On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:01:47 AM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 14:29:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Why should 5 percent of Santa Monica's land to restricted to .00001 percent of the population to use ??
Because the land belonged to the federal government, and the city agreed to
hold it in perpetuity as an airport as a condition of receipt of said land?
In Perpetuity ?? Forever and ever ?? Sorry but times change and eventually land moves on to higher and better uses.
airport isn't merely land, it is an integral part of the National Airspace
System. Removal of components of the NAS degrades the entire system.
Why should developers be permitted to violate the agreement by which the city
acquired the airport land?
Why did the city permit construction of homes so close to the airport? That
would seem to qualify as an admission of malfeasance in office.
A lot of the houses are in adjoining LA city. What should have been done, should the orange groves been kept ??
Why are you so anti aviation?
Me, "anti-aviation" ?? Just another personal attack from a side with few logical
points to defend their position. In fact I've been watching a heli-pad being built 3 miles from Chicago's downtown by a private developer. But you have to be super-liquid to afford a helo in the city.