"Spread Eagle®" wrote in message
oups.com...
john smith wrote:

Bad zoning decision.

You got that right.

Nothing against the air show per se, but it's a major disaster just
waiting to happen, having an air show over a populated area that is
growing more and more dense all the time. It was okay when it began,
but times have changed. It needs to be moved.

Maybe they can move the airport and you can pay the bill for it. How's that
sound?

KEX' afternoon radio show had a listener poll yesterday. 65% or so of the
callers had said that despite the crash they plan to attend the airshow in
the future. Only something like 2% said the crash taught them how dangerous
airplanes were.

The airport was there first. The developers chose to build around it and
hope their dumbass yuppie buyers were too clueless to consider the friggin'
towered airport in their backyard. Caveat emptor. The city and people of
Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
good for a few. That's a polite way of suggesting that if you build your
house by a river you better have flood insurance.

The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out, at
the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.
Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to build
their house under an airport's flight pattern.


=c