quote:

Originally posted by MooneyP226:
Basic attitude around here was "airport was here before you were born..."

So, the same basic approach many here take regarding stories about shooting ranges, where the range existed before the homeowners who are complaining moved into the area?

This is no different than trimming trees that are near power lines, it needs to be done to maintain the safety of the airport.

So I think you should accept the fact that some trimming or tree removal is going to happen. But I agree that you should make sure that it is as non-invasive as possible.

But unless you are growing the trees for profit, I can't imagine that compensation is required. The airport authority should be the one paying for the trimming, clean up, and fixing any issues that is caused by the trimming. But paying you for the value of the lumber is ridiculous. Instead you or your lawyer should negotiate that you get to keep the lumber.

So get a lawyer, find out what rights you have, negotiate everything down to the letter, and hold the airport authority to the agreement. But for gods sake be reasonable, that airport might just save your life down the road.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
But, the 5th Amendment prevents the government from taking your property without compensation.

As I usually suggest when people ask for legal advice - ASK A DAMN LAWYER. Don't take advice from your invisible internet friends who don't even play lawyers on TV.

As usual, jhe888 for the win. Question for you though, What type of lawyer would one be best off with here (what specialty or specialties, if any)?

Pal (Original Poster) is in Michigan, so I'm no direct help on that question, but there is a well-known lawyer here in the Orlando area who practices in two areas: Real Estate, and Aviation Law. That might be the perfect combination.

Here's a link to his website; Pal might want to contact him too see if he has a referral in Michigan. link

quote:

Originally posted by PPGMD:
This is no different than trimming trees that are near power lines, it needs to be done to maintain the safety of the airport.

So I think you should accept the fact that some trimming or tree removal is going to happen. But I agree that you should make sure that it is as non-invasive as possible.

But unless you are growing the trees for profit, I can't imagine that compensation is required. The airport authority should be the one paying for the trimming, clean up, and fixing any issues that is caused by the trimming. But paying you for the value of the lumber is ridiculous. Instead you or your lawyer should negotiate that you get to keep the lumber.

So get a lawyer, find out what rights you have, negotiate everything down to the letter, and hold the airport authority to the agreement. But for gods sake be reasonable, that airport might just save your life down the road.

Ridiculous nonsense.

I care about, love - even, every single tree, bush, rock, and otherwise on my property that I haven't already removed or changed myself. The shade they provide, the privacy, the look, every single bit of the landscaping is nearly as important as the house itself, and careful consideration was paid to such things when choosing the property. Trees take years, decades or more - even, to reach mature sizes, and as others have indicated - perhaps they have important memories attached, too, like the tire swing you swung your kids in, or eighteen different reasons. It affects curb appeal, dramatically affects the overall landscape architecture, and I'll be damned if some jackwad like you or they are going to attempt to tell me it has no real value and I should just bend over and take it.

Maybe you don't care, maybe you'd rather live on a bald patch of ground with unobstructed views for miles, shit - maybe you just hate trees, but don't project those purely subjective points of view onto anyone else and their trees on their property.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Ridiculous nonsense.

I care about, love - even, every single tree, bush, rock, and otherwise on my property that I haven't already removed or changed myself. The shade they provide, the privacy, the look, every single bit of the landscaping is nearly as important as the house itself, and careful consideration was paid to such things when choosing the property. Trees take years, decades or more - even, to reach mature sizes, and as others have indicated - perhaps they have important memories attached, too, like the tire swing you swung your kids in, or eighteen different reasons. It affects curb appeal, dramatically affects the overall landscape architecture, and I'll be damned if some jackwad like you or they are going to attempt to tell me it has no real value and I should just bend over and take it.

Maybe you don't care, maybe you'd rather live on a bald patch of ground with unobstructed views for miles, shit - maybe you just hate trees, but don't project those purely subjective points of view onto anyone else and their trees on their property.

Actually I don't hate trees nor do I want to see them clear cut, but I don't have any emotional attachments to them. And I understand that the airport was there long before the current property owners, and the airport is good for the community.

Do you go out and demand that the power company pay you when they come trim the trees by your power lines? No, because that would be ridiculous. It is no different with the airport trimming. The airport should cover all the costs associated with it, including planting new trees of a descent size if they have to cut down enough of them. But to demand from the community, because that is who pays for the airport, compensation due to emotional attachment is overreaching.

First of all I would like to thank everyone who has posted. I wanted to get some insight before the informational meeting. Please continue to post if you have additional ideas.

I thought I would add some more info as it may help.

First the airport. It is An Army air National Guard field. A small section is commercial. Although we do see some c-130s here most of the traffic is helicopters. I actually got to practice in a huey simulator but that's another story. Grayling is a very pro military town. generally people here do not complain about noise and such because, as someone mentioned, the airport was here first. Every one here has either been deployed, or knows someone that has been deployed, in the recent past. I have employed two guardmen myself. One went on deployment, came back and found another job, and later came back to work for me again. I consider these people to be more friends than employees. I write this only so people can better see the whole picture.

Now the subdivision. As I write this in my home office I am looking across the street at another house. Later in the summer I won't be able to see that house as things green up. This is not the kind of subdivision that most people invision. I have a 1.5 acre lot and at least 75% is wooded. In fact the name of the sub is Sherwood Forest. The trees that that they are talking about removing were probably planted in the 30's during the ccc days. Many of them are big enough that two adults could not wrap their arms around them. When I built my pole barn I arranged the driveway to avoid one of these tree.

I hope that by offering additional information I may get more insights. Again, thanks for the posts. I will update after the meeting

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by PPGMD:
This is no different than trimming trees that are near power lines, it needs to be done to maintain the safety of the airport.

So I think you should accept the fact that some trimming or tree removal is going to happen. But I agree that you should make sure that it is as non-invasive as possible.

But unless you are growing the trees for profit, I can't imagine that compensation is required. The airport authority should be the one paying for the trimming, clean up, and fixing any issues that is caused by the trimming. But paying you for the value of the lumber is ridiculous. Instead you or your lawyer should negotiate that you get to keep the lumber.

So get a lawyer, find out what rights you have, negotiate everything down to the letter, and hold the airport authority to the agreement. But for gods sake be reasonable, that airport might just save your life down the road.

Ridiculous nonsense.

I care about, love - even, every single tree, bush, rock, and otherwise on my property that I haven't already removed or changed myself. The shade they provide, the privacy, the look, every single bit of the landscaping is nearly as important as the house itself, and careful consideration was paid to such things when choosing the property. Trees take years, decades or more - even, to reach mature sizes, and as others have indicated - perhaps they have important memories attached, too, like the tire swing you swung your kids in, or eighteen different reasons. It affects curb appeal, dramatically affects the overall landscape architecture, and I'll be damned if some jackwad like you or they are going to attempt to tell me it has no real value and I should just bend over and take it.

Maybe you don't care, maybe you'd rather live on a bald patch of ground with unobstructed views for miles, shit - maybe you just hate trees, but don't project those purely subjective points of view onto anyone else and their trees on their property.

Lighten up, Francis. Did you miss a dose of lithium?

No need for the name-calling over his offering an opinion.

----------------------------------------

@ppgmd, hey, that jackwad comment of mine was unnecessarily personal. I apologize.

quote:

Originally posted by PPGMD:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Ridiculous nonsense.

I care about, love - even, every single tree, bush, rock, and otherwise on my property that I haven't already removed or changed myself. The shade they provide, the privacy, the look, every single bit of the landscaping is nearly as important as the house itself, and careful consideration was paid to such things when choosing the property. Trees take years, decades or more - even, to reach mature sizes, and as others have indicated - perhaps they have important memories attached, too, like the tire swing you swung your kids in, or eighteen different reasons. It affects curb appeal, dramatically affects the overall landscape architecture, and I'll be damned if some jackwad like you or they are going to attempt to tell me it has no real value and I should just bend over and take it.

Maybe you don't care, maybe you'd rather live on a bald patch of ground with unobstructed views for miles, shit - maybe you just hate trees, but don't project those purely subjective points of view onto anyone else and their trees on their property.

Actually I don't hate trees nor do I want to see them clear cut, but I don't have any emotional attachments to them. And I understand that the airport was there long before the current property owners, and the airport is good for the community.

Do you go out and demand that the power company pay you when they come trim the trees by your power lines? No, because that would be ridiculous. It is no different with the airport trimming. The airport should cover all the costs associated with it, including planting new trees of a descent size if they have to cut down enough of them. But to demand from the community, because that is who pays for the airport, compensation due to emotional attachment is overreaching.

In the case of power lines, there will be a recorded easement running the entire length of the lines which spells out a pre-existing clause that allows the power company to keep the lines clear. It will also typically outline what restrictions the property owner has by the easement. Typically, no structures directly underneath the lines, and guaranteed access to the easement that can't be blocked.

You guys are having a apples and oranges conversation. The power company is allowed to maintain the easement because they have the legal authority to do so. Not just because it might be reasonable...

What's being discussed is the legal authority of the city to do the same thing for an airway.

Pal, post the airport name and I'll grab the approach charts for you so you can see where your house falls in the approach path and airspace.

quote:

Lighten up Francis. Did you miss a dose of lithium?

No need for the name-calling over his offering an opinion.

I had already addressed my comment before seeing your reply or the others.

That said, you giving me shit and adding an insult of your own (lithium) is rich.

Check yourself next time, hero...

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
In the case of power lines, there will be a recorded easement running the entire length of the lines which spells out a pre-existing clause that allows the power company to keep the lines clear. It will also typically outline what restrictions the property owner has by the easement. Typically, no structures directly underneath the lines, and guaranteed access to the easement that can't be blocked.

Sometimes, but not always. We have a 12KV line that runs through the ranch about a mile and a half. No easement whatsoever. Each year though, PG&E sends out Davey Tree to inspect the lines and see what (if any) trimming is needed. I'm sure that we could tell them to bugger off and not touch a tree, but I am equally sure that they could either decline to continue providing power or come up with a nice letter putting the liability for any fire or other damage due to trees falling on or arcing against the lines on us since we refused to allow them to perform ordinary maintenance. It comes down to being reasonable, and we get a direct benefit from those lines being there (it would take a LARGE generator to run the wells in the absence of those lines, not to mention the barn or the gate).

The airport is a little different deal. Pal doesn't receive any direct benefit from the airport, though it may improve his community (and the national defense).

www.airnav.com/airport/KGOV Interesting in that it lists trees as obstructions and the distance and slope to clear. There are links to instrument approaches on the page. Interestingly, all are to runway 14. Dang, two 5000'x150' runways. NICE!

It appears that use of the field is 29% military, 63% transient General Aviation, and 8% local General Aviation. A total of 8 single engine GA aircraft based on the field, and a whopping 124 operations per week on average in 2015. 124/7 = 17.7, shoot, round it up to 18 operations per day. 9 takeoffs and 9 landings? Not a crazy busy airport. Perhaps not an economic dynamo either. I'll guess here that this is the GA operations only and that they are not counting the military operations, but maybe they are. In any case, not a particularly busy airport.

I HATE politics, but this stuff often comes down to who can convince the local power brokers that they are a bigger voting block. A bunch of pissed off neighbors have closed a lot of airports over the years. I'd hope that this airport doesn't get closed, but the more juice you and your neighbors have with the local politicians (city or county council, whoever is in charge), the more likely you are to be happy with the final outcome.

Again, I hope that a resolution can be found that works for you, your neighbors, and the airport. Good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by lopezp:
Yes, Timber has a value. The value is subject to several influences, just as a home or vehichle. If you can determine the trees have a historical or some other tangential value, then do it. As an example -

Years ago, the county wanted part of my parents land for an easement to a new cell tower. We fought it, but ultimately lost. They agreed to pay $400 per tree that had to be removed. There were only 5 trees. We argued that the trees had historical significance, as they were the last remaining trees from a line of trees planted along an old road that no longer existed. In the end, we were paid $17,000 per tree

Holy frijoles.