Thunderfoot,
when I hear NIMBY, I think of situations where people are all for a particular activity or project but don't want their own property affected. As in, great idea but let someone else bear the burden.
I don't think you're exemplifying NIMBY. You are trying to protect everyone's back yard that might be affected.
Now if you were trying to shift the flight path over so as to afflict a neighboring subdivision, that would by NIMBY.
Where does the entitlement to see amazing views from overhead come into our laws and become stronger than the right to enjoy private property? I missed that one.
Posts: 40
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2007
RIGHT ON KATHY
so much....and so little time
so much....and so little time
Thanks for the cite, Bob.
Is that case on line for non-subscribers to Lexis?
I would like to read it.
(I'm a nerd that way. I enjoy reading case law. Judges generally write better than legislators.)
Posts: 254
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2006
A free subscription to FindLaw is available at
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/case_lo...getcase.pl
there is also a reference to FAA regs requiring aircraft to maintain a height of no less than 500 feet by day and 1,000 feet by night above residential areas.
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Then, to quote yet another forgotten scholar...
"then the law is an ASS"
Maybe my mashed potato machine is the answer after all.
Posts: 248
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2007
The ownership of airspace issue has gotten caught up with the right to enjoy our properties isssue.They are two different issues.We do have rights to enjoy our property,for example,noise laws that prevent your neighbors from starting heavy machine equipment before 7am.It doesn't matter whether we own the airspcace if what is going on around us takes away from our serenity.There have been many lawsuits where infringement is an issue.But again these two separate issues are just a part of the whole picture.For more information you can go to our website at
http://www.freewebs.com/caoahawaii/
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
Airspace isn't the issue, and not a wining argument.
Noise and invasion of privacy are. A helicopter at low levels subjects you to real damaging noise levels--it's almost more of a vehicular assault sort of crime.
Posts: 40
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2007
Yeah,is that why I feel run over? LOL
so much....and so little time
so much....and so little time
thanks Bob for the cite ..
I got busy after I asked you for it, will read it this week.
My question that you answered with the cite:
"Where does the entitlement to see amazing views from overhead come into our laws and become stronger than the right to enjoy private property?" wasn't referring to air space ownership.
It referred to rights to enjoy property vs. "touring" rights.
I think there SHOULD be distinguishing between aviation that TRANSPORTS people from Point A to Point B and overflights that are commercial tours rather than transport. I know -- SHOULD is perhaps wishful thinking.
This "right" to view scenery from the air, it bothers me. Homeowners under common law have no rights to view even after paying millions for their property ... so where does this "right to view for the price of a helo ticket" appear in our laws? Curious.
Thanks again for the citation. Will read it as you suggested ... I'm an analytical reader not an emotional reader.
Posts: 248
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2007
Thanks again all.
Bob,the Mission Statement is written openly to allow for study of the issue.The petition offers the solution.We mainly are wanting to ban air tours from Volcano National Park,zoos,parks,sacred sites and agricultural lands in Puna and Volcano.Please see relevant topic list on our website as well.And if you have any solutions you want to offer,let's here em.We are open to discussion and value your ideas.Keep in mind that pilots can not monitor themselves and the FAA is useless. WEBSITE
http://www.freewebs.com/caoahawaii/
