jweldon
“Member”
I'm sold, when are we going in on one??172s are teh awesome.
Heard it here first. And just in case you're a doubting Thomas, a film, just for you....
Richman
I'm sold, when are we going in on one??172s are teh awesome.
Heard it here first. And just in case you're a doubting Thomas, a film, just for you....
Richman
Harrison Ford needs to do a public awareness commercial. That's a really cool airport and I'd like to see it stay open.
Let them have it already. The money spent on keeping it open would be better spent elsewhere. Put it into relocating the tenants to the surrounding airports. Then, they can spend money on cleaning the large homeless population in Santa Monica from their new park that no one wants to go to because, well, it's full of homeless people.
Airport has been around since the 1920s. Which means every single anti-SMO dbag houseowner in Santa Monica knew the airport was there along with the associated noise and "risk" of a potential crash.
Why would he choose to live in such a noisy environment?Airports evolve, as do the communities they serve. It's no longer 1920, and the Curtiss JN-4 is not the predominate airplane of the day. While I agree this is a self-serving effort on the part of a few monied interests, and generally against the best interests of the community at large, this is the democratic process of self-determination that every community is free to exercise. If they want to cut off their nose to spite their face, they are free to do so, just as others are free to try to stop it.
But with regard to the "they knew there was an airport there when they moved there" stance, consider this: I have a relative who lives about a mile and a half from the departure end of the RWY 16 complex at KSEA. Aircraft pass over his house at perhaps 1000 feet, and it's very noisy. How high does that aircraft have to be before the aircraft noise is negligible? 5000 feet? 10000 feet? I don't know, but I do know that to expect no one to settle in that noise footprint means that about 15-20 square miles (perhaps more) of real estate would be uninhabitable in this scenario. Not a very workable solution in the big picture of things.
Why would he choose to live in such a noisy environment?
Let them have it already. The money spent on keeping it open would be better spent elsewhere. Put it into relocating the tenants to the surrounding airports. Then, they can spend money on cleaning the large homeless population in Santa Monica from their new park that no one wants to go to because, well, it's full of homeless people.
Pioneer Park in SLC!
A few years ago they tried again by telling people that by selling off the airport and the fairgrounds they could solve their budget shortfall.... For one year.They wanted to close Reid-Hillview (RHV in San Jose, CA) and the consulting firm hired by the city was quite frank that they will see a crime wave from high-density housing in that area that will eclipse their worst year on record.
A few years ago they tried again by telling people that by selling off the airport and the fairgrounds they could solve their budget shortfall.... For one year.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
It's not out of the woods yet, master leaseholds are up next year and the county wants to combine the 6 or 7 current ones into 3 larger ones, and is demanding that the new lease holders tear down their current buildings and build new ones.Selling the car you use to get to work to pay that cable bill, eh?
Airports evolve, as do the communities they serve. It's no longer 1920, and the Curtiss JN-4 is not the predominate airplane of the day. While I agree this is a self-serving effort on the part of a few monied interests, and generally against the best interests of the community at large, this is the democratic process of self-determination that every community is free to exercise. If they want to cut off their nose to spite their face, they are free to do so, just as others are free to try to stop it.
But with regard to the "they knew there was an airport there when they moved there" stance, consider this: I have a relative who lives about a mile and a half from the departure end of the RWY 16 complex at KSEA. Aircraft pass over his house at perhaps 1000 feet, and it's very noisy. How high does that aircraft have to be before the aircraft noise is negligible? 5000 feet? 10000 feet? I don't know, but I do know that to expect no one to settle in that noise footprint means that about 15-20 square miles (perhaps more) of real estate would be uninhabitable in this scenario. Not a very workable solution in the big picture of things.
I don't think anyone suggested that no one should live near an airport, but taking advantage of the lower cost to buy/rent property and then complaining about the noise is disingenuous at best and moronic at the very least.No one is complaining. I'm saying that to expect people not to live hear an airport, which is what some people on here are suggesting, is not very feasible when airports can occupy hundreds of square miles of real estate. Therefore, airports and their surrounding communities have to find ways to co-exist. Otherwise, you end up with what's going on at SMO.