#11 The Airport Conundrum

Number Eleven: The Airport Conundrum

Alright, I’ve got a question for you. Imagine this. There is a small neighborhood next to a major airport. Most of the neighborhood’s families have lived there long before the city even had an airport. The airport provides good jobs for many people in the growing city, but as the airport gets bigger, the noise of the planes is bothering the neighborhood’s residents and making it hard for them to sleep.

Now the airport wants to expand and add even more flights. What do you think should happen next?

Option A: Neighborhood Vote. Only the people who live in the neighborhood should get to vote on whether the airport should be allowed to expand.

Option B: Citywide Vote. Everyone in the city should get to vote on whether the airport should be allowed to expand.

Option C: Government Decision. The local government should decide whether or not to allow the airport to expand after talking to the airport, neighbors, and other people in the city.

So, who gets to decide if the airport can expand? Are you Team Neighborhood Vote, Team Citywide Vote, or Team Government Decision?

Writing: Josh Dahn and the Astra Nova Conundrums Team
Animation: Igor Coric, ARTRAKE
Voice: Wolf, Carasmatic Productions
SFX and Music: Matthew Pablo
Sound Mixing: David Dans, Carasmatic Productions

[visionartstudio]

Wait a minute. The community didn't have an airport to begin with. Yet they decided it was okay to have a major airport built next door. Of course it's going to get noisy!
There should be adequate distancing from the airports field to the first residential houses from the initial plans. Anyways for the sake of the conundrum...
All three parties should come together to find solutions. As each party has different intentions, choosing one only limits the potential solutions that could be created to find that amicable outcome.

[steelyboi]

This is exactly like the problem with London Heathrow Airport, almost identical. Is that what you guys got the idea from?

[matteomartellini]

The solution that can bring to everyone happiness would the the neighborhood vote, if they have the power of expanding the airport then the airport and city have to turn their votes from no to yes, this would mean that they'd have to pay for a solution that would benefit the neighborhood, like soundproofing their homes for free, priority opening at jobs at the airport if they are interested, and maybe free flights for vacations.

If you choose citywide vote, then the airport will focus on the majority of the population and ignore the neighborhood which would bring protests and residents moving out, leaving empty houses and never solving the problem in the first place.

If you choose government vote, then the airport would just try to satisfy politicians and ignore the population, which doesn't solve the problem.

There is the other side too with the neighborhood vote, if the airport does nothing and the neighborhood votes no then you have two problems, the airport can't expand and the neighborhood will still hear the planes, if the airport acts but the neighborhood goes rogue and still votes no, then the city would probably protest because they don't have more jobs and the neighborhood didn't maintain their promise even after the airport solved their problems.

Another solution would be a government law/regulation where the airport has to soundproof every house in hearing distance before they can build/expand

[MeghaSaini-qxef]

Option C: As option A is not fair to the other residents of the city, option B will divide the city into those who want it and those who don't. option C allows for the decision to be made by authorities who can weigh in all the variables and even provide some kind of relief or compensation or alternate living spaces to the citizens who are against the decision being made. In the long run, the airport will not only creat more jobs but also increase the wealth flow in the city resulting in development and progress for all.

[meghanexner]

I pick neighborhood vote because they were there first (Ruby age 7)

[moQian-emop]

There are two people who have the most important impact on the airport: 1: The aircraft company’s demand is to expand the airport, which can increase revenue for the airline, and is more beneficial to urban transportation, economic development, and increased employment. 2: For Aboriginal people, the noise generated by the expanding airport and aircraft has an increasing impact on their lives. The quality of life continues to decrease without any benefit from urban development. Aboriginal people do not mind the airport expansion, but they hope that their quality of life will not decline. The government should coordinate the needs and interests of all parties. A better way to solve this problem is: the airport can be expanded near residential areas, but it must buy the houses where the indigenous people currently live, add dormitories for airport employees, and build temporary hotels for air travelers to facilitate their accommodation. At the same time, we are working with real estate developers to build a new, more spacious and comfortable community in a place with beautiful scenery, not disturbed by airplanes, and where the land price is relatively cheap. Aboriginal people can exchange their old houses for new ones. Or sell their old home and buy a new one wherever they like.

[Highlyskeptical]

Option A Biased because of proximity
Option B 3 Wolves and a Sheep voting what's for dinner.
Option C Local government should be utilitarian or voted out in a functioning democracy

[andrebrunel]

I live near an airport and it's not bad at all in my opinion. City should decide.

[KrishAgrawal]

The airport authorities should shift the neighborhood residents to the city by providing every financial aid possible.

-We all know the airport has enough money to do it
-The neighborhood residents would not be disturbed by noise since they are living in the city i.e away from the airport

One problem that may occur would be, people denying to shift to the city due to their emotional connection. We can solve this by marketing the city life in such a way that people of the neighborhood would desire to live in the city.

However, to avoid these kinds of problems in the future, we should consider people living nearby when building airports.

[awemaagencewebmarketingci]

Alors la je ne sais vraiment pas, pourquoi l'areoport ne leurs batit pas des maison meilleurs plus loin ou même investir dans de la technologie de reduction de bruit ?

[jaslienoel]

I think the neighborhood should decide because if it gets too annoying people might move away

[eylulebru]

Why dont AirPort authorities work with scientists to find a way to block the noise?

[WeAreBlank]

City vote. Picking the government would just be using rehashed rules that aren’t in the preference of the overall DEMOCRATIC population.
If it’s communist, well, there would only be one choice whether we like it or not. So let’s take our chances wisely.

[arihantkhaitan]

The airport should be made away from the houses or the houses should be shifted, or the goverment should build noise proofs glasses so that the residents can live peacfully and the new airport can also be build

[jesuschristTRUTH]

They should give ear plugs lifetime for free in the neighborhood.

[Wilfoe]

The third politician who didn't want to vote made me laugh. This conundrum reminds me of a video I saw a long time ago of an airport that was right next to a beach. The people and sand on the beach right behind the planes went flying when the planes took off! There were a lot of things that could have been done differently at the beach...people could've avoided that part of the beach, that section could have been off limits, the airport could have put a more solid wall between the airplanes and the beach to stop the wind from the turbines, etc.

On the subject of this problem, it often seems like this is just how the world works. Stuff happens and you have to adapt. I think it's up to the people living in the neighborhood to complain to the city to try to get something done about this. It feels to me like, rather than having no wrong answer, this question has no right answer. Considering that sleep seems to be a big issue here...perhaps the airport just shouldn't be allowed to run at night? If I had to pick one of these three options, assuming the politicians are good at their jobs, the government vote may be the way to go. Most of the folks in the city wouldn't appreciate the neighborhood's plight and many would say things like 'just move' or 'deal with it', so that leaves it up to those directly affected by the noise to take action and inform the politicians.

I think what should happen is that the people in the neighborhood should organize themselves, come up with a list of complaints and a representative, then go to the government. From there, it's up to the government to do something about it. Perhaps new terminals for the airport could be a bit further away from the neighborhood or there could be more time between flights so that the people living there have more time to relax. I don't think the people living elsewhere in the city should be permitted to vote on this.

[THEMATT]

I think the airport should be able to expand but they need to be taxed some of their profits by the government so the government can provide everyone in the neighbourhood with free earplugs/ear protections.

[djascsdj]

who gets to decide if the airport can expand? Government Decision. after talking to the airport, neighbors, and other people in the city

[sirkwamebota]

i think a city-wide vote because it also concerns them if the airport expands or not

[kallutozoldyck]

I'll go for a government vote because the majority of the whole country decides on electing them along with the responsibilities that the government had like the decision that they have to make in solving that problem