On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:09:42 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
there in the case of an accident.

Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.

1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.


So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?

I took your lead "houses...closer..street..etc. The dangers are both
real and perceived regardless.

If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

There is a real danger. If you care to deny the fact that there is a
history of loss of life, physical destruction to property in airparks,
then you had best opt out. I certainly have no more use to discuss this
with you if you're position so flagrantly flies in the face of reality.