In article ,
WJRFlyBoy wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
live:

1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
loaf of bread or a can of paint.

2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
start campaigning against the airpark.
3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.

Reasoning here?

The reason is that if the residents don't OWN the runway, they are
potentially at the maercy of the landowners. Even though the residents
may have contractually permanent access, they may have legal hassles if
the landowners attempt to renege on their contracts.

I knew people in CA who had this problem at Sierra Skypark. They
eventually prevailed, but it cost them a lot of hassle and legal fees
when the owner of the runway attempted to close it for development.

5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
mind).
6. Those with poor approaches.
7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).
8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
bit far away.)

What do you think about Captiva?

I really have not investigated it, but it does not appear to be a place
where I would wish to live.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.