To RCAA Home Page
To RCAA Library Page

RCAA Comments on Sea-Tac Master Plan (SMP)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Chapter IV, Section 6: Social Impacts

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
                              * * *