Bad news day in Sacramento

[Robert M. Gary]

Boy, nothing like a nice day in Feburary to put GA in the news. I was
watching channel 10 in Sacramento last night. They opened with 3 GA
accidents...

1) Lancair doing aerobatics crashes into neighbors home in Roseville.
One person still missing.
http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15909
2) Swift flips over at Rancho Murieta airport sending the pilot to the
hospital.
http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15902
3) Cherokee in San Jose has engine trouble (or something like that).

What way to get attention for GA.

-Robert

[Tom Conner]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Boy, nothing like a nice day in Feburary to put GA in the news. I was
> watching channel 10 in Sacramento last night. They opened with 3 GA
> accidents...
>
> http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15902
> 3) Cherokee in San Jose has engine trouble (or something like that).


I don't think this was in San Jose. San Jose, at Reid-Hillview, had a plane
crash onto Tully road after running out of fuel. A few seconds earlier and
it would have crashed into Eastridge Mall. RHV is one crash away from
closing and this had the potential to be the one. Its also the 2nd RHV
crash in a month where the pilot ran out of fuel. The other landed on 680.

[B a r r y]

Tom Conner wrote:
> RHV is one crash away from
> closing and this had the potential to be the one.

One less airport means fewer crashes?

[Montblack]

("Tom Conner" wrote)
> The other landed on 680.


That's an odd heading for a runway.


Montblack

[Robert M. Gary]

> One less airport means fewer crashes?

No, but RHV has been on borrowed time for some time now. All the
paperwork is already done to close the airport (EI study etc). The
developers are circling and its just a question of when. Its an
interesting airport to fly into. Its about the most city-locked airport
I've seen. On final you can expect updrafts from the A/C units at the
shopping mall.

-Robert

[B a r r y]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> One less airport means fewer crashes?
>
> No, but RHV has been on borrowed time for some time now. All the
> paperwork is already done to close the airport (EI study etc). The
> developers are circling and its just a question of when. Its an
> interesting airport to fly into. Its about the most city-locked airport
> I've seen. On final you can expect updrafts from the A/C units at the
> shopping mall.

Ever been to the DC to Boston corridor? There's a lot of those... <G>

[Tony]

Not odd for a route number, though, but you knew that already.

[Tony]

I'm trying to remember the most housing crowded airport I flew into as
PIC.

Midway comes to mind. LGA is pretty crowded, so is what used to be
called Washington National.

For general aviation, Lakeway in Austin is in the middle of a housing
development. Some houses near the airport have hangers, not garages.
Gee, the remote control for a garage door is still another radio in the
airplane.

[Skywise]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in
k.net:

>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Boy, nothing like a nice day in Feburary to put GA in the news. I was
>> watching channel 10 in Sacramento last night. They opened with 3 GA
>> accidents...
>>
>> http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15902
>> 3) Cherokee in San Jose has engine trouble (or something like that).
>
>
> I don't think this was in San Jose. San Jose, at Reid-Hillview, had a
> plane crash onto Tully road after running out of fuel. A few seconds
> earlier and it would have crashed into Eastridge Mall. RHV is one crash
> away from closing and this had the potential to be the one. Its also
> the 2nd RHV crash in a month where the pilot ran out of fuel. The other
> landed on 680.

So the airport is responsible for stupid pilots forgetting to gas
up their planes and therefore should be shut down? Must be gov't logic.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Dave Stadt]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Conner" > wrote in
> k.net:
>
>>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Boy, nothing like a nice day in Feburary to put GA in the news. I was
>>> watching channel 10 in Sacramento last night. They opened with 3 GA
>>> accidents...
>>>
>>> http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15902
>>> 3) Cherokee in San Jose has engine trouble (or something like that).
>>
>>
>> I don't think this was in San Jose. San Jose, at Reid-Hillview, had a
>> plane crash onto Tully road after running out of fuel. A few seconds
>> earlier and it would have crashed into Eastridge Mall. RHV is one crash
>> away from closing and this had the potential to be the one. Its also
>> the 2nd RHV crash in a month where the pilot ran out of fuel. The other
>> landed on 680.
>
> So the airport is responsible for stupid pilots forgetting to gas
> up their planes and therefore should be shut down? Must be gov't logic.
>
> Brian

No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two in
a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a mirror
is needed to find the problem.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_033155424.html

http://www.sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/7680/

http://www.sacbee.com/content/breakingnews/story/14165060p-14992745c.html

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14176043p-15003331c.html

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14180831p-15008039c.html

http://www.sacbee.com/content/breakingnews/story/14165009p-14992712c.html

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Skywise]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
. com:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Tom Conner" > wrote in
>> k.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> Boy, nothing like a nice day in Feburary to put GA in the news. I was
>>>> watching channel 10 in Sacramento last night. They opened with 3 GA
>>>> accidents...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15902
>>>> 3) Cherokee in San Jose has engine trouble (or something like that).
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think this was in San Jose. San Jose, at Reid-Hillview, had a
>>> plane crash onto Tully road after running out of fuel. A few seconds
>>> earlier and it would have crashed into Eastridge Mall. RHV is one
>>> crash away from closing and this had the potential to be the one. Its
>>> also the 2nd RHV crash in a month where the pilot ran out of fuel.
>>> The other landed on 680.
>>
>> So the airport is responsible for stupid pilots forgetting to gas
>> up their planes and therefore should be shut down? Must be gov't logic.
>>
>> Brian
>
> No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two
> in a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a
> mirror is needed to find the problem.

I agree that the fault lies with the pilots in question.

But it is false logic to use a rash of accidents, which is most
likely nothing more than a statistical fluke, as the basis for
attacking the existence of an airport.

Flip a coin. Odd's a 50/50 for heads or tails. Flip it a hundred
times. There's bound to be a sequence of all heads or all tails
for several times in a row. Taken out of context, does a rash of
15 heads in a row mean that the coin is two headed?

Heck, that isn't even right. By the logic expressed earlier, a
run of 15 heads on a flipped coin would mean the bank is somehow
at fault, and should be shut down.

It's a total disconnect.

But then, that seems to be one of humanity's strong points.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote
>
> 5 links about death and mahem.
>
> And you posted these links, why? OT is OT, but this is way OT!
> --
> Jim in NC
>

"Bad news day in Sacramento" That's the title on the thread. Right?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Morgans]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote

5 links about death and mahem.

And you posted these links, why? OT is OT, but this is way OT!
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

Another one now...
"2 Dead In Oakdale Plane Crash "
http://www.kcra.com/news/6878598/detail.html

Its like the plane crash station. :(

-Robert

[Montblack]

"Robert M. Gary"
> Another one now...
> "2 Dead In Oakdale Plane Crash "
> http://www.kcra.com/news/6878598/detail.html
>
> Its like the plane crash station. :(


KCRA(SH)


Montblack

[Robert M. Gary]

> And you posted these links, why? OT is OT, but this is way OT!

I think Capt Thrope understood the concept of "Bad news in Sacramento"
but missed the concept of "rec.aviation.piloting" :)

-Robert

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom Conner" > wrote in
> > k.net:
> >
> >>
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>> Boy, nothing like a nice day in Feburary to put GA in the news. I was
> >>> watching channel 10 in Sacramento last night. They opened with 3 GA
> >>> accidents...
> >>>
> >>> http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15902
> >>> 3) Cherokee in San Jose has engine trouble (or something like that).
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't think this was in San Jose. San Jose, at Reid-Hillview, had a
> >> plane crash onto Tully road after running out of fuel. A few seconds
> >> earlier and it would have crashed into Eastridge Mall. RHV is one crash
> >> away from closing and this had the potential to be the one. Its also
> >> the 2nd RHV crash in a month where the pilot ran out of fuel. The other
> >> landed on 680.
> >
> > So the airport is responsible for stupid pilots forgetting to gas
> > up their planes and therefore should be shut down? Must be gov't logic.
> >
> > Brian
>
> No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two in
> a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a mirror
> is needed to find the problem.

It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.

FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
profits to the County.

[Marty]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm trying to remember the most housing crowded airport I flew into as
> PIC.
>
> Midway comes to mind.

You ain't kidding. Have ya been down the lakefront at nite?

My first trip into Midway I was a solo student, 3rd departure was with a
"PPL Test Approved" in my logbook. ;-)

Marty

[Robert M. Gary]

> But it is false logic to use a rash of accidents

True, but I don't see your point. The reality is that there are people
out there looking for amo to close the airport and this will do nicely
for them. Logic, statistics, etc is only meaningful if both sides agree
that they are meaningful. You'll be standing at the city council
meeting talking to yourself in the back of the room about logic while
the council votes to close the airport.

-Robert

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> But it is false logic to use a rash of accidents
>
> True, but I don't see your point. The reality is that there are people
> out there looking for amo to close the airport and this will do nicely
> for them. Logic, statistics, etc is only meaningful if both sides agree
> that they are meaningful. You'll be standing at the city council
> meeting talking to yourself in the back of the room about logic while
> the council votes to close the airport.
>
> -Robert

And at this point it sounds like the statistics are on the side of those
that want to close the airport thanks to a couple of folks that apparently
ran out of fuel, an easily preventable circumstance.

[Skywise]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1139931673.628311.135660
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>> But it is false logic to use a rash of accidents
>
> True, but I don't see your point. The reality is that there are people
> out there looking for amo to close the airport and this will do nicely
> for them. Logic, statistics, etc is only meaningful if both sides agree
> that they are meaningful. You'll be standing at the city council
> meeting talking to yourself in the back of the room about logic while
> the council votes to close the airport.
>
> -Robert

Actually, that is exactly my point.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two in
> > a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a mirror
> > is needed to find the problem.
>
> It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
> developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
> Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
> race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.
>
> FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
> ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
> property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
> airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
> profits to the County.

Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes). Yet the FAA wants
all the PROFITS from
their original acquisition funding.

RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed
taxes. Us boomers
like the temperate climate and nearby Sierra attractions. Gotta fix
that ground shaking issue..JG

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
>ExxMobBpShell without
>even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes)

That sounded familiar. So I looked and found it. Here are parts of
today's news article:

"...New projections buried in the Interior Departement's budget plan,
aniticpate that the government will let companies pump about $65
billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the
next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
"Based on adminostration figures, the government will give up more than
$7billion in payments by 2011. The Companies are expected to get the
largess, known as royalty relief, even though the adminstration assumes
that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout the period.
"Administration officials say THE BENEFITS ARE DICTATED BY LAWS THAT
DATE TO 1996 (my capitalization), when energy prices were low and
Congress wanted to encourage more exploration in the deep water of the
Gulf of Mexico.
.....
"But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
levels that alarm even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry.

There was a tax incentive some months ago that gave a $300million break
to oil companies to encourage development. Personally, I figure $60-70
a barrel is incentive enough. I'm no friend of these tax breaks, nor
particularly of big oil.

However, I quoted the news story above to point out that the tax breaks
started in 1996. Clinton was in office and Cheney was in private life
at that time, IIRC. And Cheney can't give away anything--Congress has
to act first. Accuracy, and not hypberbole, will get us a lot more
truth.

BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
>>ExxMobBpShell without
>>even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes)
>
>
> That sounded familiar. So I looked and found it. Here are parts of
> today's news article:
>
> "...New projections buried in the Interior Departement's budget plan,
> aniticpate that the government will let companies pump about $65
> billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the
> next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
> "Based on adminostration figures, the government will give up more than
> $7billion in payments by 2011. The Companies are expected to get the
> largess, known as royalty relief, even though the adminstration assumes
> that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout the period.
> "Administration officials say THE BENEFITS ARE DICTATED BY LAWS THAT
> DATE TO 1996 (my capitalization), when energy prices were low and
> Congress wanted to encourage more exploration in the deep water of the
> Gulf of Mexico.
> ....
> "But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
> levels that alarm even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry.
>
> There was a tax incentive some months ago that gave a $300million break
> to oil companies to encourage development. Personally, I figure $60-70
> a barrel is incentive enough. I'm no friend of these tax breaks, nor
> particularly of big oil.
>
> However, I quoted the news story above to point out that the tax breaks
> started in 1996. Clinton was in office and Cheney was in private life
> at that time, IIRC. And Cheney can't give away anything--Congress has
> to act first. Accuracy, and not hypberbole, will get us a lot more
> truth.

Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)


Matt

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > >
> > > No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two
> > > in
> > > a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a
> > > mirror
> > > is needed to find the problem.
> >
> > It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
> > developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
> > Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
> > race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.
> >
> > FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
> > ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
> > property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
> > airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
> > profits to the County.
>
> Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
> ExxMobBpShell without
> even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes). Yet the FAA wants
> all the PROFITS from
> their original acquisition funding.
>
> RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed
> taxes. Us boomers
> like the temperate climate and nearby Sierra attractions. Gotta fix
> that ground shaking issue..JG


The Sierras are three hour away by car -- only an hour by plane. And --
the developers are the ones that make the megabucks -- the taxpayers get
left holding the bag, with increased traffic, crime, etc. You really ARE
stupid, aren't you?

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting - wrote:
>Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)

Not that facts ever altered a good opinion, including mine. 8<)))

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed taxes

I had to think about this for a while...

Why is "additional taxes" a reason to kill an airport, or anything
else?

First, I more than suspect that the push behind airport closures is so
that well-connected developers can put up houses, malls, whatever makes
the developers money. In itself, that's not necessarily a problem.

But think about why that land is "available". It's because the
aviation industry acquired it many years ago. They owned/operated it
(via municipal or private arrangements, aviation money goes into it.)
The infrastructure was invested in, etc.
That's not a developer's investment. It's aviation's investment. Now
comes the developer smelling a killing. So they manage to get the
airport closed. What happens to all the investment? Say RHV land
sells for a billion (I dunno, but it's a good easy-to-type number).
Maybe the city gets the billion, and the developer builds and makes a
few billion more.

What happened to aviation??? The aviation community investment is
poofed away. THEY don't get the billion. THEY don't get new land or a
new airport (ask Austin). All the infrastructure gets bulldozed (ask
Chicago), but the aviation community loses everything it had put into
it. To get a new airport, they/we essentially have to start from 0 on
our investment. We invested in the land, and when the value goes up it
gets ripped away with little or no remuneration (I've been waiting all
day to type that word).

Maybe some tax authority gets more money, but that's not the only
consideration. Frequently, many businesses are put out to pasture as
well. and that too is a loss of tax revenue.

It wouldn't hurt so bad maybe if the developers had to trade useable
land in return for the airport land, and reimburse us for the lost
infrastructure. But then they couldn't afford to take the land, now,
could they?????

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Matt Whiting - wrote:
>
>>Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)
>
>
> Not that facts ever altered a good opinion, including mine. 8<)))
>

This is true. Someone, maybe Mark Twain, had a famous quote to that affect.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article om>,
> wrote:
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two
> > > > in
> > > > a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a
> > > > mirror
> > > > is needed to find the problem.
> > >
> > > It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
> > > developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
> > > Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
> > > race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.
> > >
> > > FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
> > > ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
> > > property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
> > > airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
> > > profits to the County.
> >
> > Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
> > ExxMobBpShell without
> > even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes). Yet the FAA wants
> > all the PROFITS from
> > their original acquisition funding.
> >
> > RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed
> > taxes. Us boomers
> > like the temperate climate and nearby Sierra attractions. Gotta fix
> > that ground shaking issue..JG

Upon closer review RHV is located in east San Jose, a dicey area
according to crime reports. However, PAO and Golf Course look like
prime boomer retirement housing. Bayfront views.
E. PA should finally get cleaned up. Hard to imagine ghetto conditions
in SC county.

E16 is stuck between US 101 and the RR tracks, train horn restrictions
would make this a good mixed use site.

JG
>
>
> The Sierras are three hour away by car -- only an hour by plane. And --
> the developers are the ones that make the megabucks -- the taxpayers get
> left holding the bag, with increased traffic, crime, etc.

Boomer retirees able to afford the prices are no threat. And the ocean
is less than 1 hour away.
Wow, Yosemite is about 100 miles east. Muir's slice of heaven.
Hetch-Hetchy dam area is reportedly another Yosemite-like valley. Move
the water
storage else where and viola another National Park.

JG

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> >Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
> >ExxMobBpShell without
> >even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes)
>
> That sounded familiar. So I looked and found it. Here are parts of
> today's news article:
>
> "...New projections buried in the Interior Departement's budget plan,
> aniticpate that the government will let companies pump about $65
> billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the
> next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
> "Based on adminostration figures, the government will give up more than
> $7billion in payments by 2011. The Companies are expected to get the
> largess, known as royalty relief, even though the adminstration assumes
> that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout the period.
> "Administration officials say THE BENEFITS ARE DICTATED BY LAWS THAT
> DATE TO 1996 (my capitalization), when energy prices were low and
> Congress wanted to encourage more exploration in the deep water of the
> Gulf of Mexico.
> ....
> "But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
> levels that alarm even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry.
>
> There was a tax incentive some months ago that gave a $300million break
> to oil companies to encourage development. Personally, I figure $60-70
> a barrel is incentive enough. I'm no friend of these tax breaks, nor
> particularly of big oil.
>
> However, I quoted the news story above to point out that the tax breaks
> started in 1996. Clinton was in office and Cheney was in private life
> at that time, IIRC. And Cheney can't give away anything--Congress has
> to act first. Accuracy, and not hypberbole, will get us a lot more
> truth.

The law was passed in 1996 by Congress, controlled by Gingrich and
Lott.
>From an ethical perspective $65 BILLION is a lot to give away. Even the
standard
12 percent royalty is a joke.

>
> BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
> airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
> this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
> tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
> airfields and then complain.

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.

JG

[[email protected]]

JG wrote:
>Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.

I understand what you are saying, and to a limited extent I agree that
it's valid, but it assumes that the only measure of "highest and best"
is $$ return to the city on taxes.

It might also be simple economics if the city (or whoever) bought the
land and infrastructure, instead of simply eliminating it. It may be
simple economics for someone to replace your modest house with a
mansion, but they have to buy your house first, not just bulldoze it
into oblivion without compensation.

For an entity such as an airfield, with its need for land and
infrastructure, there needs to be a reasonable assumption that it will
continue in existance, and not be forced out just because someone has
an idea for more money, or someone who should have known better moved
in next door. IMO, anyway. Especially when the "better use" is just a
developer putting in more homes, which themselves could be put
somewhere else, eliminating the need for destroying an airfield.

I believe if somehow we could stop the non-reimbursement for the
infrastructure, we could save a few more airports.

Well, it would be nice anyway.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wet the bed, took a drink from the toilet and
scrawled:

(snipped)

> > BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
> > airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
> > this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
> > tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
> > airfields and then complain.
>
> Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.


By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

[Dave Stadt]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wet the bed, took a drink from the toilet and
> scrawled:
>
> (snipped)
>
>> > BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
>> > airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
>> > this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
>> > tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
>> > airfields and then complain.
>>
>> Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.
>
>
> By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
> to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.

[Skywise]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article . com>,
>> wet the bed, took a drink from the toilet and
>> scrawled:
>>
>> (snipped)
>>
>>> > BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
>>> > airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
>>> > this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
>>> > tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
>>> > airfields and then complain.
>>>
>>> Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.
>>
>>
>> By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
>> to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!
>
> And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.

And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
property taxes.

And it's already happening.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[[email protected]]

Skywise wrote:
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562
> >>>
> >>> Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.
> >>
> >>
> >> By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
> >> to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!
> >
> > And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.
>
> And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
> store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
> property taxes.
>
> And it's already happening.

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".
When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

And these politicians are the fiscal conservatives.

JG

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
> scheme from
> the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
> "blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
> mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
> blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
> developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".

Okay!

> When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
> all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
> mess.

Figured how?

No revenue from the "resell"?

[Skywise]

wrote in
ups.com:

>
> Skywise wrote:
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562
>> >>>
>> >>> Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple
>> >>> economics.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them
>> >> over to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!
>> >
>> > And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.
>>
>> And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
>> store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
>> property taxes.
>>
>> And it's already happening.
>
> There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
> scheme from
> the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
> "blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
> mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
> blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
> developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".
> When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
> all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
> mess.
>
> And these politicians are the fiscal conservatives.
>
> JG

Actually, what I was specifically refering to is the increasing
use of imminent domain to forceably remove people from their
homes and then turning the land over to some developer for
commercial private use.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > One less airport means fewer crashes?
>
> No, but RHV has been on borrowed time for some time now. All the
> paperwork is already done to close the airport (EI study etc). The
> developers are circling and its just a question of when. Its an
> interesting airport to fly into. Its about the most city-locked airport
> I've seen. On final you can expect updrafts from the A/C units at the
> shopping mall.
>
> -Robert

The adjoining homeowners should be able to cash out at valley market
rates, get a bigger home (out of state) and invest the remaining
equity. America, berry berry good !

JG

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
> > scheme from
> > the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
> > "blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
> > mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
> > blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
> > developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".
>
> Okay!
>
> > When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
> > all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
> > mess.
>
> Figured how?

When the "tax increment" fails to pay off that year's bond payment, the
gov. levies
prop. taxes for the difference.

> No revenue from the "resell"?

Not enough to cover the gov. purchase price, but some places handled it
free market style:

August 25, 1985
"For homeowners in the subdivisions, such as Oak Brook residents John
Nichols and Perry Johansen, the opportunity to sell their property to a
commercial developer is something of a dream come true. Both struck a
deal
with Vantage Cos., a national developer.
``We thought we`d have to retire in this house,`` said Johansen`s wife,
Linda. ``Now, we`ll be able to afford a bigger home, which the children
need
(the Johansens have two daughters), and a bigger yard, which the dogs
need.
We feel very blessed with this whole deal.``

John Nichols, who lives down the block and around the corner, says his
brick split-level house probably would bring about $90,000 on the
residential market, but he stands to make twice that by selling his lot
to Vantage for $12 a square foot. What`s more, he can keep the house if
he wants by moving it to another site, an idea he plans to investigate.
He also can sell it to a
salvage firm that will strip the house, or he can just walk away and
leave it to the bulldozer.

Vantage has negoitated contracts on all 16 parcels, including 15
houses,
that make up a 5.5-acre site. The company`s objective is to build a
five-
story, 185,000-square-foot office building, said Robert Sholiton,
managing
partner of Vantage`s Chicago-area office.
``Rezoning and redevelopment make sense because time has proved that
the
existing land use is inappropriate,`` Sholiton said. ``Increases in
traffic,
noise and pollution have created undesirable living conditions for
single-
family homes.``

And no TIF funds involved, amazing...JG

[Jerry]

When I was working in Silicon Valley, I once went to the testing area
in our company. Casually mentioned to the engineer there that I was a
pilot. Was immediately treated to a 20 minute diatribe about RHV -
about how it needs to be closed - about how annoying these little
planes were flying overhead when he went out to relax in his backyard.

He went on and on about how the little planes were mostly just
flying round & round ( pattern ) and about how they were mostly
foreigners who came to San Jose from far away to fly round and round in
his backyard.

The guy is so obsessed that he created a website:
http://www.reidhillview.com/.
Scary.... I would say that he was just a real estate investor buying
a house at a depressed "airport-nearby" price, getting the airport
closed, selling the house at a massive profit, and moving on to the
next airport - except he was so passionate. This was maybe six years
ago; the website is still up.

When I mentioned that the airport was already there when the houses
went up, I thought he was going to hit me, He said something to the
effect that pilots better bow
to the will of the people, or there would be consequences! ( I
imagined mobs of
villagers with torches.... :)

RHV is actually the busiest training airport in the Bay Area.

These days, I mostly don't mention being a pilot - am never sure how
people will react.

- Jerry Kaidor

[Matt Barrow]

"Jerry" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> When I mentioned that the airport was already there when the houses
> went up, I thought he was going to hit me, He said something to the
> effect that pilots better bow
> to the will of the people, or there would be consequences!

Nah...der Volk.

> ( I
> imagined mobs of
> villagers with torches.... :)

At rallies in Nuremberg...

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
> When I was working in Silicon Valley, I once went to the testing area
> in our company. Casually mentioned to the engineer there that I was a
> pilot. Was immediately treated to a 20 minute diatribe about RHV -
> about how it needs to be closed - about how annoying these little
> planes were flying overhead when he went out to relax in his backyard.
>
> He went on and on about how the little planes were mostly just
> flying round & round ( pattern ) and about how they were mostly
> foreigners who came to San Jose from far away to fly round and round in
> his backyard.
>
> The guy is so obsessed that he created a website:
> http://www.reidhillview.com/.

Funny, one of his links to RHV pictures is another site-PRO RHV.

> Scary.... I would say that he was just a real estate investor buying
> a house at a depressed "airport-nearby" price, getting the airport
> closed, selling the house at a massive profit, and moving on to the
> next airport - except he was so passionate. This was maybe six years
> ago; the website is still up.
>
> When I mentioned that the airport was already there when the houses
> went up,

So that entitles RHV users to force adjoining property to remain garlic
fields.

JG



I thought he was going to hit me, He said something to the
> effect that pilots better bow
> to the will of the people, or there would be consequences! ( I
> imagined mobs of
> villagers with torches.... :)
>
> RHV is actually the busiest training airport in the Bay Area.
>
> These days, I mostly don't mention being a pilot - am never sure how
> people will react.
>
> - Jerry Kaidor

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>So that entitles RHV users to force adjoining property to remain garlic fields.

I was going to say "of course not". But then I wondered "Why not?".

Of course RHV owners and users can't force the adjoining property to
remain any particular thing. But we SHOULD be able to keep the land
from becoming CERTAIN new things, like houses, that are predictably a
problem off the ends of runways. It's called zoning, and it needs to
be part of any new airport, and it needs to be enforced.

The airport was there first. If you don't like airports, don't move in
next to the things.

This happens to more than just airports. Houses spring up near farms,
trash hauling stations, airports, noisy businesses, power plants, etc.
all the time. And with increasing frequency the newcomers start to
complain about the things that were there first, and tell the original
folks to shut down and move. This is insane.

I think it's high time we grabbed some vacant land in the middle of a
town, build an airport (helicopters to start with), and tell the
adjoining residents they have to move because their houses are
interfering with our flight paths. Kinda turn the tables on them. Of
course, they'll say they were there first. And they'd be right.....

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> >So that entitles RHV users to force adjoining property to remain garlic fields.
>
> I was going to say "of course not". But then I wondered "Why not?".
>
> Of course RHV owners and users can't force the adjoining property to
> remain any particular thing. But we SHOULD be able to keep the land
> from becoming CERTAIN new things, like houses, that are predictably a
> problem off the ends of runways. It's called zoning, and it needs to
> be part of any new airport, and it needs to be enforced.

True, much of the land around ORD is rail, warehouses or forests. But
the zoning
has to be enforced. Somehow things got residential around RHV. So, we
have housing
which is under priced compared to the rest of SV, and nobody got a
noise easement
from the neighbors. History moves on, look at Denver-Stapleton. The
solution
could include better use of SJC,OAK, Moffet, etc. SV is one of those
desirable places with
high land prices. I still see a nice yuppy leisure village at PAO.

> This happens to more than just airports. Houses spring up near farms,
> trash hauling stations, airports, noisy businesses, power plants, etc.
> all the time. And with increasing frequency the newcomers start to
> complain about the things that were there first, and tell the original
> folks to shut down and move. This is insane.
>

It boils down to politics and raw numbers...the golden rule...JG

> I think it's high time we grabbed some vacant land in the middle of a
> town, build an airport (helicopters to start with), and tell the
> adjoining residents they have to move because their houses are
> interfering with our flight paths. Kinda turn the tables on them. Of
> course, they'll say they were there first. And they'd be right.....

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >So that entitles RHV users to force adjoining property to remain garlic
>> >fields.
>>
>> I was going to say "of course not". But then I wondered "Why not?".
>>
>> Of course RHV owners and users can't force the adjoining property to
>> remain any particular thing. But we SHOULD be able to keep the land
>> from becoming CERTAIN new things, like houses, that are predictably a
>> problem off the ends of runways. It's called zoning, and it needs to
>> be part of any new airport, and it needs to be enforced.
>
> True, much of the land around ORD is rail, warehouses or forests.

That must be a surprise to all the people that love in Elk Grove,
Bensenville, Rosemount, Des Plaines and all the other surrounding
communities. I think you need to take a drive around O'Hare to see how
wrong your statement is.

[[email protected]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> >So that entitles RHV users to force adjoining property to remain garlic
> >> >fields.
> >>
> >> I was going to say "of course not". But then I wondered "Why not?".
> >>
> >> Of course RHV owners and users can't force the adjoining property to
> >> remain any particular thing. But we SHOULD be able to keep the land
> >> from becoming CERTAIN new things, like houses, that are predictably a
> >> problem off the ends of runways. It's called zoning, and it needs to
> >> be part of any new airport, and it needs to be enforced.
> >
> > True, much of the land around ORD is rail, warehouses or forests.
>
> That must be a surprise to all the people that love in Elk Grove,
> Bensenville, Rosemount, Des Plaines and all the other surrounding
> communities. I think you need to take a drive around O'Hare to see how
> wrong your statement is.

Rosemont didn't exist before ORD. Des Plaines caved in and supports the
expansion. Bensenville, well they're still playing around but
homeowners have sold to ORD.

Elk Grove would be nothing without ORD, most of their housing is post
ORD construction. Again it boils down to raw
political wlll. Even the Dupage Co. board supports ORD expansion.

JG

[[email protected]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> >So that entitles RHV users to force adjoining property to remain garlic
> >> >fields.
> >>
> >> I was going to say "of course not". But then I wondered "Why not?".
> >>
> >> Of course RHV owners and users can't force the adjoining property to
> >> remain any particular thing. But we SHOULD be able to keep the land
> >> from becoming CERTAIN new things, like houses, that are predictably a
> >> problem off the ends of runways. It's called zoning, and it needs to
> >> be part of any new airport, and it needs to be enforced.
> >
> > True, much of the land around ORD is rail, warehouses or forests.
>
> That must be a surprise to all the people that love in Elk Grove,
> Bensenville, Rosemount, Des Plaines and all the other surrounding
> communities. I think you need to take a drive around O'Hare to see how
> wrong your statement is.

Rosemont didn't exist before ORD. Des Plaines caved in and supports the
expansion. Bensenville, well they're still playing around but
homeowners have sold to ORD.

Elk Grove would be nothing without ORD, most of their housing is post
ORD construction. Again it boils down to raw
political wlll. Even the Dupage Co. board supports ORD expansion.

JG

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >So that entitles RHV users to force adjoining property to remain
>> >> >garlic
>> >> >fields.
>> >>
>> >> I was going to say "of course not". But then I wondered "Why not?".
>> >>
>> >> Of course RHV owners and users can't force the adjoining property to
>> >> remain any particular thing. But we SHOULD be able to keep the land
>> >> from becoming CERTAIN new things, like houses, that are predictably a
>> >> problem off the ends of runways. It's called zoning, and it needs to
>> >> be part of any new airport, and it needs to be enforced.
>> >
>> > True, much of the land around ORD is rail, warehouses or forests.
>>
>> That must be a surprise to all the people that love in Elk Grove,
>> Bensenville, Rosemount, Des Plaines and all the other surrounding
>> communities. I think you need to take a drive around O'Hare to see how
>> wrong your statement is.
>
> Rosemont didn't exist before ORD. Des Plaines caved in and supports the
> expansion. Bensenville, well they're still playing around but
> homeowners have sold to ORD.
>
> Elk Grove would be nothing without ORD, most of their housing is post
> ORD construction. Again it boils down to raw
> political wlll. Even the Dupage Co. board supports ORD expansion.
>
> JG

Yea, so. What does that have to do with the fact much of the land
surrounding O'Hare not being rail, wharehouse and forest like you claimed.

[Sylvain]

Jerry wrote:

> These days, I mostly don't mention being a pilot - am never sure how
> people will react.

just say you are a cartoonist...

we are living wonderful times :-)

so you actually met the nut case in person? scary.

--Sylvain

[Skylune]

>>by Sylvain > Feb 22, 2006 at 02:25 AM


Jerry wrote:

> These days, I mostly don't mention being a pilot - am never sure how
> people will react.

just say you are a cartoonist...

we are living wonderful times :-)

so you actually met the nut case in person? scary.

--Sylvain<<

Is the VP for strategic planning for San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority also a "nut case?" :

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/02/21/opinion/commentary/22006191113.txt

[Montblack]

("Skylune" wrote)

<http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/02/21/opinion/commentary/22006191113.txt>


This jumped out at me:

(From the link)
"National Transportation Safety Board statistics show that 97 percent of
general aviation accidents and 93 percent of commercial aviation accidents
occur within five miles of airports."

I'm calling it 100 sq miles around each airport:
78.5 sq miles for "r" = 5 miles.
113.04 sq miles for "r" = 6 miles (includes 5,000 ft runway)

In San Diego County, alone, there are 16 airports.
100 sq miles x 16 = 1,600 sq miles
1,600 sq miles = 40 miles x 40 miles (in this one county)

NTSB stat (above) will be true, in that much airspace in SD County.


Montblack

[[email protected]]

The article also claims 55 accidents in the last 5 years caused 23
fatalities.

I wonder how many AUTO fatalities have occurred in the last 5 years.
Sounds like it's time to ban cars--heck, the streets are within a few
feet of houses.

I also laugh a bit at the "noise" issue. People complain about
airplane noise that I can't hear inside my house (however flimsily
built these stucco-over-styrofoam pieces of crap are). But they don't
do anything about the boom-box cars that generate chest-pounding
vibrations inside my house.

Misplaced logic abounds....

[Skylune]

Is Maryland Delegate Darryl Kelley also a "nut case?" MD House Bill 894
seeks to create a task force to study general aviation issues,
including, environmental issues, including any problems with low-flying
aircraft, safety and land-use compatibility questions, security issues,
flight school monitoring, and recording airport operations.


Of course, the AOPA is "opposing" this.

AOPA is also "opposing" the Missouri budget, the ADIZ over Washington,
TFRs over the Texas/NM border, upcoming enactment of national user fees,
flight restrictions near a military base, etc.

"AOPA -- The Opposer." LOL. I liked it better when they used the term
"take on."

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Is Maryland Delegate Darryl Kelley also a "nut case?" MD
> House Bill 894 seeks to create a task force to study general
> aviation issues, including, environmental issues, including
> any problems with low-flying aircraft, safety and land-use
> compatibility questions, security issues, flight school
> monitoring, and recording airport operations.
>
>
> Of course, the AOPA is "opposing" this.
>
> AOPA is also "opposing" the Missouri budget, the ADIZ over
> Washington, TFRs over the Texas/NM border, upcoming enactment
> of national user fees, flight restrictions near a military base,
> etc.
>
> "AOPA -- The Opposer." LOL. I liked it better when they used
> the term "take on."
>

One of the things that is killing us is our perceived arrogance by the
public. When we attack the messenger, instead of the message, by calling
them "nut cases", "noise nazis", and other derogatory terms we make
ourselves look like fools, and make them look better. Simply because some
individuals do not agree with our position does not make them "nut cases".
If we concentrate on countering their arguments instead of insults we might
have better success. Of course, if the facts turn out to be in their favor
then maybe insults are the only tool we have.

[Jim Macklin]

Lots of state and federal legislators are "nut cases" on
many issues.

BTW, TRUTH has made Skylune seem almost reasonable.



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| Is Maryland Delegate Darryl Kelley also a "nut case?" MD
House Bill 894
| seeks to create a task force to study general aviation
issues,
| including, environmental issues, including any problems
with low-flying
| aircraft, safety and land-use compatibility questions,
security issues,
| flight school monitoring, and recording airport
operations.
|
|
| Of course, the AOPA is "opposing" this.
|
| AOPA is also "opposing" the Missouri budget, the ADIZ over
Washington,
| TFRs over the Texas/NM border, upcoming enactment of
national user fees,
| flight restrictions near a military base, etc.
|
| "AOPA -- The Opposer." LOL. I liked it better when they
used the term
| "take on."
|

[Skylune]

by "Tom Conner" > Feb 22, 2006 at 07:22 PM

One of the things that is killing us is our perceived arrogance by the
public. When we attack the messenger, instead of the message, by calling
them "nut cases", "noise nazis", and other derogatory terms we make
ourselves look like fools, and make them look better. Simply because
some
individuals do not agree with our position does not make them "nut
cases".
If we concentrate on countering their arguments instead of insults we
might
have better success. Of course, if the facts turn out to be in their
favor
then maybe insults are the only tool we have.<<

Of course I agree with your sentiments 100%.

What I find humorous, in a tragi-comedy kind of way, is that some of the
fliers are doing this to themselves. FOR YEARS, I've said that the small
minority is ruining it for the vast majority of responsible fliers. The
AOPA, of course, seeks to "protect" all fliers, thereby contributing to
the decline in GA by aligning itself with the irresponsible pilots, and
opposing everything under the sun.

Phil obviously does not believe in the "pick your battle" strategy.
AOPA:
Aviators Opposing (all) Public Accountability.

[Skylune]

BTW, on Maryland, this just in:

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2006/02_22-14/TOP

[Skylune]

>>by "Jim Macklin" > Feb 22, 2006 at
01:40 PM


Lots of state and federal legislators are "nut cases" on
many issues.

BTW, TRUTH has made Skylune seem almost reasonable.<<

TRUTH is a whacko. I am not. I just point out things certain pilots
don't like. Then some people attack ME. Classic kill the messenger...

I like to fly, even though I aborted my PPL. Doesn't mean that I don't
think that standards need to be improved, that localities should have some
say over usage of GA airports, that some pilots are not qualified to be in
the air, that the subsidies should be halted, that the AOPA
actions/attempted actions/postions are usually contrary to the public
interest, etc.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> BTW, on Maryland, this just in:
>
> http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2006/02_22-14/TOP
>


But you didn't tell us about this story.

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2006/02_21-34/TOP

[Skylune]

>>by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Feb 22, 2006 at 03:09 PM


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> BTW, on Maryland, this just in:
>
> http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2006/02_22-14/TOP
>


But you didn't tell us about this story.

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2006/02_21-34/TOP<<

Irrelevant. Go play with your buddy TRUTH.

[[email protected]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> >> >> Of course RHV owners and users can't force the adjoining property to
> >> >> remain any particular thing. But we SHOULD be able to keep the land
> >> >> from becoming CERTAIN new things, like houses, that are predictably a
> >> >> problem off the ends of runways. It's called zoning, and it needs to
> >> >> be part of any new airport, and it needs to be enforced.
> >> >
> >> > True, much of the land around ORD is rail, warehouses or forests.
> >>
> >> That must be a surprise to all the people that love in Elk Grove,
> >> Bensenville, Rosemount, Des Plaines and all the other surrounding
> >> communities. I think you need to take a drive around O'Hare to see how
> >> wrong your statement is.
> >
> > Rosemont didn't exist before ORD. Des Plaines caved in and supports the
> > expansion. Bensenville, well they're still playing around but
> > homeowners have sold to ORD.
> >
> > Elk Grove would be nothing without ORD, most of their housing is post
> > ORD construction. Again it boils down to raw
> > political wlll. Even the Dupage Co. board supports ORD expansion.
> >
> > JG
>
> Yea, so. What does that have to do with the fact much of the land
> surrounding O'Hare not being rail, wharehouse and forest like you claimed.

Look at the sat. images, north fence is Des Plaines and IL 72-office,
warehouse, etc. West fence is Elk Grove-warehouses, east fence is
rosemont-hotels, offices build to be near ORD, south fence is IL-19
warehouse and some Bensenville. Case Closed
http://imageatlas.globexplorer.com

JG