![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
1. Small planes use leaded gasoline, which is more polluting than
autos and with over 600 landings and departures per day.... that is a lot of lethal pollution. 2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and not on University Avenue. 3. There are about 150 pilots operating out of the airport verses approximately 150,00 residents in their flight path. The 24/7 noise pollution that we all have to contend with 60-70 times per day is like living in a war zone. To the credit of Palo Alto you banned gasoline powered leaf blowers for reasons of noise and pollution. What is the difference other than the planes cause more of both to more people! 4. The land space the airport occupies is supposed to be for the recreation of the community. At the rate of 1 pilot to 1000 residents, it does not seem to be equitable. 5. The assertion that medical flights (Stanford's helicopter does this) is bogus. The San Carlos airport is 10 minutes away so emergency availability and business transport is easily accommodated there 6. Finally the land could be dedicated for "open space", developed for housing, used for a maintenance yard for the city or a new police station to name a few things that could create income and certainly lessen the air and noise pollution. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . com,
daffy wrote: 1. Small planes use leaded gasoline, which is more polluting than autos and with over 600 landings and departures per day.... that is a lot of lethal pollution. 2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and not on University Avenue. 3. There are about 150 pilots operating out of the airport verses approximately 150,00 residents in their flight path. The 24/7 noise pollution that we all have to contend with 60-70 times per day is like living in a war zone. To the credit of Palo Alto you banned gasoline powered leaf blowers for reasons of noise and pollution. What is the difference other than the planes cause more of both to more people! 4. The land space the airport occupies is supposed to be for the recreation of the community. At the rate of 1 pilot to 1000 residents, it does not seem to be equitable. 5. The assertion that medical flights (Stanford's helicopter does this) is bogus. The San Carlos airport is 10 minutes away so emergency availability and business transport is easily accommodated there 6. Finally the land could be dedicated for "open space", developed for housing, used for a maintenance yard for the city or a new police station to name a few things that could create income and certainly lessen the air and noise pollution. Why on earth would you post this to a piloting newsgroup? Do you think you're going to gather support to close this airport just because San Carlos is only 10 minutes away? I guess you don't care if a plane crashes there. Maybe we should close SFO, too. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Shirl wrote:
Why on earth would you post this to a piloting newsgroup? Probably because the OP is one of these: http://communitiesonline.homestead.c...ithtrolls.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() don't dignify this bozo with a response |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Morgans" wrote:
don't dignify this bozo with a response hanging my head in shame Can't believe I fell for it. Damn. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Buzz off, troll.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
daffy wrote in news:1180739777.176841.50900
@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com: Nice psuedonym, Daffy... "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!" Kablam! (or in this case... Kaplonk!) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
daffy wrote:
1. If a troll and an ogre have kids, are they trogres or ogolls? 2. Remember kids, it's "down, not across". 3. If the minimum weren't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum. 4. Suzie Q once bought a shoe, and threw it out the window. Jack fell down, broke his crown, and is now in litigation with the shoe manufacturer for pain and suffering. 5. How about I take your arm off at the elbow, and let you bleed for 10 minutes. Then we can see about getting you to the hospital. 6. Nothing like the smell of unmaintained public transportation diesel engines to wake you up in the morning and realize how fresh and clean the air is! TheSmokingGnu |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:16:17 -0700, daffy
wrote in . com: 1. Small planes use leaded gasoline, which is more polluting than autos and with over 600 landings and departures per day.... that is a lot of lethal pollution. If it's "lethal pollution," how many have died from it to date? 2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and not on University Avenue. What method did you use to determine that the crash site was "fortunate" and not the result of the pilot's choice? 3. There are about 150 pilots operating out of the airport verses approximately 150,00 residents in their flight path. Palo Alto Airport has been in existence since 1935: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Al...a_Clara_County Comparison of the aerial photographs indicate that no development had begun in the vicinity prior to 1956 other than the Palo Alto Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Board Plant (terminus of Embarcadero Way). Between 1956 and 1960, no new development had taken place in the area; however, by 1973, the Harvey Gum Factory was on the subject site and structures were either completed or under construction at 1890 Embarcadero Road and 2440-2450 Embarcadero Way. Conditions were identical in the 1974 aerial photograph. In the 1980 aerial photograph, the Harvey Gum Factory is standing, and additional infill construction can be seen in the area such as the Baylands Business Park adjacent and to south of the site and the structure now located at 1860 Embarcadero Road. The Harvey Gum Factory was demolished in 1982, based upon Palo Alto Planning Department records www.paloaltoairport.org/PAObrochure.pdf PALO ALTO AIRPORTA Vital Community Asset HISTORY––––––––––––––––––––––– The first recorded landing field in Palo Alto was established in 1924, near Embarcadero and the “City Water Works” (Newell Ave.). A more permanent airport was established on Stanford land in 1928, adjacent to El Camino and Stanford Ave. Among the owners of the “Palo Alto School of Aviation” was Paul Mantz, famous motion picture stunt pilot. In 1934 the airport was moved to the baylands, where two intersecting runways served aircraft as large as the DC-3. In 1954, the runway was relocated to its present site to make room for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. In 1967, the City leased the airport to Santa Clara County, which operates it through the Aviation Division of the County's Roads and Airports Department. The Control Tower was built in 1969. TODAY–––––––––––––––––––––––– Palo Alto Airport is ideally situated in an unpopulated area at the edge of San Francisco Bay, only minutes away from downtown Palo Alto, Stanford, and Silicon Valley. The airport plays an important role within the local business community, moving business people, and time-sensitive items by airplane and helicopter throughout the Western States. The airport also provides a safe and convenient base for the private flyer. Thousands of area residents have learned to fly here, and aircraft are available to rent from numerous flying clubs. Over 500 aircraft make Palo Alto their home base, and the field serves them and visitors with over 200,000 take-offs and landings annually. Revenues from the airport more than support its cost of operation, the surplus going into the Airport Enterprise Fund. Tax revenues generated by the airport are also shared with the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto School District. The 24/7 noise pollution that we all have to contend with 60-70 times per day is like living in a war zone. Why did you locate near an operating airport if you find aircraft noise objectionable? What is the average duration of each incident of noise to which you object? Have you considered using earplugs? 4. The land space the airport occupies is supposed to be for the recreation of the community. At the rate of 1 pilot to 1000 residents, it does not seem to be equitable. http://www.airportbusiness.com/artic...&siteSection=4 Controversy over the airport's future erupted earlier this year when the county pressed the city to take a stand on what would happen once the facility's 50-year county lease runs out in 2017. Without guarantees that the city would take some responsibility for the airport, the county was reluctant to apply for new grants from the federal government. After much debate before the Palo Alto City Council, city leaders vowed July 11 that the airport has a future and pledged to support it once the lease with the county runs out. County officials then applied for the grants, which are expected to pay for security fences and runway lights. A condition of the FAA Airport Improvement grants mentioned above is the continued operation of the airport. 5. The assertion that medical flights (Stanford's helicopter does this) is bogus. The San Carlos airport is 10 minutes away so emergency availability and business transport is easily accommodated there Perhaps. 6. Finally the land could be dedicated for "open space", developed for housing, used for a maintenance yard for the city or a new police station to name a few things that could create income and certainly lessen the air and noise pollution. While I empathize with your annoyance at the noise, consider that airports are disappearing at the rate of one a week throughout the nation. The airports preceded the residential development. Residents voluntarily chose to locate adjacent to the airport. The prices they paid were probably depressed because of the airport's environmental impact. Now the residents want the airport to move. Would you and your neighbors be willing to fund such a move? Or do you consider it equitable to reap an increase in property values in the event of the closure of an airport you chose as a neighbor? The airport you chose to live next to is doing its part to be a good neighbor; you might consider doing the same: http://www.countyairports.org/PAO_Facts.htm NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY/RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly...irhistory.html A short history of Palo Alto aviation |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:59:47 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote: Controversy over the airport's future erupted earlier this year when the county pressed the city to take a stand on what would happen once the facility's 50-year county lease runs out in 2017. Without guarantees that the city would take some responsibility for the airport, the county was reluctant to apply for new grants from the federal government. our airfield has a 21 year lease. we renegotiate it every 10 years. that way we get a 10 year warning of a problem occurring. we never wait until it expires. Stealth (that's a hint) Pilot |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
noise from Palo Alto airport | [email protected] | Owning | 14 | June 13th 05 08:07 AM |
Palo Alto airport, potential long-term problems... | [email protected] | Piloting | 7 | June 6th 05 11:32 PM |
noise from Palo Alto airport | [email protected] | Piloting | 11 | May 26th 05 08:10 PM |
noise from Palo Alto airport | [email protected] | General Aviation | 2 | May 25th 05 09:59 PM |
PLEASE Don't Feed THe Palo Alto TRoll | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 0 | May 24th 05 11:27 PM |