Senator CANNON. In the interim, wouldn't it be possible for you to adopt your zoning ordinances? Obviously they could not have any retroactive affect but, at least, for example, you could make sure that no one could get a permit for an R-1 type of construction in the area that you have zoned for some other use. Wouldn't that help solve the problem in the future?

Ms. RUSSELL. I think you are right, generally. In the area around LAX, in our Westchester community, we are not seeing any R-1 construction. The construction that is being asked for is multiple with soundproofing.

Senator CANNON. Yes.

Ms. RUSSELL. As a matter of fact, because I have held up any decision on this until we get the plan through, I am not very popular with some people for the very reason that we are talking about. I have used my power I have in office to hold up the decision on building even multiple.

As chairman of our Building and Safety Committee of the Council, I am working on getting the ordinances through that will require soundproofing for any construction, more stringent soundproofing than we now have.

Senator CANNON. At least soundproofed to the extent that it would eliminate any problem from the standpoint of discomfort within the premises?

Ms. RUSSELL. Yes.

Senator CANNON. Senator Tunney?

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to concur with your statement that we heard an excellent recitation from Councilwoman Russell as to what the problem is and what the local community is trying to do to mediate the noise problem in the community.

Last year, as you know, we had the Nestle decision which indicated that the Supreme Court of California felt that an action for nuisance would lie against an airport for the noise that was produced by planes coming in and out of the airport and the Los Angeles city attorney indicated at that time that the airport might have to close down but subsequently recanted on that threat.

I am aware that 39 plaintiffs were awarded over $350,000 in damages in January of this year.

Now, what do you think the future is going to be with respect to lawsuits brought against the Los Angeles International Airport?

Ms. RUSSELL. In the case of the nuisance suits and the decision you are referring to, there was a great concern that this was going to produce a whole flood of lawsuits. Such has not been the case.

There are decisions coming out and there have been decisions since then giving awards for damages.

It is my view that the only way we are going to avoid the future lawsuits is to basically solve the problem and that is with the noise regulations we are talking about and also with the kind of zoning that we are looking at.

We are approaching a time of decision within the coming months on the land acquisition around the airport. Once we establish a clear line between the community and the airport and know that that is

27

the end of the airport acquisitions and that the noise will not increase from now on, but decrease, we will then lose the impetus of the lawsuits. I think that the lawsuits have been important in establishing precidents and leading toward legislation.

But, they do not solve problems for individuals. It really means months and years of anguish. They do not get the full worth for having gone through that. The only way that we are going to do that is through a combination of noise regulations and acquisitions. If, indeed, we now get this community plan through that I am talking about with a sufficient area of acquisitions, then the problem will be essentially solved.

We won't be quite and peaceful for ever, but it will be essentially solved in our area because the noise levels will be shrinking.

Senator TUNNEY. How much money are we talking about in purchasing the land and buildings?

Ms. RUSSELL. The area of acquisition that I am recommending is around $25 million and that is-now, you realize that I am speaking as a Los Angeles councilwoman and I am not speaking for Inglewood and the other cities.

Senator TUNNEY. Yes.

Ms. RUSSELL. We also have a major lawsuit brought by the Los Angeles City School District against the airport.

Senator TUNNEY. How much is that?

Ms. RUSSELL. I think that is $90 million, something like that. What this would lead to is the necessity for soundproofing in the schools.

I think there has been enough studies shown, and I have talked to enough school people that we can satisfactorily soundproof the schools so that they can continue with it.

Senator TUNNEY. They cannot soundproof the playground, though.

Ms. RUSSELL. No, that is true.

Our Westchester High School, though, is very close to the airport. Our kids went there and I have sat through graduation exercises with the planes overhead.

It is a very beautiful physical plant, and a new one, and I believe that most of the people in the community feel that if the building itself were soundproofed, it would be very acceptable.

Senator TUNNEY. So, what you are suggesting is that action has to be taken in order to prevent the airport from being subjected in the future to crippling lawsuits, action has to be taken by the city council to condemn the land around the airport to a sufficient extent out from the airport that there will not be any need for lawsuits at all, and this is going to cost, in the case of Los Angeles, approximately, the city of Los Angeles-approximately $25 million and you do not know how much it would cost for the other communitiesMs. RUSSELL. No.

Senator TUNNEY. Around the airport?

Ms. RUSSELL. Of course, it is not a decision made, in this case, by the Los Angeles City Council.

It is really a decision made by the Airport Board of Commissioners and the airline industry is important in this respect.

I would like to say that we recognize the economic impact on the airlines, and I think that this is something where, again, Congress can take the leadership in seeing that the economic burden is answered.

All I can say and our community can say is that the problem has to be solved. We recognize it has to be paid for and I think it is someplace where we need congressional leadership on how it is done. Senator TUNNEY. Now, just one last area of questioning, and that is: In regard to the whole doctrine of assumption of risk, what will happen to those people that have purchased homes subsequent to the time that jets began flying in and out of the airport, subsequent to the time that the additional runways, whether it was the fourth runway or the third runway was constructed so that the jets could come in and out? In other words, what is your attitude with respect to the compensation of those people?

Ms. RUSSELL. The great majority of the people who are impacted by noise in the Westchester Community and in the surrounding community of El Segundo, were there before the jets.

The communities were there before the jets, before any increase in noise. My family was also in and we went and talked-looked at the airport plans, before jets, what was acceptable in the community has changed completely since the advent of jets.

There is a small area in our community that grew up after the advent of jets. But, it is very small. The majority in the area that we are talking about acquiring and that has been acquired was there before the jets and before the tremendous increase in jet traffic.

Senator TUNNEY. Well, there does not seem to be any question that you would have to have condemnation and payment of property for those citizens that were there prior to the time the jets came in. But, I personally would say that if a person moves in after the jets have been taking off and landing, that that is an assumption of risk and the airport authorities and the city council should not have to assume the burden of condemning that property.

Ms. RUSSELL. Senator, I think that is a reasonable position, but there is a larger responsibility that I think the city has and that is that as long as there are properties that were built before the advent of jets.

Senator TUNNEY. Yes.

Ms. RUSSELL. If people want to move away and they need to because of the change in life, promotions, age, and et cetera, they have to sell that property to somebody and if they just walk off and leave it, then the city is left with slums.

Senator TUNNEY. Yes.

Ms. RUSSELL. And that is what we are faced with.

Now, I think we cannot lay that responsibility simply on the people who say that there are people foolish enough to walk into it. It is the same responsibility and as long as we have people living and working in that area, the city is responsible for the handling of that property.

If the people don't buy it, then we have slums, and this has been my haunting concern, that if we don't solve it we are sitting on the edge of going down very fast.

Senator TUNNEY. I agree with you. You have raised a good point. There clearly has got to be a much swifter method of condemning the property. I have not had an opportunity to visit that community next to the fourth runway. I wonder if

Ms. RUSSELL. We will invite you, right now.

Senator TUNNEY. Has it been condemned yet?

Ms. RUSSELL. No. We are looking for that-there is something called a 700 foot line

Senator TUNNEY. Yes.

Ms. RUSSELL. 700 feet has been bought by voluntary acquisition and we are really on tenter-hooks at this time to make sure that the line is added to and is made sufficient so that the community has a good future.

We invite you, while you are here, to see the community.
Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Pat.

Senator CANNON. Ms. Russell, this $25 million figure, does that include all of the residences within a certain nuisance zone area, socalled?

Ms. RUSSELL. Within a noise impact area, Senator.

Senator CANNON. Within a noise impact area.

Ms. RUSSELL. I want to say that that is my figure, and my recommendation as a councilman. The manager of the airport, Mr. Moore, will be making his recommendation for acquisition and that will be the moment of truth for our community, how close we come.

Senator CANNON. Now, does this include only R-1 properties, or does it likewise include some apartments that might have been built without soundproofing?

Ms. RUSSELL. It is nearly all R-1 property.

Senator CANNON. And would this include the complete acquisition of properties in such a way that the taking agency would thereafter be able to recover something by making these properties available for commercial development, or consistent with the plan that you defined. Is that correct?

Ms. RUSSELL. That is correct, Senator.

There are severe restrictions on how much they can use this that we have written into the plan.

Senator CANNON. Have you tried to compute the net loss that would be undertaken by this type of an action and then when making the properties available for some other use compatible with the plan, did you come up with a figure as to what that net loss might be?

Ms. RUSSELL. I don't have any figure on that. I have not heard from the airport whether they have figures.

The airport can only acquire property that the airport uses.

Senator CANNON. That's right.

Ms. RUSSELL. And the kind of uses they would say would be terminals and parking, of course, which is a tremendous problem in the area, the ground transportation, the ground access to the airport and parking facilities would be a major use to the area.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much.

Did Mayor Mergell arrive yet?

Mayor MERGELL. Yes, sir.

97-555-73-3

STATEMENT OF HON. MERLE MERGELL, MAYOR, CITY OF

INGLEWOOD, CALIF

Mayor MERGELL. Welcome to our city of Inglewood. We are happy to have you here.

Senator CANNON. Thank you.

Mayor MERGELL. As a matter of fact, I have a prepared text that I will not get into. It is technical and I will see that you get a copy of it.

Senator CANNON. We will have your text made a part of the record in full and you may summarize from it as you see fit.

Mayor MERGELL. Thank you.

I welcome you here, and, believe it or not, we have solved the aircraft noise problem and I would like to have you gentlemen be here 24 hours a day because, you see, they have diverted all flights off the north runway, which we are under right at this time.

So, perhaps, Senator Tunney, Senator Cannon, we have seven runways also, and if you would split your time one at each location, I think we can solve the problem.

Senator CANNON. It might be cheaper than condemnation.

Mayor MERGELL. I think it would have to be a 24-hour proposition, but we would love to have you in the city of Inglewood continually.

Gentlemen, I used that in a joking manner, but still, there is our hopelessness on the local level to do anything about aircraft noise. We are completely without power. We continually have citizens groups that come before us and they are good people that think that we can do something about it, and we can't. I know that Pat Russell who was here before you, she has, of course, problems and in her area, in Westchester-Inglewood, is a community, of course, a separate community, that is unfortunately directly under the flight path. There are four runways and, as far as asking-approximately 95,000— the entire city is disturbed by the aircraft.

I want to make it clear that we are not antiaircraft, antijet, antiairport.

Our economy flourishes because of the airport. We are aware of this. We are also aware that something can be done about the aircraft.

Just as so many years ago you could drive a car without a muffler until it became disturbing to everyone, so you had to put a muffler on your vehicle. Now, without a muffler on a car, you get better gas mileage, your car can go faster, have more power.

But, unfortunately, it disturbs people so that the automobiles have to be muffled. The aircraft industry

A VOICE. We cannot hear back here.

Mayor MERGELL. Excuse me.

That is the problems with microphones being too low.