So a startup business operates completely within the law, follows safety guidelines to a tee, and respectfully tries to work with the community, but just gets more flak for being "bad growth" -- despite serving the needs of many fellow community members.

Only in Atherton -- where there are few meaningful problems to speak of -- can this happen.

I would be ashamed if Atherton's solution is simply to shift their problem to East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park.

And the more easterly approach would also create a conflict with airplanes arriving and depart Palo Alto airport.

The solution is a Controlled Descent Approach starting from a higher altitude not moving the problem to less vocal and less powerful communities.

The ideal solution would be to close these small airports, recognizing them as the environmental and quality-of-life liabilities that they are.
San Carlos' airport location would make a great wetland.

Charles - In 20 years that could be done but until then the City of San Carlos and the City of Palo Alto have a contractual obligation to keep these airports open. And every year they accept new FAA Airport Improvement grants that obligation extends another year.

And long before then, as the three major bay area airports become saturated, the role of these airports will be more fully appreciated.

Many people view Highway 101 as an "environmental and quality-of-life" liability - and most of it WAS once bayland.

The Surf Air noise problem seems to shift to the Menlo Park Willows, Palo Alto Crescent Park and the Duveneck/St. Francis Neighborhoods Web Link

Glad you brought this up, Atherton - while we are talking about moving flight paths, how about we shift the thousands of Jumbos flying into SFO from over East Menlo and East Palo Alto into Atherton's backyards.

Nothing like having jet airbrakes set over your house at 11PM and again at 5 AM, night after night. And sometimes in between too!