Bad news day in Sacramento

wrote:
wrote:
So that entitles RHV users to force adjoining property to remain garlic fields.

I was going to say "of course not". But then I wondered "Why not?".

Of course RHV owners and users can't force the adjoining property to
remain any particular thing. But we SHOULD be able to keep the land
from becoming CERTAIN new things, like houses, that are predictably a
problem off the ends of runways. It's called zoning, and it needs to
be part of any new airport, and it needs to be enforced.

True, much of the land around ORD is rail, warehouses or forests. But
the zoning
has to be enforced. Somehow things got residential around RHV. So, we
have housing
which is under priced compared to the rest of SV, and nobody got a
noise easement
from the neighbors. History moves on, look at Denver-Stapleton. The
solution
could include better use of SJC,OAK, Moffet, etc. SV is one of those
desirable places with
high land prices. I still see a nice yuppy leisure village at PAO.

This happens to more than just airports. Houses spring up near farms,
trash hauling stations, airports, noisy businesses, power plants, etc.
all the time. And with increasing frequency the newcomers start to
complain about the things that were there first, and tell the original
folks to shut down and move. This is insane.


It boils down to politics and raw numbers...the golden rule...JG

I think it's high time we grabbed some vacant land in the middle of a
town, build an airport (helicopters to start with), and tell the
adjoining residents they have to move because their houses are
interfering with our flight paths. Kinda turn the tables on them. Of
course, they'll say they were there first. And they'd be right.....