I still don’t know much about the substantive law (if any) behind the lawsuit filed recently against the Air Force in federal court in Tucson. I posted about it a few weeks ago.
I did, however, find an item about it in the Air Force Times that includes a copy of the lawsuit. The Air Force Times item also says this:
Earlier media reports suggested the plaintiffs filed an injunction asking the Air Force to stop increasing aircraft sorties from the base altogether, but “we have not sought any kind of injunctive relief that would suspend the [Air Force’s] program,” Cardillo, who’s representing them on behalf of non-profit Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, said.
In other words, they really aren’t trying to immediately halt operations at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. They’re just trying to make the Air Force re-do an environmental analysis about a program that will temporarily increase the number of flights at the Base.
The lawsuit is founded on the claim that airport noise can detract from children’s mental development and education, and therefore the environmental review that was done in conjunction with a plan for more “visiting” aircraft to use the Base was inadequate.
I notice that according to the lawsuit, the three plaintiffs moved into their houses in 1987, 1997, and 2000. Johnny-come-latelys, all of them. They should’ve been around in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the aircraft using the Base were much louder than the aircraft using it today.
The complainers who came along in 1997 or later shouldn’t be able to say they weren’t warned that they were acquiring property in the vicinity of a military airport, since by then the state had a notification law in effect. And, as I have said on other occasions, even without the official notification, I think it would be pretty hard to be in the neighborhoods where the complainers live long enough to buy a house without noticing the airplanes flying overhead.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.