Daffy,

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.

It is? Compared to what?

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.

Ah, so nothing happend, right? When did the last crash at PAO happen
where someone on the ground was hurt?

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!

Did you move to PAO before the airport was there? Was the land price you
paid affected by the airfield being there?

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.

Like, uhm golf courses, riding ranges, marinas and...

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

Ah, NIMBY syndrome! No helicopted needed for that.

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.

Sure it could. Like so many other places.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)