Bad news day in Sacramento

wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

That must be a surprise to all the people that love in Elk Grove,
Bensenville, Rosemount, Des Plaines and all the other surrounding
communities. I think you need to take a drive around O'Hare to see how
wrong your statement is.

Dave Stadt wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

That must be a surprise to all the people that love in Elk Grove,
Bensenville, Rosemount, Des Plaines and all the other surrounding
communities. I think you need to take a drive around O'Hare to see how
wrong your statement is.

Rosemont didn't exist before ORD. Des Plaines caved in and supports the
expansion. Bensenville, well they're still playing around but
homeowners have sold to ORD.

Elk Grove would be nothing without ORD, most of their housing is post
ORD construction. Again it boils down to raw
political wlll. Even the Dupage Co. board supports ORD expansion.

JG

Dave Stadt wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

That must be a surprise to all the people that love in Elk Grove,
Bensenville, Rosemount, Des Plaines and all the other surrounding
communities. I think you need to take a drive around O'Hare to see how
wrong your statement is.

Rosemont didn't exist before ORD. Des Plaines caved in and supports the
expansion. Bensenville, well they're still playing around but
homeowners have sold to ORD.

Elk Grove would be nothing without ORD, most of their housing is post
ORD construction. Again it boils down to raw
political wlll. Even the Dupage Co. board supports ORD expansion.

JG

Jerry wrote:

These days, I mostly don't mention being a pilot - am never sure how
people will react.

just say you are a cartoonist...

we are living wonderful times :-)

so you actually met the nut case in person? scary.

--Sylvain

by Sylvain Feb 22, 2006 at 02:25 AM


Jerry wrote:

These days, I mostly don't mention being a pilot - am never sure how
people will react.

just say you are a cartoonist...

we are living wonderful times :-)

so you actually met the nut case in person? scary.

--Sylvain

Is the VP for strategic planning for San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority also a "nut case?" :

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006...2006191113.txt

("Skylune" wrote)

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/02/21/opinion/commentary/22006191113.txt


This jumped out at me:

(From the link)
"National Transportation Safety Board statistics show that 97 percent of
general aviation accidents and 93 percent of commercial aviation accidents
occur within five miles of airports."

I'm calling it 100 sq miles around each airport:
78.5 sq miles for "r" = 5 miles.
113.04 sq miles for "r" = 6 miles (includes 5,000 ft runway)

In San Diego County, alone, there are 16 airports.
100 sq miles x 16 = 1,600 sq miles
1,600 sq miles = 40 miles x 40 miles (in this one county)

NTSB stat (above) will be true, in that much airspace in SD County.


Montblack

The article also claims 55 accidents in the last 5 years caused 23
fatalities.

I wonder how many AUTO fatalities have occurred in the last 5 years.
Sounds like it's time to ban cars--heck, the streets are within a few
feet of houses.

I also laugh a bit at the "noise" issue. People complain about
airplane noise that I can't hear inside my house (however flimsily
built these stucco-over-styrofoam pieces of crap are). But they don't
do anything about the boom-box cars that generate chest-pounding
vibrations inside my house.

Misplaced logic abounds....

Is Maryland Delegate Darryl Kelley also a "nut case?" MD House Bill 894
seeks to create a task force to study general aviation issues,
including, environmental issues, including any problems with low-flying
aircraft, safety and land-use compatibility questions, security issues,
flight school monitoring, and recording airport operations.


Of course, the AOPA is "opposing" this.

AOPA is also "opposing" the Missouri budget, the ADIZ over Washington,
TFRs over the Texas/NM border, upcoming enactment of national user fees,
flight restrictions near a military base, etc.

"AOPA -- The Opposer." LOL. I liked it better when they used the term
"take on."

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Is Maryland Delegate Darryl Kelley also a "nut case?" MD
House Bill 894 seeks to create a task force to study general
aviation issues, including, environmental issues, including
any problems with low-flying aircraft, safety and land-use
compatibility questions, security issues, flight school
monitoring, and recording airport operations.


Of course, the AOPA is "opposing" this.

AOPA is also "opposing" the Missouri budget, the ADIZ over
Washington, TFRs over the Texas/NM border, upcoming enactment
of national user fees, flight restrictions near a military base,
etc.

"AOPA -- The Opposer." LOL. I liked it better when they used
the term "take on."


One of the things that is killing us is our perceived arrogance by the
public. When we attack the messenger, instead of the message, by calling
them "nut cases", "noise nazis", and other derogatory terms we make
ourselves look like fools, and make them look better. Simply because some
individuals do not agree with our position does not make them "nut cases".
If we concentrate on countering their arguments instead of insults we might
have better success. Of course, if the facts turn out to be in their favor
then maybe insults are the only tool we have.

by "Tom Conner" Feb 22, 2006 at 07:22 PM

One of the things that is killing us is our perceived arrogance by the
public. When we attack the messenger, instead of the message, by calling
them "nut cases", "noise nazis", and other derogatory terms we make
ourselves look like fools, and make them look better. Simply because
some
individuals do not agree with our position does not make them "nut
cases".
If we concentrate on countering their arguments instead of insults we
might
have better success. Of course, if the facts turn out to be in their
favor
then maybe insults are the only tool we have.

Of course I agree with your sentiments 100%.

What I find humorous, in a tragi-comedy kind of way, is that some of the
fliers are doing this to themselves. FOR YEARS, I've said that the small
minority is ruining it for the vast majority of responsible fliers. The
AOPA, of course, seeks to "protect" all fliers, thereby contributing to
the decline in GA by aligning itself with the irresponsible pilots, and
opposing everything under the sun.

Phil obviously does not believe in the "pick your battle" strategy.
AOPA:
Aviators Opposing (all) Public Accountability.