense overflights. (b) The street names & census-tract numbers on map Ex. IV.6-1 are almost impossible to read without the aid of a hand lens; appropriate improvements should be made in the FEIS. ì * * *