On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:27:31 -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.

That's what I thought. "A ROW is a good as your ability to defend it." ~
attorney 2007
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.