This should be in the fly-in section, so I'll copy there and hope it ends in tech.
They are only interested in airports owned by a governmental authority (city, county, state, etc.) that grant full access to folks who are not directly on airport land. In other words, those people who have built a home bordering, or in a community bordering such an airport and who can taxi right onto it. I'm thinking this is just another move from the Gestapo of the United States. OTOH, they may be thinking that public money is being spent to better serve the needs of a few residents. If you think about it that way, the solution is to have an access fee schedule for those affected. Is it fair that the other residents of a community pay for this or should those who are using it as a primary base, pay a bit more? I'm on a private airport and although it doesn't happen, all must pay for the upkeep. ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Morgan To: [email protected] ; Paul M. Anton Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Airpark lot owners Do you think they will go after the airpark where John Travolta lives???? Or will it just be the airparks where commoners live? --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Paul M. Anton <[email protected]> wrote: From: Paul M. Anton <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Airpark lot owners To: [email protected] Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 2:26 PM Independence State Airport 7S5 in Oregon is a prime example of what the FAA is going after. It is a state airport with a large airpark adjacent to it. Lots of upscale home with hangars would be affected. Cheers: Paul N1431A 2AZ1
