Agreed, we should be more careful, but from your situation, I'd HAVE to
ask
the complainers "Was the airport here when you bought your house?"

IMHO, that's a fair question if the demand is for the airport to be shut
down, or for restrictions to be imposed. However, it's irrelevant with
respect to the question of being a good neighbor. Just because you're
there
first, that doesn't mean you shouldn't show consideration to people who
move
in later.

Some people don't want airports at all. Of course, these folks are being
unreasonable, and there's no use in trying to reason with them. However,
most people would be satisfied to know that the users of the airport are
aware of their concerns and are trying to be friendly neighbors. There's
much to be gained by being willing to engage in an open discussion with
the
neighbors about their concerns and what can be done about those concerns.


Well, that is of course a good point, but the major problem with this group
is that it makes very little mention of anyone living next to or near an
actual airport. Rather, they wish to assert their property rights for the
homes they own, all the way to the airspace above them (which is of course a
ridiculous proposition). They want to ban 'recreational' flying in any way,
shape or form over private property, in favor of pilots purchasing and
reserving plots of deserted land to fly over. They in fact state directly
that this is not a grievance against any airport, but rather against all
recreational flight activities, such as practice, sightseeing or any kind of
fun. They go on to refer to such activities: "These activities can in no way
be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are performed solely
for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to those on the
ground."

Here is the particuar excerpt that I have the biggest problem with:
"Our goal is to remove the aerobatic and recreational flyers from the skies
over our private property. This will be achieved by the assertion of
property rights of the owners of the land and airspace through which these
recreational aircraft fly, enforcement of federal, state and local
environmental and public health laws, and by identifying and publishing the
names and contact information for the organizations and individuals
responsible for this abusive behavior.

We believe that if there is to be a recreational flying community, then it
must obtain at its own expense areas large enough to accommodate their waste
noise without spilling over to adjacent properties in excess of the local
regulatory limits. At present, in most communities, the limit is 10 decibels
above background ambient levels. This is no different from requiring that
the local rod and gun club secure and maintain an area for their activities
that will ensure abutters that they will not be the recipients of waste
noise or stray rounds.

We are not attempting to halt expansion at any particular airport or at
airports in general. We are concerned about where the recreational aircraft
go to practice, sightsee or to just mark time. None of these activities is
possible without a subsidy from the property owners on the ground who must
involuntarily absorb the waste noise from these activities. These activities
can in no way be construed to have any socially redeeming value. They are
performed solely for the benefit of the airmen involved at a painful cost to
those on the ground."

This is nothing but self-important tripe, and honestly, it is just plain
un-American.