Thanks, America!

Hard work, stubborn faith, *and* a large yearly government handout to prop
up the airport that feeds your business snip

Ah, Gary, I can always count on you to pee on a parade... You couldn't be
more wrong.

At best, fly-in pilots represent 5% of our sales. The best thing that could
POSSIBLY happen to my business would be for the airport to be bulldozed, and
that land developed into homes and businesses. I would probably see an
immediate 300% to 400% increase in business, and the value of the hotel
would absolutely skyrocket.

And we would get out of the business as fast as possible, since the *only*
reason we do this is to hang out with the likes of you all day long!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:eifye.132369$xm3.97873@attbi_s21...
At best, fly-in pilots represent 5% of our sales. The best thing that
could POSSIBLY happen to my business would be for the airport to be
bulldozed, and that land developed into homes and businesses. I would
probably see an immediate 300% to 400% increase in business, and the value
of the hotel would absolutely skyrocket.

Interesting. I was relying largely on your statement, back when you first
contemplated buying the hotel, that "Surprisingly, not very many visitors
are pilots, according to my friend. I chalk this up to a simple lack of
advertising/marketing to the pilot crowd--which Mary and I would rectify
quickly". But if your expectations didn't pan out, then I stand corrected.

One thing still puzzles me, though. An argument you've made in favor of the
airport's government subsidy is that the airport is good for local business.
But if even an *aviation-themed hotel* has its business *diminished by a
factor of three or four* by having the airport next door, then I have
trouble understanding how the airport's net economic effect could actually
be positive. (I'm not saying it couldn't be so--just that it's hard to
understand offhand.)

--Gary

Interesting. I was relying largely on your statement, back when you first
contemplated buying the hotel, that "Surprisingly, not very many visitors
are pilots, according to my friend. I chalk this up to a simple lack of
advertising/marketing to the pilot crowd--which Mary and I would rectify
quickly". But if your expectations didn't pan out, then I stand corrected.

The simple fact is that for every pilot, there are 99 (or more) wannabes.
You know who I mean:

....The folks who took a lesson, and ran out of money or gumption, but love
airplanes...

....The folks whose father/husband/brother flew F-51/86/104/15s in World War
II/Korea/Viet Nam/The Gulf War...

....The folks who never put together the $3500 it cost to become a pilot, but
can spring $99 to be surrounded by luxury and aviation...

....And, yes, the folks who love the *thought* of aviation, but never had the
guts to get out there and do it...

Bottom line, Gary: We're vastly outnumbered by the non-flying public, and
they stay at hotels just as often (or even more often) as than pilots do.
Do the math, and you'll see that pilots will NEVER be more than 5% of our
annual income, unless -- God help us -- the rest of the non-flying public
decides to stay somewhere else.

That said, when you figure that pilots are far less than 1% of the public,
yet 5% of our business comes from pilots, you can see that we're doing a
good job of attracting a LOT of pilots. It's a rare day that I don't have
someone to hangar fly with -- and THAT, my friend, is why we're doing it.

One thing still puzzles me, though. An argument you've made in favor of
the airport's government subsidy is that the airport is good for local
business. But if even an *aviation-themed hotel* has its business
*diminished by a factor of three or four* by having the airport next door,
then I have trouble understanding how the airport's net economic effect
could actually be positive. (I'm not saying it couldn't be so--just that
it's hard to understand offhand.)

I'm always arguing in favor of the airport because it brings a huge return
to the city ($5.7 million) for a tiny annual investment ($180K).

See:

http://alexisparkinn.com/Iowa%202000...n_aviation.pdf

Does that mean that turning the airport into condos and apartments wouldn't
bring MORE money into the city coffers? Perhaps not. But that same
argument can be used on every piece of municipal land, including parks,
parking garages, and 4-lane roads. EVERYTHING would bring in more tax
revenue if the Sears Tower were built on top of it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:H3iye.120998$x96.101044@attbi_s72...
.... snip...
Does that mean that turning the airport into condos and apartments
wouldn't bring MORE money into the city coffers? Perhaps not. But that
same argument can be used on every piece of municipal land, including
parks, parking garages, and 4-lane roads. EVERYTHING would bring in more
tax revenue if the Sears Tower were built on top of it.
--

Careful.

The Kelo decision has opened the way to do just that, for your *private*
property. It will be only a matter of time before lobbyists will convince
someone that it should be extended to *public* property as well.


And your previous post:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:eifye.132369$xm3.97873@attbi_s21...
....snip...
.... The best thing that could POSSIBLY happen to my business would be
for the airport to be bulldozed, and that land developed into homes and
businesses. I would probably see an immediate 300% to 400% increase in
business, and the value of the hotel would absolutely skyrocket.

And we would get out of the business as fast as possible,....


.... amazed me.

I am pleased that you recognize that in some cases, unfettered "free
enterprise" may actually be detrimental to one's quality of life!!! You are
going to be accused of starting to sound like one of those damn-socialist
Canadians! ;-)

Hope your Holiday celebrations went safely and well.

I am pleased that you recognize that in some cases, unfettered "free
enterprise" may actually be detrimental to one's quality of life!!! You
are going to be accused of starting to sound like one of those
damn-socialist Canadians! ;-)

Totally unfettered free trade would be a complete failure in those avenues
of life where this horrible thing we call "Government" must preside.

This is why government was invented, of course. Why would you believe that
I should think otherwise?

Of course, I suspect my version of those required avenues would be
substantially different than yours...

;-)

Hope your Holiday celebrations went safely and well.

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:H3iye.120998$x96.101044@attbi_s72...

The simple fact is that for every pilot, there are 99 (or more) wannabes.

Ok, but even *they*, if they're responding to your aviation theme, are
probably enticed by the view of the next-door airport, aren't they? Would
wannabe pilots really flock to a hotel just because it has some airplane
pictures hanging on the walls?

Does that mean that turning the airport into condos and apartments
wouldn't bring MORE money into the city coffers? Perhaps not.

Whoa, that's quite a distinction. So the airport is economically valuable by
comparison to a *vacant lot*! But compared to the most efficient use of the
property, the airport *stifles* nearby economic activity by a factor of
*four*, according to your estimate (unless there's some reason that an
*aviation-themed hotel* would be *more* adversely affected by an airport
than would most other businesses).

But that same argument can be used on every piece of municipal land,
including parks, parking garages, and 4-lane roads. EVERYTHING would
bring in more tax revenue if the Sears Tower were built on top of it.

Precisely Jay! Market forces are very efficient, but very inhumane in the
goals that they efficiently pursue. That's why we often need government
interventions (such as the airport subsidy you advocate) in order to
*thwart* market forces and promote *quality of life* rather than unfettered
economic growth.

But the thing is, there's often much more at stake than the enjoyment of
General Aviation. Just as we need to thwart market forces in order to
promote access to recreational flying and other GA, we also--but much more
urgently--need to thwart market forces in order to promote expanded access
to education, medical care, and other prerequisites to being able to work
hard and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts.

Happy fourth of July.

--Gary

But the thing is, there's often much more at stake than the enjoyment of
General Aviation. Just as we need to thwart market forces in order to
promote access to recreational flying and other GA, we also--but much more
urgently--need to thwart market forces in order to promote expanded access
to education, medical care, and other prerequisites to being able to work
hard and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts.

As usual, I suspect this is where we part ways, politically. But, as
always, it's been my pleasure jousting with you!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ZOvye.124274$x96.93531@attbi_s72...
As usual, I suspect this is where we part ways, politically. But, as
always, it's been my pleasure jousting with you!

Same here. It's always good to be able to have a respectful debate. Perhaps
someday we can continue the discussion long enough to convert one another.


--Gary