Let me propose a simple, balanced solution: the airport can stay, but it pays for the burdens it imposes. We'll start by billing it for the economic losses Palo Alto incurred because of the severed powerline.

Fair enough?

Are you serious Paul? Cause if you are, what a crock of bs.

Gee Paul, just like a true Shallow Altan you bring up money in a time of grief and sorrow.....lives were lost. Enough said

Hmm, a plane crashes and people comment on things that are on their minds, like is the airport a problem, what is their chance of a plane hitting their house, etc ... hardly seems shallow or navel gazing to me ... the OP is out of line. Yes, some people are not great at phrasing their concerns ... guess we have to live with that in a democracy.

This is indeed a tragedy, however we cannot rush to judgement. Nobody wanted this to happen, including the pilots and passengers. Just as nobody plans to get into an accident on the freeway, this was not planned and really was an accident. The pilot (as every pilot does before any takeoff) made a risk/benefit analysis and for his/her experience level, the airplane and the conditions, felt it was acceptable to depart. For those not familiar with aviation, it seems very easy to point blame and cause, but with most of these situations - in the final analysis - it is often a combination of many factors. Flying is statistically about as dangerous as motorcycle riding or recreational boating. Should we just ban those activities?

For the person who proposes we "bill" the airport... how about we "bill" highway 101 everytime there is an accident or traffic jam? Or how about we "bill" everyone who passes through an intersection and uses electricity for stoplights on El Camino? Boats passing under the Bay Bridge? This is all part of transportation infrastructure, and we all benefit from it. One day you or someone you love may need a lifeflight helicopter to get you to a hospital in a hurry.

What happened today is a tragedy indeed. Let's be rational in the response and realize there are many sides to any story. And please, let's all avoid speculation on why this happened - leave that to the NTSB.

-Rich

I actually saw many positive things around town today. People chatted to each other, people smiled and laughed together, people helped each other, neighbors checked on each other. Yes, it was a tragedy for the people involved, but I think for the rest of us it was a day for reflecting on the important things and working out together how to get through this. There were problems that need to be sorted out, but the big picture is we worked together and survived smiling.

"For the person who proposes we "bill" the airport... how about we "bill" highway 101 everytime there is an accident or traffic jam? , etc, etc."

Highway 101 pays its way as it goes; it is available to and used by everyone. It is part of our transportation infrastructure, and we all benefit from it.

But general aviation airports like PAO are not part of our transportation infrastructure, and we do not all benefit from them. General aviation benefits the privileged few who can afford the money and time for an optional activity, who are subsidized by the general public. They should be made to pay their true costs - if they can afford to.

Whether the airport stays or goes will probably depend on how many residents of EPA sue PA for all the damaged this aircraft caused when it crashed into their neighborhood. Hopefully Palo Alto's insurance company will cover all claims, but will they in the future if we continue to insist upon keeping an unsafe airport.

Les, outside of this one accident who is to say this is an unsafe airport? Where are your facts to back up this statement. I am amazed that with a town that is suppose to be filled with educated people there are those that throw around falsities as if they are facts. Just because you say something does not make it so.