BACK to letters index

In response to: Plans unveiled for commercial center and 200 homes behind Country Store

The airport was here before the houses, so get used to the noise

I cannot believe that anyone of authority could allow a development within a quarter-mile of the approach end of a runway. We have tolerated the South to the detriment of the safety of pilots and passengers of aircraft arriving at RM.

You don't like it, leave! We were here before you! You bought, you damn fool! I will not endanger the life of my wife nor myself to the stupidity of those who bought on the approach of a runway. The new proposed development is stupidity in the simplest form.

Hope you like the sound of two IO-320 engines.

-- Chuck Lentz, December 22, 2002

Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top

The commercial area is far too close to the airport for a school

The commercial/housing site across the highway is way too close to the airport under the legal requirements for siting a school. It's my understanding that a waiver of some legal restriction siting schools near an airport had to be obtained even for the Stonehouse/Escuela site, a mile or so farther away. It's mind-boggling how close those houses will be to the runway....

Also, those of us who support a "local" school typically desire a location where kids from both sides of the river can walk or ride their bikes to school and school events, without going out upon or across that deadly highway, but without opening RM to a lot of traffic from the outside. Which is why many of us prefer the Stonehouse ridge location on the perimeter of the community, with the school and its own traffic all securely fenced off outside the "RMA" properties, but with a pedestrian gate our kids can use to get to school without ever leaving the community.

Now if we can just get that derned river crossing going....

-- Wilbur Haines, December 18, 2002

Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top

Wouldn't a school on the commercial land make more sense?

I'm new to the area and just learning about the politics and such. It seems pretty unanimous that residents here don't want or need 200 tract homes behind the commercial lot. What I want to know is why isn't that land being used for a school? It seems to me that a school housing 7th to 12th graders would be a better use of that space. If that's the case, how can we get that land?

-- Becky Miller, December 17, 2002

Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top

Putting homes there makes you wonder how these deals are made

I agree, Martha. Officials insist the airport is too close to build a school there, but yet they have no problem filling new homes with children in that exact location. Another interesting note: The Escuela school site is actually deemed too close to the airport for children's safety as well, yet they managed to receive a special approval to use the site anyway. Makes you wonder how deals are made when someone really wants to accomplish something, doesn't it?

-- Candy Chand, December 9, 2002

Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top

There can be all those homes near the airport, but there can't be a school?

I like the preliminary drawings of the new shopping area (view 2, or the one on the bottom, gets my vote). However, I do think that all those homes behind it are a bit much, and yes, "apartment/condo" comes to mind.

What I really find interesting is that those proposed homes are so close to the airport runway! Yes, I read they've proposed public storage (which we do need) to act as a buffer, but if they can put homes there, where there is potential for some units to be occupied 24/7, why can they not build a school there? After all, most of the airport traffic (for now anyhow) happens on the weekend! Kids aren't in school on the weekend, but most people are home! Yes, I know there are zoning reasons, but I think we're all smart enough to know that those "rules" can be changed if a developer has deep enough pockets.

Of course the patch of land near St Vincent de Paul Church is further away from the airport and opponents of a school have used its proximity to the airport as a reason to not give that site serious consideration.

I don't want to start a big debate (once again) about a school in/near Rancho Murieta, but the density of the housing proposed does make one stop and think. I certainly am not interested in seeing homes over there.

-- Martha Glunt, December 9, 2002

Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top

Given the density, the commercial area's homes have to be apartments

The 52-acre commercial site across the street is going to have a 12-acre supermarket/drug store and a 13-acre buffer between the airport and 200 homes. Do the math, folks. That is 200 homes on 27 acres (not accounting for sidewalks/lawns). Can you say "apartments"? I believe it is impossible to build 10-plus single family homes per acre.

I wonder if our RMA board is going to enter into another "mutual benefit" agreement with the other homeowner association that is being proposed?

If they're smart (I think they will be), they'll join Bob Cassano's association and get entitlement to our amenities without having to deal with the RMA at all. How shrewd.

Please try to remember why you moved here in the first place: Security and quality of life. Let's not allow them to bring the damn city to Rancho Murieta.

It's not too late to save your lifestyle and your property's value. I suggest everyone join the effort to fight these guys. Call Janis or Graydon Eckard today!

-- Steven Mobley, December 8, 2002

Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top

BACK to letters index