The Noise issue can be a serious environtal health and quality of life issue, but "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware" should apply too, if there was not actual "misrepresentation" by developers or realtors. Yes, zoning, with propoer design standards and building codes can mitigate noise impacts, including better setbacks, foliage, sound absorbing materials in sound walls or homes. And these should be required in new construction, when this is appropriate. But sometimes, "noise" is a perception and reaction to "change" or another "agenda" and has nothing to do with the science of acoustics at all.

We have also have had the "noise" issue raised with light rail projects. A few years back a group in Pasadena, opposed to the Gold Line, but lacking any base of community support, claimed that noise would be a major issue, and went around and got hundreds of signatures on this "issue". So the City and MTA arranged for a horn test to determine how far away they could be heard. Three noise tests were scheduled, and groups of residents, at various distances, were asked to report the "horns".

As it happened, one of the three horn tests had to be canceled because the equipment was not available, after the residents had been notified. Which test resulted in the greatest number of reports of horn "noise"? Answer, the test that was cancelled resulted in the greatest number of reports of "noise". We rarely are able to do "double blind" studies on public policy issues, but this one tells you a lot.

Bob2