Hillsboro Air Show

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Don Homuth wrote:

[personality conflict deleted]

Ah, the joys of inappropriate cross-posting.

Thanks "gatt". Please don't do that again.

*grin*

The threat to or.politics. and alt.culture.oregon is substantial, too. I'm
an equal-opportunity cross-poster.

I'll try to honor your request in the future. Y'all have a great weekend!

-c

"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.

"gatt" wrote:

The city and people of
Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the
good for a few.

Beaverton has nothing to do with it. We don't even look alike.

Don Homuth wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:18:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:55:10 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:


I am right. You care more about a collection of scrap metal.

Nope. I cared about the plane, when it was still intact. The scrap
metal is just now so much junk.

It was a collection of scrap metal before it crashed.

Strange -- it appeared to be a fully funtional Hawker Hunter.

IOW, a collection of scrap metal.


DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?

Would it be right to fire into a crowd coming to lynch you and your
family?


Just answer the question. That's how this works. Unless you're a lying
sleazeball politician.

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.

"gatt" wrote:


"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:4l87h.4486$ZN1.4269@trndny03...

The Hawker Hunter is a lovely aircraft, is it not? That one won't
be replaced any time soon, certainly.


Yep. And your Very First Thought was for the aircraft.


What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
life?

I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT include
protecting it with his life.

What's more important, the document or the principles?


The crash of a rare or unique plane diminishes aviation's physical
history.

So What!

If the Spirit of St. Louis fell off its cables and crushed a
tourist standing under it, America would not remember the name of the
tourist, but they would remember that the Spirit of St. Louis had
fallen from the ceiling.

I don't saying so slights the value of the victims lives at all.
There's nothing the pilot could have done to save himself but not fly
that day.

Then, of course, it set a couple homes on fire. **** the plane!

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:29:51 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:18:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:



DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?

Would it be right to fire into a crowd coming to lynch you and your
family?

Just answer the question. That's how this works.

Not when the assumption within the question is Wrong.

Unless you're a lying sleazeball politician.

No lying involved, and as a Politician, no one in My community has
used such terms in any descriptive way.

You have Moral Perfection on your side here, Lobby.

So -- use it and answer My question.

The situation is clear:

The Mob is half a block away, armed and coming to kill You and three
members of Your family. Unless stopped, it'll be here in ten minutes.
It is not open to negotiation on your fate.

The helicopters called to evacuate you and your family are 20 minutes
away, though. Not enough time to get you and yours out before the
confrontation starts.

So -- gotta Decide something right quicklike.

My mission as explained was specifically and explicitly to protect
Murken Lives whenever possible. It is possible for me to do that by
opening fire. There is apparently no other option available at the
moment.

My troops are good folks. I trained them. They are competent shots,
highly disciplined, have sufficient ammunition to last through any
firefight, their positions and fields of fire are in good order. I
trust Them and They trust Me.

The decision is mine to take: Do I open fire into the mob in order to
save the lives of You and Your Family?

Make the call, Dosser.

Use your highly developed sense of Perfect Morality that does not
depend on the situation at hand to do it.

Do I open fire into the crowd or not?

What is Right and what is Wrong here?

Do you know?

How?

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:33:45 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

"gatt" wrote:


What's more important to the average American? The Declaration of
Independence or the guard standing near it protecting it with his
life?

I'd be willing to bet that the guard's Job Description does NOT include
protecting it with his life.

You'd be wrong in that.

What's more important, the document or the principles?

The document -- no question about it.

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.