ok then a lot less would mind 
I think you are completely underestimating if not ignoring the upheaval involved in moving house  for families with children at school if they have to change catchment area.
yeah when i said not too far away, i said that meaning close enough to avoid children changing schools and being near to family etc
when i read what aclsss wrote I immediately thought of stuff like things money cant buy, like if your partner or family member's ashes are scattered there or if you're overly attached to memories etc
However that doesn't happen , what happens is you get a price for your house that's the market value and a small amount more .
Or there is years of negotiation on building new houses for people affected , and that's why it takes years
Catchment areas are a terrible issue though.Being on the wrong side of a road can make the difference.
Unless they created a new catchment bubble at the new site.It's completely subjective, but I'd suggest that a lot more than 50% of people would not want a compulsory purchase order slapped on their house.And it takes a lot less than that to have an MP in favour of the Runway voted out.
Anyone have an idea about how to go about estimating the total cost of all the people, meetings ... that have been involved in deciding to do nothing for the last 20 years.
Imagine a hugely obscene number, multiply it by 20, then multiply it by the number of London Airports. Then multiply it by the number of posts in this thread.Then multiply it by the number of days this thread has been running.
Of course the cheaper option is just to build runways regardless
Reminds me of the movie "contact" where someone says something like, "the first rule of government spending, why build one, when you can build two at twice the (usually inflated) price?"