That is not remotely true. There are no 'air rights'. Let's see you try putting up a tall building or antenna without getting FAA approval and being responsible for lighting it. Once Supreme Court case has essentially said 83 feet is reasonable (US v Causby). You will not find a single citation that supports your 50-100 claim. You just made it up or heard it and think it is true, but it is not.
FAA has already admitted that their C&D letters are not really C&D letters and have no force of law. Look at the Equasearch v FAA case history and findings.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2343...
Slashdot Mirror
That is not remotely true. There are no 'air rights'. Let's see you try putting up a tall building or antenna without getting FAA approval and being responsible for lighting it. Once Supreme Court case has essentially said 83 feet is reasonable (US v Causby). You will not find a single citation that supports your 50-100 claim. You just made it up or heard it and think it is true, but it is not.
FAA has already admitted that their C&D letters are not really C&D letters and have no force of law. Look at the Equasearch v FAA case history and findings. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2343...
The controversial part is that the FAA doesn't have the authority it is claiming to have and is overstepping.