NIMBYs Put CA Airport On Hold | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.20.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.28.24

Airborne-FlightTraining-05.29.24 Airborne-Unlimited-05.30.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.24.24

Fri, May 23, 2003

NIMBYs Put CA Airport On Hold

They Prefer Making People Drive

A popular fallacy, often employed by NIMBYs and self-styled "environmentalists," is to skew every possible number in the worst-possible direction, and to look at only one side of any issue -- their side.

So it is with those who are doing their best to interfere with the work at Mammoth Lakes (CA). They claim that the FAA and airport supporters didn't do enough environmental impact work before the project began; and now thy have had their judge put the project on ice, in hopes of delaying construction until the weather again prohibits it.

The funding, roughly $28 million, is still available. FAA spokesman Paul Turk explained, "It does not kill the funding. It basically is on hold while we discover what is going to happen."

The airport is to be expanded to accommodate larger aircraft, including regional jets.

If the enviro-tyrants prevail, the $2.28 million the town and airport have already spent on the project would simply be wasted; it would not have to be returned to the FAA. However, an additional $16 million+ that has been set aside in the town's coffers, would have to go back to D.C.

The NIMBYs note that, in the name of "environmental impact," they prefer the throngs of skiers and sightseers to drive the 250 miles or so from Los Angeles, rather than allow them fast, efficient transport in jets. They claim that jet service would bring "hundreds of thousands" of additional tourists to the area -- and that, apparently, none of those would be people who opted to take the jet instead of making the long drive, one or two or three at a time, in their cars. Airlines, some of which have already tried -- and abandoned -- commercial service to the airport, are wondering how they'll get those "hundreds of thousands" of additional fares...

According to a recent LA Times article, it seems the local folk would like the airport improvements; the NIMBYs seem to be the ones living in the polluted LA Basin, where their example is so well-documented.

FMI: www.mammothweb.com/transportation.html

Advertisement

More News

ANN FAQ: Contributing To Aero-TV

How To Get A Story On Aero-TV News/Feature Programming How do I submit a story idea or lead to Aero-TV? If you would like to submit a story idea or lead, please contact Jim Campbel>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.29.24)

Aero Linx: International Association of Professional Gyroplane Training (IAPGT) We are an Association of people who fly, build or regulate Gyroplanes, who have a dream of a single >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.29.24): NORDO (No Radio)

NORDO (No Radio) Aircraft that cannot or do not communicate by radio when radio communication is required are referred to as “NORDO.”>[...]

Airborne 05.28.24: Jump Plane Down, Starship's 4th, Vision Jet Problems

Also: uAvionix AV-Link, F-16 Viper Demo, TN National Guard, 'Staff the Towers' A Saturday afternoon jump run, originating from SkyDive Kansas City, went bad when it was reported th>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.30.24): Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS)

Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS) The operation of a UAS beyond the visual capability of the flight crew members (i.e., remote pilot in command [RPIC], the person manipulating th>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC