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-11.24.25

AirborneNextGen-
11.18.25

Airborne-Unlimited-11.19.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-11.20.25

AirborneUnlimited-11.21.25

LIVE MOSAIC Town Hall (Archived): www.airborne-live.net

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

Airborne 11.24.25: ANN's 30th!, Starship’s V3 Booster Boom, Earhart Records

Also: 1st-Ever Space Crime Was a Fraud, IAE Buys Diamonds, Kennon Bows Out, Perseverance Rover An interesting moment came about this past Sunday as ANN CEO, Jim Campbell, noted tha>[...]

ANN FAQ: Submit a News Story!

Have A Story That NEEDS To Be Featured On Aero-News? Here’s How To Submit A Story To Our Team Some of the greatest new stories ANN has ever covered have been submitted by our>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: DeltaHawk Aero Engine Defies Convention

From 2023 (YouTube Edition): Deviation from the Historical Mean Racine, Wisconsin-based DeltaHawk is a privately-held manufacturer of reciprocating engines for aircraft and hybrid >[...]

NTSB Final Report: Glasair GlaStar

Smoke Began Entering The Cockpit During The Landing Flare, And Then The Pilot Noticed Flames On The Right Side Of The Airplane Analysis: The pilot reported that about 30 minutes in>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (11.22.25): Remote Communications Outlet (RCO)

Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) An unmanned communications facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCOs serve FSSs. Remote Transmitter/Receivers (RTR) serve termi>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC