A new twist on complaints

[Roger]

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

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.

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Tony Goetz]

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

[Jose]

> 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.

[Joe Feise]

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

[Dudley Henriques]

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

[Mark T. Dame]

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

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "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.

[Skylune]

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.

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> 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

Yep, the only solution is to build airports only on former toxic waste
sites... :-)

That is about the only way to keep the vultur... er, developers away.


Matt

[Flyingmonk]

I guess you've never heard of "The Love Canal" Matt.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Matt Whiting]

Flyingmonk wrote:

> I guess you've never heard of "The Love Canal" Matt.
>
> Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone
>

Au contraire. I don't live all that far from it!


Matt

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>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
>


The only saving grace is that in many cases the upscale people who move out
there to be close to the country club or golf course are also pilots!

GF

[Roger]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 21:34:17 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"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.

My reference to "new twist" was because the last time this issue came
up they used to opposite complaint. Before they thought it was a
bunch of hobbyists using the airport and very little business. Now
they are complaining there are too many business flights and the
airport should be for local pilots. <:-))

>
>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

I think that's why the guy has his shorts in a bunch. He's afraid
that if he complains about noise it'll be recorded on his property
deed and if he want's to sell he will have to disclose the noise
problem. So instead of filing a complaint, he writes a letter to the
editor of the local news paper. That and although in the city, I
think he's a good mile and a half to two miles off the end of the
runway.

We have several SR-22s and those suckers are loud. I was surprised
that they make more noise than most of the Bonanzas and 210s.
We're on the centerline for GPS-06 which is straight in and I know
when they go over without even going outside. Depending on what mode
they are only 400 or 500 AGL when they go over this guy's house when
inbound. Of course they aren't running full power either.

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

[Roger]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:38:59 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>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.

Yup, We've been through it a couple of times.
>
>The airport exists.
>
>The developers come and build without a winning challenge from the airport,
>usually because the airport can't afford the challenge.
>
If they sell any noise complaints are recorded. I think that's what
makes them so upset and why this guy has his shorts in a bunch. He's
****ed about the noise, but doesn't want a complaint on his deed and
said as much in his letter to the editor..

To read the article you need to sign up, but they just want a valid
e-mail address as I recall. I've never been spamed from them and
they've never shared the address, but you can use a "throw away"
address as long as it's valid when you sign up.

http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.asp?brd=2289&pag=460&dept_id=472539
takes you to the editorial page. The topic is "City needs to look at
Barstow Again".
The news paper www.ourmidland.com . Select "editorial page" near the
bottom (it's in fine print) and then look up the topic, or do a search
on the above topic. The page may only be up for another day or two
so if it's not there you just do the search.

>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.

In this case the city just put $750,000 into a new terminal, we have
"as I recall" about a half million in recent federal grants, and just
scheduled $350,000 for resurfacing 18/36. I think the total for the
next year or so is around 1.5 million and we may just get 4000 plus
out of 06/24, but it won't be much more than that or they'd have to
move a main road and clear out about 6 or 8 large businesses.

A good portion of the airport land was purchased with the aid of
federal grants while most of the rest was "given" to the city to use
as an airport, but with some pretty strong deed restrictions. It gets
used as an airport, cemetery, or goes back to the foundations. It
might get turned into a very expensive park as it'd cost the city
millions to close and the developers wouldn't have a shot at most of
it anyway.

The city "so far" sees the airport as a high profile gateway to a
"progressive" city and an attraction to bring in more businesses.
We have two very large chemical companies which of course base their
aircraft at MBS as they are way too big for 3BS, but the larger of the
two has been downsizing its work force substantially, or moving some
production to other US sites. The hourly workforce alone was over
7500 back in the 50's and 60's. Now it's about a quarter that (or
less), so the city is working hard to bring in more businesses and of
the type that will allow for "upscale" employees.

We built a new "three sheet" ice arena that opened this past summer.
Last weekend it hosted the US National Junior, short track speed
skating championships. We also host world class tennis meets.
This is the direction the city planners want to go and the light in
which they want their city to be seen.

The city is fighting the erosion of jobs and trying to turn downtown
into ... well, something. They earned a "Cool City" or some such
award recently. That allows them to get more grants and state money
for beautification projects.

>
>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!!

I may be wrong, but I don't think the developers would get a shot at
most of it and the foundations are unlikely to sell it.

OTOH we are still dealing with the mentality of those who didn't want
the runways lengthened because of the noise and we'd probably get some
jets in. We already get some small jets and the current generation is
quieter than most of our high performance prop planes. Now when I
take off on 18 I go out over one noise sensitive area at 200 to 500
feet instead of pattern altitude due to a 3000 foot runway instead of
4000. If it's a hot day I can count the boards in their picnic
tables. <:-)) They hated me when the Deb still had the 2-blade prop
as the tips were supersonic at take off RPM and I sure wasn't going to
back off at 200 feet.

In this guy's case, he was quite happy with the airport until some
flights started going over his place early in the morning. He "thinks"
they are business flights so he want's us to keep the airport for the
local pilots and have the business flights go into MBS. Of course
coming into 3BS saves them a good two hours or more plus car rental.
To those people the price of two hours is probably more than my yearly
pension *plus* what I make off the stock market.

This is a case of what some people would call big money, but if so
it's big money fighting some *really* big money.

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

>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
>

[Morgans]

"Roger" > wrote

> We have several SR-22s and those suckers are loud. I was surprised
> that they make more noise than most of the Bonanzas and 210s.

That is the very first I have heard anyone say that about SR-22's. Is it
all prop noise, or is there a good share of engine noise that could be
helped with a bit of muffler? Inconsiderate pilots carrying too many RPM.s
too far out?

I am not one to be anti aviation (in the least!!!), but I say that at times,
we are our own worst enemies, in regard to watching our noise.

Certain planes do seem to have more of a problem, for sure. At OSH every
year, I cringe at the T-6's blasting out of there, like there is not another
person in miles, and that everyone loves to hear their props. I love the
sound of power, but there is a point at which one has to think about what
they are doing, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques]

This sounds like it's going to be an ongoing deal for some time Roger.
I hope it all goes well for your side in the end.
Reading this brought back some memories and Bea and I sat down last night
and got out some old records and photos.
Believe it or not, almost every small field where I either flew from or
instructed out of is now gone; some are housing developments; some are
shopping centers or malls. One is an industrial park.
It's absolutely amazing!
The entire face of aviation has changed.
The funny thing is that I've always wondered how Golf Courses have escaped
the developers ax that has been used on the small airports.
I figured it out once over lunch with a couple of "big money" guys at our
local country club. We figured that off the first tee with a good drive, the
ball would over fly about 10 million dollars of prime development real
estate.
(Actually for my drive, about 5 million dollars would about do it I think
:-)))))
You have to wonder about all that prime land with the airports and the golf
courses as well, just sitting there waiting for the right combination of
developer/politician/ and "the inevitable DEAL, this combo can produce!
I hope your airport escapes and survives.
Dudley

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:38:59 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Yup, We've been through it a couple of times.
>>
>>The airport exists.
>>
>>The developers come and build without a winning challenge from the
>>airport,
>>usually because the airport can't afford the challenge.
>>
> If they sell any noise complaints are recorded. I think that's what
> makes them so upset and why this guy has his shorts in a bunch. He's
> ****ed about the noise, but doesn't want a complaint on his deed and
> said as much in his letter to the editor..
>
> To read the article you need to sign up, but they just want a valid
> e-mail address as I recall. I've never been spamed from them and
> they've never shared the address, but you can use a "throw away"
> address as long as it's valid when you sign up.
>
> http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.asp?brd=2289&pag=460&dept_id=472539
> takes you to the editorial page. The topic is "City needs to look at
> Barstow Again".
> The news paper www.ourmidland.com . Select "editorial page" near the
> bottom (it's in fine print) and then look up the topic, or do a search
> on the above topic. The page may only be up for another day or two
> so if it's not there you just do the search.
>
>>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.
>
> In this case the city just put $750,000 into a new terminal, we have
> "as I recall" about a half million in recent federal grants, and just
> scheduled $350,000 for resurfacing 18/36. I think the total for the
> next year or so is around 1.5 million and we may just get 4000 plus
> out of 06/24, but it won't be much more than that or they'd have to
> move a main road and clear out about 6 or 8 large businesses.
>
> A good portion of the airport land was purchased with the aid of
> federal grants while most of the rest was "given" to the city to use
> as an airport, but with some pretty strong deed restrictions. It gets
> used as an airport, cemetery, or goes back to the foundations. It
> might get turned into a very expensive park as it'd cost the city
> millions to close and the developers wouldn't have a shot at most of
> it anyway.
>
> The city "so far" sees the airport as a high profile gateway to a
> "progressive" city and an attraction to bring in more businesses.
> We have two very large chemical companies which of course base their
> aircraft at MBS as they are way too big for 3BS, but the larger of the
> two has been downsizing its work force substantially, or moving some
> production to other US sites. The hourly workforce alone was over
> 7500 back in the 50's and 60's. Now it's about a quarter that (or
> less), so the city is working hard to bring in more businesses and of
> the type that will allow for "upscale" employees.
>
> We built a new "three sheet" ice arena that opened this past summer.
> Last weekend it hosted the US National Junior, short track speed
> skating championships. We also host world class tennis meets.
> This is the direction the city planners want to go and the light in
> which they want their city to be seen.
>
> The city is fighting the erosion of jobs and trying to turn downtown
> into ... well, something. They earned a "Cool City" or some such
> award recently. That allows them to get more grants and state money
> for beautification projects.
>
>>
>>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!!
>
> I may be wrong, but I don't think the developers would get a shot at
> most of it and the foundations are unlikely to sell it.
>
> OTOH we are still dealing with the mentality of those who didn't want
> the runways lengthened because of the noise and we'd probably get some
> jets in. We already get some small jets and the current generation is
> quieter than most of our high performance prop planes. Now when I
> take off on 18 I go out over one noise sensitive area at 200 to 500
> feet instead of pattern altitude due to a 3000 foot runway instead of
> 4000. If it's a hot day I can count the boards in their picnic
> tables. <:-)) They hated me when the Deb still had the 2-blade prop
> as the tips were supersonic at take off RPM and I sure wasn't going to
> back off at 200 feet.
>
> In this guy's case, he was quite happy with the airport until some
> flights started going over his place early in the morning. He "thinks"
> they are business flights so he want's us to keep the airport for the
> local pilots and have the business flights go into MBS. Of course
> coming into 3BS saves them a good two hours or more plus car rental.
> To those people the price of two hours is probably more than my yearly
> pension *plus* what I make off the stock market.
>
> This is a case of what some people would call big money, but if so
> it's big money fighting some *really* big money.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>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
>>

[Jose]

> The funny thing is that I've always wondered how Golf Courses have escaped
> the developers ax that has been used on the small airports.
> I figured it out once

So.. what is the answer? How did they escape?

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

[Dudley Henriques]

All I figured out was the price of the real estate being over flown by the
ball.
As to why the golf courses are still there.........could very well be that
both the politicians and the developers play golf! :-)
DH


"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> The funny thing is that I've always wondered how Golf Courses have
>> escaped the developers ax that has been used on the small airports.
>> I figured it out once
>
> So.. what is the answer? How did they escape?
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Doug]

The only permanent solution is to have a zone around the airport with
no houses. Even then you will inevitably get complaints from far away.

There is a natural cycle. An airport is built on the outskirts of town.
The town grows around the aiport. The airport is moved to out of town.
The old airport gets developed. The problem is, now, that frequently no
NEW airport will arise. Just close the old airport and concentrate the
airplanes at other, nearby airports. Don't allow closure of the old
airport without having a replacement in hand.

There are TONS of airports in the midwest. LOTS of small towns and
every town has an airport. Very satisfying.

I am lucky to live north of Denver. We have 9 or 10 airports within a
20 minute flight. Small GA heaven!

[Jose]

> The only permanent solution is to have a zone around the airport with
> no houses.

No, you have a zone around the airport with houses that come with
hangars and taxiways.

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

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> This sounds like it's going to be an ongoing deal for some time Roger.
> I hope it all goes well for your side in the end.
> Reading this brought back some memories and Bea and I sat down last night
> and got out some old records and photos.
> Believe it or not, almost every small field where I either flew from or
> instructed out of is now gone; some are housing developments; some are
> shopping centers or malls. One is an industrial park.
> It's absolutely amazing!
> The entire face of aviation has changed.
> The funny thing is that I've always wondered how Golf Courses have escaped
> the developers ax that has been used on the small airports.
> I figured it out once over lunch with a couple of "big money" guys at our
> local country club. We figured that off the first tee with a good drive, the
> ball would over fly about 10 million dollars of prime development real
> estate.
> (Actually for my drive, about 5 million dollars would about do it I think
> :-)))))
> You have to wonder about all that prime land with the airports and the golf
> courses as well, just sitting there waiting for the right combination of
> developer/politician/ and "the inevitable DEAL, this combo can produce!

I suspect it will happen in time. Golf will fade just as aviation is
fading. I suspect the driver, pun intended, :-) will be a shortage of
water given population trends in the US.

Already, there is a golf course near where I live, unfortunately the
closest course to where I live, that has gone into bankruptcy and was
foreclosed on by the bank. They are still maintaining it and trying to
sell it as a golf course, but it has been closed all this season and
rumors are that it is about to be sold to a construction company. Turns
out it is worth more for the topsoil on it than it is as a golf course.


Matt

[George Patterson]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> The funny thing is that I've always wondered how Golf Courses have escaped
> the developers ax that has been used on the small airports.

It's pretty simple. Most golf courses aren't flat. Most airports are. Most golf
courses don't **** off neighbors a mile away; people just can't hit a golf ball
through a window at that distance. The noise at most airports is a problem, and
people who own land under the extended runway have a number of reasons to want
the airport closed.

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.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I suspect the driver, pun intended, :-) will be a shortage of
> water given population trends in the US.

I doubt that. While golf courses use tremendous quantities of water, it doesn't
have to be potable. In areas where the water table depth makes wells
prohibitively expensive, there may be no alternative for a course, but in most
places, there would be.

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.

[sfb]

Many golf courses store rain water in ponds and use that to irrigate.
There is plenty of water in the US. It just isn't where the people are.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:XHwcf.818$PZ6.414@trndny07...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I suspect the driver, pun intended, :-) will be a shortage of water
>> given population trends in the US.
>
> I doubt that. While golf courses use tremendous quantities of water,
> it doesn't have to be potable. In areas where the water table depth
> makes wells prohibitively expensive, there may be no alternative for a
> course, but in most places, there would be.
>
> 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.

[Dudley Henriques]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:SDwcf.3677$Y97.129@trndny05...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> The funny thing is that I've always wondered how Golf Courses have
>> escaped the developers ax that has been used on the small airports.
>
> It's pretty simple. Most golf courses aren't flat. Most airports are. Most
> golf courses don't **** off neighbors a mile away; people just can't hit a
> golf ball through a window at that distance. The noise at most airports is
> a problem, and people who own land under the extended runway have a number
> of reasons to want the airport closed.

Although I'm not familiar at all with the golf course situation, I would
tend to disagree with what you call a simple answer.
The fact that the golf courses aren't as flat as airports would have little
to do with the real estate value as that would relate to possible
development. Any vertical landscape issues are easily solved by developers.
Secondly, the comparison between the behavior found on golf courses and that
found at airports is of little value in any pure assessment of real estate
in the development sense.
The actual fact is that many golf courses are under direct view by
developers as we speak.
These answers are seldom "simple".
Dudley Henriques

[George Patterson]

Dudley Henriques wrote:


> The fact that the golf courses aren't as flat as airports would have little
> to do with the real estate value as that would relate to possible
> development.

It has a great deal to do with it around here. Grading the development
(especially for a commercial development project) is very expensive. If you
start with an airport, much of the job is already done.

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.

[Dudley Henriques]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:crycf.6515$SV1.97@trndny01...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>
>> The fact that the golf courses aren't as flat as airports would have
>> little to do with the real estate value as that would relate to possible
>> development.
>
> It has a great deal to do with it around here. Grading the development
> (especially for a commercial development project) is very expensive. If
> you start with an airport, much of the job is already done.

This is very true. Heavy grading is expensive, but grading is always
projected anyway in development construction. Even something as flat as an
airport will require some degree of grading during changeover to a
development or mall setting.
I've never seen grading as a deal killer in a project plan. It's simply
configured into the initial cost structure. Probably less for the airport,
but not a deal killer for the golf course :-)
DH

[sfb]

Since they have to remove the runways etc. and dig holes to bury water,
sewer, and other utilities, there is going to be a lot of dirt moved
regardless. In fact, the broken up concrete and asphalt would make the
start of some nice hills.

The real question is who owns the golf course or airport. If it is
privately owned and is the primary asset in the retirement plan, it
becomes which is worth more: land for development or as a golf course or
airport.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:crycf.6515$SV1.97@trndny01...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>
>> The fact that the golf courses aren't as flat as airports would have
>> little to do with the real estate value as that would relate to
>> possible development.
>
> It has a great deal to do with it around here. Grading the development
> (especially for a commercial development project) is very expensive.
> If you start with an airport, much of the job is already done.
>
> 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.

[Dudley Henriques]

I think the macro issue in the initial post was simply that it's the large
undeveloped real estate of both these properties (and indeed others as well)
that can attract the development raiders.
The sub micro issue of cost due to grading sort of lost the initial intent
of the post. :-))))
Each type of property will have it's own pros and cons for a developer. The
macro issue however remains as the "attractiveness" of these properties to
development raiders and the process through which a developer/political/
equation can be made that in many cases causes the airport or the golf
course, or whatever, to become something other than it was.
I think what we're really discussing here are the changes a lot of us are
seeing in the aviation picture.
It's become quite difficult for the average small field FBO to survive out
here for many reasons.
My personal experience has been that the most affected are near the large
already developed areas.
Dudley Henriques

"sfb" > wrote in message news:%Eycf.22048$Ny6.1455@trnddc06...
> Since they have to remove the runways etc. and dig holes to bury water,
> sewer, and other utilities, there is going to be a lot of dirt moved
> regardless. In fact, the broken up concrete and asphalt would make the
> start of some nice hills.
>
> The real question is who owns the golf course or airport. If it is
> privately owned and is the primary asset in the retirement plan, it
> becomes which is worth more: land for development or as a golf course or
> airport.
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:crycf.6515$SV1.97@trndny01...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The fact that the golf courses aren't as flat as airports would have
>>> little to do with the real estate value as that would relate to possible
>>> development.
>>
>> It has a great deal to do with it around here. Grading the development
>> (especially for a commercial development project) is very expensive. If
>> you start with an airport, much of the job is already done.
>>
>> 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.
>
>

[Skylune]

>>by George Patterson > Nov 10, 2005 at 12:38 AM


Dudley Henriques wrote:

> The funny thing is that I've always wondered how Golf Courses have
escaped
> the developers ax that has been used on the small airports.

It's pretty simple. Most golf courses aren't flat. Most airports are.
Most
golf
courses don't **** off neighbors a mile away; people just can't hit a
golf
ball
through a window at that distance. The noise at most airports is a
problem, and
people who own land under the extended runway have a number of reasons to
want
the airport closed.

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.<<

One not even be on the "extended runway" to have a significant, and
expanding noise problem. You just need to be within 10 miles of a busy GA
airport that doesn't give a whit about enforcing its voluntary noise
abatement procedures. Or, you could live 20 miles away and be unfortunate
enough to have the area 1000ft above your home declared a training area for
acrobatic pilots.

The FAA does not care. Their priorities are to get the grants out.

[Sylvain]

Skylune wrote:
> Most golf courses don't **** off neighbors a mile away;

unless you happen to live downstream from the golf course; ever
wonder how they manage these unnatural colors of green for the
grass, and blue for the ponds? heavy use of chemicals,
herbicides, even dyes (for the ponds, looks better on tv,
no kidding) etc.

....and they make lousy emergency landing places.

--Sylvain

[sfb]

Nothing like guilt by association. There are all of 100 tournaments on
TV each year and 15,000 golf courses in the US so all of them don't dye
ponds green. Golf course chemicals can be very expensive so allowing
them to drain off is not good business.

Excuse me while I go over to a golf newsgroup to bitch about how every
single GA pilot in the world is constantly flying too low over the golf
course.

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Skylune wrote:
>> Most golf courses don't **** off neighbors a mile away;
>
> unless you happen to live downstream from the golf course; ever
> wonder how they manage these unnatural colors of green for the
> grass, and blue for the ponds? heavy use of chemicals,
> herbicides, even dyes (for the ponds, looks better on tv,
> no kidding) etc.
>
> ...and they make lousy emergency landing places.
>
> --Sylvain

[Jay Beckman]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:n%Pcf.7198$vC6.555@trnddc05...
> Nothing like guilt by association. There are all of 100 tournaments on TV
> each year and 15,000 golf courses in the US so all of them don't dye ponds
> green. Golf course chemicals can be very expensive so allowing them to
> drain off is not good business.
>

Probably 85-90% of the golf courses here in Arizona reclaim and reuse their
effluence. Saves water, saves money...

Jay B

[Jose]

> Or, you could live 20 miles away and be unfortunate
> enough to have the area 1000ft above your home declared a training area for
> acrobatic pilots.

Or you could live in the suburbs, 100 miles away from any airports, and
have people diligently blowing their leaves.

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

[Roger]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 02:11:58 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote
>
>> We have several SR-22s and those suckers are loud. I was surprised
>> that they make more noise than most of the Bonanzas and 210s.
>
>That is the very first I have heard anyone say that about SR-22's. Is it
>all prop noise, or is there a good share of engine noise that could be
>helped with a bit of muffler? Inconsiderate pilots carrying too many RPM.s
>too far out?

Surprisingly, unlike the 210 or Bo, the SR22 makes most of the noise
with the exhaust. They are large diameter free flow pipes and with an
IO-550 on the other end make a rather distinctive sound quite
different than that of supersonic prop tips of the T-6 and Bo with a
2-blade prop.
>
>I am not one to be anti aviation (in the least!!!), but I say that at times,
>we are our own worst enemies, in regard to watching our noise.
>

With the Bo and 210 you only have to drop the RPM down to cruise,
which I do as soon as I'm high enough to have a selection of
"just-in-case" sites at hand.

>Certain planes do seem to have more of a problem, for sure. At OSH every
>year, I cringe at the T-6's blasting out of there, like there is not another
>person in miles, and that everyone loves to hear their props. I love the
>sound of power, but there is a point at which one has to think about what
>they are doing, IMHO.

I've threatened to get some guys to bring in their T-6s and Vultee
Vibrators to do some early morning pattern work. The FBO durn near
had a case of appoplexy <:-)) I wasn't serious, but he's a tad
sensitive about that. OTOH if I had the money I'd be flying either a
T28, or Skyraider out of there. <:-)) Man, that skyraider is one BIG
airplane. That huge engine has a low note that just about shakes the
ground. So, if you hear of a Skyraider noise problem at 3BS you'll
know I won the lottery.

The problem with the T-6 is that long, 2-blade prop. The tips go
supersonic just past the cruise setting.

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

[Roger]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:28:27 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>This sounds like it's going to be an ongoing deal for some time Roger.
>I hope it all goes well for your side in the end.

I really don't think so. I think the guy is just unhappy about the
sudden increase in early morning flights right out over his home. He
didn't mind when it was over someone else's house. <:-))

>Reading this brought back some memories and Bea and I sat down last night
>and got out some old records and photos.
>Believe it or not, almost every small field where I either flew from or
>instructed out of is now gone; some are housing developments; some are
>shopping centers or malls. One is an industrial park.
>It's absolutely amazing!
>The entire face of aviation has changed.
>The funny thing is that I've always wondered how Golf Courses have escaped
>the developers ax that has been used on the small airports.
>I figured it out once over lunch with a couple of "big money" guys at our
>local country club. We figured that off the first tee with a good drive, the
>ball would over fly about 10 million dollars of prime development real
>estate.

It depends on WHO plays golf on the course.
Here the country club is where the money plays and ain't no one gonna
touch that. The city golf course is heavily used and just happens to
be on a flood plain. They built an artificial hill for the pro shack.
I don't know how many times I've been driving into town and could only
see the top of the roof on the old shack peeking out of the water.
<:-)) Ain't no one in their right mind going to try to develop that
land for any thing other than what it is.

>(Actually for my drive, about 5 million dollars would about do it I think
>:-)))))
>You have to wonder about all that prime land with the airports and the golf
>courses as well, just sitting there waiting for the right combination of
>developer/politician/ and "the inevitable DEAL, this combo can produce!

You have to have the right money using the golf course and the
airport. If it's someone who puts millions of dollars into the city,
or heads up one or more foundations that do, the city fathers are not
going to do anything to tie a knot in the money hose.

At one time we had a family that flew back and fourth to their homes
in the SW a couple times a month. That guy had a couple hangars full
of airplanes, but he's long gone.

>I hope your airport escapes and survives.

I think it will this time and maybe for another decade or two. The
State wants the airport for a reliever too. So if the city tried to
close it the state just *might* claim eminent domain, give them what
ever they thought it was worth and use it as they saw fit. I'm fairly
certain even the complainers don't want that. <:-))

Then we might end up with longer runways and a couple of roads with
some kinks in them to give the right of way to the airplanes.

I don't think that would happen, but nothing is out of the realm of
possibilities. Particularly when you have a couple of politicians
using said airport.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Dudley
>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:38:59 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Yup, We've been through it a couple of times.
>>>
>>>The airport exists.
>>>
>>>The developers come and build without a winning challenge from the
>>>airport,
>>>usually because the airport can't afford the challenge.
>>>
>> If they sell any noise complaints are recorded. I think that's what
>> makes them so upset and why this guy has his shorts in a bunch. He's
>> ****ed about the noise, but doesn't want a complaint on his deed and
>> said as much in his letter to the editor..
>>
>> To read the article you need to sign up, but they just want a valid
>> e-mail address as I recall. I've never been spamed from them and
>> they've never shared the address, but you can use a "throw away"
>> address as long as it's valid when you sign up.
>>
>> http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.asp?brd=2289&pag=460&dept_id=472539
>> takes you to the editorial page. The topic is "City needs to look at
>> Barstow Again".
>> The news paper www.ourmidland.com . Select "editorial page" near the
>> bottom (it's in fine print) and then look up the topic, or do a search
>> on the above topic. The page may only be up for another day or two
>> so if it's not there you just do the search.
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> In this case the city just put $750,000 into a new terminal, we have
>> "as I recall" about a half million in recent federal grants, and just
>> scheduled $350,000 for resurfacing 18/36. I think the total for the
>> next year or so is around 1.5 million and we may just get 4000 plus
>> out of 06/24, but it won't be much more than that or they'd have to
>> move a main road and clear out about 6 or 8 large businesses.
>>
>> A good portion of the airport land was purchased with the aid of
>> federal grants while most of the rest was "given" to the city to use
>> as an airport, but with some pretty strong deed restrictions. It gets
>> used as an airport, cemetery, or goes back to the foundations. It
>> might get turned into a very expensive park as it'd cost the city
>> millions to close and the developers wouldn't have a shot at most of
>> it anyway.
>>
>> The city "so far" sees the airport as a high profile gateway to a
>> "progressive" city and an attraction to bring in more businesses.
>> We have two very large chemical companies which of course base their
>> aircraft at MBS as they are way too big for 3BS, but the larger of the
>> two has been downsizing its work force substantially, or moving some
>> production to other US sites. The hourly workforce alone was over
>> 7500 back in the 50's and 60's. Now it's about a quarter that (or
>> less), so the city is working hard to bring in more businesses and of
>> the type that will allow for "upscale" employees.
>>
>> We built a new "three sheet" ice arena that opened this past summer.
>> Last weekend it hosted the US National Junior, short track speed
>> skating championships. We also host world class tennis meets.
>> This is the direction the city planners want to go and the light in
>> which they want their city to be seen.
>>
>> The city is fighting the erosion of jobs and trying to turn downtown
>> into ... well, something. They earned a "Cool City" or some such
>> award recently. That allows them to get more grants and state money
>> for beautification projects.
>>
>>>
>>>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!!
>>
>> I may be wrong, but I don't think the developers would get a shot at
>> most of it and the foundations are unlikely to sell it.
>>
>> OTOH we are still dealing with the mentality of those who didn't want
>> the runways lengthened because of the noise and we'd probably get some
>> jets in. We already get some small jets and the current generation is
>> quieter than most of our high performance prop planes. Now when I
>> take off on 18 I go out over one noise sensitive area at 200 to 500
>> feet instead of pattern altitude due to a 3000 foot runway instead of
>> 4000. If it's a hot day I can count the boards in their picnic
>> tables. <:-)) They hated me when the Deb still had the 2-blade prop
>> as the tips were supersonic at take off RPM and I sure wasn't going to
>> back off at 200 feet.
>>
>> In this guy's case, he was quite happy with the airport until some
>> flights started going over his place early in the morning. He "thinks"
>> they are business flights so he want's us to keep the airport for the
>> local pilots and have the business flights go into MBS. Of course
>> coming into 3BS saves them a good two hours or more plus car rental.
>> To those people the price of two hours is probably more than my yearly
>> pension *plus* what I make off the stock market.
>>
>> This is a case of what some people would call big money, but if so
>> it's big money fighting some *really* big money.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>>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
>>>
>
Roger