wrote:
RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed taxes

I had to think about this for a while...

Why is "additional taxes" a reason to kill an airport, or anything
else?

First, I more than suspect that the push behind airport closures is so
that well-connected developers can put up houses, malls, whatever makes
the developers money. In itself, that's not necessarily a problem.

But think about why that land is "available". It's because the
aviation industry acquired it many years ago. They owned/operated it
(via municipal or private arrangements, aviation money goes into it.)
The infrastructure was invested in, etc.
That's not a developer's investment. It's aviation's investment. Now
comes the developer smelling a killing. So they manage to get the
airport closed. What happens to all the investment? Say RHV land
sells for a billion (I dunno, but it's a good easy-to-type number).
Maybe the city gets the billion, and the developer builds and makes a
few billion more.

What happened to aviation??? The aviation community investment is
poofed away. THEY don't get the billion. THEY don't get new land or a
new airport (ask Austin). All the infrastructure gets bulldozed (ask
Chicago), but the aviation community loses everything it had put into
it. To get a new airport, they/we essentially have to start from 0 on
our investment. We invested in the land, and when the value goes up it
gets ripped away with little or no remuneration (I've been waiting all
day to type that word).

Maybe some tax authority gets more money, but that's not the only
consideration. Frequently, many businesses are put out to pasture as
well. and that too is a loss of tax revenue.

It wouldn't hurt so bad maybe if the developers had to trade useable
land in return for the airport land, and reimburse us for the lost
infrastructure. But then they couldn't afford to take the land, now,
could they?????