Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA

On May 15, 4:44*pm, wrote:

Since SM stopped accepting FAA money in 1994, all those "improvements"
have depreciated and its time to pursue the highest and best public
use of the land...JG

Most such agreements state that if the land is no longer used for an
airport the property goes back to being federal property. The city
didn't just get free land in 1948.

-Robert

On May 16, 11:44*am, wrote:
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...faa-ups-legal-....
It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest another
option that would not restrict access to the airport. The city, which
accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development grants between
1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the runway length and
width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed when the airport was
transferred to the city in 1948 that the airport would be used “for
the use and benefit of the public…without unjust discrimination.

.000001 % of the SoCal Public has ever set foot there.

I in 100 million? I don't believe it.
Cheers

On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote
in
:

its time to pursue the highest and best public use of the land.

Are you aware of the revolution in air-taxi services occurring in the
nation's southeast? Here's a clue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet

Those municipalities that have converted their airports to strip-malls
will be frozen out of the future of air travel, or have to use their
powers of eminent domain to build new airports. Neither prospect is
likely to be attractive to their residents.

wrote in
:



http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...faa-ups-legal-
... It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest
another option that would not restrict access to the airport. The
city, which accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development
grants between 1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the
runway length and width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed
when the airport was transferred to the city in 1948 that the
airport would be used “for the use and benefit of the public…without
unjust discrimination.

.000001 % of the SoCal Public has ever set foot there.


The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets
constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to
operators of other classes of aircraft.”

http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Sa...ment_jet_ban_d
... Residents have complained for years about the potential for a
jet to overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport
is unusual in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are
within 300 feet of the runway's end.

Since SM stopped accepting FAA money in 1994, all those "improvements"
have depreciated and its time to pursue the highest and best public
use of the land...JG



What should happen is that anti-airports ****s like you be:

1) Permanently placed on the no-fly list.
2) No mail to/from be allowed to be transported by air.
3) All packages to/from restricted to ground transportation only.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote
in
:

its time to pursue the highest and best public use of the land.

Are you aware of the revolution in air-taxi services occurring in the
nation's southeast? Here's a clue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet

Those municipalities that have converted their airports to strip-malls
will be frozen out of the future of air travel, or have to use their
powers of eminent domain to build new airports. Neither prospect is
likely to be attractive to their residents.


Larry, while I hate to see airports screwed with I don't think you
should use a very close to failed business venture as an example of why
they should stay.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:32:31 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote
in
:

its time to pursue the highest and best public use of the land.

Are you aware of the revolution in air-taxi services occurring in the
nation's southeast? Here's a clue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet

Those municipalities that have converted their airports to strip-malls
will be frozen out of the future of air travel, or have to use their
powers of eminent domain to build new airports. Neither prospect is
likely to be attractive to their residents.


Larry, while I hate to see airports screwed with I don't think you
should use a very close to failed business venture as an example of why
they should stay.

What leads you to believe that SATSair is close to failed? While
DayJet may not be turning a profit with VLJ operation, SATSair is
using SR-22s, and doing okay last I heard.

Benjamin Dover wrote:

Since SM stopped accepting FAA money in 1994, all those "improvements"
have depreciated and its time to pursue the highest and best public
use of the land...JG

What should happen is that anti-airports ****s like you be:

1) Permanently placed on the no-fly list.
2) No mail to/from be allowed to be transported by air.
3) All packages to/from restricted to ground transportation only.


Generally, "the highest and best public use of the land" means "a land
developer who contributes to political campaigns wants to build an
cookie-cutter apartment complex or a Walgreen."

So it should be "the highest and best use of a land developer and the
politicians he supports."

They closed down NWPilot's old historic airstrip in Vancouver quite
awhile ago in order to better serve the public land. Last time I
checked, the grass had grown tall and nothing had been done with it.
What really happened is that they build apartments under the traffic
pattern so close that the two-story apartments have red safety lights on
the roofs, and no doubt somebody bitched about the low-flying aircraft.

I used to go park my jeep in the gravel lot beside the runway and watch
the Stearman, etc in the pattern on my lunch hour. Traffic is so
congested and pathetic out there that now I couldn't make it there and
back at lunch, and property values are plummeting.

-c

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:32:31 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote
in
:

its time to pursue the highest and best public use of the land.
Are you aware of the revolution in air-taxi services occurring in the
nation's southeast? Here's a clue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet

Those municipalities that have converted their airports to strip-malls
will be frozen out of the future of air travel, or have to use their
powers of eminent domain to build new airports. Neither prospect is
likely to be attractive to their residents.

Larry, while I hate to see airports screwed with I don't think you
should use a very close to failed business venture as an example of why
they should stay.

What leads you to believe that SATSair is close to failed? While
DayJet may not be turning a profit with VLJ operation, SATSair is
using SR-22s, and doing okay last I heard.


The story you linked to was (at lest the first page of it) talking about
DayJet and you are using that article to say that there's a "revolution
in air-taxi services" I think my statement that that isn't the best
example stands.

SATSair is not showing a profit, though I wish them all the best.

If you remember the other day right before DayJet started laying folks
off you were saying they were profitable.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:56:33 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:


SATSair is not showing a profit, though I wish them all the best.

I wasn't aware of that. Their parent sure is.

The point is, there is a movement afoot to actively use municipal
airports as an indispensable part of the travel industry.

Perhaps my view is just a bit premature.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:56:33 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

SATSair is not showing a profit, though I wish them all the best.

I wasn't aware of that. Their parent sure is.

Yes you were. You and I had a conversation in this very forum about it
last week I believe.


The point is, there is a movement afoot to actively use municipal
airports as an indispensable part of the travel industry.

Perhaps my view is just a bit premature.


Yes you are.