In article ,
WJRFlyBoy wrote:



First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem
with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted
to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property
damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an
airpark and you have major, potential carnage.

Everyone, almost, assumed that I was looking to find serious and
conclusive faults to the airpark lifestyle. Here's a heads up. If anyone
had simply asked, instead of assuming, what my interest level is, and
why, they would have gotten the straight answer.

I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
(beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.

The picture that I am getting is that "WJRFlyBoy" has a vested interest
in shutting down the airpark at North Captiva. Just how many new
(expe$sive) home$ can he build there if he can force the place to close?

In a previous posting I recited one of my criteria for an airpark place
to live: "Big enough to defend itself when the Philistines attack." Is
"WJRFlyBoy" one of those Philistines?

North Captiva is small, apparently with only 20-30 homes there. The
residents would have to shell out a lot of money in lawyers' fees if
somebody mounted a strong movement against them. The Chicken Littles
would pour out of the woodwork, crying "The sky is FALLING!" In steps
Mr. Foxy Loxy, promising to develop houses on the site, if only they can
get rid of those pesky, dangerous airplanes.





Pilots complain about the public's misconceptions about airparks and air
safety. Chicken and egg, I have sat in way too many pilot-public debates
where both sides are at odds and are carrying attitudes to those
discussions. This thread is a very good example.


So have I, when the players behind the scene are developers.

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