"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsroHc.50517$XM6.16280@attbi_s53...
[...]
The general public, when presented with this referendum, will hear the
council and the mayor saying "we are doing this to help the airport" --
and
what chance will we have, with our "doom and gloom" message?

What chance? Simple enough: write some language, to be included in the
dissolution referendum, to a) require some sort of professional with a real
aviation background and real aviation qualifications to actually handle the
administration duties the City Council proposes to take on (in a real way,
not a "this advisor here that we never listen to" way), and b) restrict the
City Council from taking any action that might be detrimental to the
airport, including closing it and selling the land to a developer.

You (or a similar interested party) get to write the language. Make it as
reasonable, but as iron-clad as you can (IMHO, the simpler the language, the
fewer the loopholes, but you still need to remember to consider all the
possibilities). Then, in your public battle against the proposal, you
request (demand?) that the language be included in the referendum.

The City Council will either agree to it or they won't. If they do agree to
it, then you're "fine" (inasmuch as anyone is ever fine when dealing with
the government). If they don't agree to it, then that's your talking point
when lobbying against the referendum. "See? If the City Council really
wanted the airport to survive, they'd have no problem including this
addendum to the referendum" (you might not want to put that particular rhyme
in your press packet though ).

I know, "easier said than done". Even so, I think you ought to consider a
tactic along those lines.

Which is not to say that lobbying the council to prevent the referendum in
the first place isn't a good strategy. The earlier you nip it in the bud,
the better off you'll be, as you obviously know. This is just an idea for
down the road, if Plan A fails.

Pete