"Foes of Chicago's O'Hare airport to file protest with FAA"

Monday, August 23, 2004

Foes of Chicago's O'Hare airport to file protest with FAA
The Chicago (IL) Tribune


Opponents of a multibillion-dollar proposal to expand O'Hare International
Airport are expected to file an official objection to the plan Monday with
the Federal Aviation Administration, saying it does not pass key legal and
regulatory requirements.

In a 36-page letter, lawyers for the suburbs of Bensenville and Elk Grove
Village tell the FAA that the agency is legally bound to reject the city's
applications for a new runway and taxi configuration and a federal grant
that would fund the project's first phase. The attorneys also ask for
opposing-party status that would give them access to all communications and
an opportunity to respond to them if the FAA continues its review.

While several of the issues in the letter have been raised previously, the
filing marks the first formal list of legal reasons why the FAA must reject
the plans, said the attorneys, who also represent church members fighting to
protect two cemeteries that would be destroyed by the expansion.

"It's the first time that a formal objection has been filed with the FAA,"
said Robert Cohn, an attorney with Shaw Pittman LLP, a Washington law firm,
and co-author of the letter.

Among its other issues, the letter asks the FAA to review simultaneously
four interrelated applications the city has made in connection with the
expansion, rather than take the current piecemeal approach of making
decisions on some before others.

If the piecemeal method continues, the government could sign off on one
application that would let the city seize property that contains the
cemeteries and hundreds of homes before a decision is made on approving
funds for the expansion, the lawyers contend. If the agency then rejects two
proposed funding mechanisms for the expansion and the plan dies, "the
destruction of the communities and the religious properties will have
needlessly occurred with the FAA's full knowledge, concurrence and
assistance," the attorneys wrote.

According to the objection, the FAA also would violate religious freedoms if
it approves the plan because it cannot show a compelling need to destroy the
cemeteries. In addition, there are alternatives to reducing air-traffic
delays and congestion without tearing up the burial grounds.

Finally, the lawyers argue that the FAA can't sign off on two different
funding mechanisms for expansion because the proposal won't produce benefits
that exceed the costs and there is insufficient funding from non-federal
sources.

City officials have stood by the proposal, saying it will vastly reduce
delays and save airlines money and passengers time. They have pointed to
American and United Airlines' willingness to put up money for part of the
project as examples of non-federal funding sources.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************