"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:H3iye.120998$x96.101044@attbi_s72...

The simple fact is that for every pilot, there are 99 (or more) wannabes.

Ok, but even *they*, if they're responding to your aviation theme, are
probably enticed by the view of the next-door airport, aren't they? Would
wannabe pilots really flock to a hotel just because it has some airplane
pictures hanging on the walls?

Does that mean that turning the airport into condos and apartments
wouldn't bring MORE money into the city coffers? Perhaps not.

Whoa, that's quite a distinction. So the airport is economically valuable by
comparison to a *vacant lot*! But compared to the most efficient use of the
property, the airport *stifles* nearby economic activity by a factor of
*four*, according to your estimate (unless there's some reason that an
*aviation-themed hotel* would be *more* adversely affected by an airport
than would most other businesses).

But that same argument can be used on every piece of municipal land,
including parks, parking garages, and 4-lane roads. EVERYTHING would
bring in more tax revenue if the Sears Tower were built on top of it.

Precisely Jay! Market forces are very efficient, but very inhumane in the
goals that they efficiently pursue. That's why we often need government
interventions (such as the airport subsidy you advocate) in order to
*thwart* market forces and promote *quality of life* rather than unfettered
economic growth.

But the thing is, there's often much more at stake than the enjoyment of
General Aviation. Just as we need to thwart market forces in order to
promote access to recreational flying and other GA, we also--but much more
urgently--need to thwart market forces in order to promote expanded access
to education, medical care, and other prerequisites to being able to work
hard and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts.

Happy fourth of July.

--Gary