Sign in, say "hi", ... and be welcomed.

SHGA misinformation still is published

Postby JoeF » Thu Jun 13, 2024 12:12 pm

Why does SHGA still publish false information? The matter was brought up years ago and the SHGA website still publishes misinformation.
What is required to fly at Kagel? They publish a false answer; why do they do such? Membership in private orgs is not required to fly the airspace, but SHGA says membership in private orgs are necessary. Bad! Can SHGA be trusted, if such a core data point is falsely thrusted to the world? It would be so easy to correct the misinformation: "No requirements to fly the airspace except to respect FAA rules. But if you want to land on our private spot of land, then respect our private org rules for the use of the private land." Why does not SHGA simply tell the truth? Is truth important? Is there cooperative misinformation radiated from the $PA org related to these matters? Follow the money? I tend to have a private rule: Do not join any org that deliberately refuses to tell the truth.

I asked Chat GPT 3.5 to polish the above:
**Why Does SHGA Still Publish False Information?**

Years ago, the issue was raised, yet the SHGA website continues to disseminate misinformation.

What is truly required to fly at Kagel? SHGA claims that membership in private organizations is necessary to fly the airspace, which is simply not true. Membership in private organizations is not required; only FAA rules must be followed. SHGA should clarify this: "No requirements to fly the airspace except to respect FAA rules. However, if you want to land on our private spot of land, you must adhere to our organization's rules."

Can SHGA be trusted if such a fundamental piece of information is falsely presented to the public? Correcting this misinformation would be simple.

Why doesn't SHGA just tell the truth? Is truth important? Is there cooperative misinformation propagated by related organizations? Follow the money.

I have a personal rule: Do not join any organization that deliberately refuses to tell the truth.
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization: US Hawks at ushawks.org

View pilots' hang gliding rating at: US Hang Gliding Rating System
JoeF
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:41 pm

Re: SHGA misinformation still is published

Postby Frank Colver » Sat Jun 15, 2024 10:42 am

I'm not writing in support of their information but I can offer my guess as to why they don't say that "anyone can fly off the mountain (if they can get up there) but in order to land on their private property you must belong to the following orgs....."

My guess is that if they did that they worry that it opens them to pilots, without those memberships, landing on their property and claiming it an emergency landing because there were no other suitable landing areas within their reach.

Balloonists have used this excuse, after landing on private property, so often that land owners are sick of it and fights have occurred. :x

Frank
Frank Colver
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 11:21 am

Re: SHGA misinformation still is published

Postby Bob Kuczewski » Sat Jun 15, 2024 11:48 am

JoeF wrote:Is truth important?


Yes, truth is important to everyone, but not everyone knows how important it actually is.

USHPA lost their insurance, in part, because they were not willing to see the truth at Torrey. The Shannon Hamby accident had been waiting to happen for a long time. USHPA had been warned. That truth was truly important to USHPA, but they didn't want to know it.

The same is true for hanggliding.org. At one time, hanggliding.org was a place where everyone could speak and share information about the sport. Each speaker's reputation for truth stood on its own merit. But Jack didn't want to see all truths, and he began banning those whose truths he could not defeat in a fair argument. Now hanggliding.org is a shadow of its former self. Truth was important to the vitality of hanggliding.org, but Jack didn't want to know it.

More than any other species, human beings have the ability to grasp the truth. That means building a model - in our heads - of what the real world is really like. Each of us builds a model of the world and we use that model throughout our lives. The fidelity of that model (how well it reflects the real world) is key to our survival in the world. Dishonesty undermines the fidelity of our models, and dishonesty harms us in ways that may not be immediately obvious. That's what happened to USHPA, and to Jack, and to the sport as a whole. Lack of truth has not been the only factor, but it has been a significant contributor to the decline of hang gliding.
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization: US Hawks at ushawks.org
View my rating at: US Hang Gliding Rating System
Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
Bob Kuczewski
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8244
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: SHGA misinformation still is published

Postby dhmartens » Sat Jun 15, 2024 9:16 pm

The truth.
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, 601 U.S. ____ (2024) (Sheetz), clarifying that the Takings Clause does apply to legislatively established land-use permit conditions, like development impact fees.

meaning? the SHGA conditional use permit based on Santiago Estates permit has been upheld.

more truth?
The High Speed rail tunnel is going to intersect the edge of SHGA hang 2 landing strip.
Image

Channel 4 salutes SHGA


Music: in the air again by michael helms
https://youtu.be/bS4whXP3MH4?t=2380

More music, I got VG
dhmartens
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:28 pm
Location: Reseda California

Re: SHGA misinformation still is published

Postby Bob Kuczewski » Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:51 am

Thanks for the interesting case reference Doug. I've included one review of the Sheetz decision here.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/cour ... e-dispute/

Amy Howe wrote:OPINION ANALYSIS

Court rules for property owner in building fee dispute

By Amy Howe
on Apr 12, 2024 at 1:56 pm

California homeowner George Sheetz won a victory at the Supreme Court on Friday in his challenge to the constitutionality of a fee that he was required to pay the county to receive a permit to build his home. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the justices agreed with Sheetz that conditions on building permits should be subject to heightened scrutiny even if they were authorized by legislation, rather than imposed on an individual basis by administrators.

The decision was a relatively narrow one that did not come as much of a surprise after the oral argument in January, at which Justice Neil Gorsuch had observed that both Sheetz and the county were in “radical agreement” on the question that the court had agreed to decide. The justices on Friday answered only that question – in Sheetz’s favor – and sent the case back to the state courts for another look in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The dispute began in 2016, when Sheetz wanted to build a manufactured home on a lot that he owns in Placerville, Calif. El Dorado County, where the lot is located, told Sheetz that he would be required to pay “traffic impact mitigation fees” before he could receive a building permit. Sheetz paid the fee, but he also went to state court to challenge the fee’s constitutionality.

Sheetz argued that the fee violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which bars the government from taking private property for public use “without just compensation.” He told the state courts that to determine whether the fee passes constitutional muster, they should apply the test outlined by the Supreme Court in two property rights cases, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon. Those cases, taken together, hold that if a government wants to require someone to give up property in exchange for a land-use permit, it must show that such a condition is closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the proposed land use. In Sheetz’s case, he argued, they meant that the county was required to make a case-by-case determination that the $24,000 fee was necessary to offset the impact of congestion attributable to his project.

The state courts declined Sheetz’s suggestion. They concluded that the Nollan/Dolan test only applies to fees imposed on an individual basis, rather than fees – like the traffic impact mitigation fee – authorized by legislation.

The Supreme Court on Friday disagreed. In her 11-page opinion for a unanimous court, Barrett explained that nothing in the text of the Constitution indicates that the takings clause does not apply to fees imposed by legislatures. The same is true, she continued, for the history of the takings clause. “In fact,” she wrote, “special deference for legislative takings would have made little sense historically, because legislation was the conventional way that governments exercised their eminent domain power.” Nor, she added, do the Supreme Court’s cases interpreting the takings clause distinguish in any way “between legislation and other official acts.”

Barrett emphasized that the court’s ruling did not resolve some of the other issues raised by Sheetz’s challenge regarding the validity of the fee – “including whether a permit condition imposed on a class of properties must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular development.” The state appeals court did not weigh in on this or other unresolved questions, Barrett explained, because it “proceeded from the erroneous premise that legislative permit conditions are categorically exempt from the requirements of Nollan and Dolan.” “Whether the parties’ other arguments are preserved and how they bear on Sheetz’s legal challenge are,” Barrett concluded, “for the state courts to consider in the first instance.”

Three different justices wrote brief concurring opinions in which they weighed in on some of the issues that they raised at the oral argument and some of the questions left unanswered by the court’s ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor had in January pointed to other property-related fees that governments often impose and questioned whether the takings clause applies to Sheetz’s case at all. In an opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, she argued that Nollan and Dolan only apply if the fee would have been a taking of property requiring government compensation if the government had imposed it outside the permitting process. That question, Sotomayor indicated, remains open in Sheetz’s case.

For Gorsuch, the answer to the question “whether the Nollan/Dolantest operates different when an alleged taking affects a ‘class of properties’ rather than a ‘particular development’” was clear: “Nothing about that test depends on whether the government imposes the challenged condition on a large class of properties or a single tract or something in between.”

But in a one-paragraph opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh – joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan – wrote separately to stress that the court had “explicitly decline[d] to decide” the question flagged by Gorsuch in his concurring opinion. Therefore, Kavanaugh noted, the court’s ruling in Sheetz’s case “does not address or prohibit the common government practice of imposing permit conditions, such as impact fees, on new developments through reasonable formulas or schedules that assess the impact of classes of development rather than the impact of specific parcels of property.” Moreover, Kavanaugh stressed, “no prior decision of this Court has addressed or prohibited that longstanding practice.”

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.

Posted in Merits Cases
Cases: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Court rules for property owner in building fee dispute, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 12, 2024, 1:56 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/cour ... e-dispute/


I am not sure what the Sheetz decision has to do with Joe's complaint about the SHGA spreading misinformation about legal flight requirements (or my comment about truth), but it is an interesting case. Thanks.

Similarly, I'm not sure what the high speed rail issue has to do with Joe's complaint (or my own), but I did go to their web site https://hsr.ca.gov/2024/05/24/news-rele ... s-angeles/ to find this larger map (below). From this map, it looks like there are several alternatives. I think only the westernmost route would affect the Sylmar LZ. Do you know which (If any) has been selected yet?
 
HSR_map_Palmdale-to-Bubank-Pref-Alt_quarter-page_rb-01.png
HSR_map_Palmdale-to-Bubank-Pref-Alt_quarter-page_rb-01.png (266.92 KiB) Viewed 87 times
Join a National Hang Gliding Organization: US Hawks at ushawks.org
View my rating at: US Hang Gliding Rating System
Every human at every point in history has an opportunity to choose courage over cowardice. Look around and you will find that opportunity in your own time.
Bob Kuczewski
User avatar
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 8244
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Forum Statistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Options

Return to Hang Gliding General