Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzuti
I googled that to see if I could find anything about a height limit for towers (I couldn't), but based on the sound of it I don't think it's true. That just seems like a states' rights issue to me. The fed doesn't usually micromanage municipal areas like that.
I think the FAA had a limit on TV or radio towers at 2,000 feet, but I'd imagine that just applies to rural areas where there are likely to be low planes flying overhead and low visibility due to the thinness of the object, and again, that is just listed as reference to radio towers. Wikipedia calls it a "rebuttable presumption" which means I think even the slightest bit of political pressure would mean an exception would be made.
|
the FAA has legal clearance over all US territories to set height limits. the 2000ft. limit was enacted when airplanes became a major mode of transportation, and used to separate the use of high altitudes between planes and buildings(lobbying by the airline industry, before you could have built as high as you wanted). the conception of air rights are a result of this. the whole point was to prevent airplanes from crashing into buildings, planes cant cruise below 2000ft unless there taking off or landing. though that failed on sept 11th. and the world trade center collapse. the idea of the FAA allowing taller structures over the height limit is laughable, if anything im surprised they didn't lower the height limit. if any building challenges the height limit not only will they have to contend with an FAA that will not, under any circumstances gonna give an exception due to ample land area, the public outcry will be enough to kill the project before its even starts the entitlement process.
as long as there's fear of another plane crash, the height limit stays and there is no way to get around it. not even obama can change this.