On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:36:49 -0700, wrote in
.com:

On Aug 8, 8:54 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:18:36 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

Since developers are behind most of the anti-airport action, you can
expect them to lie, exaggerate and rabble-rouse to the max. Just look at
Hamilton AFB, Reid-Hillview, Moffett, Sand Point, El Toro, for starters.

Developers are the biggest campaign contributors in the country, at
state and local levels. It is an uphill battle, but it CAN be won!

Nobody likes being lied to. Look what it's done to Bush's popularity.

If the anti-airport activist's exaggerations and outright lies can be
publicly exposed in the news media, their public support will diminish
and their attempt to close the airport will be rendered impotent.

Someone needs to address the issues raised in their brochures and
press releases point by point, and expose their deliberate attempts to
mislead the public, and get it published in the local newspapers.

Do the anti-airport activists have a web site on-line?

In the case of Chandler, yes they did.
But this was a one-sided battle. There had been an election before,
and the anti-airport people were still very organized. Signs came out
en masse, and very quickly. They convinced people that "airport
noise hurts property values". Pure bunk, since most of the anti gang
lived near the airport and had very expensive property.

Are you familiar with what happened in the late '50s to property
values in upscale Morningside Park (a suburb of Inglewood, CA) when
the airlines started flying B707s in there? It completely changed the
neighborhood. But I see your point in this case.

Since pilots
are a small minority, and the majority are therefore not in aviation-
related interests and don't care, it doesn't take much to win against
an airport. If a group is opposed to something, they can be easily
mobilized for an election. If the other side is blase', they can't be
mustered, and then all sorts of mischief can occur.

I like (hah) the claim that airports aren't "self-sufficient". An
airport is a transportation hub. So are roads. Are roads self-
sufficient (other than the few toll roads, which are a different
story)? Is the road in front of your house or business self-
sufficient? No, but the tax support from other sources allows the
roads to be there, so that those businesses and homes are accessible.
Airports are an integral part of a complete transportation system.
Furthermore, they are analogous to only needing driveways, not the
entire road network. In that respect they are very efficient.

Very true. And each airport is part of the NAS system. If the parts
of the system disappear at the rate of one a week, soon it will be
nearly impossible to implement SATS; there won't be any vacant real
estate to rebuild the municipal airports.

The real shame was the absolutely beautiful political acumen of the
anti-airport gang. The way this was run should be in a textbook--it
was pure classic stuff and highly effective. Too bad it was
dishonest.

I would be interested in hearing more about the specifics of their
strategy and how they managed to communicate their message publicly.

They even allied themselves openly with another "anti"
group. A company called Covance, which is involved in drug testing
and uses live animals, is building a facility right near the airport.
So the anti-airport people allied themselves with the anti-Covance
group, since "Covance officials will fly big jets into Chandler
(false)..." and cooperated. Now, I see letters to the editor
proclaiming anti-Covance stances, and the names are faimiliar from the
anti-airport campaign.

I wasn't sure about Covance, but I don't like being lied to, so I am
now firmly in the pro-Covance side.

Chandler city council isn't too bright either. I had higher hopes for
them since we bounced half of a bad clique out in the last election.
But they recently allowed a developer to build 16 homes in the million
dollar range right into the airport development zone. Thanks a lot.
That's 15 households that will complain about the noise the day they
move in--NEXT TO THE AIRPORT!!!!!

Did you attend the county/city planning commission hearings, and voice
your opposition to the development? I would think it reasonable to
require the developer to insert avigation easements in the deeds as a
condition of issuing the building permits.

I think the battle is a longer one. Don't wait until an election to
try to tell the story. Over a few years, mount an effective campaign
that touts the benefits of the airport. We have to gain support long
before the contest.

How do you get the message out?