Very shortly all owners will be receiving ballot packages for yet one more vote on the proposal to allow subdivision of the vacant “Lot 10 Parcel 1” commercial lot into four residential lots. As you probably are aware, this will be the THIRD balloting on this question.
In the last balloting, 82% of those voting approved the measure, but owners of 13 lots did not even bother returning their ballots and the measure failed to achieve the 75% supermajority of total voting power by 7 votes. Were owners of those 13 for or against the measure? Who the hell knows? So here we are doing it AGAIN!
As an active volunteer participant in the affairs of the Association throughout my 25 years at the Skypark I am not going to mince words: I find this refusal of an owner to take the few minutes of their time needed to mark a ballot yes or no and mail it back in the provided post-paid envelope to be absolutely unacceptable behavior.
We, each of us, are equal partners in a corporate business, the Rosamond Skypark Association. As a business partner you at the very least have an obligation to your fellow partners to pick up a pencil and participate in these “full voting power” questions. No one is asking or expecting you to mow weeds or fix runway lights, but you owe your fellow owners at least this tiny effort to help out.
These are secret ballots, no one will know whether you vote YES or NO so there is no need to feel peer pressure or shame in voting either way. But damn it, AT LEAST VOTE!
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Friday, July 8, 2011
NOTAM Follies
Once or twice a year (typically) the Association contracts with some media company or other to allow use of the Skypark for a photo shoot, sound recording session or something similar. Under current policy we limit these contracts to activities which require closing the airport to arrivals & departures only for relatively brief periods that do not exceed 1 hour in total over the day. In this way we can continue to operate more or less normally with at worst case only a few minutes delay for your arrival or departure.
The reason we do this at all is, naturally, money. We net about $1500 per day for up to one hour in total of "runway time". This is a nice little extra bit of money that is used for extras like Association BBQ gatherings and refreshments at the annual meeting.
This brings us to NOTAMs. We NOTAM these events with Flight Service, post them on bulletin boards and try to "get the word out" as best we can.
However, we are all realists and know that most pilots simply do not check NOTAMs for local flights to familiar destinations and many of you will not "get the word" via any of the other avenues either. So if you show up to land or take off not knowing what is going on, no problem, that is expected.
The way we back this all up is to have a "safety officer", normally one of your fellow owners, standing by with a radio on 122.9. This person, working with the media staff, calls the closure periods as needed and, if you happen to arrive at a bad moment, will coordinate your arrival or departure.
PLEASE, if you encounter this situation, cooperate with the safety officer. If at any time you encounter a problem involving these activities, by all means bring it to the Board afterward. The closures are official and a willful violation would be both unsafe to all involved and a BIG problem between the pilot and the FAA.
P.S. for the "real pilots don't use radios" crowd: If you value your life & license, BE CAREFUL!
The reason we do this at all is, naturally, money. We net about $1500 per day for up to one hour in total of "runway time". This is a nice little extra bit of money that is used for extras like Association BBQ gatherings and refreshments at the annual meeting.
This brings us to NOTAMs. We NOTAM these events with Flight Service, post them on bulletin boards and try to "get the word out" as best we can.
However, we are all realists and know that most pilots simply do not check NOTAMs for local flights to familiar destinations and many of you will not "get the word" via any of the other avenues either. So if you show up to land or take off not knowing what is going on, no problem, that is expected.
The way we back this all up is to have a "safety officer", normally one of your fellow owners, standing by with a radio on 122.9. This person, working with the media staff, calls the closure periods as needed and, if you happen to arrive at a bad moment, will coordinate your arrival or departure.
PLEASE, if you encounter this situation, cooperate with the safety officer. If at any time you encounter a problem involving these activities, by all means bring it to the Board afterward. The closures are official and a willful violation would be both unsafe to all involved and a BIG problem between the pilot and the FAA.
P.S. for the "real pilots don't use radios" crowd: If you value your life & license, BE CAREFUL!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Welcome to the Skypark Blog
Nothing makes any social group or business run smoother than two-way communication!
We have our website Skypark.org and our bulletin board, we encourage attendance at Board meetings, we’ve tried newsletters, but getting broad participation in the exchange of views and the carrying on of discussions is something that has always eluded us.
Lets try again: I would like to offer this blog forum as an unofficial meeting point where we can be free with our opinions, suggestions and concerns. Naturally, "free exchange of opinions" is another way of saying "controversy", so it's important to avoid personalized flame wars, which solve nothing.
As it is set up now, anyone can leave comments on any posted subject without having to "sign in" (although you can sign in using your regular Google, Yahoo or Twitter account if you have one). I know a lot of people like to offer opinions without revealing their identity, to do this just click the COMMENT counter or button below the posting and select "Anonymous". Comments submitted will be posted immediately and not "moderated" prior to posting, although spam or obviously inappropriate material is subject to deletion and if problems develop the policy may change.
I strongly encourage members of our “Skypark family”, both owners & others, to post their own items for comment. If you wish to do this I need to add you as a "publisher". For this I will need a valid email address, which you can send in an email to me, or via a comment request if I already have it.
We have our website Skypark.org and our bulletin board, we encourage attendance at Board meetings, we’ve tried newsletters, but getting broad participation in the exchange of views and the carrying on of discussions is something that has always eluded us.
Lets try again: I would like to offer this blog forum as an unofficial meeting point where we can be free with our opinions, suggestions and concerns. Naturally, "free exchange of opinions" is another way of saying "controversy", so it's important to avoid personalized flame wars, which solve nothing.
As it is set up now, anyone can leave comments on any posted subject without having to "sign in" (although you can sign in using your regular Google, Yahoo or Twitter account if you have one). I know a lot of people like to offer opinions without revealing their identity, to do this just click the COMMENT counter or button below the posting and select "Anonymous". Comments submitted will be posted immediately and not "moderated" prior to posting, although spam or obviously inappropriate material is subject to deletion and if problems develop the policy may change.
I strongly encourage members of our “Skypark family”, both owners & others, to post their own items for comment. If you wish to do this I need to add you as a "publisher". For this I will need a valid email address, which you can send in an email to me, or via a comment request if I already have it.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Lot 10 Residential Subdivision
Another current Skypark item that would benefit from some discussion is the proposed re-zoning & subdivision of Lot 10’s Parcel 1 into four residential lots.
Without getting into specifics, as this is an “open” forum visible to all, here is a review of the basics:
The owner wishes to dispose of the lot, which is now zoned general commercial but due to its location would be unattractive for many normal commercial uses. This obviously limits the potential sale price; his only sales nibbles have been relatively low-end, for example one prospective buyer’s offer was based on putting in a storage facility.
His proposal to sub-divide into residential lots is, in his estimation (and I agree with his reasoning), a win-win idea for all concerned.
He would, presumably, receive a higher sales price for the land and the Skypark would get residences rather than something unattractive like an RV storage lot facing the other Knox Avenue residences. In addition, the Association would get a financial boost in the form of immediate higher dues collection and later via the bonus payments he offers upon sales of the lot. So personally my vote is “sure, go for it”.
There has already been a fair amount of discussion on this, as well as two formal surveys, the latest getting a very good 81% response, out of which 70% were OK with it, 25% against and the remaining 5% didn’t give a clear response yes or no.
Out of the 25% against (12 responses), only one actually articulated his reason, which was “vigorous” opposition to the zoning of four residential lots sandwiched between the commercial restaurant and the industrially-zoned FBO lot.
Since the last survey there has been little offered to clarify the actual basis of the opposition, although there have been a number of “here’s what I would like to see done on the property” type submissions. For example, one owner would like “business condo hangars” built, one or two suggested T-hangars and several still bring up the long-ago planned “lodge and swimming pool”.
The problem with “I would like” suggestions is that they don’t advance the question at all. The only way for “I would like” to have any meaning whatsoever would be if it were followed by “and I am going to buy the property and do it”.
We are not, for example, a city council holding public hearings on a city project we are going to implement with tax money. What is ultimately done with the property as long as it remains commercial is entirely up to whoever owns it, limited only by the zoning.
I would say: Let the subdivision go forward, take the money and then we can handle the new lots via the CC&Rs just as we do the rest of the residential properties. What’s not to like about that?
Come on, let’s hear some pro & con on this!
Without getting into specifics, as this is an “open” forum visible to all, here is a review of the basics:
The owner wishes to dispose of the lot, which is now zoned general commercial but due to its location would be unattractive for many normal commercial uses. This obviously limits the potential sale price; his only sales nibbles have been relatively low-end, for example one prospective buyer’s offer was based on putting in a storage facility.
His proposal to sub-divide into residential lots is, in his estimation (and I agree with his reasoning), a win-win idea for all concerned.
He would, presumably, receive a higher sales price for the land and the Skypark would get residences rather than something unattractive like an RV storage lot facing the other Knox Avenue residences. In addition, the Association would get a financial boost in the form of immediate higher dues collection and later via the bonus payments he offers upon sales of the lot. So personally my vote is “sure, go for it”.
There has already been a fair amount of discussion on this, as well as two formal surveys, the latest getting a very good 81% response, out of which 70% were OK with it, 25% against and the remaining 5% didn’t give a clear response yes or no.
Out of the 25% against (12 responses), only one actually articulated his reason, which was “vigorous” opposition to the zoning of four residential lots sandwiched between the commercial restaurant and the industrially-zoned FBO lot.
Since the last survey there has been little offered to clarify the actual basis of the opposition, although there have been a number of “here’s what I would like to see done on the property” type submissions. For example, one owner would like “business condo hangars” built, one or two suggested T-hangars and several still bring up the long-ago planned “lodge and swimming pool”.
The problem with “I would like” suggestions is that they don’t advance the question at all. The only way for “I would like” to have any meaning whatsoever would be if it were followed by “and I am going to buy the property and do it”.
We are not, for example, a city council holding public hearings on a city project we are going to implement with tax money. What is ultimately done with the property as long as it remains commercial is entirely up to whoever owns it, limited only by the zoning.
I would say: Let the subdivision go forward, take the money and then we can handle the new lots via the CC&Rs just as we do the rest of the residential properties. What’s not to like about that?
Come on, let’s hear some pro & con on this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)