JG wrote:
Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.

I understand what you are saying, and to a limited extent I agree that
it's valid, but it assumes that the only measure of "highest and best"
is $$ return to the city on taxes.

It might also be simple economics if the city (or whoever) bought the
land and infrastructure, instead of simply eliminating it. It may be
simple economics for someone to replace your modest house with a
mansion, but they have to buy your house first, not just bulldoze it
into oblivion without compensation.

For an entity such as an airfield, with its need for land and
infrastructure, there needs to be a reasonable assumption that it will
continue in existance, and not be forced out just because someone has
an idea for more money, or someone who should have known better moved
in next door. IMO, anyway. Especially when the "better use" is just a
developer putting in more homes, which themselves could be put
somewhere else, eliminating the need for destroying an airfield.

I believe if somehow we could stop the non-reimbursement for the
infrastructure, we could save a few more airports.

Well, it would be nice anyway.