4 ms·

> what I cannot believe is that even after Guarulhos was expanded there was some talks about shutting down Congonhas that never materialised, even though it wou

> what I cannot believe is that even after Guarulhos was expanded there was some talks about shutting down Congonhas that never materialised, even though it would be a massive improvement for the city both regarding noise and land-use... The logic here: 1. Move to a property immediately near an airport 2. Notice there is aircraft noise near that airport 3. Complain about the aircraft noise 4. Demand the 80+ year old airport be shut down because the noise is a problem for you 5. Incredulity that the municipality won't shut down an airport because it annoys you It's like shooting yourself in the foot and suing the shoe manufacturer for not being bullet resistant.

avar 4y ago
This is a bad argument for a few reasons: A. Global airline traffic has approximately tripled in the last couple of decades[1], so even if you're arguing that someone should have known when they moved there it's not the same amount of noise as when they moved in. See e.g. [2] for historical Kennedy airport traffic amounts, it makes no sense to compare modern-day traffic at any airport to its current traffic and noise levels. B. It's basically a "let them eat cake" argument. Property prices in high-noise areas are lower, but poor people also deserve to have their health. It's a given that a rich person living near an airport can afford to noise insulation to make it a non-issue (indoors at least), but that doesn't begin to address the greater public health aspect. C. You're assuming that people are capable of making perfectly informed decisions before they move or buy property. You might know that the house is next to the train tracks, but you won't really know what affect waking up at 4am to screeching train noise will have on you until you settle in. I live in a house constructed before WWI in a major European city. If we follow your reasoning it would be perfectly OK to heat all those houses with indoor stoves spewing unfiltered particulates into the air, with the resulting air pollution and fire risk. After all if we wind back the clock that's what people who bought those houses initially expected, and if the default answer to how we could improve our collective living conditions was "you should have known about this when you bought it!" nothing would ever change. But it doesn't work like that, standards change over time, and in the case of air or noise pollution bottom-up change over time tends to result in improvements through laws and regulation, and hopefully better public health as a result. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-passenger-traffic-globally/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-... 2. https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html
- easytiger 4y ago
  The level of bending my argument is worthy of a contortionist. Lets keep the alpha bulleting A. Global airline traffic has approximately tripled in the last couple of decades[1], so even if you're arguing that someone should have known when they moved there it's not the same amount of noise as when they moved in. The individual I responded with the grievance moved to one of the areas a few years ago and the other less than 20 years ago. Please explain how your point relates to their position. B. It's basically a "let them eat cake" argument. Property prices in high-noise areas are lower, but poor people also deserve to have their health. And people with less money deserve to have choices. Also your argument is false because in most major conurbations with ready access to international air travel increases prices. Secondly the houses wouldn't exist without presence of an airport. Go to a 3rd world country and you will see shacks appear at the end of runways or near the airport built in the middle of nowhere C. You're assuming that people are capable of making perfectly informed decisions before they move or buy property. You might know that the house is next to the train tracks, but you won't really know what affect waking up at 4am to screeching train noise will have on you until you settle in. That's genuinely the worst argument I've ever heard and entirely based on a fictional supposition. Can you tell me honestly you know a person who thinks living on a train track doesn't involve noise? Honestly? I live in a house constructed before WWI in a major European city. If we follow your reasoning it would be perfectly OK to heat all those houses with indoor stoves spewing unfiltered particulates into the air, with the resulting air pollution and fire risk. In what logic pathway is that my reasoning? I genuinely would pay you to explain this because its beyond ridiculous. Please explain how that is analogous to my point (even in itself it is illogical and nonsensical, but that is beside the point). After all if we wind back the clock that's what people who bought those houses initially expected, and if the default answer to how we could improve our collective living conditions was "you should have known about this when you bought it!" nothing would ever change. A communist plea to collective action because they set themselves on fire on purpose but sold the water to pay for the food
  - avar 4y ago
    > The individual I responded with the grievance moved to one of the areas a few years ago and the other less than 20 years ago. I'm referencing the "demand the 80+ year old airport be shut down" part of your comment. And assuming that you meant that for those 80+ years the airport had been a relatively constant source of noise, otherwise what's the relevance of it being there for 80+ years if not to imply that the nature of the airport has remained relatively constant for that time? > Go to a 3rd world country and you will see shacks appear at the end of runways or near the airport built in the middle of nowhere. Well, yes. Because there's jobs there, or the land is cheap etc. Your point seemed to be that if those people then complained about the noise they'd have no standing, I was pointing out that that's a rather black & white position to take. > Can you tell me honestly you know a person who thinks living on a train track doesn't involve noise? Honestly? Of course they know it's noisy, but they might not fully appreciate the long-term health effects, or perhaps they've since had children who find the noise intolerable, but had no part in the decision to move there. I was again, responding to your argument that we should just tell those people (to paraphrase) "tough luck, you should have known when you moved in!". > "[...]Please explain how that is analogous to my point" I thought it was rather obvious, during the industrial revolution and early 1900s European and American cities were notoriously polluted, but they aren't today. If we are to accept the axiom that people who moved somewhere don't have standing to complain about the environment they find themselves in it seems unlikely that anything like modern-day air pollution regulation would have been enacted. No analogy is perfect, but it seems rather obvious to me how the increasing awareness about noise pollution today is likely to follow a similar trajectory as the increasing awareness about the health effects of air pollution did in the past, and other environmental pollution more generally.
achenet 4y ago
not everyone can afford housing in the center/quiet bourgeois district of a major urban area. It's possible that those living near the airport live there because they have to, not because they want to. :)
- piva00 4y ago
  In São Paulo's case it's a bit more insane: some of the most upscale and expensive neighbourhoods of the city are under its runways' ramps; Moema, Itaim Bibi, Vila Olímpia, Vila Nova Conceição and Jardim Europa. Some of the most expensive residential areas in the city, with penthouses in the millions of US$ are right by the airport area.
- easytiger 4y ago
  In reality in many cities the property near airports is expensive. So that doesn't work as an argument
piva00 4y ago
If you've ever been to São Paulo you'd see that some of the best neighbourhoods developed after the 50s in the south zone are very close to the airport. It's not like you have an option if you want to live close to your office in the south zone (where most of the tech companies are located at)... Just look at a map[0] and check how many neighbourhoods surround the airport, it's unsustainable, it was place on the outskirts of a much, much smaller city at the time, it needs to be moved. The city in 1936 was nowhere close to the current size, Brazil urbanised rapidly only after the 50s-60s, you can't blame people that expanded the city there when land became scarce. Just look at the map on street view to see how densely populated this area is nowadays, are you gonna blame all those hundreds of thousands of people? [0] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Congonhas-S%C3%A3o+Paulo+Airport/@-23.624817,-46.6743794,14.26z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x94ce5a7ab9d400f3:0x3ae70697e64d7085!8m2!3d-23.6273246!4d-46.6565842 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Congonhas-S%C3%A3o+Paulo+A...
- easytiger 4y ago
  > If you've ever been to São Paulo you'd see that some of the best neighbourhoods developed after the 50s in the south zone are very close to the airport. ... developed because there was an airport > , you can't blame people that expanded the city there when land became scarce. I mean you act like property and space are confusing concepts. You moved there because of convenience and value; imparted partially because of the presence of an airport. > are you gonna blame all those hundreds of thousands of people? If you sell Widgets and 100k people buy that widget voluntarily, technically yes, you can "blame" those 100k people for buying that widget. Conversely it is unlikely those 100k are going to blame the Widgets for ruining their lives because they know exactly what they are buying when they bought it. You moved into the area in full knowledge of what to expect. In many ways this is a perfect example of entitlement.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    No, it developed in spite of the airport, not because of it.

avar 4y ago

This is a bad argument for a few reasons: A. Global airline traffic has approximately tripled in the last couple of decades[1], so even if you're arguing that someone should have known when they moved there it's not the same amount of noise as when they moved in. See e.g. [2] for historical Kennedy airport traffic amounts, it makes no sense to compare modern-day traffic at any airport to its current traffic and noise levels. B. It's basically a "let them eat cake" argument. Property prices in high-noise areas are lower, but poor people also deserve to have their health. It's a given that a rich person living near an airport can afford to noise insulation to make it a non-issue (indoors at least), but that doesn't begin to address the greater public health aspect. C. You're assuming that people are capable of making perfectly informed decisions before they move or buy property. You might know that the house is next to the train tracks, but you won't really know what affect waking up at 4am to screeching train noise will have on you until you settle in. I live in a house constructed before WWI in a major European city. If we follow your reasoning it would be perfectly OK to heat all those houses with indoor stoves spewing unfiltered particulates into the air, with the resulting air pollution and fire risk. After all if we wind back the clock that's what people who bought those houses initially expected, and if the default answer to how we could improve our collective living conditions was "you should have known about this when you bought it!" nothing would ever change. But it doesn't work like that, standards change over time, and in the case of air or noise pollution bottom-up change over time tends to result in improvements through laws and regulation, and hopefully better public health as a result. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-passenger-traffic-globally/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-... 2. https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html

easytiger 4y ago
The level of bending my argument is worthy of a contortionist. Lets keep the alpha bulleting A. Global airline traffic has approximately tripled in the last couple of decades[1], so even if you're arguing that someone should have known when they moved there it's not the same amount of noise as when they moved in. The individual I responded with the grievance moved to one of the areas a few years ago and the other less than 20 years ago. Please explain how your point relates to their position. B. It's basically a "let them eat cake" argument. Property prices in high-noise areas are lower, but poor people also deserve to have their health. And people with less money deserve to have choices. Also your argument is false because in most major conurbations with ready access to international air travel increases prices. Secondly the houses wouldn't exist without presence of an airport. Go to a 3rd world country and you will see shacks appear at the end of runways or near the airport built in the middle of nowhere C. You're assuming that people are capable of making perfectly informed decisions before they move or buy property. You might know that the house is next to the train tracks, but you won't really know what affect waking up at 4am to screeching train noise will have on you until you settle in. That's genuinely the worst argument I've ever heard and entirely based on a fictional supposition. Can you tell me honestly you know a person who thinks living on a train track doesn't involve noise? Honestly? I live in a house constructed before WWI in a major European city. If we follow your reasoning it would be perfectly OK to heat all those houses with indoor stoves spewing unfiltered particulates into the air, with the resulting air pollution and fire risk. In what logic pathway is that my reasoning? I genuinely would pay you to explain this because its beyond ridiculous. Please explain how that is analogous to my point (even in itself it is illogical and nonsensical, but that is beside the point). After all if we wind back the clock that's what people who bought those houses initially expected, and if the default answer to how we could improve our collective living conditions was "you should have known about this when you bought it!" nothing would ever change. A communist plea to collective action because they set themselves on fire on purpose but sold the water to pay for the food
- avar 4y ago
  > The individual I responded with the grievance moved to one of the areas a few years ago and the other less than 20 years ago. I'm referencing the "demand the 80+ year old airport be shut down" part of your comment. And assuming that you meant that for those 80+ years the airport had been a relatively constant source of noise, otherwise what's the relevance of it being there for 80+ years if not to imply that the nature of the airport has remained relatively constant for that time? > Go to a 3rd world country and you will see shacks appear at the end of runways or near the airport built in the middle of nowhere. Well, yes. Because there's jobs there, or the land is cheap etc. Your point seemed to be that if those people then complained about the noise they'd have no standing, I was pointing out that that's a rather black & white position to take. > Can you tell me honestly you know a person who thinks living on a train track doesn't involve noise? Honestly? Of course they know it's noisy, but they might not fully appreciate the long-term health effects, or perhaps they've since had children who find the noise intolerable, but had no part in the decision to move there. I was again, responding to your argument that we should just tell those people (to paraphrase) "tough luck, you should have known when you moved in!". > "[...]Please explain how that is analogous to my point" I thought it was rather obvious, during the industrial revolution and early 1900s European and American cities were notoriously polluted, but they aren't today. If we are to accept the axiom that people who moved somewhere don't have standing to complain about the environment they find themselves in it seems unlikely that anything like modern-day air pollution regulation would have been enacted. No analogy is perfect, but it seems rather obvious to me how the increasing awareness about noise pollution today is likely to follow a similar trajectory as the increasing awareness about the health effects of air pollution did in the past, and other environmental pollution more generally.

achenet 4y ago

not everyone can afford housing in the center/quiet bourgeois district of a major urban area. It's possible that those living near the airport live there because they have to, not because they want to. :)

piva00 4y ago
In São Paulo's case it's a bit more insane: some of the most upscale and expensive neighbourhoods of the city are under its runways' ramps; Moema, Itaim Bibi, Vila Olímpia, Vila Nova Conceição and Jardim Europa. Some of the most expensive residential areas in the city, with penthouses in the millions of US$ are right by the airport area.
easytiger 4y ago
In reality in many cities the property near airports is expensive. So that doesn't work as an argument

piva00 4y ago

If you've ever been to São Paulo you'd see that some of the best neighbourhoods developed after the 50s in the south zone are very close to the airport. It's not like you have an option if you want to live close to your office in the south zone (where most of the tech companies are located at)... Just look at a map[0] and check how many neighbourhoods surround the airport, it's unsustainable, it was place on the outskirts of a much, much smaller city at the time, it needs to be moved. The city in 1936 was nowhere close to the current size, Brazil urbanised rapidly only after the 50s-60s, you can't blame people that expanded the city there when land became scarce. Just look at the map on street view to see how densely populated this area is nowadays, are you gonna blame all those hundreds of thousands of people? [0] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Congonhas-S%C3%A3o+Paulo+Airport/@-23.624817,-46.6743794,14.26z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x94ce5a7ab9d400f3:0x3ae70697e64d7085!8m2!3d-23.6273246!4d-46.6565842 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Congonhas-S%C3%A3o+Paulo+A...

easytiger 4y ago
> If you've ever been to São Paulo you'd see that some of the best neighbourhoods developed after the 50s in the south zone are very close to the airport. ... developed because there was an airport > , you can't blame people that expanded the city there when land became scarce. I mean you act like property and space are confusing concepts. You moved there because of convenience and value; imparted partially because of the presence of an airport. > are you gonna blame all those hundreds of thousands of people? If you sell Widgets and 100k people buy that widget voluntarily, technically yes, you can "blame" those 100k people for buying that widget. Conversely it is unlikely those 100k are going to blame the Widgets for ruining their lives because they know exactly what they are buying when they bought it. You moved into the area in full knowledge of what to expect. In many ways this is a perfect example of entitlement.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  No, it developed in spite of the airport, not because of it.