Stop the noise

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
airports that already existed.

Here's another example of this exact senerio;

A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.

Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.

Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office. I
called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport"
that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are
pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as
important to the city as HIS grand, new development!

Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or...
maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did
in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads
around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this "little
airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how
well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their
houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New
Town"?

Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little
planes" flying over my new house?

Gary Kasten

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?

Evidently so.

I rather doubt that AOPA;'s contribution was large enough for them to
want to buy back the airplanes. I don't know if Boston lawyers bill
$400 an hour, but I am sure they earn more an hour than I do in a day.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes
near
airports that already existed.

Here's another example of this exact senerio;

A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.

Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.

Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local
governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps'
casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution.

"David Cartwright" wrote in message
...
"airads" wrote in message
om...
Now they want the FAA to require A/C registration numbers to be
enlarged and located under the wings "where they belong".

On this side of the pond, you have to have your registration on the
underside of your left wing anyway.

Which country is that?

Paul

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes

near

airports that already existed.

Here's another example of this exact senerio;

A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood
plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches
higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town"
concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc.

Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.


Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local
governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls, Trumps'
casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution.



Wal-Mart is well known to use this method to obtain land the owners
refuse to sell.

Peter Clark wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:


Cub Driver wrote:


Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?


They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
free.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .

"Kevin" wrote in message
news:RIf8c.82383$Cb.1096751@attbi_s51...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together,
already
counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this
builder
wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just
across
the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is
now
over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since
before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously,
with
the same ownership for almost 25 years.


Think that's bizarre, read up on the abuse of eminent domain by local
governments, particularly where they grab land for shopping malls,
Trumps'
casino, etc. So much for "Public Use" doctrine from the Constitution.



Wal-Mart is well known to use this method to obtain land the owners
refuse to sell.

I've heard they've tried it twice. Don't know if the offered "fair market
value, though), but the worst offenders are sports stadiums. In Phoenix,
when they were getting ready to build BankOne Ballpark for the Diamondbacks
it came close to a violent confrontation with the police but local
protesters.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:24:58 GMT, Kevin wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:


Cub Driver wrote:


Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?


They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
free.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .

How would a living trust prevent someone from needing to pay legal
bills incurred defending themselves from a suit brought against them?
The Stop The Noise group is headed by a lawyer who is doing all their
work for free. The pilots have to pay their defense bills.

IMO if the people involved in this case on the plaintiff's side had to
actually foot the bill for the fees, time, court costs, etc that the
pilots have to it would never have even gotten to court, but as it is
they have nothing at all to lose - they're not paying anything except
some nominal filing and court fees.

"Kevin" wrote:
This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a
Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .


Are you sure that's going to work in your state? Here's sample advice
for
physicians that it won't:

http://www.physiciansnews.com/finance/1101dv.html

Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:24:58 GMT, Kevin wrote:


Peter Clark wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:19:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:



Cub Driver wrote:



Furthermore, AOPA has not been
injured by this suit, so they will not be able to file a countersuit
(though they could certainly support the pilots financially if they decide
to do so).

According to AOPA Pilot, they have indeed made "a substantial
contribution" to defense costs.

Yet the pilots still had to sell their aircraft?


They don't have the benefit of their lawyers doing everything for
free.


This is the very reason all of my assets are owned by a Revocable
Living Trust . Bullet proof protection of assets .


How would a living trust prevent someone from needing to pay legal
bills incurred defending themselves from a suit brought against them?
The Stop The Noise group is headed by a lawyer who is doing all their
work for free. The pilots have to pay their defense bills.

If all your assets were untouchable you would have no need to spend money
defending yourself. Let them get a default judgment. If you have no
assets in
your name and legally own nothing they can never collect.

I was once a manager with a national wholesale finance company (
floorplanning ). We had a dealer take us for $250K because all of his
personal assets were protected by his trust. We spent about $200K in
legal fees and collected nothing.