Thread: Battle over banning noise complaints against military gun range goes to court

I see two sides to this and can see why locasl are concerned about a change in the status quo. But I also see the flip sode of the coin. How many speedway clubs / raceways and cart clubs have set up out in the bondocks to be good neighbours and make noise far away from neighbours then have had to shut down because someone bought the noisy land cheap and developed it then decided the noise was bad for values and complained until said club was shut down or restricted?

Sound familiar...Its why Taylor swift did not perform at western springs.....(She couldnt get two shows / nights as that would put the stadiun over the number of noisy nights they are allowed in a year and one show was uneconomical)

How many people have you heard of that buy cheap properties near an airport then want the airport moved because the noise is driving values down....? I know one situation where someone bought a house next to a local dive pub cos it was a bargain then bitched and moaned until said pub was forced to close because the got annoyed with drunks late at night....Thats why it was cheap to start with....

Perhaps this is one of the few areas where the range can operate now and that they cannot move, thus need to protect what they have from being pushed out by people who buy cheap then complain about the existing neighbour lowering values when that is why they got it in the first place......

Perhaps the Amry HQ could have approached it in a better way, perhaps they could have discussed the effects of a covenant. As for the covenant lowering the value of the land argument....That is a load of .....The covenant is a notification of the noise and a statement that the buyer is aware they are getting a place near to a noisy area. If this devalues the land then it is only because the seller has not pointed that fact out already in order to get a higher price. IF the owner is not looking to sell then the lower value means a lower rates bill so there is an up side....

But @Localman I also understand your concerns about them getting the change then raising the amount of noise by making changes either in frequency or volume. And that would be unfair. Like all good media stories, they only ever publish half the facts and to give the reporter some credit, it is unlikely in my mind that either party gave 100% of the facts and presented what gave it the best light to their side....

I thiink in this case the court is where it should be sorted where both sides can present their arguments and reasons and it can be sorted out. I think the courts are better equiped to deal with the discussion than the media ever will be...