In article , Jack wrote:
Why do so many pilots think that, even though their generations-old
airports are now surrounded by the inevitable accretion of suburbs and
shopping centers, their communities should maintain these airports for
aviation use instead of turning the airport's acreage to more
appropriate uses? Could it be that these pilots are in fact "elitist
romantics who don't give a dead rat about anyone else" and worse, they
are not bright enough to understand that their current airports were
built out in the country in years gone by because that's where airports
belong?

Very few pilots support having the local community pay to up keep the
airport. What they take issue with is that people move next to airports
than complain about the noise.
GA field or class B, they always seem to do this. Here in Seattle the
people that live near Sea-Tac (Class B - KSEA) have been fighting against
the building of a 3rd runway (currently we have two parellel runways which
are too close together to allow duel takeoff/landing in during hard IFR).
The airport was there FIRST, they knew that planes make noise when they
bought in. The same with trains, but people just laugh at you when you
tell them that you moved into an apartment/house under the train tracks
and think that something should be done about the noise.
BTW - what's "more appropriate uses." I'm all for more homes and
mini-malls (or even full size malls), I love them. But how is that any
less appropriate than an airstrip? Airports where NOT build out in the
country in years gone by, they were just build. The 'city' grew out to
meet them. NY is a classic example. New airports build TODAY are build
way out in the country to try to avoid these problems (eg. Denver, and
look how well that's working out ^_^).