Home prices in most of the San Francisco Bay area
have reached new high's, except in one city, but
there is a catch.

The city of Newark has many people moving out, and many
nice homes for sale after months of being on the market.

Why, you may ask?

It is because of the constant drone of private planes
using the airspace above Newark as their playground.

Most of the flights originate from the Palo Alto airport,
right across the bay, where they have a gentlemens
agreement about not flying over Palo Alto.

Prospective homeowners are told up front about the
"noise condition" they will have to live with, and
many, after hearing plane, after plane, after plane
would never live there at any price.

On 6 Oct 2005 17:39:28 -0700, wrote in
om>::

>Prospective homeowners are told up front about the
>"noise condition" they will have to live with, and
>many, after hearing plane, after plane, after plane
>would never live there at any price.

Prospective homeowners are probably unable to afford housing in a
quieter location.

whines:
> Home prices in most of the San Francisco Bay area
> have reached new high's

I am not sure I understand what you are whining about:
high housing prices? or factors that might contribute
to lower it in some areas and which are -- as you
mention it yourself -- disclosed openly to prospective
buyers. So what's your problem exactly?

--Sylvain

Pilots are providing affordable housing which is in short supply in the Bay
Area.

Mike
MU-2

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Home prices in most of the San Francisco Bay area
> have reached new high's, except in one city, but
> there is a catch.
>
> The city of Newark has many people moving out, and many
> nice homes for sale after months of being on the market.
>
> Why, you may ask?
>
> It is because of the constant drone of private planes
> using the airspace above Newark as their playground.
>
> Most of the flights originate from the Palo Alto airport,
> right across the bay, where they have a gentlemens
> agreement about not flying over Palo Alto.
>
> Prospective homeowners are told up front about the
> "noise condition" they will have to live with, and
> many, after hearing plane, after plane, after plane
> would never live there at any price.
>

Sylvain wrote:

> I am not sure I understand what you are whining about:

He's like lots of other people. He wants to take advantage of the low housing
prices, then get the airport closed so that his land will be worth more. Happens
all over, not just in Frisco.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

In article om>,
> wrote:
>The city of Newark has many people moving out, and many
>nice homes for sale after months of being on the market.
>
>Why, you may ask?
>
>It is because of the constant drone of private planes
>using the airspace above Newark as their playground.

So is the noise problem in Newark or Fremont? The last time
you trolled this group, it was Fremont.

For those not familiar with the Bay Area, Newark and Fremont are
both right on the final approach course to Oakland, next to Hayward,
and across the bay from San Carlos and Palo Alto.

Everywhere in the Bay Area has air traffic over it, even the
multimillion dollar houses.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

George Patterson wrote:
> Sylvain wrote:
>> I am not sure I understand what you are whining about:
>
> He's like lots of other people. He wants to take advantage of the low
> housing prices, then get the airport closed so that his land will be
> worth more. Happens all over, not just in Frisco.

....and when the airport closes, they sell their house first thing
(to cash in, and because they can't stand the increase in noise
and traffic due the higher population density that soon follows the
development of the late airport);

I knew that, but if we must get trolls once in a while, I would
expect a higher standard; even skylune articulates his
'arguments' better than that...

--Sylvain

In article <Hzl1f.5716$ar6.2479@trndny01>,
George Patterson > wrote:

> Sylvain wrote:
>
> > I am not sure I understand what you are whining about:
>
> He's like lots of other people. He wants to take advantage of the low housing
> prices, then get the airport closed so that his land will be worth more.
> Happens
> all over, not just in Frisco.
>
> George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
> neighbor.
> It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

The only problem is -- there is no correlation between housing prices
and proximity to GA airports -- commercial airports, perhaps, but not GA
airports.

In fact, some of the priciest houses in my area are ON an airport, with
taxiway access!

In article et>,
says...
>
>
>Pilots are providing affordable housing which is in short supply in the Bay
>Area.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
That's great. So, in addition to providing the majority of candidats for
airline pilot positions, keeping costs in check, GA is directly acting to
check inflationary housing costs! Close that GA airport and you'll be
contributing to less affordable housing and transportation - degrading two
leading "quality of life" social indicators.

G Faris

Well thank you (I think). Of course, much of the time, Skylune is just
clowning..... (like with the electronic monitoring link)

John Clear wrote:
> In article om>,
> > wrote:
> >The city of Newark has many people moving out, and many
> >nice homes for sale after months of being on the market.
> >
> >Why, you may ask?
> >
> >It is because of the constant drone of private planes
> >using the airspace above Newark as their playground.
>
> So is the noise problem in Newark or Fremont? The last time
> you trolled this group, it was Fremont.
>
> For those not familiar with the Bay Area, Newark and Fremont are
> both right on the final approach course to Oakland, next to Hayward,
> and across the bay from San Carlos and Palo Alto.

I live in Newark, play in Fremont, and work in Sunnyvale.
I hardly ever hear plane noise in Sunnyvale, maybe once on hour
at best, mostly some traffic from Moffett Field, which I don't mind.

Believe me , there is private plane drone from about 9AM
to sundown every day in Newark, a little less in Fremont.

I live near a large lake. I knew it when I bought it and never once
complained about the sounds of boats!

My wife has never noticed the boats in fact rather likes them on Sunday
mornings of the deck! She never even noticed the GA aircraft until I
started flying. I never thought she noticed until one morning she looked up
and said "That's a radial engine, isn't it?"

So what's the problem if you already know the airport is there?
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Hzl1f.5716$ar6.2479@trndny01...
> Sylvain wrote:
>
> > I am not sure I understand what you are whining about:
>
> He's like lots of other people. He wants to take advantage of the low
housing
> prices, then get the airport closed so that his land will be worth more.
Happens
> all over, not just in Frisco.
>
> George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
> It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Reminds me of the Wall Street pros "warning" people not to buy into the
Google IPO, at ~85 or so, and then a year later, recommending that investors
buy GOOG at $300 share.
"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
> > Sylvain wrote:
> >> I am not sure I understand what you are whining about:
> >
> > He's like lots of other people. He wants to take advantage of the low
> > housing prices, then get the airport closed so that his land will be
> > worth more. Happens all over, not just in Frisco.
>
> ...and when the airport closes, they sell their house first thing
> (to cash in, and because they can't stand the increase in noise
> and traffic due the higher population density that soon follows the
> development of the late airport);
>
> I knew that, but if we must get trolls once in a while, I would
> expect a higher standard; even skylune articulates his
> 'arguments' better than that...
>
> --Sylvain

Don't waste your time here.

Most of the people here think you should be absolutely thrilled to hear
the high pitched whine of a C-172 straining for altitude, followed by
another, and another, etc... all day long, starting at 5:00 am.

If you're not, they think you must be a loser washout from flight school,
because everyone thats anyone has a PPL or is working on one.

They will blame YOU for moving close to an airport (even if you are not
close to an airport, or the airport's operations have increased five-fold
over the past ten years, or the airport is planning a "safety" improvement
which involves parallel runways or runway lengthening).

While there are noise restrictions on commercial aircraft (google Stage
III), cars, motorcycles, music, lawnmowers, etc., imposing (or enforcing)
any type of noise restricitons on these 40-year old planes is considered
un-American and impinges on freedom. If you don't like the noise: f-you
and move. GA is the only activity I know of that is exempt from all forms
of noise regulation (except some Calif. airports where the localities had
the kahoonas to make the restrictions mandatory, or to "charge for the
externality" in the form of landing fees, night surcharges, etc. ]

But there is very good news. The bright side of permanently higher energy
prices means less discretionary flying. Upcoming user fees mean less
discretionary flying. The private pilot population is declining (thus the
desperate advertising by flight schools for new students), and
demographically they are old. Population growth means that more people
will be rightfully annoyed by excessive noise.

Airports that try to work with the surrounding community stand a better
chance of survival than those that seek to expand operations and then
argue, "We were here first."

> While there are noise restrictions on commercial aircraft (google
> Stage III), cars, motorcycles, music, lawnmowers, etc.,

And yet I hear more leaf blowers, loud bikes, fart can ricers and thump cars
than ever. I'd rather hear P-51s go overhead than listen to damn leaf
blowers going all weekend.

They were there first. Move next to the damned airport then, when the
P-51s will drown out all the other noise.

tom418 wrote:
> Reminds me of the Wall Street pros "warning" people not to buy into the
> Google IPO, at ~85 or so, and then a year later, recommending that investors
> buy GOOG at $300 share.

never trust (completely) someone who works on commissions...

--Sylvain :-)

Skylune wrote:
> They were there first. Move next to the damned airport then, when the
> P-51s will drown out all the other noise.

can't afford it, with all these speculators hogging the properties
while trying to close them off...

--Sylvain

Excellent point. The economic studies of GA airports do include nearby
residential real estate appreciation as another key factor. When a GA
airport is nearby, everyone wins!!!

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:39:41 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>::

>where the localities had the kahoonas to make the restrictions mandatory

That 'kahoonas' is an interesting word. Unfortunately it's not in my
dictionary, although 'kahuna' is: a Hawaiian witch doctor.

Are you saying the "localities" invoke black magic to restrict
aviation activity?

:-)

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>where the localities had the kahoonas to make the restrictions mandatory
>
> That 'kahoonas' is an interesting word. Unfortunately it's not in my
> dictionary, although 'kahuna' is: a Hawaiian witch doctor.

I assume he meant "cojones". Why anyone is bothering to read, never mind
reply to, that troll (or any other, including the recent "I don't like
airplane noise" guy) still is beyond me, whether he can spell or not.

Pete

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 18:42:59 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>where the localities had the kahoonas to make the restrictions mandatory
>>
>> That 'kahoonas' is an interesting word. Unfortunately it's not in my
>> dictionary, although 'kahuna' is: a Hawaiian witch doctor.
>
>I assume he meant "cojones". Why anyone is bothering to read, never mind
>reply to, that troll (or any other, including the recent "I don't like
>airplane noise" guy) still is beyond me, whether he can spell or not.
>

Oh, it's not about spelling (I would be the last to carp about
spelling); it's about literacy.

I just couldn't resist pointing out 'lune's lack of literacy, so that
those who take the imaginary creation's rhetoric seriously could no
longer ignore its refulgent sciolism.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:01:27 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Pilots are providing affordable housing which is in short supply in the Bay
>Area.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>

That is one of the most rational explainations I've ever heard.

Mike Weller
M-20F

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:34:47 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>Oh, it's not about spelling (I would be the last to carp about
>spelling); it's about literacy.
>
>I just couldn't resist pointing out 'lune's lack of literacy, so that
>those who take the imaginary creation's rhetoric seriously could no
>longer ignore its refulgent sciolism.

It's been awhile, but I had to look that up:

refulgent, adj. shining brightly; radiant; gleaming

sciolism , n. superficial knowledge.

Thanks.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

You d**k less Fing A.. ( yes I know this is the reaction he was trolling for
:) ).
Please tell me who I cry and whine to about the train that goes near my
house and blows the horn at least 5 times throughout the night ? Also who do
I cry to about the cell antennas installed on the water tower near my house
? Oh yes I almost forgot is anybody crying about the muscle boats that are
completely unmuffled ( supercharged big blocks are a little noisier than the
high pitched whine of the 172). Please stop the jealousy ! And go back to
surfing the porn sites and leave us alone..

Boy I feel better..




"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Don't waste your time here.
>
> Most of the people here think you should be absolutely thrilled to hear
> the high pitched whine of a C-172 straining for altitude, followed by
> another, and another, etc... all day long, starting at 5:00 am.
>
> If you're not, they think you must be a loser washout from flight school,
> because everyone thats anyone has a PPL or is working on one.
>
> They will blame YOU for moving close to an airport (even if you are not
> close to an airport, or the airport's operations have increased five-fold
> over the past ten years, or the airport is planning a "safety" improvement
> which involves parallel runways or runway lengthening).
>
> While there are noise restrictions on commercial aircraft (google Stage
> III), cars, motorcycles, music, lawnmowers, etc., imposing (or enforcing)
> any type of noise restricitons on these 40-year old planes is considered
> un-American and impinges on freedom. If you don't like the noise: f-you
> and move. GA is the only activity I know of that is exempt from all forms
> of noise regulation (except some Calif. airports where the localities had
> the kahoonas to make the restrictions mandatory, or to "charge for the
> externality" in the form of landing fees, night surcharges, etc. ]
>
> But there is very good news. The bright side of permanently higher energy
> prices means less discretionary flying. Upcoming user fees mean less
> discretionary flying. The private pilot population is declining (thus the
> desperate advertising by flight schools for new students), and
> demographically they are old. Population growth means that more people
> will be rightfully annoyed by excessive noise.
>
> Airports that try to work with the surrounding community stand a better
> chance of survival than those that seek to expand operations and then
> argue, "We were here first."
>
>
>
>
>

"me" > wrote in message ...
> You d**k less Fing A.. ( yes I know this is the reaction he was trolling
for
> :) ).
> Please tell me who I cry and whine to about the train that goes near my
> house and blows the horn at least 5 times throughout the night ? Also who
do
> I cry to about the cell antennas installed on the water tower near my
house
> ? Oh yes I almost forgot is anybody crying about the muscle boats that are
> completely unmuffled ( supercharged big blocks are a little noisier than
the
> high pitched whine of the 172). Please stop the jealousy ! And go back to
> surfing the porn sites and leave us alone..
>
> Boy I feel better..
>

You forgot one! Diesel trucks blowing their horns & using unmuffled
compression breaks! maybe more!

Hell yes they lower housing prices, that's how I bought my place. Found a
house I liked, hopped in the 182 and circled that bitch every day for six
months. Price dropped at least 60%.

Thesaurus does come in handy!

Gavone. (look that word up). Get used to it: your planes make noise,
some make alot of noise, and many people hate unnecessary noise.

John Clear wrote:
>
> Everywhere in the Bay Area has air traffic over it, even the
> multimillion dollar houses.
>

The hottest part of the Boston RE market over the past two years has
been the lower part of South Boston, which is directly underneath the
departure path of Logan 3-5 days out of the week. When I lived there I
once had a BA 747 climbing out real slow shake the walls so bad a
painting fell off. If you were on the phone (indoors) you had to stop
when one of the heavies (or an old turbojet 737) passed over. During
pushes they'd come every 90 seconds for an hour or more. In the past 10
years a 1-family has roughly tripled in value to over 800k. Condos
average 380-600 and go up to 1.5mil. Airplane noise my ass. I live next
to Logan now and get less noise than I did in Southie.

-cwk.

More crap.... More delusion... More PPL BS.

You don't need a "study" to realize the obvious: continuous airplane noise
harrassment lowers property values. So what if the price near the airport
has increased. Homes everywhere have increased, just not as much in areas
infected with plane noise pollution.

But if you want a study, here's one...

http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/taxloss.html

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> More crap.... More delusion... More PPL BS.
>
> You don't need a "study" to realize the obvious: continuous airplane noise
> harrassment lowers property values. So what if the price near the airport
> has increased. Homes everywhere have increased, just not as much in areas
> infected with plane noise pollution.
>
> But if you want a study, here's one...
>
> http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/taxloss.html
>

There is nothing in the GA fleet as loud as what used to fly out of El Toro.

So?

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > plucked a fig, smoked some dope
and converted another booger from his nose to digital:

> http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/taxloss.html

Quote:"Several studies confirm that real estate values are negatively
impacted near the flight paths of major airports."

Note the term "major airports." i.e. JKF, ORD, LAX, etc.

Once again the anti-aviation loons distort facts and outright lie to
bolster their (weak) case against GA. They quote studies of major het
airports and try to use them against minor, GA airports.

In common terms: "That dog just don't hunt!"

In article >,
says...

>
>Note the term "major airports." i.e. JKF, ORD, LAX, etc.
>
>Once again the anti-aviation loons distort facts and outright lie to
>bolster their (weak) case against GA. They quote studies of major het
>airports and try to use them against minor, GA airports.
>


Welll. . . If you're going to be honest about it, both major, commercial
airports AND GA airports bring significant nuisance effects to surrounding
communities. True enough, most of the well organized anti-airport lobbies
deal with issues related to major airports, who, with their day-and-night
activities and thousand flight-a-day schedules have the effect of wearing
through the nerves of close residents. It's hard to pity them, because
100% of them moved there after the airport activity was well established,
often BECAUSE of the airport, one way or another, and they'll move away
when they've had enough. Besides - do they think they're going to close
ORD, just because they have a 6-month old baby?

BUT - GA airports have been targeted by opposition groups as well, and the
case is more delicate, because most people see GA activity as
recreational, and not revenue generating or otherwise necessary. Of
course, this is as much a distortion of the facts as the plane
enthusiasts' version of it, but the bottom line is times ARE changing, and
GA pilots are going to have to make efforts to fit better into their
communities. There are many ways to try to lessen the noise impact of a GA
airport on surrounding communities, but the ostrich method is one of the
less successful.

Educating the community about the full role of GA in the community/economy
is important, but in some cases it's not enough. Some citizens' groups
are contributing toward noise-reduction equipment on airplanes. Some
airports have specific, noise-abatement traffic patterns, others restrict
hours. The old, "I was here first, and it's my RIGHT" isn't going to cut
it much longer. One crash, and it becomes a safety issue, then the GA
airport, and its irascible users is gone.

G Faris

Great, now I know where to shop if I ever need to live out there.

I'm always trying to find property closer to airports.....


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Home prices in most of the San Francisco Bay area
> have reached new high's, except in one city, but
> there is a catch.
>
> The city of Newark has many people moving out, and many
> nice homes for sale after months of being on the market.
>
> Why, you may ask?
>
> It is because of the constant drone of private planes
> using the airspace above Newark as their playground.
>
> Most of the flights originate from the Palo Alto airport,
> right across the bay, where they have a gentlemens
> agreement about not flying over Palo Alto.
>
> Prospective homeowners are told up front about the
> "noise condition" they will have to live with, and
> many, after hearing plane, after plane, after plane
> would never live there at any price.
>

In article >,
Greg Farris > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
> >
> >Note the term "major airports." i.e. JKF, ORD, LAX, etc.
> >
> >Once again the anti-aviation loons distort facts and outright lie to
> >bolster their (weak) case against GA. They quote studies of major het
> >airports and try to use them against minor, GA airports.
> >
>
>
> Welll. . . If you're going to be honest about it, both major, commercial
> airports AND GA airports bring significant nuisance effects to surrounding
> communities. True enough, most of the well organized anti-airport lobbies
> deal with issues related to major airports, who, with their day-and-night
> activities and thousand flight-a-day schedules have the effect of wearing
> through the nerves of close residents. It's hard to pity them, because
> 100% of them moved there after the airport activity was well established,
> often BECAUSE of the airport, one way or another, and they'll move away
> when they've had enough. Besides - do they think they're going to close
> ORD, just because they have a 6-month old baby?
>
> BUT - GA airports have been targeted by opposition groups as well, and the
> case is more delicate, because most people see GA activity as
> recreational, and not revenue generating or otherwise necessary. Of
> course, this is as much a distortion of the facts as the plane
> enthusiasts' version of it, but the bottom line is times ARE changing, and
> GA pilots are going to have to make efforts to fit better into their
> communities. There are many ways to try to lessen the noise impact of a GA
> airport on surrounding communities, but the ostrich method is one of the
> less successful.
>
> Educating the community about the full role of GA in the community/economy
> is important, but in some cases it's not enough. Some citizens' groups
> are contributing toward noise-reduction equipment on airplanes. Some
> airports have specific, noise-abatement traffic patterns, others restrict
> hours. The old, "I was here first, and it's my RIGHT" isn't going to cut
> it much longer. One crash, and it becomes a safety issue, then the GA
> airport, and its irascible users is gone.
>
> G Faris


The unseen agenda in most of the anti-GA airports is that of developers,
who covertly funnel money into the "community" groups, in hopes of
closing an airport and getting a nice, large, level, parcel on which to
build houses and commercial buildings.

The developers have come out into the open in Concord, CA, Hawthorne,
CA, and Atlantic City, NJ, where they brazenly state that THEY can
provide more "public benefit" (read: taxes) than the public benefit of a
nice GA Airport.

Of course, we then have the issue of Meigs, where a corrupt city
administration lets expensive contracts to their campaign supporters to
steal and destroy the airport in the middle of the night.

"Welll. . . If you're going to be honest about it, both major, commercial

airports AND GA airports bring significant nuisance effects to
surrounding

communities."

Of course this is true. But he will not be "honest" about it. The
"nuisance effects" you refer to somehow never make their way into the
economic studies either. I say again: (1) Regulation of noise (or
enforcement of noise abatement) is virtually nonexistent at some GA
airports and (2) self-righteous pilots who simply don't give a damn are a
growing danger to your passion. They spawn Skylunes, and organizations
that will spend time and money to fight back.

Pilots and airport sponsors need to take the lead in policing their own,
as the FAA is hopelessly compromised in their conflicting missions.

LOL. A "vast anti-GA conspiracy" maybe?? I hope you are correct, but this
is out there.

Provide evidence of covert funneling of money by developers to anti GA
groups. I believe there are probably developers who have made
redevelopment arguments (the "brazen statements"). But guess what? If
the airports haven't accepted the pact with the devil (i.e. the FAA
grants), the local community or private airstrip owner has discretion over
their property.

As far as Megis: which contractor received the contract to "steal and
destroy" the airport. Daley has for years publicly stated his intention
to close down Megis, then he did it. (After Boyer "took him on." LOL) The
people of Chicago elected him knowing of his plans to bulldoze that
airport.

wrote:
> John Clear wrote:
>
>>In article om>,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>The city of Newark has many people moving out, and many
>>>nice homes for sale after months of being on the market.
>>>
>>>Why, you may ask?
>>>
>>>It is because of the constant drone of private planes
>>>using the airspace above Newark as their playground.
>>
>>So is the noise problem in Newark or Fremont? The last time
>>you trolled this group, it was Fremont.
>>
>>For those not familiar with the Bay Area, Newark and Fremont are
>>both right on the final approach course to Oakland, next to Hayward,
>>and across the bay from San Carlos and Palo Alto.
>
>
> I live in Newark, play in Fremont, and work in Sunnyvale.
> I hardly ever hear plane noise in Sunnyvale, maybe once on hour
> at best, mostly some traffic from Moffett Field, which I don't mind.
>
> Believe me , there is private plane drone from about 9AM
> to sundown every day in Newark, a little less in Fremont.
>
good for the economy.....might bring an early correction to the housing
bubble, Greenspam can relax now.

In article utaviation.com>,
>As far as Megis: which contractor received the contract to "steal and
>destroy" the airport. Daley has for years publicly stated his intention
>to close down Megis, then he did it. (After Boyer "took him on." LOL) The
>people of Chicago elected him knowing of his plans to bulldoze that
>airport.

There's the planning to do it, wanting to do it, and the legal right
to do it. Daley did NOT have the legal right to destroy Meigs, strand
planes, and violate the FAA grant for public use.

'Vejita' S. Cousin wrote:

> In article utaviation.com>,
>
>>As far as Megis: which contractor received the contract to "steal and
>>destroy" the airport. Daley has for years publicly stated his intention
>>to close down Megis, then he did it. (After Boyer "took him on." LOL) The
>>people of Chicago elected him knowing of his plans to bulldoze that
>>airport.
>
>
> There's the planning to do it, wanting to do it, and the legal right
> to do it. Daley did NOT have the legal right to destroy Meigs, strand
> planes, and violate the FAA grant for public use.

What does legal have to do with Chicago politics or politicians?

Matt

Skylune wrote:

> Provide evidence of covert funneling of money by developers to anti GA
> groups.

There was one developer a few years ago who supported a group that tried to get
Vansant airport shut down due to noise complaints. One day someone in the air
noticed a 182 flying low over the most sensitive neighbors and followed it home
to Morristown. Turned out this developer was renting a plane and creating all
the noise.

The developer who bought and shut down Marlboro airport is currently under
suspicion of contracting the murder of the guy who made the competing bid for
the airport and wanted to keep it open. The FBI is doing the investigation.

Another developer made arrangements with all the local realtors to tell their
customers that Sky Manor was "going to close next year." That, of course,
created an organization of irate home owners who insisted that the airport pay
off on "its promise." The airport eventually put a billboard up on the main road
in the area to the effect that they had no intention of closing.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
...
> In article
utaviation.com>,
> >As far as Megis: which contractor received the contract to "steal and
> >destroy" the airport. Daley has for years publicly stated his intention
> >to close down Megis, then he did it. (After Boyer "took him on." LOL)
The
> >people of Chicago elected him knowing of his plans to bulldoze that
> >airport.
>
> There's the planning to do it, wanting to do it, and the legal right
> to do it.

>Daley did NOT have the legal right to destroy Meigs, strand
> planes, and violate the FAA grant for public use.

Actually he did.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Daley did NOT have the legal right to destroy Meigs, strand
>> planes, and violate the FAA grant for public use.
>
> Actually he did.

He did have the legal right to destroy Meigs.

He did NOT have the legal right to strand airplanes, or to violate the FAA
grant. Thus the $12K penalty for failing to provide adequate notice, and
the likely multi-million dollar penalty for misusing FAA funds.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>Daley did NOT have the legal right to destroy Meigs, strand
> >> planes, and violate the FAA grant for public use.
> >
> > Actually he did.
>
> He did have the legal right to destroy Meigs.
>
> He did NOT have the legal right to strand airplanes, or to violate the FAA
> grant. Thus the $12K penalty for failing to provide adequate notice, and
> the likely multi-million dollar penalty for misusing FAA funds.
>
> Pete

There will be no multi-million penalty. The $12K fine isn't worth
mentioning.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
> There will be no multi-million penalty.

I'll bet you $50 that there will be, payable when the investigation is over
and closed, and the city is either found liable for the penalty, or is free
and clear of all action by the FAA on the matter.

> The $12K fine isn't worth mentioning.

Well, no...I guess you wouldn't think so, since it undermines your claim
that Daley had the legal right to do everything Vejita said he did.

However, that doesn't mean your reply to him was correct.

Pete

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:45:30 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>There will be no multi-million penalty.

Do you think the city of Chicago's defense is credible?


http://tinyurl.com/d3t98
News Archive
City: Using fed funds to rip up Meigs was legal

December 5, 2004

BY MARK J. KONKOL Transportation Reporter Advertisement

Chicago officials Friday sent a 43-page legal brief to the Federal
Aviation Administration in response to the agency's probe into
whether the city illegally used airport funds to shut down Meigs
Field.

In October, the FAA launched an investigation into whether the
city illegally diverted $1.5 million in federal airport
development funds intended for O'Hare Airport to rip up the Meigs
runway and tear down its air traffic control tower.

The FAA has also ordered the city to pay a $33,000 fine for not
giving 30 days' notice before closing the airport.

City officials say the FAA knew the airport was being torn up.
They also admit using the airport cash and say they actually spent
$2.8 million to remove Meigs from Northerly Island. But they
contend it was legal to use that money to dismantle the airstrip.

The letter to the FAA says there is precedent for using airport
funds to dismantle airports, citing cases in Denver and Austin,
Texas.

"We make the point that these costs are related to the removal of
airport infrastructure and environmental remediation," city Law
Department spokeswoman Jenny Hoyle said. "It's not in the public
interest for a municipality to leave behind an abandoned airport.
... We used the revenue carefully. It was not used for
redevelopment or urban renewal."

FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro declined to comment Friday because he
had not seen the city's written response.

If the FAA finds Chicago used airport funds improperly, the city
could be fined $4.5 million.
================================================== =========================

http://tinyurl.com/8qwhb
Airport Money Misused Chicago used airport money to destroy Meigs.
The City of Chicago is telling the FAA that Meigs Field was an
"abandoned" airport that had to be cleaned up.
That assertion comes in response to an FAA probe into
whether the city illegally used federal funds. AOPA President Phil
Boyer described the city's stance as "another insult." Acting on a
complaint filed by AOPA in February, the FAA has proposed fining
Chicago $33,100, the maximum allowed, for not providing a required
30-day notice before closing Meigs Field. The FAA is also
investigating whether the city illegally diverted $1.5 million in
federal funds intended for O'Hare Airport improvements to rip up
Meigs' runway and tear down the control tower. In a 40-page legal
brief responding to the FAA's notice of investigation, Chicago
admitted that it actually spent $2.8 million of O'Hare and Midway
airport development funds to destroy Meigs and remove any
evidence that it was once an airport. "Meigs Field was willfully
destroyed by elected officials using public monies that were
intended for airport construction, not destruction," Boyer said.
"We're analyzing the city's brief to determine if there is an
appropriate legal response from AOPA. But it's clear that the city
is—once again—engaging in revisionist history and justification."
If the FAA determines Chicago used airport funds improperly, it
could fine the city three times the amount of diverted funds. That
could make the fine as much as $8.4 million. (….from AOPA ePilot)
================================================== ============================

Yeah. I read about that. I think that is the 1998 crash which the NTSB
still has not closed out. Talk about a totally unscrupulous, greedy
developer!

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Thus the $12K penalty for failing to provide adequate notice,

$33,000.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050907meigs.html

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:45:30 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >There will be no multi-million penalty.
>
> Do you think the city of Chicago's defense is credible?

No I don't but that has absolutely nothing to do with the city being
assessed a penalty. It's all politics you know.

Hey: here's an airport on the hit list. The OWNER wants to sell it to a
developer because he's losing too much money.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/8B1

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:b_t3f.9120$vi2.4460@trndny04...
>> Thus the $12K penalty for failing to provide adequate notice,
>
> $33,000.
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050907meigs.html

Thanks...that was off the top of my head, figured there might be a chance it
was wrong. IMHO, mentionable whether $12K or $33K.

Pete

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Do you think the city of Chicago's defense is credible?
>
> No I don't but that has absolutely nothing to do with the city being
> assessed a penalty. It's all politics you know.

There's a difference between a "legal right" and "getting away with it".

Oh well...at least you admitted you were wrong.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> Do you think the city of Chicago's defense is credible?
> >
> > No I don't but that has absolutely nothing to do with the city being
> > assessed a penalty. It's all politics you know.
>
> There's a difference between a "legal right" and "getting away with it".
>
> Oh well...at least you admitted you were wrong.


I admitted nothing.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Oh well...at least you admitted you were wrong.
>
> I admitted nothing.

You wrote that you don't feel that the City of Chicago's defense is
credible. That means that they did in fact engage in an illegal activity,
which is the opposite of your statement that "Actually he did [have the
legal right to destroy Meigs, strand planes, and violate the FAA grant for
public use].".

If that's not an admission of error, what would be?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> Oh well...at least you admitted you were wrong.
> >
> > I admitted nothing.
>
> You wrote that you don't feel that the City of Chicago's defense is
> credible. That means that they did in fact engage in an illegal activity,

It means no such thing.

> which is the opposite of your statement that "Actually he did [have the
> legal right to destroy Meigs, strand planes, and violate the FAA grant for
> public use].".
>
> If that's not an admission of error, what would be?
>
>

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> You wrote that you don't feel that the City of Chicago's defense is
>> credible. That means that they did in fact engage in an illegal
>> activity,
>
> It means no such thing.

So it's your claim that they have a non-credible defense, but that there is
a credible defense?

And what would that defense be, pray tell? And for extra credit, how is
that the City of Chicago is pursuing a non-credible defense, when they have
a perfectly good credible defense they could have tried?

Skylune wrote:
> Pilots and airport sponsors need to take the lead in policing their own,
> as the FAA is hopelessly compromised in their conflicting missions.

Couldn't of said it better myself.

The FAA wasn't interested in my noise problem. They said to take it
up with the airport.

big difference between the Denver airport that was eliminated and
Meigs. When DIA (DEN in aerospeak) was legally opened for commercial
avtivities, Stapleton was required to be closed. And there was
very little GA traffic there, unlike Meigs, which was pretty much
entirely GA.

Stapleton was Class B. Meigs (and Austin) wasn't.