1. 1


    Marianna, I think your blame is misplaced. According to Jeff Rader, the County was the one that posted the no trespass signs — not the airport.

    “This overt action compelled the County to post the property so that there could be no misunderstanding of the property’s legal function and restrictions.”

  2. 2


    Marianne, I think your blame is misplaced. It was the county that posted the No Trespass signs — not the airport. From Commissioner Rader:

    “This overt action compelled the County to post the property so that there could be no misunderstanding of the property’s legal function and restrictions.”

  3. 3

    William Murray

    I spoke with the airport crew that installed the signs, while they were installing them. They told me they were working at the direction of Mario Evans, PDK manager (provisional). They told me to direct my questions to him. Commissioner Rader may back the airport on this action, however, this clumsy method of interacting with the neighborhood is Evans responsibility.

  4. 4

    Eddie E.

    I’ve always found the concept ‘good neighbor’ for the airport to be an oxymoron.
    Of course that may explain why they have essentially blocked the use of the noise complaint system. If you cant record a complaint, there must not be any noise.

  5. 5


    The neighbor analogy is not a good one. Most people would probably not allow the entire neighborhood to use their private property as they saw fit.

  6. 6

    Melanie Bass Pollard

    Council members were asked last night what the status on this was. I thought the Mayors answer was vague as to the status. I hope that when John Parks returns from vacation that he can give everyone a better update. It’s important to Brookhaven’s city-wide tree canopy that should have goals set to preserve. We are already in a deficit with our canopy which the Mayor promised he would protect. It’s time to hear how they intend to help citizens protect this valuable greenspace that provides 100’s of $1,000’s worth of public resources in both public greenspace parks, storm water protection, city-wide property value, air pollution, CO2, energy conservation, wildlife habitats. If the site follows the existing pattern of development, we will see that storm water protection, which would have lived 100’s of years, be replaced with detention ponds that only serve to raise our rising cost of water and city water maintenance costs. Retention ponds are the not the solution. Our beautiful trees are and that’s what makes us unique. We need this land, this park to be retained as is. Is there a grassroots effort to help raise funds for this? I think public fund-raising combined with the city appropriating funds, it can be achieved.

  7. 7

    Eddie E.

    Well, at least they are a ‘good neighbor’ to the urban outdoors encampment near the corner of Tobey and Clairmont since neither Brookhaven PD nor the Aiport security seems at all concerned about vagrancy enforcement there.
    As for the rest of the neighborhood, I don’t see much ‘neighborliness’.

  8. 8

    Not The Mayor

    This is private property. Is not an issue of being a good neighbor and make that claim is nothing short of childish. Its about liability and allowing the general public full use and access to airport property. Im sure as soon as you allow them to land planes on your yard they will allow you to use their greenspace. Wait, you prob don’t want planes on your yard or neighbors getting hurt on your property and suing you.

    Bottom line is that property is not yours and that airport was there (1940) a long time before a majority of local homeowners started trespassing on their property and trying to claim it as your own.

  9. 9


    Why did you buy a house next to the airport and not expect noise?

  10. 10

    Eddie E.

    I expect the airport to follow the noise profile guidelines and voluntary curfew.
    Of course, I would much prefer a MANDATORY curfew for ALL flights.

Comments are closed.