Savannah-Tom wrote:I have to agree with many of the comments. I resent tax dollars going to places that are mostly for recreation for a special few.
I see the point, but it's tough to agree with something that conflicts with my protectionist mentality about aviation.
Unfortunately, there is little middle ground if an airport is not federally funded and protected. Too often the property is sold, then converted to a use other than aviation, like a shopping mall or housing development.
I don't want to get into a federal vs states argument, but we're already seeing the problems (mostly economic/taxation oriented) associated with states governing aviation and aviation facilities. In the case of aviation, I believe it behooves us to be regulated by the Feds rather than the states.
So if us rich hobbyists and our elite socialist facilities don't receive the funding and support to maintain air traffic safety in the vicinity of a Class C, where does that leave us? Totally inop? If no federally funded control tower, shutting the Pearson down to ensure air safety of commercial pax flights into PDX is the only alternative. The only losers are us, the rich hobbylists. At that end, the fiscally conservative campaign will cement some pretty tragic consequences to our favorite pastime.
Perhaps no airport can stand an all-out assault by urban growth unless it has scheduled air carrier service.
Ouch, might have to send myself to Hot Air.