![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2005-05-25 20:36, George Patterson wrote:
wrote: Every day these noisy, small private planes from Palo Alto airport destroy my living space. Then move. George Patterson "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got no clothes on - and are up to somethin'. Some years ago I read the complaints on a local anti-aviation website that were intent on closing "my" airport. One of the longer complaint stories was written by a family who considered themselves terrorised by our planes; but if one dug through the whole history of their sufferings, it turned out they had recently moved here from the vicinity of *another* airport, and were appalled that there was again an airport close to their new home, obviously set on irritating them again. Now, if I was so aggravated by noise that I had to move, I'd make damned sure I moved well *away* from any airport, and not 'by chance' put myself in the same situation again. But not these guys. My take is they bought cheap 'noisy' property, then started a local anti-avaition campaign to oust the airport, and by this hoped to raise the property value in time for their next move. /Rolf |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Rolf Blom" wrote in message
... [...] My take is they bought cheap 'noisy' property, then started a local anti-avaition campaign to oust the airport, and by this hoped to raise the property value in time for their next move. If true, they are further cementing their demonstration of ignorance, no doubt. An unresolved anti-airport campaign can only serve to reduce property values. The airport is still there, and the campaign itself argues that the airport is a negative aspect of the neighborhood. By drawing attention to the airport as a detriment, the property values go down. Without the campaign, one could easily just ignore the existence of the airport when selling one's home. I presume that the presence of the airport is not required to be disclosed, since these buyers weren't told when THEY bought the house. But even if it is a required disclosure, many buyers might not be scared off so long as the seller's aren't making a huge fuss about how much they hate the airport. Pete |
|
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 |
WI airport closure | Mike Spera | Owning | 0 | March 9th 05 01:53 PM |
N94 Airport may expand into mobile home community, locals supportive | William Summers | Piloting | 0 | March 18th 04 03:03 AM |
Rules on what can be in a hangar | Brett Justus | Owning | 13 | February 27th 04 05:35 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |