[sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- From: "Matt" <mluttinen@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:29:46 -0700
Isn’t the Flatiron site in the future Douglas Ranch development? If so, we
will lose the site completely.
Personally, I consider it already lost. For a 1-hour drive, the light dome
is huge.
Matt
_____
From: sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dan Gruber
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:02 PM
To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-forum] Flatiron and vicinity
The CSC lied yesterday and said viewing at Flatiron would be okay until
midnight. I was there from 4.15 – 4.45 pm and it was completely overcast. I
left when nobody showed up to commiserate with.
More interesting were the signs posted all over the place indicating that a
developer wants to amend the local general plan to develop up to 85,000
homes (plus other stuff) on about 25,000 acres running roughly from 335th
Ave. to 370th Ave. and from I – 10 north to the canal. This would bring
development to about 5 miles south of the site. Combined with relentless
development west of the White Tanks (see today’s AZ Republic), this doesn’t
bode well. I wonder how many more years we have for reasonably dark skies at
Flatiron?
Happy holidays,
Dan
PS. If anybody has the week off from work and would like to try observing
later in the week, please let me know.
Dan Gruber
HYPERLINK "mailto:dgruber@xxxxxxxxxxxx"dgruber@xxxxxxxxxxxx
home (480) 951 - 6877
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.23/591 - Release Date: 12/17/2006
3:17 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.23/591 - Release Date: 12/17/2006
3:17 PM
- Follow-Ups:
- [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- From: Steve Coe
- References:
- [sac-forum] Flatiron and vicinity
- From: Dan Gruber
Other related posts:
- » [sac-forum] Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- » [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- [sac-forum] Re: Flatiron and vicinity
- From: Steve Coe
- [sac-forum] Flatiron and vicinity
- From: Dan Gruber