Stop the noise

"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.

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.

"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.

I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South
of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres.

I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development
that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based
here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student
activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere
for their shiny new homestead.

A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any
problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up
until their tax base is bigger than our tax base.

Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money.

BillC85


"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.

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

BillC85 wrote:
I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South
of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres.

I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development
that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based
here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student
activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere
for their shiny new homestead.

A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any
problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up
until their tax base is bigger than our tax base.

Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money.

BillC85


"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.

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





Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands".

Kevin wrote in message news:0E3Fc.10405$XM6.5129@attbi_s53...

VideoGuy 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.

Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office.

This sounds like a St Louis area airport. I'm trying to figure out which
one -- St. Charles Muni? That airport is vulnerable, alas. It's privately
owned, and the owner has refused to accept state or federal funds to improve
the runway/taxiways because he wants to be free to sell it.

Meanwhile, with the Page Ave. extension open, there's this nice new
housing development under right base for 16, Creve Coeur. We figure
it's only a matter of time before the noise complaints start, and
since it's also under the approach/departure path for Lambert Field,
we don't expect the complaints about the small airport to be limited
to the planes which are actually *operating* from the small airport.
Never restricted the Noise Police on the ridge south of Spirit. At
one point the airport had a web page showing complaints and indicating
by radar/Tower records what type of plane elicited the complaint.
Many of the complaints were traced to traffic operating out of STL
at 7k or above.

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

No bet. Why bet on a certainty?

Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands".

Alas, Kevin, it's worse than you know. They can *redefine* the flood
plain as being "no longer flood plain" if it's behind a levee taller
than the 500 yr mark. But the previous flood made clear that the
benchmarks have changed because of culvertization and levee building.
So now there are billions of dollars of business and residential developments
in flood plains around St. Louis, without flood insurance (since it's
not a flood plain any more, they don't need it, right?). When a levee-
topping flood or a levee breach occurs, wanna bet they'll swallow hard
and say "well, I knew where I was building". Nah, they'll all come
squawking to Uncle Sugar and pick our pockets.

Cheers,
Sydney

Howdy!

In article .net,
Earl Grieda wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They
just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on
their
lives.

Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.

From what I have been able to determine from interacting with members of the
local anti-airport crowd is the opposite. They, generally speaking, do not
have any problem with how an individual spends their discretionary income.
The problem arises when the "toy", along with its associated use, has a
constant, repetitive, day-in and day-out negative effect on the lives of
thousands of others who would normally be indifferant towards the activity.

....and the discourse spirals downward...

The assertion about "constant", "repetitive", and "negative effect" on
"thousands" has a screed-like quality to it.

Consider people who procure a house "in the country" and then get fussed in
the spring about the aroma of fields being manured. No, I'm not making this
up.

I have seen again and again where our attitude in the aviation community is
that everyone else in the world is wrong and we are right. Our attitude is
that they need to adapt to us and our activities. This attitude is
perceived by the general public as selfish and arrogant. As long as we
continue with this attitude we will continue to lose airports, and general
public support. We might win an occasional battle but will eventually lose
the war.

It's a two way street. I'm looking forward (not) to the Fairwood development
when it gets to the parts on the runway centerline of W00. They seem to
want to put housing directly along it. One hopes the state and/or county
will actually enforce the safety zones around airports that they have devised.
I expect people will bitch and moan about airplane noise.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Actually the guy who started STN is a wealthy lawyer.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:33:47 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.
They
don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
lives.


Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.


I'm hoping that possibly you are all aware of some aspects of this
case that I haven't been exposed to.

The "story" I heard was that there was a local "box" being used for
aerobatics practice, and the neighbors were sick of listening to it.

If this is true, I'm somewhat sympathetic. I would be interested in
knowing the chronological order of the houses/owners and the
establishment/usage of the box in question.

I useta live about 1/4 of a mile away from an official "box", that was
primarily used by one waiver'ed pilot in a 180 hp Great Lakes. Bear in
mind that I've spent the last 20+ years listening to airplanes taking
off and landing 8-10 hours a day.

In the summertime, with the windows open, it was LOUD. Unless you've
been there, I'm afraid that most of you have no idea how annoying it
is. The aerobatics (at least the ones I was exposed to) consisted of
periodic repeated exposure to sounds comparable to a StationAir on
floats at gross weight taking off at WFO, again, and again, and again.

When I got truly sick of it, I was fortunate enuff to be able to call
over to the airport (12 miles away) and tell them to get ahold of the
Chief Pilot (the waiver'ed pilot) of my Pt 135 employer on the radio
and remind him that ****ing off his Director of Maintenance (yours
truly) on a Saturday afternoon/evening was not in his best interests.

What typically followed was an alleged low pass over my roof, and a
little peace and quiet.

TC

The problem that these people have is not really with airplanes. They
just
don't like other people. They don't like the evidence of other people.

That's a pretty far stretch.

They
don't like the effects that the existence of other people have on their
lives.

I would imagine that depends on what those effects are. When people live
close
enough to affect each other there are frequently compromises to be made if
everyone is to be reasonably happy.

Partly right, I'd say. What they hate is that someone can afford an
airplane
for a toy, just like the environazis hate those who can have an SUV for a
toy.

In speaking to people who really dislike GA planes (even in the BED area) I
have never found this to be the case. Where do you get this from?

And leave the SUV issue out of this. Your statement is screwy anyhow; are
you implying that because someone can't afford a SUV that they hide this by
claiming the SUVs are bad for the environment?