Richard Hill wrote:
> Not really fair to repost part of an article and comment on the part not
> repeated. The first link provided the developers view. August 12, 2007
> hardly qualifies as 'very old' when discussing planning issues. The second,
> a pilot view and more recent information. <Grin>.
It is old, or if you prefer "out-of-date" as much has happened since it
was posted including 1000 residents signing a petition and lawsuit.
The pilots view has nothing to do with the statements, only that it
happens to be something that I receive mail about. It is Kalifornia
> You may note that I did dig deep enough to note in the text that was
> reproduced below, "End result? The developer had to remove two stories of
> the building and project approval processes were changed (and there were
> resignations from the planning department)."
> The FAA had no teeth in this, it was the community, the California DOD
My point was, in this case the developer had the permits and still got
burned. They should have legal recourse, but it's doubtful they'll
recoup any losses via that route.
As I've said before, if the permits are available one should certainly
use them but they give no guarantee even from disgruntled neighbors .
I get the feeling, in general, we're saying the same things but in
Roger (K8RI - ARRL Life Member)
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
TowerTalk mailing list