Ace007 wrote:Unfortunately, 499 new houses are going to be built right under the downwind at Longmont (where Mile Hi operates). Santa Monica all over again. Would be nice if AOPA, EAA, FAA would put together a presentation on how not to plan city growth around airports and show the history of Santa Monica and then go on a road show.

Prospective home buyer: "We want a quiet neighborhood. Is there anything that will make it noisy?"
Developer: "Oh no. There's a little airport, but it's not very busy, and it's a good mile from here. I wouldn't worry about it."

3 months later:
Home owner: "I thought you said we would be living in a quiet neighborhood. Every day those little airplanes fly right over our house, really low."
Developer: "Oh, they're on what they call their downwind leg to land. That's 1000' above the surface. Perfectly legal. After awhile, you'll hardly notice them."

Cary

Reviving this 10 month old thread, the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled on the appeal by the Citizens for Quiet Skies vs. Mile-Hi Skydiving case. Essentially, the C of A affirmed the District Judge's decisions in all respects but one, the amount of attorney fees. They sent it back to her for additional findings respecting one relatively small part of the attorney fees, saying that she needed to justify that particular amount.

Of course, Ms. Kim (Kimberly Gibbs, one of the plaintiffs and the instigator of all of this BS) claims that she and the other plaintiffs will now appeal the C of A's decision. In Colorado, that means requesting the Colorado Supreme Court to grant certiorari, essentially asking the Sups' permission to file an appeal. On a statistical basis alone, her chances are really, really slim that certiorari will be granted. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, if you're interested, here's a link to the C of A's opinion: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile ... firmed.pdf

Cary

Very glad to read that.

lesuther wrote:

Ace007 wrote:The new Longmont airport manager sent us an email last week essentially saying to go to another airport to do touch and goes.

This is interesting. Would you elaborate?

Or perhaps post the email? ???

ExperimentalAviator wrote:Maybe they would clam up about the twin otter if a Piaggio Avanti went overhead.

True. There's one that flies over like clockwork every day just north of Glenwood CO... I hear it every time I'm up there during Elk archery season.
J

Timbuk2 wrote:

ExperimentalAviator wrote:Maybe they would clam up about the twin otter if a Piaggio Avanti went overhead.

True. There's one that flies over like clockwork every day just north of Glenwood CO... I hear it every time I'm up there during Elk archery season.
J

Nah. Some folks have a perennial burr under their saddles, and nothing, but nothing can persuade them that they're wrong. In all likelihood, the Colorado Supes will refuse to hear the case, but it they do hear it, it will be difficult for them to disagree with the well written opinions of the District Judge and Court of Appeals. But dollars to donuts says that Ms. Kim and/or her compatriots will then have something to say, like, "We know we're right, and we're just standing up for the neighborhood, and the law is all wrong, and someday they'll be sorry." And then they'll continue to write down N numbers and complain as loudly as possible to whomever will listen to them.

Cary

Cary said:

But dollars to donuts says that Ms. Kim and/or her compatriots will then have something to say, like, "We know we're right, and we're just standing up for the neighborhood, and the law is all wrong, and someday they'll be sorry." And then they'll continue to write down N numbers and complain as loudly as possible to whomever will listen to them.

Here is an off the wall suggestion. Invite Ms. Kim and her associates one at a time for coffee (tea, whatever) and listen to their issues and see if there is a way to work through the issues. It is possible it might work, otherwise as you point out they are going to be a perpetual stone in the shoe. Sometimes when you separate the group where they don't reinforce one another one can find some reason and ways to come an agreement that will satisfy both skies.

Then again it may be a wasted few hours and be ready for the issue to come around again.

We as a nation have come to shouting at one another rather then talking to one another, maybe this can be the beginning of a change.

TD

Seems to me that if it is so bad in Ms. Kim's eyes that a statement should be noted on her deed that states "This property is located in an area where there are frequent airplane operations, the noise from the operation of said aircraft have been reported to disturb the peace and quiet of the area" or some such statement. Surly Ms. Kim would want this disclosed to a potential buyer, wouldn't she?