If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
BillC85 wrote:
I live on a residential airpark. We have a development going in just South of us. The development is planned for 92 homes on 75 acres. I'm concerned. We've put up a large sign pointing right at the development that says "Welcome to the Airpark" and explains how many airplanes are based here, how may operations per month, 24 hour per day operation, student activity, etc. in hopes someone might see the sign and elect to go elsewhere for their shiny new homestead. A friend of mine who is a county judge by trade says we shouldn't have any problems because we were here first. I believe he's correct but only up until their tax base is bigger than our tax base. Don't **** yourself folks, at the end of the day it's all about the money. BillC85 "VideoGuy" gkasten at brick dot net wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Doesn't explain the cases (just about every one) where they built homes near airports that already existed. Here's another example of this exact senerio; A big-time builder has purhased a large hunk of land in the 500 year flood plain. Dug out small lakes and ponds to make other areas a few inches higher than this high water mark. Now wants to develop a "New Town" concept- houses, apartments, condos, retail, etc. Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with the same ownership for almost 25 years. Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office. I called their office and asked the sales person about the "little airport" that was nearby. He informed me that I shouldn't be concerned, they are pretty sure they can get it closed in a year or two. It just wasn't as important to the city as HIS grand, new development! Maybe he'll have a "plumbing fire" or some other unpleasantry soon. Or... maybe the Mississippi and Missouri will decide to join again like they did in '93. The development may be above the 500 year mark, but the roads around it sure aren't. In '93 they flew all the planes out of this "little airport", sandbagged around the airport buildings and waited. Wonder how well that'll work with a bunch of people who are stuck either inside their houses, or stuck a mile away from the entrance to their pretty little "New Town"? Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little planes" flying over my new house? Gary Kasten Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands". |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin wrote in message news:0E3Fc.10405$XM6.5129@attbi_s53...
VideoGuy wrote: Local city is so busy rubbing their greedy little hands together, already counting the anticipated taxes that there seems to be NOTHING this builder wants that he can't have. The CITY-OWNED municipal airport is just across the street and down the road about a quarter mile. Traffic pattern is now over this formerly agricultural field. This airport has been here since before WWII, and has a flight school that has operated continuously, with the same ownership for almost 25 years. Now they haven't built even ONE house yet- just a glorified sales office. This sounds like a St Louis area airport. I'm trying to figure out which one -- St. Charles Muni? That airport is vulnerable, alas. It's privately owned, and the owner has refused to accept state or federal funds to improve the runway/taxiways because he wants to be free to sell it. Meanwhile, with the Page Ave. extension open, there's this nice new housing development under right base for 16, Creve Coeur. We figure it's only a matter of time before the noise complaints start, and since it's also under the approach/departure path for Lambert Field, we don't expect the complaints about the small airport to be limited to the planes which are actually *operating* from the small airport. Never restricted the Noise Police on the ridge south of Spirit. At one point the airport had a web page showing complaints and indicating by radar/Tower records what type of plane elicited the complaint. Many of the complaints were traced to traffic operating out of STL at 7k or above. Wanna bet how long it takes before there's complaints about those "little planes" flying over my new house? No bet. Why bet on a certainty? Report him to the EPA. Building on "Wetlands". Alas, Kevin, it's worse than you know. They can *redefine* the flood plain as being "no longer flood plain" if it's behind a levee taller than the 500 yr mark. But the previous flood made clear that the benchmarks have changed because of culvertization and levee building. So now there are billions of dollars of business and residential developments in flood plains around St. Louis, without flood insurance (since it's not a flood plain any more, they don't need it, right?). When a levee- topping flood or a levee breach occurs, wanna bet they'll swallow hard and say "well, I knew where I was building". Nah, they'll all come squawking to Uncle Sugar and pick our pockets. Cheers, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|