Re: SFO Expansion Loma Prietan Article + Map

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Date: Tue Feb 09 1999 - 07:40:26 PST


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (opus-fddi.hpl.hp.com) by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA188895404; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 07:50:04 -0800
Return-Path: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA210245403; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 07:50:03 -0800
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id HAA07582 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 07:49:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id FOEa019752 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:40:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <cc32433.36c056ea@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:40:26 EST
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: SFO Expansion Loma Prietan Article + Map
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 236

In a message dated 2/8/99 11:54:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis
writes:

<< No Public Information
 
 There have been three "stakeholder" meetings, chaired by the
 Airport, to discuss the expansion. Stakeholders include the
 Loma Prieta Chapter, Save San Francisco Bay, airlines, and
 the Federal Aviation Authority, among others. Attendance at
 the stakeholder meetings is by invitation only -- the public
 is not allowed. The meetings are private, Airport Director
 John Martin says. >>

Should we at least claim a right to be at these meetings. If we don't ask now,
we can't claim we were left out later. They won't pay much attention to us
alone, but maybe we should form a group alliance with other recreational users
as a tool for addressing this issue. I have been told that boaters out of
Coyote Point Harbor are also very upset about the new runway. Maybe we should
team up a Recreational Users of the Bay or some such organization. Obviously
recreation will take a second seat to environmental voices and air safety
issues, but it does help to have more voices when you are standing behind
stronger arguments like the environmental one. This is a case where there are
definitely compromise positions. I suspect that there is already enough fill
at SFO so that runways could be built half on existing fill and half on new
fill with parallel runway separtions of something like 2000'.

Peter



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:03 PST