On 2006-04-12, Skylune wrote:
It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument.

A 'pseudo-fact'? What's so pseudo-factual about the numerous examples of
airfields that had been built in the 40s, then subsequently (say, as
late as the 80s or 90s), housing developments built all around the still
active airfield?

If you buy a house next to the interstate, expect road noise. If you buy
a house next to a railway line, expect the sound of trains (and shock
horror, train horns). If you buy a house next to a meat pie factory,
expect funny smells. Quite often, the value of a property takes into
account the (often pre-existing) surrounding infrastructure and
potential noise or other impacts. Is it that unreasonable to expect
people who hate aircraft noise to do their due diligence, and not buy a
house near an active airfield?

I agree that pilots should do everything in their power to reduce the
impact of what they do - that's just Doing The Right Thing and being
neigbourly (regardless of whether the airport was there first or not).
However, to buy a house near an airfield and kvetch about aircraft noise
seems to suggest that the complainer wasn't smart enough to do their due
diligence - and now expects aircraft operators to pay the price for
their own poor research. This is what seems 'silly'.

I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships.

It works both ways too - townships that get built around existing active
airfields also must co-exist with the airfield. House buyers must accept
some responsibility for doing due diligence and not buying a house near
an active airfield if they find aircraft noise bothersome.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net