6 reasons why Palo Alto airport should go

[daffy]

1. Small planes use leaded gasoline, which is more polluting than
autos and with over 600 landings and departures per day.... that is a
lot of lethal pollution.
2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just
recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and
not on University Avenue.
3. There are about 150 pilots operating out of the airport verses
approximately 150,00 residents in their flight path. The 24/7 noise
pollution that we all have to contend with 60-70 times per day is like
living in a war zone. To the credit of Palo Alto you banned gasoline
powered leaf blowers for reasons of noise and pollution. What is the
difference other than the planes cause more of both to more people!
4. The land space the airport occupies is supposed to be for the
recreation of the community. At the rate of 1 pilot to 1000 residents,
it does not seem to be equitable.
5. The assertion that medical flights (Stanford's helicopter does
this) is bogus. The San Carlos airport is 10 minutes away so emergency
availability and business transport is easily accommodated there
6. Finally the land could be dedicated for "open space", developed
for housing, used for a maintenance yard for the city or a new police
station to name a few things that could create income and certainly
lessen the air and noise pollution.

[Shirl]

In article om>,
daffy > wrote:
> 1. Small planes use leaded gasoline, which is more polluting than
> autos and with over 600 landings and departures per day.... that is a
> lot of lethal pollution.
> 2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just
> recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and
> not on University Avenue.
> 3. There are about 150 pilots operating out of the airport verses
> approximately 150,00 residents in their flight path. The 24/7 noise
> pollution that we all have to contend with 60-70 times per day is like
> living in a war zone. To the credit of Palo Alto you banned gasoline
> powered leaf blowers for reasons of noise and pollution. What is the
> difference other than the planes cause more of both to more people!
> 4. The land space the airport occupies is supposed to be for the
> recreation of the community. At the rate of 1 pilot to 1000 residents,
> it does not seem to be equitable.
> 5. The assertion that medical flights (Stanford's helicopter does
> this) is bogus. The San Carlos airport is 10 minutes away so emergency
> availability and business transport is easily accommodated there
> 6. Finally the land could be dedicated for "open space", developed
> for housing, used for a maintenance yard for the city or a new police
> station to name a few things that could create income and certainly
> lessen the air and noise pollution.

Why on earth would you post this to a piloting newsgroup? Do you think
you're going to gather support to close this airport just because San
Carlos is only 10 minutes away? I guess you don't care if a plane
crashes there. Maybe we should close SFO, too.

[Jim Logajan]

Shirl > wrote:
> Why on earth would you post this to a piloting newsgroup?

Probably because the OP is one of these:

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/dealingwithtrolls.html

[Morgans[_2_]]

don't dignify this bozo with a response

[Dan Luke]

Buzz off, troll.

[Judah]

daffy > wrote in news:1180739777.176841.50900
@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com:


Nice psuedonym, Daffy...


"Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!" "Duck Season!"
"Wabbit Season!"


"Wabbit Season!"

"Duck Season!"

Kablam!

(or in this case... Kaplonk!)

[TheSmokingGnu]

daffy wrote:
> 1.

If a troll and an ogre have kids, are they trogres or ogolls?

> 2.

Remember kids, it's "down, not across".

> 3.

If the minimum weren't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum.

> 4.

Suzie Q once bought a shoe, and threw it out the window. Jack fell down,
broke his crown, and is now in litigation with the shoe manufacturer for
pain and suffering.

> 5.

How about I take your arm off at the elbow, and let you bleed for 10
minutes. Then we can see about getting you to the hospital.

> 6.

Nothing like the smell of unmaintained public transportation diesel
engines to wake you up in the morning and realize how fresh and clean
the air is!

TheSmokingGnu

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:16:17 -0700, daffy >
wrote in om>:

> 1. Small planes use leaded gasoline, which is more polluting than
>autos and with over 600 landings and departures per day.... that is a
>lot of lethal pollution.

If it's "lethal pollution," how many have died from it to date?

> 2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just
>recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and
>not on University Avenue.

What method did you use to determine that the crash site was
"fortunate" and not the result of the pilot's choice?

> 3. There are about 150 pilots operating out of the airport verses
>approximately 150,00 residents in their flight path.

Palo Alto Airport has been in existence since 1935:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto_Airport_of_Santa_Clara_County
Comparison of the aerial photographs indicate that no development
had begun in the vicinity prior to 1956 other than the Palo Alto
Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Board Plant
(terminus of Embarcadero Way). Between 1956 and 1960, no new
development had taken place in the area; however, by 1973, the
Harvey Gum Factory was on the subject site and structures were
either completed or under construction at 1890 Embarcadero Road
and 2440-2450 Embarcadero Way. Conditions were identical in the
1974 aerial photograph. In the 1980 aerial photograph, the Harvey
Gum Factory is standing, and additional infill construction can be
seen in the area such as the Baylands Business Park adjacent and
to south of the site and the structure now located at 1860
Embarcadero Road. The Harvey Gum Factory was demolished in 1982,
based upon Palo Alto Planning Department records


www.paloaltoairport.org/PAObrochure.pdf
PALO ALTO AIRPORTA Vital Community Asset

HISTORY–––––––––––––––––––––––
The first recorded landing field in Palo Alto
was established in 1924, near Embarcadero
and the “City Water Works” (Newell Ave.). A
more permanent airport was established on
Stanford land in 1928, adjacent to El Camino
and Stanford Ave. Among the owners of the
“Palo Alto School of Aviation” was Paul
Mantz, famous motion picture stunt pilot. In
1934 the airport was moved to the baylands,
where two intersecting runways served
aircraft as large as the DC-3. In 1954, the
runway was relocated to its present site to
make room for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf
Course. In 1967, the City leased the airport
to Santa Clara County, which operates
it through the Aviation Division of the
County's Roads and Airports Department.
The Control Tower was built in 1969.

TODAY––––––––––––––––––––––––
Palo Alto Airport is ideally situated in an
unpopulated area at the edge of San
Francisco Bay, only minutes away from
downtown Palo Alto, Stanford, and Silicon
Valley. The airport plays an important role
within the local business community,
moving business people, and time-sensitive
items by airplane and helicopter throughout
the Western States. The airport also
provides a safe and convenient base for the
private flyer. Thousands of area residents
have learned to fly here, and aircraft are
available to rent from numerous flying
clubs. Over 500 aircraft make Palo Alto their
home base, and the field serves them and
visitors with over 200,000 take-offs and
landings annually. Revenues from the
airport more than support its cost of
operation, the surplus going into the Airport
Enterprise Fund. Tax revenues generated by
the airport are also shared with the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto School District.

>The 24/7 noise pollution that we all have to contend with 60-70 times per day is like
>living in a war zone.

Why did you locate near an operating airport if you find aircraft
noise objectionable?

What is the average duration of each incident of noise to which you
object?

Have you considered using earplugs?

> 4. The land space the airport occupies is supposed to be for the
>recreation of the community. At the rate of 1 pilot to 1000 residents,
>it does not seem to be equitable.


http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?id=3301&siteSection=4
Controversy over the airport's future erupted earlier this year
when the county pressed the city to take a stand on what would
happen once the facility's 50-year county lease runs out in 2017.
Without guarantees that the city would take some responsibility
for the airport, the county was reluctant to apply for new grants
from the federal government.

After much debate before the Palo Alto City Council, city leaders
vowed July 11 that the airport has a future and pledged to support
it once the lease with the county runs out. County officials then
applied for the grants, which are expected to pay for security
fences and runway lights.


A condition of the FAA Airport Improvement grants mentioned above is
the continued operation of the airport.

> 5. The assertion that medical flights (Stanford's helicopter does
>this) is bogus. The San Carlos airport is 10 minutes away so emergency
>availability and business transport is easily accommodated there

Perhaps.

> 6. Finally the land could be dedicated for "open space", developed
>for housing, used for a maintenance yard for the city or a new police
>station to name a few things that could create income and certainly
>lessen the air and noise pollution.

While I empathize with your annoyance at the noise, consider that
airports are disappearing at the rate of one a week throughout the
nation. The airports preceded the residential development. Residents
voluntarily chose to locate adjacent to the airport. The prices they
paid were probably depressed because of the airport's environmental
impact. Now the residents want the airport to move. Would you and
your neighbors be willing to fund such a move? Or do you consider it
equitable to reap an increase in property values in the event of the
closure of an airport you chose as a neighbor?

The airport you chose to live next to is doing its part to be a good
neighbor; you might consider doing the same:

http://www.countyairports.org/PAO_Facts.htm
NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY/RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES





http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2001/2001_07_04.pairhistory.html
A short history of Palo Alto aviation

[Shirl]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> don't dignify this bozo with a response

<hanging my head in shame>
Can't believe I fell for it. Damn.

[Darkwing]

"daffy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 1. You are a complete idiot.

------------------------------------------
DW

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:59:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:


> Controversy over the airport's future erupted earlier this year
> when the county pressed the city to take a stand on what would
> happen once the facility's 50-year county lease runs out in 2017.
> Without guarantees that the city would take some responsibility
> for the airport, the county was reluctant to apply for new grants
> from the federal government.
>

our airfield has a 21 year lease. we renegotiate it every 10 years.
that way we get a 10 year warning of a problem occurring.
we never wait until it expires.

Stealth (that's a hint) Pilot

[Thomas Borchert]

Daffy,

> 1. Small planes use leaded gasoline, which is more polluting than
> autos and with over 600 landings and departures per day.... that is a
> lot of lethal pollution.

It is? Compared to what?

> 2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just
> recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and
> not on University Avenue.

Ah, so nothing happend, right? When did the last crash at PAO happen
where someone on the ground was hurt?

> 3. There are about 150 pilots operating out of the airport verses
> approximately 150,00 residents in their flight path. The 24/7 noise
> pollution that we all have to contend with 60-70 times per day is like
> living in a war zone. To the credit of Palo Alto you banned gasoline
> powered leaf blowers for reasons of noise and pollution. What is the
> difference other than the planes cause more of both to more people!

Did you move to PAO before the airport was there? Was the land price you
paid affected by the airfield being there?

> 4. The land space the airport occupies is supposed to be for the
> recreation of the community. At the rate of 1 pilot to 1000 residents,
> it does not seem to be equitable.

Like, uhm golf courses, riding ranges, marinas and...

> 5. The assertion that medical flights (Stanford's helicopter does
> this) is bogus. The San Carlos airport is 10 minutes away so emergency
> availability and business transport is easily accommodated there

Ah, NIMBY syndrome! No helicopted needed for that.

> 6. Finally the land could be dedicated for "open space", developed
> for housing, used for a maintenance yard for the city or a new police
> station to name a few things that could create income and certainly
> lessen the air and noise pollution.

Sure it could. Like so many other places.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > 2. There is always the eminent danger of a plane crash, one just
> > recently occurred and fortunately the plane landed in the marsh and
> > not on University Avenue.
>
> Ah, so nothing happend, right? When did the last crash at PAO happen
> where someone on the ground was hurt?

and how many automobile crashes have occurred on University Ave?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)