Report Inappropriate Comments

Thank you, guys, for presenting a rare example of dialogue. It is a refreshing change from hollow comments like: "Just build it!", or "You knew the airport was there when you bought your house!", or "We need jobs!" There remains a lot of detail to consider before committing extraordinary money on projects that apparently were not studied in depth. I, for one, am keenly aware of significant concerns that were raised, but never given due consideration during the pre-planning phase of this federal process. Some of these concerns may have resulted in steps needing to be taken prior to entering into an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The planners knew of these concerns, and blatantly refused to consider them. A cost-benefit analysis was at the heart of this matter, and apparently it still is. That is why I support a federal review of the Record of Decision. I cannot see rushing into approval for a project which may have federal flaws. I do not see this as being something that a governor, mayor, secretary of state, special interest group, local FAA office, or any other local entity could rule on. This is best left to the federal courts to determine. My position is reinforced by the fact that this is not a frivolous lawsuit, but an option within the federal airport planning process specifically for cases of this nature.

Again, my thanks for your example of the kind of discourse we've needed all along to clarify some of the technical issues and terminology that we lay-people need to get a handle on to understand the real issues before us.

From: What's cost-benefit of longer runway?

Please explain the inappropriate content below.