In article . com,
daffy wrote:
1. Small planes use leaded gasoline, which is more polluting than
autos and with over 600 landings and departures per day.... that is a
lot of lethal pollution.
2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just
recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and
not on University Avenue.
3. There are about 150 pilots operating out of the airport verses
approximately 150,00 residents in their flight path. The 24/7 noise
pollution that we all have to contend with 60-70 times per day is like
living in a war zone. To the credit of Palo Alto you banned gasoline
powered leaf blowers for reasons of noise and pollution. What is the
difference other than the planes cause more of both to more people!
4. The land space the airport occupies is supposed to be for the
recreation of the community. At the rate of 1 pilot to 1000 residents,
it does not seem to be equitable.
5. The assertion that medical flights (Stanford's helicopter does
this) is bogus. The San Carlos airport is 10 minutes away so emergency
availability and business transport is easily accommodated there
6. Finally the land could be dedicated for "open space", developed
for housing, used for a maintenance yard for the city or a new police
station to name a few things that could create income and certainly
lessen the air and noise pollution.

Why on earth would you post this to a piloting newsgroup? Do you think
you're going to gather support to close this airport just because San
Carlos is only 10 minutes away? I guess you don't care if a plane
crashes there. Maybe we should close SFO, too.