Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The argument is an old one that of airport noise and nearby residents. It always comes up that many of the houses were built after the airport was in operation or that new buyers shouldn't complain because they had a chance to not buy and live in a noise pattern. Therefore, the "I was here first" argument is always presented to stifle the complainants. Well sure, that is an easy position to take but I believe there is a fallacy in that argument. It might be on the lines of, "I've been doing it this way since the beginning so that is the correct way." There might be another fallacious aspect to the 'here first' approach. In fact I've read a couple of good rebuttals to the age old proprietary stance that if an airport existed and you moved nearby that they need not ever have to consider your well being.
This is a problem of major proportion if you consider similar situations. There have been many instances where an auto racing track was built and then developers building scads of tracts next door due to the cheap land. I'm sure we're aware that some of those new home owners complain about the racing noise and in some cases have cause the tracks to eventually shut down. Is that fair? I don't think so but these new homeowners have prevailed apparently by majority. So the "I was there first" theory didn't work but it wasn't because of a fallacy. Just wanted to point that out.
But if I was to compare a race track and an airport to nearby developments that came after the track, it would be like this: the track was built out in the country as a horse racing track. Houses were built for the workers, Streets and utilities made it convenient for more houses, etc. Now the track decides to race cars and motorcycles now and then (hey, it's happened at fairgrounds) and they make noise. The racing proves to be profitable and more motor racing occurs along with improvements to accommodate the new racing. Meanwhile more new houses are built and some older ones are resold to new owners. You see where this is going.
What I showing here is that even though a facility has been around for decades, it will invariably change. The houses and their purpose don't change, but they are affected by the changes at the track. But the track management argues that they were there first and out in the country so they shouldn't have to care about anyone who chooses to live nearby.
OK, that wasn't the best hypothetical situation but it is the best I can do for now. Where are the fallacies when the old airport established just after WWI (that's right, 1920) and a city builds up all around? The airport (board of directors, etc.) maintains that all the original residents affected are now dead so anyone living nearby had a choice, made it and now has no say as to what the airport does. In this actual case, the federal government (FAA) operates the field while the city owns and leases the land to businesses associated with flight operations.
I am with the "the airport was there first". One thing you are forgetting, both with the airport and race tracks, is the fact that people got their homes MUCH cheaper than homes that were NOT next to an airport, precisely because they were next to an airport. In my opinion, they made a deal with the devil, cheap housing in exchange for the inconvenience of living near a noisy place. The race track near me (drag racing) also had people move into new homes and then complain, even thought the track was here for 50 years, but the homeowners have never been successful in trying to get the track shut down, nor IMO should they be.
The only logic fallacy here is the presumption that laws are based on logical reasoning.
If a politician feels that making the airport change is a project that will help get reelected, then there's a higher probability of the law getting passed. Right or wrong, it's not based on logic.
If anything, politics in general seem to mostly be the opposite of logical reasoning.
Courts will obey logical reasoning in the upholding of laws, but the passing of the laws is usually not related to that.
Well, OK Jeo123, at least you took a stab at the philosophical side of this. The issue has nothing to do with real estate value in my case anyway. Some of the most expensive homes in the area are in the flight path. They are near or on the golf course as well. So, location value can be affected by many factors. If you look at John Wayne Airport in Orange County CA you will see that other factors value the homes in the millions. No devil deal there. And they fight with the airport just like people around a small municipal airport in Santa Monica.
BTW and just for FYI and kicks, it's nearly impossible to get a spot at SMA (not their call sign that I know of) because of Hollywood.
I know there is a fallacy in such a simple argument as I was here before you. I just can't pin point it.
I know there is a fallacy in such a simple argument as I was here before you. I just can't pin point it.
Oh, if that's all you wanted, it's called Appeal to tradition(argumentum ad antiquitatem)
It's a fallacy because you're basically just saying A is true because A is true. You never give any rational for why A is true, other than saying A is true.
It's not 100% the answer you were looking for, but relying on the fact that an answer was true before ignores the fact that the answer may have changed today.
Thanks. This is a slow forum. I think this subject will build some steam once people figure out what I'm saying. You're on the right track but as you say, not a complete answer. The process of eminent domain comes to mind, or rather reverse ED. But that has nothing to do with logic. At least I don't see the classic form of logic in steamrolling.
Jeo123 has it right. Logic, truth, are obstacles to irrationally greedy people obtaining money and power.
You can speak the truth with perfect logic, but it will fall on deaf ears if there is money to be made being illogical and lying.
Jim, that may be the practical side of the issue. I'd rather stick to the academics. When it comes to politics I'm apolitical and what you said is why.
I'm not quite sure what you're going for. If you're looking for a real world logic argument to solve the problem of airport noise, you won't find one. From a purely logical perspective, the only fallacy is the one I pointed out above. It doesn't mean they're wrong overall though, just that the argument for "I was here first" isn't substantial enough.
In the broader sense of your example though, their argument isn't just "I was here first," It's "I obtained the rights to be here first," which is entirely different. The courts operate using logic by taking laws and contracts as given premises. The airport purchased the right to use the land in a contract and their right predates your right. The legal system take the original contract for the land and considers that a valid premise. Contracts are the foundation of our legal system.
Instead of it being A is true because A is true(a logic fallacy), it switches to A is true because of the Contract and will continue to be true until A is made false. The contract makes A true.
Unless you can find a way to make the original contract invalid, their right to use will supersede yours. Law and philosophy are very closely related. The only difference is that philosophy requires logic to validate an original premise, while Law gets to take a short cut and rely on statutes and contracts.
Thank you for your reply and insight, Jeo123. I assume you saw the part that this is a municipal airport, owned by a city and operated by the FAA because of the overall nature of operations which include military, commercial scheduled and chartered aircraft. So far the scheduled airlines have abided by restrictions placed on their approval to have a slot. The FBO's seem to be OK except the 10 or so flight schools that make up the majority of GA operations. They generally violate flight rules and noise ordinances. Some of this borderline and one might say trite. Some of it is gross violation.
Schools are needed in the proximity of the neighborhood to which they serve. Every single one has been built since the founding of the airport and many are adversely affected by noise and fuel pollution including lead used in piston driven engine avgas. On the other side of the coin, due to efforts to manufacture and maintain military aircraft during and after WWII and then the construction of commercial airliners thereafter, the airport has expanded within their footprint which brings their operations closer to the perimeter. To wit, a 10,000 foot runway was constructed to help facilitate jet aircraft when they were first being made.
So the chicken and egg thing is a see saw with more houses, bigger airport, etc. Obviously this is a collision course and I will offer the meaning seriously and not as a pun. When the community rises up and demands restrictions they are mostly met, at least to a point. But as factions will be, there are people behind each point of view. This is where the purpose of my thread comes into play. Other than the politics and money factors stated above (and accepted by me) the bottom line argument from anyone who is a pilot is the problem. It's too simple and it is a fallacy AFAIC.
Jeo, I think you are in the law profession one way or another. If that is your perspective, place yourself in my shoes and listen to some jumpsuit Ray Ban Aviator wearing cat doing his pilot style swagger as if he just won the Indy 500 telling you that he doesn't care about what the neighbors think because his clubhouse is older than yours. Nevermind that his clubhouse has been torn down, rebuilt bigger and has thousands more members as it is only restricted by physical size (and the sky is pretty big). The only thing they haven't done for the GA crowd is build a double decker tie down area (I shouldn't have said that lest they get any ideas).
So, yeah, make it Easter Sunday, just after church and you've got your 2 YO daughter out in the back yard for her first egg hunt and you can't hear one single thing on your DVR because of overhead noise. You go to a meeting with said flight jocks and they tell you that if you don't like it then move away.
Again, I don't buy that people like me need to take that as an argument supporting their POV. And I fight with logic, common sense and intelligence (I hope) rather than take the bully pulpit. BTW, I was that father 16 years ago with the DVR. I haven't moved yet.
Let me take just an extra moment to recall the days after 9/11. Not a plane in the sky for at least 3 days. Any of you who live in that kind of peace and quiet should count that blessing. As it is they don't let the banner draggers fly out anymore. Those guys could barely stay in the air and several didn't. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to a busy day at the ranch, say Saturday mid morning with student pilots doing touch and go's flying 500 feet above my house (verified by FAA radar) at the rate of one every 45 seconds. None of those fight schools came with the original property. They've been added in and allowed to do so because "the airport was there first." Just like the 10,000 foot runway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
