Hillsboro Air Show

john smith wrote:

Bad zoning decision.

You got that right.

Nothing against the air show per se, but it's a major disaster just
waiting to happen, having an air show over a populated area that is
growing more and more dense all the time. It was okay when it began,
but times have changed. It needs to be moved.

"Spread Eagle®" wrote in message
oups.com...
john smith wrote:

Bad zoning decision.

You got that right.

Nothing against the air show per se, but it's a major disaster just
waiting to happen, having an air show over a populated area that is
growing more and more dense all the time. It was okay when it began,
but times have changed. It needs to be moved.

Maybe they can move the airport and you can pay the bill for it. How's that
sound?

KEX' afternoon radio show had a listener poll yesterday. 65% or so of the
callers had said that despite the crash they plan to attend the airshow in
the future. Only something like 2% said the crash taught them how dangerous
airplanes were.

The airport was there first. The developers chose to build around it and
hope their dumbass yuppie buyers were too clueless to consider the friggin'
towered airport in their backyard. Caveat emptor. The city and people of
Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
good for a few. That's a polite way of suggesting that if you build your
house by a river you better have flood insurance.

The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out, at
the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.
Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to build
their house under an airport's flight pattern.


=c

gatt wrote:
"Spread Eagle®" wrote in message
oups.com...
john smith wrote:

Bad zoning decision.

You got that right.

Nothing against the air show per se, but it's a major disaster just
waiting to happen, having an air show over a populated area that is
growing more and more dense all the time. It was okay when it began,
but times have changed. It needs to be moved.

Maybe they can move the airport and you can pay the bill for it. How's that
sound?

KEX' afternoon radio show had a listener poll yesterday. 65% or so of the
callers had said that despite the crash they plan to attend the airshow in
the future. Only something like 2% said the crash taught them how dangerous
airplanes were.

The airport was there first. The developers chose to build around it and
hope their dumbass yuppie buyers were too clueless to consider the friggin'
towered airport in their backyard. Caveat emptor. The city and people of
Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
good for a few. That's a polite way of suggesting that if you build your
house by a river you better have flood insurance.

The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out, at
the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.
Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to build
their house under an airport's flight pattern.

Doesn't matter who was there first. It's the way the area grew. And
don't forget that land use planning in Oregon for the last thirty years
has been strictly controlled thing. I remember when the Hillsboro
airport was out in the middle of nowhere. Not anymore. It's a hazard.

If you stop and think about it, the beauty of it is that financially
it's a win-win deal. The property that the airport sits on now,
situated where it is, is primo upscale suburban real estate. Promo.
It's value to investing developers is astronomical. They could option
it off and start the process of locating another location, probably
much further west along the Sunset Highway, and begin building. The
profit from the sale would pay for the property, the building of a
bigger and more modern airport, and the move to it.

On 17 Nov 2006 12:20:05 -0800, wrote:


gatt wrote:

The airport was there first. The developers chose to build around it and
hope their dumbass yuppie buyers were too clueless to consider the friggin'
towered airport in their backyard. Caveat emptor. The city and people of
Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
good for a few. That's a polite way of suggesting that if you build your
house by a river you better have flood insurance.

The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out, at
the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.
Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to build
their house under an airport's flight pattern.

Doesn't matter who was there first.

Oh, Shur it does!

When the airport went in, the airport developers were Aware of no
nearby conflicts with housing.

When the housing went in, the housing developers were Aware of an
airport in the vicinity, carrying with it Certain Risks, but
deliberately chose to go ahead and develop anyway, reckoning that the
risks were minor.

As they have been, over the years.

It's the way the area grew.

Doesn't change the obvious Fact of How it grew -- in the full and
certain knowledge of the Real Estate types that land closer to an
airport was cheaper, and therefore more profitable to build houses on.
It's that way in almost every metropolitan area out there.

And don't forget that land use planning in Oregon for the last thirty years
has been strictly controlled thing. I remember when the Hillsboro
airport was out in the middle of nowhere. Not anymore. It's a hazard.

It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.

Now, had they chosen instead to request a Zoning, whereby Real Estate
development would have been prohibited within a reasonable radius of
the airport, that would have been OK. But they didn't.

Choices have consequences, and once made, the consequences get to be
lived with.

If you stop and think about it, the beauty of it is that financially
it's a win-win deal. The property that the airport sits on now,
situated where it is, is primo upscale suburban real estate. Promo.

It could be, if that was its Highest and Best Use. If that is indeed
the case, then the Real Estate Developers have a simple task -- make
an offer to buy the airport and pay the costs of moving it.

D'ya figure they'll actually Do that?

It's value to investing developers is astronomical. They could option
it off and start the process of locating another location, probably
much further west along the Sunset Highway, and begin building. The
profit from the sale would pay for the property, the building of a
bigger and more modern airport, and the move to it.

All they must needs do is place a money offer on the table, and it's
open for consideration. Lowered Nose, such things have been done in
other places.

But it must be done when the airport is still fully operational, and
not only After its operations have been curtailed and its value -- and
price -- have been lowered thereby.

If this is such a great idea, then let the bidding begin!

Otherwise, the airport remains where it is.

Don Homuth wrote:

It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.


No it wasn't. See UGB.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:51:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.

No it wasn't. See UGB.

The Hillsboro airport predated the UGB.

Don Homuth wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:51:35 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers
moved somewhere closer to it. That was a Known Risk on their part,
and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.

No it wasn't. See UGB.

The Hillsboro airport predated the UGB.


No **** Dick Tracy. Do I really need to explain this to you?

Nothing gets developed anywhere without city, county, or state
approval, any of them or all of them, depending upon the project. This
didn't happen in a vacuum. The city and or county issued building
permits for all of that housing. Government was complicit. And it
had to be. That is prime residential real estate. It's the airport
that's out of place.

Besides, to any thinking person with half a brain it was fully
foreseeable that real estate in that area would become urbanized.
That's one reason why thinking people with a full brain have serious
problems with city and county urban planners. They don't know what
they are doing.

In article .com,
(=?iso-8859-1?q?Spread_Eagle_=AE?=) says...
Nothing gets developed anywhere without city, county, or state
approval, any of them or all of them, depending upon the project. This
didn't happen in a vacuum. The city and or county issued building
permits for all of that housing. Government was complicit. And it
had to be. That is prime residential real estate. It's the airport
that's out of place.

Besides, to any thinking person with half a brain it was fully
foreseeable that real estate in that area would become urbanized.
That's one reason why thinking people with a full brain have serious
problems with city and county urban planners. They don't know what
they are doing.

Airplanes fly over populated areas all the time, and occasionally one
crashes. Accidents happen. The best way of dealing with the problem is
to improve air safety, not move the airport to some remote area where
nobody will use it. The Hillsboro Airport gets a lot of traffic
precisely because it is so convenient.

If people want to live next to an airport, it's their business, not
yours. Caveat emptor. It's not like the existence of the airport is a
secret.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

Larry Caldwell wrote:

Airplanes fly over populated areas all the time, and occasionally one
crashes. Accidents happen. The best way of dealing with the problem is
to improve air safety, not move the airport to some remote area where
nobody will use it. The Hillsboro Airport gets a lot of traffic
precisely because it is so convenient.

If people want to live next to an airport, it's their business, not
yours. Caveat emptor. It's not like the existence of the airport is a
secret.


Usually airports are placed as out of the way as possible, and if they
must be in populated areas, the minimization of take off and landing
corridors passing over residential areas as much as possible is done.

But my comment was actually pertinent to the air show, that it's a
disaster waiting to happen, and that as such it should be relocated.
Another poster interpreted that to mean moving the airport, an idea I
got on board, mainly because Washington County is going to get a major
airport ala PDX sooner or later. The population there is going to
require it. I don't believe that the present Hillsboro location can or
will fill that need. They might as well start planning for it now.