Two 14 year old boys steal plane and then crash

Jose wrote:
Who benefits by closing an airport? Local residents have a somewhat
quieter backdrop to run their leafblowers in.

not for long, because by the time the developers are done
doing what they do, their backdrop would have a much higher
density of population, and everything that goes with it, i.e.,
a lot more traffic, polution, crime, and.... noise.

--Sylvain

And the municipality garners increased revenue and no longer has to
expend funds to operate the airport.

Actually the municipality probably also garners increased costs which
more than offset the increased revenue. It's hard to trace, but easy to
see, if you plot, say, percent corporate development vs mill rate.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:45:56 GMT, Jose
wrote in : :

Who do you think has a greater incentive to close the airport?

What of the interests of the municipality's board of supervisors? By
permitting the airport property to be developed, they receive
additional tax revenue instead of having to subsidize the cost of
running the airport.

But in the long run, both the city and its residents loose; in the
future they will not have a local airport from which to reach the
international airport that has been relocated some distance from
development.

Don't forget -- developers represent the largest single contributor
special interest group at the state and local levels in the US.

As such, they automatically have the ear of the politicians.

The only remedy is to organize and to support our aviation PAC's (AOPA
PAC, California Pilot PAC, etc.) We can whine, or we can act!