In article ,
says...


Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.


Anecdote:
I actually know of a case in Europe where, because of its unique eco-system,
close to a city, but still quite wild, a medium-sized municipal airport has
become a recognized " endangered habitat " for some species of birds. It's
endangered of course because lawyers living nearby want to close it down, and
developers have their eyes on the open land. The city has grown out towards
the airport, to where the once forsaken territory now has immense value. The
environmentalists who prepared the bird report are stuck between a
philosophical rock and hard place - being dyed-in-the-wool
environmentalists, they cannot actually favor the continued existence of the
airport - Heaven forbid - but they admit it is the unique blend of open
space, grassland and even the method of upkeep of the airport that provides
the habitat for the birds. They even say if the airport were to be
eliminated, certain species could be in danger of extinction. Their proposal?
Well since they cannot actually come out and oppose closing the airport, they
suggest "in the event of an airport closure" the land should be maintained as
it is, with full maintenance staff at cost to the community, in order to
preserve the wild bird habitat. Now there's a progressive proposal for ya!
Eliminate the revenue portions of the operation, which allow it to be
self-sufficient and even a substantial economic motor for the community, but
maintain the land upkeep at cost to the residents! So far, I think it is only
an enlightened few who see the common sense in this proposal.

GF