XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, or.politics   
   From: dhomuth1@comcast.net   
      
   On 17 Nov 2006 12:20:05 -0800, redsky@virtualhosts.net wrote:   
      
   >   
   >gatt wrote:   
      
   >> The airport was there first.  The developers chose to build around it and   
   >> hope their dumbass yuppie buyers were too clueless to consider the friggin'   
   >> towered airport in their backyard.  Caveat emptor.  The city and people of   
   >> Beaverton decided that the good for the many was more important than the   
   >> good for a few.  That's a polite way of suggesting that if you build your   
   >> house by a river you better have flood insurance.   
   >>   
   >> The option is to close the airport and relocate it further somewhere out, at   
   >> the cost of tens of millions of dollars to state and federal taxpayers.   
   >> Because a handful of developers and home buyers deliberately chose to build   
   >> their house under an airport's flight pattern.   
   >   
   >Doesn't matter who was there first.   
      
   Oh, Shur it does!   
      
   When the airport went in, the airport developers were Aware of no   
   nearby conflicts with housing.   
      
   When the housing went in, the housing developers were Aware of an   
   airport in the vicinity, carrying with it Certain Risks, but   
   deliberately chose to go ahead and develop anyway, reckoning that the   
   risks were minor.   
      
   As they have been, over the years.   
      
   >It's the way the area grew.   
      
   Doesn't change the obvious Fact of How it grew -- in the full and   
   certain knowledge of the Real Estate types that land closer to an   
   airport was cheaper, and therefore more profitable to build houses on.   
   It's that way in almost every metropolitan area out there.   
      
   >And don't forget that land use planning in Oregon for the last thirty years   
   >has been strictly controlled thing.  I remember when the Hillsboro   
   >airport was out in the middle of nowhere.  Not anymore.  It's a hazard.   
      
   It was in the middle of Nowhere, until the Real Estate Developers   
   moved somewhere closer to it.  That was a Known Risk on their part,   
   and once they made that choice, they get to live with it.   
      
   Now, had they chosen instead to request a Zoning, whereby Real Estate   
   development would have been prohibited within a reasonable radius of   
   the airport, that would have been OK.  But they didn't.   
      
   Choices have consequences, and once made, the consequences get to be   
   lived with.   
      
   >If you stop and think about it, the beauty of it is that financially   
   >it's a win-win deal.  The property that the airport sits on now,   
   >situated where it is, is primo upscale suburban real estate.  Promo.   
      
   It could be, if that was its Highest and Best Use.  If that is indeed   
   the case, then the Real Estate Developers have a simple task -- make   
   an offer to buy the airport and pay the costs of moving it.   
      
   D'ya figure they'll actually Do that?   
      
   >It's value to investing developers is astronomical.   They could option   
   >it off and start the process of locating another location, probably   
   >much further west along the Sunset Highway, and begin building.  The   
   >profit from the sale would pay for the property, the building of a   
   >bigger and more modern airport,  and the move to it.   
      
   All they must needs do is place a money offer on the table, and it's   
   open for consideration.  Lowered Nose, such things have been done in   
   other places.   
      
   But it must be done when the airport is still fully operational, and   
   not only After its operations have been curtailed and its value -- and   
   price -- have been lowered thereby.   
      
   If this is such a great idea, then let the bidding begin!   
      
   Otherwise, the airport remains where it is.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)