I have heard this phrase applied before by Council Member John Simmonds, even suggesting at one time, if my memory is correct (and it is not always) that the city might want to investigate to establish the membership size of one neighborhood group.

            An irony here is that Mr. Simmonds is the council liaison to the airport advisory committee.

            By the way, I don’t oppose the airport being where it is. The aircraft owners seemed to be expressing fear that the airport would be moved, although city officials and council members have been on the record more than once stating that was not on their agenda.

            There are, however, reasonable citizen complaints about the airport noise and pollution, two factors that proper management could control to a large extent, and about submarket rents, which have still not been fully corrected. Instead we had a political pep rally — by, it turns out, a noisy minority.

Twenty-five tenants

            Politicians are usually pretty good at counting votes, but ours may be missing a bet.

            There are about 225 hangers and tie-downs at the airport. Fred Watts, airport manager, told me some time ago he did not have a full count, but he estimated 225-250 planes.

There are roughly 20,000 people in Venice, and if each airplane was owned by two citizens of Venice that would be 450 people with a direct interest. No way.

            In fact, the numbers are much worse: 155 people and a company or two rent 164 hangers. The overwhelming majority do not live in the city of Venice at all. In fact, only about 20-22 appear to. (There are another 50-60 tie-downs and the percentage of residents among them is not in this tally.)

            I found 13 people and one corporation listed by zip code in 34285. The list came from the airport management through two citizens who matched street addresses with city limits and found eight or nine lived in areas such as Waterford that are part of the city in zip code 34292. Not all of 34292 is in the city. The examiners said they checked each address they could and only a few could not be determined.

            Perhaps we should rename the airport the Englewood Airport — I found 20 people with Englewood addresses.

            I know some bright people who are pilots here: Paul Hollowell, chair of the airport advisory board; John Yurosko, DMD, also on the board (he lives outside the city); and a couple of Englewood friends.

            They could have presented some arguments, sensibly, in 10 or 15 minutes. Instead, we had people shouting out, “The airport was there when you moved here.”

            Let’s see — that means that we should not try to remedy the red tide problem, because it was here for many years, perhaps centuries. We also should not be concerned about beach erosion; when I came here there was no beach.

            One person mentioned, sensibly, the narrow East Venice Avenue Bridge, which is increasingly congested. He suggested using some of the land along the north side of Venice Avenue where a proposed development is sited, to allow two more lanes on the bridge in the future.

            The mayor agreed that was worth thinking about. Nobody said, “The bridge was here before you moved here; why complain about it?”

            Perhaps a more thoughtful answer is for the city to be more aggressive about solving problems. The pilots’ association has developed recommendations for proper flight paths — a plus. However, no city employee enforces them on a regular basis with warnings or reminders.

            The moving of the jet facilities to free neighbors from noise and terrible jet fuel exhaust pollution is one of things that folks at the airport and the city say may happen someday — no promises. It’s only a potential health hazard.

            Well, folks on council — with 20-25 real residents involved (one in 1,000 citizens), maybe some changes deserve a closer look.

Density marches on

            The recent comprehensive plan approvals included at least two identifying sites for up to 18 units per acre. The maximum in the county, except for affordable housing, is 13.

            Why do we need more density than the county? “Sensible growth” or “moderate growth” sounds good coming out of public officials’ mouths, but the old patterns just keep being approved.

            I have heard a local land-use attorney say about 1,000 times, “You must have density if you want affordable housing.” However, none of his clients, except Gulf Coast Community Foundation of Venice, has ever suggested that was its goal.

            When the time comes to rezone these 18 unit lots, how about saying, “Anything over 13 has to be ‘affordable.’ ” Wow, what a radical idea!