A new twist on complaints

Well, here we go again although so far there is just the one nut.

A few years back there was an organized effort to close Midland
Barstow (3BS). Of course the argument was noise even though we were
here first. As the noise issue was not working they tried to fire up
the residents by complaining about the airport subsidy for a bunch of
hobbyists, or amateur pilots. Turned out that a study showed the
airport brings in about $10 million dollars into the area each year.
They weren't satisfied with that so they paid to have their own study
done. It did say the first study was wrong. I came up with
considerably *more* than ten million. :-)) When they found out how
many millions of dollars it'd cost to close the airport and dispose of
the land the effort died.

However, trying to be good neighbors the departure was changed to
straight out with the preferred runway being 06/24 as there was
nothing off the end of 24 outbound except a few houses and a lot of
trees. Departing 06 takes you out over the north end of a mall and a
few businesses.

Well, the inevitable happened and people built some new subdivisions
off the departure end of 24. It's now almost solid homes for about a
mile and a half and they are the big expensive ones. There is a bit
more traffic in the mornings lately so they are now complaining about
the changes in the traffic and the noise.

Oh yah! This group is complaining there are too many business
flights and we should keep the airport for the local pilots to use.

There is also the argument against lengthening the runways, but try
and convince them that if a plane starts its take off roll a 1000 feet
farther away it'll be much higher and quieter when it goes over their
home off the end of the runway. They're worried about jets, but most
of today's smaller jets are far quieter than most of our high
performance singles and twins.

One other thing, now that we have GPS they are in line with the
straight in approach for 06, so inbound will only be about 500 feet
above them. I don't think they have figured that one out yet.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article ,
Roger wrote:

Well, here we go again although so far there is just the one nut.

A few years back there was an organized effort to close Midland
Barstow (3BS). Of course the argument was noise even though we were
here first. As the noise issue was not working they tried to fire up
the residents by complaining about the airport subsidy for a bunch of
hobbyists, or amateur pilots. Turned out that a study showed the
airport brings in about $10 million dollars into the area each year.
They weren't satisfied with that so they paid to have their own study
done. It did say the first study was wrong. I came up with
considerably *more* than ten million. :-)) When they found out how
many millions of dollars it'd cost to close the airport and dispose of
the land the effort died.

However, trying to be good neighbors the departure was changed to
straight out with the preferred runway being 06/24 as there was
nothing off the end of 24 outbound except a few houses and a lot of
trees. Departing 06 takes you out over the north end of a mall and a
few businesses.

Well, the inevitable happened and people built some new subdivisions
off the departure end of 24. It's now almost solid homes for about a
mile and a half and they are the big expensive ones. There is a bit
more traffic in the mornings lately so they are now complaining about
the changes in the traffic and the noise.

Oh yah! This group is complaining there are too many business
flights and we should keep the airport for the local pilots to use.

There is also the argument against lengthening the runways, but try
and convince them that if a plane starts its take off roll a 1000 feet
farther away it'll be much higher and quieter when it goes over their
home off the end of the runway. They're worried about jets, but most
of today's smaller jets are far quieter than most of our high
performance singles and twins.

One other thing, now that we have GPS they are in line with the
straight in approach for 06, so inbound will only be about 500 feet
above them. I don't think they have figured that one out yet.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

It sounds as if some developer is hiding in the woodpile somewhere.

"Roger" wrote in message
...
[...]
Well, the inevitable happened and people built some new subdivisions
off the departure end of 24. It's now almost solid homes for about a
mile and a half and they are the big expensive ones. There is a bit
more traffic in the mornings lately so they are now complaining about
the changes in the traffic and the noise.

New twist? New for the airport, maybe. Same old, same old for airports
generally.

Your situation is a great example of why airports should be very aggressive
about dealing with development happening around them, and especially
development happening on the extended runway centerline.

Other airports have successfully challenged developments, either resulting
in ensuring that a path under the centerline is clear, or restricting the
distance within which the development encroaches on the airport, or
requiring that the property titles for the newly developed area carry a
notation describing the presence of the airport and restricting the property
owner's rights with respect to actions against the airport. I especially
like the last option, and in some cases all of the techniques are applied.

Pete

Peter Dunihowrote:
Your situation is a great example of why airports should be very
aggressive
about dealing with development happening around them, and especially
development happening on the extended runway centerline.

Other airports have successfully challenged developments, either resulting
in ensuring that a path under the centerline is clear, or restricting the
distance within which the development encroaches on the airport....snip

An example of this is Chino airport here in Southern California. It's in San
Bernardino County, surrounded by dairy farms. Or at least, it is for now.
All the dairy farms are being bought out by developers. Driving through
Chino and Norco, you go through farmland punctuated more and more frequently
by big tracts of lot filling houses (all they seem to be building around
here these days). I've heard that the airport bought up the farmland
immediately off the approach ends of the runways to stave off the inevitable
complaints of the homeowners who would be there maybe 10 years down the
line. The city seems to appreciate the airport, fortunately, since it has
quite a few businesses and organizations on the grounds, including Fighter
Rebuilders and the Planes of Fame air museum to name two. It's definitely a
cool place - I recommend checking it out when in the LA area.

Here's hoping Chino and others stick around for many years to come.


-Tony Goetz

I've heard that the airport bought up the farmland
immediately off the approach ends of the runways to stave off the inevitable
complaints of the homeowners who would be there maybe 10 years down the
line. The city seems to appreciate the airport...

They should develop that land as houses with hangars and taxiways so
people who love aviation would live near the airport and could keep
their planes right there.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Tony Goetz wrote on 11/07/05 22:00:

Here's hoping Chino and others stick around for many years to come.


Amen to that. The restaurant there is also pretty good.

-Joe

Hi Roger;

This is a cycle that has occurred and often repeats itself at many small
airports. Unless it's dealt with aggressively up front, it can become an
airport killer. I've seen this happen at several airports during my career
and the way it happened in all cases was consistent.

The airport exists.

The developers come and build without a winning challenge from the airport,
usually because the airport can't afford the challenge.

Upscale houses are built and usually sold to professional and business
people involved directly in the local area.

The complaints start rolling in to the local politicians.

The math is simple. Just count the votes the people complaining control vs
the vote controlled by the local airport.

Add to this the fact that in many cases the land the airport sits on is a
prime target for more developers, and you have the perfect equation for an
airport's demise!!
Dudley



"Roger" wrote in message
...
Well, here we go again although so far there is just the one nut.

A few years back there was an organized effort to close Midland
Barstow (3BS). Of course the argument was noise even though we were
here first. As the noise issue was not working they tried to fire up
the residents by complaining about the airport subsidy for a bunch of
hobbyists, or amateur pilots. Turned out that a study showed the
airport brings in about $10 million dollars into the area each year.
They weren't satisfied with that so they paid to have their own study
done. It did say the first study was wrong. I came up with
considerably *more* than ten million. :-)) When they found out how
many millions of dollars it'd cost to close the airport and dispose of
the land the effort died.

However, trying to be good neighbors the departure was changed to
straight out with the preferred runway being 06/24 as there was
nothing off the end of 24 outbound except a few houses and a lot of
trees. Departing 06 takes you out over the north end of a mall and a
few businesses.

Well, the inevitable happened and people built some new subdivisions
off the departure end of 24. It's now almost solid homes for about a
mile and a half and they are the big expensive ones. There is a bit
more traffic in the mornings lately so they are now complaining about
the changes in the traffic and the noise.

Oh yah! This group is complaining there are too many business
flights and we should keep the airport for the local pilots to use.

There is also the argument against lengthening the runways, but try
and convince them that if a plane starts its take off roll a 1000 feet
farther away it'll be much higher and quieter when it goes over their
home off the end of the runway. They're worried about jets, but most
of today's smaller jets are far quieter than most of our high
performance singles and twins.

One other thing, now that we have GPS they are in line with the
straight in approach for 06, so inbound will only be about 500 feet
above them. I don't think they have figured that one out yet.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Add to this the fact that in many cases the land the airport sits on is a
prime target for more developers, and you have the perfect equation for an
airport's demise!!

Oddly enough, in many cases the airport is the reason for the growth of
the area: airport outside of city attracts businesses to build near the
airport which attracts developers to build houses near the businesses
which results in people complaining about the airport.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't
want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation
in the world for the next four years."
-- George Carlin

"Roger" == Roger writes:
Roger even though we were here first.

The Indians tried that with the Pilgrims, didn't work then, won't work
now.

by "Dudley Henriques" Nov 8, 2005 at 12:38 PM


Hi Roger;

This is a cycle that has occurred and often repeats itself at many small
airports. Unless it's dealt with aggressively up front, it can become an
airport killer. I've seen this happen at several airports during my
career

and the way it happened in all cases was consistent.

The airport exists.

The developers come and build without a winning challenge from the
airport,
usually because the airport can't afford the challenge.

Upscale houses are built and usually sold to professional and business
people involved directly in the local area.

The complaints start rolling in to the local politicians.

The math is simple. Just count the votes the people complaining control
vs

the vote controlled by the local airport.

Add to this the fact that in many cases the land the airport sits on is a

prime target for more developers, and you have the perfect equation for
an

airport's demise!!
Dudley"

From your lips to God's ears!

Opposition here is mounting. Just spoke to someone from a neighboring
town that is considering moving. The airport keeps growing and putting
more and more small planes in the air, even though the community was there
well before the airport existed.