Quote:
Originally Posted by nezbn22
|
I find this paragraph interesting (from the article):
'Based on guidelines issued by the state Department of Transportation, the authority adopted a land-use plan restricting the size of new buildings in a handful of San Diego communities so less people will be vulnerable to injury and death if planes crash.'
If I read this correctly they are saying the area is more prone to an aviation disaster so they want to restrict development so fewer people are there to be injured/killed?
This makes no sense. Either the airport is in a bad location and needs to be moved or it doesn't. If these places are so dangerous why do they want ANY people being vulnerable to injury??
Trying to clear areas in the middle of the city so "less people are vulnerable to injury" seems backwards and ignorant to me when the gorilla in the room is MOVING THE AIRPORT.
How many concessions is San Diego willing to make before they realize the airport must be relocated?