69 replies to this topic

[AustinF1]

Laguna Seca Sued by Rich Neighbors for Being a Race Track

 

https://www.thedrive...nt-it-shut-down

 

Grrr .... 

 

 

The historic track’s neighbors, which primarily consist of subdivisions built around country clubs, want racing shut down forever.

 

Laguna Seca is the foremost example of a racetrack choked by suburban sprawl. Though the circuit dates back to 1957, the once-secluded track has been hemmed in by noise limits and calendar limitations enacted at the request of local property owners. Now, the complainers are going for the throat by suing to end racing entirely, which might put the track's future in jeopardy.

 

The track's operations are the subject of a legal complaint filed December 12 with Monterey County by the "Highway 68 Coalition," a group of nearby property owners and residents. The group and its legal representation pull out all the stops to assault Laguna Seca's legality, arguing it doesn't abide by environmental ordnances, that racing isn't allowed by zoning laws or the land use permit, and so on. They claim the circuit is "a public nuisance and has caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury not subject to money damages."

 

[Seppi_0_917PA]

And then there is also this...
 
A nonprofit was set to take over management of Laguna Seca Jan. 1, but the contract remains in limbo.
 
https://www.monterey...66ab54b187.html
 
"Last summer, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors was eager to usher in a new era of management of the county-owned Laguna Seca Recreation Area. They voted 5-0 on July 18 to approve a concession agreement with nonprofit Friends of Laguna Seca for up to 55 years, if the concessionaire meets certain obligations and invests millions of dollars into the track along the way to 2078. The vote was met with applause.
 
But the first set of conditions – those that are required to be met before the concession agreement takes effect – have not been met, despite the approved agreement being set to begin on Jan. 1, 2024. Management of the track continues by A&D Narigi LLC.
 
“We’re still running as we always have,” Laguna Seca spokesperson Barry Toepke says. “It took longer dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s [than anticipated].”
 
He’s referring to conditions of approval included in the county’s contract with Friends. Those include: Friends depositing $6 million into the bank; sign-off from the U.S. Department of Interior, due to the old Army deed; and a financial statement both the county and Friends agree to.
 
The contract states that if conditions are not met, the parties have 90 days to work it out or terminate the agreement. The Board of Supervisors has several times discussed negotiations with Friends of Laguna Seca in recent weeks in closed-session meetings. Ross Merrill, president of the nonprofit, did not respond to the Weekly’s request for comment.
 
Meanwhile, the contract also faces a challenge in court. On Dec. 12, the Highway 68 Coalition filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to block the concession agreement from taking effect. (Friends attorney Jason Retterer says the suit has donors nervous about committing money, hence the organization has yet to meet its $6 million obligation.)
 
Regardless of who operates the track – A&D, Friends, the county itself or some other entity – the plaintiffs claim the volume of racing events, and associated traffic and noise, are a violation of the county’s zoning ordinance. The case hinges on exactly how much track activity – a non-conforming use of the property – is grandfathered in.
 
“What they’re proposing is in excess of historical use,” argues Alexander Henson, representing the Highway 68 Coalition.
 
The parties appeared in Monterey County Superior Court on Jan. 9 to discuss next steps in the case and the scope of what documents need to be produced to litigate exactly what does or doesn’t constitute historical use. “From the county’s perspective, we are asking to get this cleared up so we can continue operations at Laguna Seca, which is a large operation, and doesn’t need this cloud hanging over it,” Deputy County Counsel Michael Whilden said.
 
“Many of us are cautiously optimistic we might be able to come up with some kind of rapprochement with [the Highway 68 Coalition],” says County Supervisor Mary Adams, whose district includes Laguna Seca. “It’s a precious gem and I don’t think it’s ever been properly managed, and that saddens me.”
 
The 2024 event calendar kicks off with the Sea Otter Classic April 18-24, then the Trans Am series, IMSA race and Ferrari challenge in May."

[Muppetmad]

Only those who were resident in the area since before 1957 have my sympathy. Anybody else? None at all. You knew the circuit was there when you moved in, and it no doubt reflected in the price you paid for your property.

[sportyskells]

Wish people LEARN? If you do not like noise go somewhere else and stop causing issues for race car tracks

[Disgrace]

Only those who were resident in the area since before 1957 have my sympathy. Anybody else? None at all. You knew the circuit was there when you moved in, and it no doubt reflected in the price you paid for your property.

 

Then Surprised Pikachu face when local restaurants/hotels, etc. shut up shop. Who could have done this?

[Catalina Park]

This is a case where a long existing circuit that has traditionally operated about 50 days a year but is now operating at over 330 days a year and are surprised that the neighbours are complaining.
It is the circuit operators greed that has caused this problem.

Give the neighbours some days off and they might not hate you.

[AustinF1]

This is a case where a long existing circuit that has traditionally operated about 50 days a year but is now operating at over 330 days a year and are surprised that the neighbours are complaining.
It is the circuit operators greed that has caused this problem.

Give the neighbours some days off and they might not hate you.

I'd love to see what activities they conduct 330 days a year. Any idea where I might find some detail on that? ETA: Never mind. I found it.

Edited by AustinF1, 21 January 2024 - 09:45.

[DS27]

Surely would be track days at most, in which case cars are heavily silenced anyway

[DS27]

Wish people LEARN? If you do not like noise go somewhere else and stop causing issues for race car tracks

 

 

It's not those people that need to learn, as they never will. It's society that needs to learn to ignore their complaints.

[AustinF1]

Surely would be track days at most, in which case cars are heavily silenced anyway

Yep, mostly track days and clubs, and on the Laguna 2023 calendar I found, I counted any day listed with any kind of track activity other than track maintenance, including multiple Cars and Coffees (which typically don't feature track activity of any consequence), multi-day bicycling events, running events, race weekends, track/DE/club weekends, and electric car weekends. I came up with around167 booked days. I didn't count the annual blood drive.

 

https://www.co.monte...1&curview=month

[Catalina Park]

Maybe car racing people need to learn that making more and more noise each year is not good for neighbourly relations. 

It is always short term operators that screw it up for the rest of us. Take the money, piss off the neighbours and run away. Knowing that the car people will blame the residents. I saw this coming years ago when SCRAMP lost the place in favour of a corporate body.

[Ben1445]

We had some discussion in the EVs in motorsport thread about how the development of organised EV racing classes and emergence of EV-only track days could potentially help circuits struggling with noise complaints maintain profitable levels of annual operation, such that it can still support a handful of headline combustion events through the year within an agreed noise quota.

Hopefully some good solutions can be found for Laguna Seca, would hate to see it lost to us because of intransigence on either side.

Edited by Ben1445, 21 January 2024 - 10:20.

[B Squared]

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway thrives with more events than ever well in the heart of a city. There it seems the neighbors willingly embrace the track and all that comes with it. Laguna Seca is in California, what the hell do you expect from most residents out there these days?

[Sterzo]

Like most subjects, noise blight has many different angles to it and there's no instant or easy answer. Dismissing the problem because people moved to the area "knowing it was there" isn't enough. Anyone who has moved house knows how impossible it is to assess what it's really like living there. And even if you get it right - which you can't - everything changes over the years.

 

Also, would it even be right to set up a racing circuit on your own land in the middle of nowhere, knowing it would blight future development on other people's land?

 

Like I say, it ain't simple.

[juicy sushi]

The biggest nuisance may not be the track, it might be the track day participant and event audiences blasting around the local roads on the way in and out. They could be the real issue that isn’t named but is most hated.

[Beri]

The biggest nuisance may not be the track, it might be the track day participant and event audiences blasting around the local roads on the way in and out. They could be the real issue that isn’t named but is most hated.

And yet; all factors that one should have taken into consideration before moving to the vicinity of an iconic circuit like Laguna Seca is. Because those factors you've mentioned, are nothing new and are as old to the region as 1957 when the track first opened.
It's like deliberately going to live under the flight path of an airport that's already there for ages, and complain about the noise.

[MKSixer]

Race Track Built in 1957

Residents move near Race Track

Residents Complain about Race Track noise

Residents Want Sanctions about Race Track that was there when they moved near it.

 

Ugh.

[Showty]

This is a case where a long existing circuit that has traditionally operated about 50 days a year but is now operating at over 330 days a year and are surprised that the neighbours are complaining.
It is the circuit operators greed that has caused this problem.

Give the neighbours some days off and they might not hate you.

It seems you are right.

According to the article :

Laguna Seca already operates with strict limitations imposed by local authorities. The track disallows cars that are too loud (held to be more than 90 to 105 decibels), and as of a 1983 deal was limited to just 35 event days annually—24 of which were for 5,000 people or fewer

[Brian60]

It's the same scenario with Elvington nr York in the UK. Desolate airfield that was used for much motorsport. Then developers moved in and built housing in the surrounding area. Then those new residents go on to petition local authorities about being disturbed by noise on weekends, end result a curtailing of much of its racetimes.

[FLB]

It's the same scenario with Elvington nr York in the UK. Desolate airfield that was used for much motorsport. Then developers moved in and built housing in the surrounding area. Then those new residents go on to petition local authorities about being disturbed by noise on weekends, end result a curtailing of much of its racetimes.

 Same at Mont-Tremblant, which has been in use since 1964: Excessive levels of noise / Racing Circuit Mont Tremblant - Trudel Johnston & Lespérance (tjl.quebec)

[Jim Thurman]

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway thrives with more events than ever well in the heart of a city. There it seems the neighbors willingly embrace the track and all that comes with it. Laguna Seca is in California, what the hell do you expect from most residents out there these days?

Boooooo Brian! It's hardly a California thing. Tracks get this in every state, including Indiana, which has had short tracks closed down due to local residents noise complaints.

 

That last sentence is a gratuitous, unecessary and inaccurate swipe. Boooooo! 

[azza200]

Race Track Built in 1957

Residents move near Race Track

Residents Complain about Race Track noise

Residents Want Sanctions about Race Track that was there when they moved near it.

 

Ugh.

 

The wokey kokey brigade no doubt there is a karen in the list of complaints about the noise 

[Chubby_Deuce]

Then Surprised Pikachu face when local restaurants/hotels, etc. shut up shop. Who could have done this?

I’m not so sure. Monterey/Carmel are very popular destinations year round and aren’t relying on a handful of weekends a year to bring in money. Some may even appreciate that the wealthier crowd isn’t kept away by the racing riff raff on those weekends.

Surely would be track days at most, in which case cars are heavily silenced anyway

Not so much. The sound measurement is taken at a fixed station on the straight between turns 5 and 6. We used to short shift and run partial throttle til around the bridge but you were otherwise fine to run full send mode around the rest of the track. Cars would even run some bizarre exhaust turn outs that point the tips to the interior of the track and never have to lift.

I have zero sympathy for the richies that moved next door but I also don’t think that the track has held up their end of the deal. Enforcement is lax at best and the frequency of events is higher than ever.

[Sterzo]

And yet; all factors that one should have taken into consideration before moving to the vicinity of an iconic circuit like Laguna Seca is. Because those factors you've mentioned, are nothing new and are as old to the region as 1957 when the track first opened.
It's like deliberately going to live under the flight path of an airport that's already there for ages, and complain about the noise.

But nobody does it "deliberately." If it's anything like the UK, they search for months for a house they can afford, where the compromises they have to make will be tolerable - they hope. As it happens, I moved to a house near the flight path to Biggin Hill. The light planes buzzing around were quite entertaining, and the Red Arrows used my compost heap as their marker to turn round during displays. Then it changed to commercial operations, and jet airliners would fly across at 5 am, until protestors (not including me) persuaded the local government to restrict hours.

[juicy sushi]

Anyone moving to Monterrey is not looking desperately for months. They’re the people who buy paintings instead of 935s and are upset that other rich folk don’t have a quiet passtime. But I can imagine that every tech bro arriving at a track day would get annoying.

[pdac]

But nobody does it "deliberately." If it's anything like the UK, they search for months for a house they can afford, where the compromises they have to make will be tolerable - they hope. As it happens, I moved to a house near the flight path to Biggin Hill. The light planes buzzing around were quite entertaining, and the Red Arrows used my compost heap as their marker to turn round during displays. Then it changed to commercial operations, and jet airliners would fly across at 5 am, until protestors (not including me) persuaded the local government to restrict hours.

 

Perhaps there's a reason why properties are more affordable in such places. Maybe the onus should be on the property-for-sale listers to include the fact that there are noise sources (or any other nuisances) nearby.

Edited by pdac, 21 January 2024 - 18:16.

[AustinF1]

And yet; all factors that one should have taken into consideration before moving to the vicinity of an iconic circuit like Laguna Seca is. Because those factors you've mentioned, are nothing new and are as old to the region as 1957 when the track first opened.
It's like deliberately going to live under the flight path of an airport that's already there for ages, and complain about the noise.

Indeed it is. This actually happened in Austin for decades before a new airport was built farther out. These nutjobs would move into a neighborhood literally a few hundred feet from the end of the busy commercial airport runway that had been there for 75 years, and then pitch an endless fit about noise from commercial jets,  wanting to sue the airlines, the airport, the FAA, etc. And it's not like Laguna is a secret or is in town. It's in the hills miles from town, and everyone out there knows it very well. The racing riff-riff (love that description) who race/drive out there are well-off, but then so are the neighbors There are places like the neighborhood around COTA, where the residents have a case. This doesn't look at all like that imho.

Edited by AustinF1, 21 January 2024 - 21:28.

[AustinF1]

Perhaps there's a reason why properties are more affordable in such places. Maybe the onus should be on the property-for-sale listers to include the fact that there are noise sources (or any other nuisances) nearby.

Yep. I'm sorry, but if anyone buys a house anywhere close enough to an existing race track/airport etc that the noise is an issue, then that's on them for not researching their purchase properly.

[loki]

This is a case where a long existing circuit that has traditionally operated about 50 days a year but is now operating at over 330 days a year and are surprised that the neighbours are complaining.
It is the circuit operators greed that has caused this problem.

Give the neighbours some days off and they might not hate you.

They’ve been operating on that schedule since we were racing karts there 20 plus years ago.  Well before there was anything around it.

 

It's a county park.  The track isn’t going away.

[AustinF1]

They’ve been operating on that schedule since we were racing karts there 20 plus years ago.  Well before there was anything around it.

 

It's a county park.  The track isn’t going away.

And in 2023, there were apparently only about half of the 330 active days referenced earlier. I counted 167 days with any events at all, no matter how small.

Edited by AustinF1, 21 January 2024 - 22:00.

[mikeC]

Yep. I'm sorry, but if anyone buys a house anywhere close enough to an existing race track/airport etc that the noise is an issue, then that's on them for not researching their purchase properly.

This reminds me of a well-known Touring and Classic car racer who moved to a new house in the country; twelve month's later his wife is complaining to the council because the cows are too noisy!

[JHSingo]

God, these people are insufferably irritating. 

 

And why is it always race tracks that attract these moronic complaints? Why are these cases given any consideration at all? If a bunch of new people moved to an area that had an open air sports stadium, and then decided to complain about regular crowd noise from sports events or music concerts, would there be any risk of those venues getting shut own? No, of course not. The complainants would merely be laughed out of town and told to go live somewhere less noisy. 

[LittleChris]

This reminds me of a well-known Touring and Classic car racer who moved to a new house in the country; twelve month's later his wife is complaining to the council because the cows are too noisy!

Sytner ?

[RedRabbit]

I don't know much about the US system, but it's strange to me that the County are the ones defending the track, when in most countries they would also have been the ones approving the residential development nearby.

Maybe the 330 events was an exaggeration, but even 167 is still an event every 2nd day basically. That's an awful lot of noisy days to put up with, especially if the track is supposed to be limited to 35, which is an event roughly 2 weekends out of 3.

Edited by RedRabbit, 22 January 2024 - 08:31.

[CoolBreeze]

Well why was there new housing projects added around the track from existing ones to begin with?

[loki]

I don't know much about the US system, but it's strange to me that the County are the ones defending the track, when in most countries they would also have been the ones approving the residential development nearby.

Maybe the 330 events was an exaggeration, but even 167 is still an event every 2nd day basically. That's an awful lot of noisy days to put up with, especially if the track is supposed to be limited to 35, which is an event roughly 2 weekends out of 3.

The limit is for days at a louder specific volume typically larger events like IMSA or Indycar.   The suit is misleading.  The rest of the time the noise control is more stringent.  There are driving schools, police pursuit and car control, that sort of thing.  For most of those functions normal traffic from the 68 is noisier than that.  They aren't housing developments like tract housing.  They’re high value homes scattered on the hills above the valley.

[pdac]

God, these people are insufferably irritating. 

 

And why is it always race tracks that attract these moronic complaints? Why are these cases given any consideration at all? If a bunch of new people moved to an area that had an open air sports stadium, and then decided to complain about regular crowd noise from sports events or music concerts, would there be any risk of those venues getting shut own? No, of course not. The complainants would merely be laughed out of town and told to go live somewhere less noisy. 

 

In the UK, there have been many cases of people complaining about churches ringing their bells and disturbing their peace - even when the bell ringing has been going on for centuries. The fact is that it has become desirable for those with a little wealth to move away from urban areas to take in the beauty and peace of the countryside. But they are not prepared to put up with the existing practices and traditions of those areas and feel their wealth should be able to overcome any things they don't like.

[B Squared]

Boooooo Brian! It's hardly a California thing. Tracks get this in every state, including Indiana, which has had short tracks closed down due to local residents noise complaints.

That last sentence is a gratuitous, unecessary and inaccurate swipe. Boooooo!

Hi Jim, sorry that you didn't like that comment. My Mom was born in Santa Barbara, my brother was born in Santa Maria. I still have close relatives in Ventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Pismo Beach, and Paso Robles. I pay attention to the nation's political scene like I do motorsports. I think the Golden State has seen much better days than they are currently in.
Edit: I also lived in Newport Beach in 1982 so I've seen things first hand then versus now.

Edited by B Squared, 22 January 2024 - 10:37.

[DeKnyff]

Like most subjects, noise blight has many different angles to it and there's no instant or easy answer. Dismissing the problem because people moved to the area "knowing it was there" isn't enough. Anyone who has moved house knows how impossible it is to assess what it's really like living there. And even if you get it right - which you can't - everything changes over the years.

 

Also, would it even be right to set up a racing circuit on your own land in the middle of nowhere, knowing it would blight future development on other people's land?

 

Like I say, it ain't simple.

 

It's impossible to assess what's really like living there for many things, I agree, but having noise from an existing neighboring racing track is quite an obvious thing.

[Beri]

But nobody does it "deliberately." If it's anything like the UK, they search for months for a house they can afford, where the compromises they have to make will be tolerable - they hope. As it happens, I moved to a house near the flight path to Biggin Hill. The light planes buzzing around were quite entertaining, and the Red Arrows used my compost heap as their marker to turn round during displays. Then it changed to commercial operations, and jet airliners would fly across at 5 am, until protestors (not including me) persuaded the local government to restrict hours.

 

Anyone who is going to live somewhere, does it with its full concience. Because, generally, no one forces you to live there. Even if there is a housing shortage, you can still say no. If it then turns out that your house is near an active racetrack, that has been operational since the 50s or an airport that also is there since ages, then it is a matter of bad luck. Like Ive said; It is, after all, your choice that you started to live there. So it is your bad luck. Trying to sue said racetrack and plea for closure, endangers dozens of full time jobs and millions of revenue to the region. Also it paints a bad picture to the general public that it is a narrow minded and petty community that is living there. All in all, a situation that no one will benefit from.

[JHSingo]

In the UK, there have been many cases of people complaining about churches ringing their bells and disturbing their peace - even when the bell ringing has been going on for centuries. The fact is that it has become desirable for those with a little wealth to move away from urban areas to take in the beauty and peace of the countryside. But they are not prepared to put up with the existing practices and traditions of those areas and feel their wealth should be able to overcome any things they don't like.

 

As someone who lives in a semi-rural area, and prefers peace and quiet to noise, I can understand that. 

 

But moving to an area where a race track has existed for many, many years before you came along, and then complaining about said race track, is unspeakably idiotic. 

 

I live some distance from a football stadium. On a clear day, I can often hear all the cheering and chanting when there's a game on - even from around three miles away. I'm not a football fan, so maybe I should start complaining about that, demanding that games be halted and describing the stadium as a 'public nuisance'? 

 

...No, actually, because I'm not a miserable sod who wants to spoil people's fun. 

Edited by JHSingo, 22 January 2024 - 12:04.

[Beri]

As someone who lives in a semi-rural area, and prefers peace and quiet to noise, I can understand that. 

 

But moving to an area where a race track has existed for many, many years before you came along, and then complaining about said race track, is unspeakably idiotic. 

 

I live some distance from a football stadium. On a clear day, I can often hear all the cheering and chanting when there's a game on - even from around three miles away. I'm not a football fan, so maybe I should start complaining about that, demanding that games be halted and describing the stadium as a 'public nuisance'? 

 

...No, actually, because I'm not a miserable sod who wants to spoil people's fun. 

 

  You should move to Monterey then. 

[B Squared]

You should move to Monterey then.

Monterey is far enough away from Laguna Seca that the residents of that village should have no issue with a racetrack.

[Sterzo]

I don't say the protesters are right, or that they are entirely reasonable, but I think the "they shouldn't move there" is an over-simplification of the problem. A noisy racing circuit is fundamentally anti-social and blights an area. Are we saying we ought to blight an area? Do we, racing enthusiasts, have a God-given right to ruin the peace for miles around on other people's land? Must we insist that no resident should ever campaign for improvements to their area? I repeat, it ain't that simple, and as always when having a discussion or seeking a resolution, making bland assertions which disregard the bigger picture will get us nowhere.

[pdac]

I don't say the protesters are right, or that they are entirely reasonable, but I think the "they shouldn't move there" is an over-simplification of the problem. A noisy racing circuit is fundamentally anti-social and blights an area. Are we saying we ought to blight an area? Do we, racing enthusiasts, have a God-given right to ruin the peace for miles around on other people's land? Must we insist that no resident should ever campaign for improvements to their area? I repeat, it ain't that simple, and as always when having a discussion or seeking a resolution, making bland assertions which disregard the bigger picture will get us nowhere.

 

I think it's about the historical issue. Sure, there ought to be careful consideration before granting permission to build sites that will adversely affect the lives of those who live nearby. Sure, there ought to be careful consideration before granting permission for such a site to expand too. But if it has already existed there for many years, then it should be up to those moving to that location to change and adapt, not the other way around.

[Broekschaap]

I think it's about the historical issue. Sure, there ought to be careful consideration before granting permission to build sites that will adversely affect the lives of those who live nearby. Sure, there ought to be careful consideration before granting permission for such a site to expand too. But if it has already existed there for many years, then it should be up to those moving to that location to change and adapt, not the other way around.

Now the complaint does read like throwing mud and hoping something sticks. But part of the complaint is about louder and more frequent noise then was to be expected on base of the historical use and no measures in place to limit any of this in the future. If true that could be valid complaint?

[JHSingo]

I don't say the protesters are right, or that they are entirely reasonable, but I think the "they shouldn't move there" is an over-simplification of the problem. A noisy racing circuit is fundamentally anti-social and blights an area. Are we saying we ought to blight an area? Do we, racing enthusiasts, have a God-given right to ruin the peace for miles around on other people's land? Must we insist that no resident should ever campaign for improvements to their area? I repeat, it ain't that simple, and as always when having a discussion or seeking a resolution, making bland assertions which disregard the bigger picture will get us nowhere.

 

But why, in so many of these cases, is it people actively campaigning to stop racing entirely and get tracks shut down? How is that reasonable? Yes, noise is a problem a race track causes - but why is that worse than the benefits that it also brings to the area in terms of jobs, tourism etc? 

 

It seems to be the case that these sorts of people move to an area, and then actively want to shut the place down, or put so many restrictions on it than it's not able to survive as a business anyway. 

 

And the USA is a huge country, with vast amounts of space. Are you telling me the only place these homes could be built was within earshot of a race track that has been there since the 1950s? As for the issue of 'blight', well, it wouldn't blight the area if they'd not build houses so close to the track, would it? Racing cars haven't suddenly become a lot noisier in the last few years. It only became a problem when the houses were built nearby, and then were bought by people who were either too stupid to do their research, or who think that anything they don't personally enjoy must be prevented from happening. 

Edited by JHSingo, 22 January 2024 - 14:58.

[Sterzo]

I think it's about the historical issue. Sure, there ought to be careful consideration before granting permission to build sites that will adversely affect the lives of those who live nearby. Sure, there ought to be careful consideration before granting permission for such a site to expand too. But if it has already existed there for many years, then it should be up to those moving to that location to change and adapt, not the other way around.

While I wouldn't wholly disagree, the historical factor is that noise levels legal in 1957 can today be illegal, under federal law, while California has its own more stringent measures. People here argue that noise must be tolerated because it's always been there. The law recognises no such principle, not in the USA, nor the UK, not in the EU countries. And in all those countries we erode farm, common and recreational land to build more housing; there's nothing magic about motor racing that makes it immune if it gets in the way. I hope Laguna Seca continues because I am biased towards motor racing. But I can see why other people might not agree.

 

And JHSingo, you say "Are you telling me the only place these homes could be built was within earshot of a race track that has been there since the 1950s?" Have I said that at all? I have no idea about the decisions and the background to them. But if a landowner has land in an area where theres' a demand for housing, is it right that his land should be blighted by the actions of others? Which argument should prevail - I don't know. I merely say, let's not pretend there are no arguments against blighting several square miles with excessive noise.

Edited by Sterzo, 22 January 2024 - 15:21.

[Clatter]

Laguna Seca Sued by Rich Neighbors for Being a Race Track

https://www.thedrive...nt-it-shut-down

Grrr ....

This sort of thing happened at Brands Hatch. Originally in the middle of nowhere, then a new estate was built very close to the circuit and the people who moved in complained about the noise. Think they had to limit the number of 24 hour races they could run, not sure what other concessions there were. Happens all to often in Britain. I keep hoping that the day will come where sense prevails, and those choosing to move to a noisy location are told they just have to get on with it.

[Beri]

I don't say the protesters are right, or that they are entirely reasonable, but I think the "they shouldn't move there" is an over-simplification of the problem. A noisy racing circuit is fundamentally anti-social and blights an area. Are we saying we ought to blight an area? Do we, racing enthusiasts, have a God-given right to ruin the peace for miles around on other people's land? Must we insist that no resident should ever campaign for improvements to their area? I repeat, it ain't that simple, and as always when having a discussion or seeking a resolution, making bland assertions which disregard the bigger picture will get us nowhere.

It's not so much that I'm saying they shouldn't move there. By all means, go and live there. Just don't complain about noise disruption when you do.