Bad news day in Sacramento

In article ,
"Dave Stadt" wrote:

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Tom Conner" wrote in
k.net:


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Boy, nothing like a nice day in Feburary to put GA in the news. I was
watching channel 10 in Sacramento last night. They opened with 3 GA
accidents...

http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15902
3) Cherokee in San Jose has engine trouble (or something like that).


I don't think this was in San Jose. San Jose, at Reid-Hillview, had a
plane crash onto Tully road after running out of fuel. A few seconds
earlier and it would have crashed into Eastridge Mall. RHV is one crash
away from closing and this had the potential to be the one. Its also
the 2nd RHV crash in a month where the pilot ran out of fuel. The other
landed on 680.

So the airport is responsible for stupid pilots forgetting to gas
up their planes and therefore should be shut down? Must be gov't logic.

Brian

No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two in
a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a mirror
is needed to find the problem.

It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.

FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
profits to the County.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two in
a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a mirror
is needed to find the problem.

It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.

FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
profits to the County.

Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes). Yet the FAA wants
all the PROFITS from
their original acquisition funding.

RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed
taxes. Us boomers
like the temperate climate and nearby Sierra attractions. Gotta fix
that ground shaking issue..JG

wrote:
Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes)

That sounded familiar. So I looked and found it. Here are parts of
today's news article:

"...New projections buried in the Interior Departement's budget plan,
aniticpate that the government will let companies pump about $65
billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the
next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
"Based on adminostration figures, the government will give up more than
$7billion in payments by 2011. The Companies are expected to get the
largess, known as royalty relief, even though the adminstration assumes
that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout the period.
"Administration officials say THE BENEFITS ARE DICTATED BY LAWS THAT
DATE TO 1996 (my capitalization), when energy prices were low and
Congress wanted to encourage more exploration in the deep water of the
Gulf of Mexico.
.....
"But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
levels that alarm even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry.

There was a tax incentive some months ago that gave a $300million break
to oil companies to encourage development. Personally, I figure $60-70
a barrel is incentive enough. I'm no friend of these tax breaks, nor
particularly of big oil.

However, I quoted the news story above to point out that the tax breaks
started in 1996. Clinton was in office and Cheney was in private life
at that time, IIRC. And Cheney can't give away anything--Congress has
to act first. Accuracy, and not hypberbole, will get us a lot more
truth.

BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

wrote:

wrote:

Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes)


That sounded familiar. So I looked and found it. Here are parts of
today's news article:

"...New projections buried in the Interior Departement's budget plan,
aniticpate that the government will let companies pump about $65
billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the
next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
"Based on adminostration figures, the government will give up more than
$7billion in payments by 2011. The Companies are expected to get the
largess, known as royalty relief, even though the adminstration assumes
that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout the period.
"Administration officials say THE BENEFITS ARE DICTATED BY LAWS THAT
DATE TO 1996 (my capitalization), when energy prices were low and
Congress wanted to encourage more exploration in the deep water of the
Gulf of Mexico.
....
"But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
levels that alarm even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry.

There was a tax incentive some months ago that gave a $300million break
to oil companies to encourage development. Personally, I figure $60-70
a barrel is incentive enough. I'm no friend of these tax breaks, nor
particularly of big oil.

However, I quoted the news story above to point out that the tax breaks
started in 1996. Clinton was in office and Cheney was in private life
at that time, IIRC. And Cheney can't give away anything--Congress has
to act first. Accuracy, and not hypberbole, will get us a lot more
truth.

Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting - wrote:
Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)

Not that facts ever altered a good opinion, including mine. 8)))

wrote:
Matt Whiting - wrote:

Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)


Not that facts ever altered a good opinion, including mine. 8)))


This is true. Someone, maybe Mark Twain, had a famous quote to that affect.

Matt

wrote:
wrote:
Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes)

That sounded familiar. So I looked and found it. Here are parts of
today's news article:

"...New projections buried in the Interior Departement's budget plan,
aniticpate that the government will let companies pump about $65
billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the
next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
"Based on adminostration figures, the government will give up more than
$7billion in payments by 2011. The Companies are expected to get the
largess, known as royalty relief, even though the adminstration assumes
that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout the period.
"Administration officials say THE BENEFITS ARE DICTATED BY LAWS THAT
DATE TO 1996 (my capitalization), when energy prices were low and
Congress wanted to encourage more exploration in the deep water of the
Gulf of Mexico.
....
"But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
levels that alarm even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry.

There was a tax incentive some months ago that gave a $300million break
to oil companies to encourage development. Personally, I figure $60-70
a barrel is incentive enough. I'm no friend of these tax breaks, nor
particularly of big oil.

However, I quoted the news story above to point out that the tax breaks
started in 1996. Clinton was in office and Cheney was in private life
at that time, IIRC. And Cheney can't give away anything--Congress has
to act first. Accuracy, and not hypberbole, will get us a lot more
truth.

The law was passed in 1996 by Congress, controlled by Gingrich and
Lott.
From an ethical perspective $65 BILLION is a lot to give away. Even the
standard
12 percent royalty is a joke.


BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.

JG

JG wrote:
Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.

I understand what you are saying, and to a limited extent I agree that
it's valid, but it assumes that the only measure of "highest and best"
is $$ return to the city on taxes.

It might also be simple economics if the city (or whoever) bought the
land and infrastructure, instead of simply eliminating it. It may be
simple economics for someone to replace your modest house with a
mansion, but they have to buy your house first, not just bulldoze it
into oblivion without compensation.

For an entity such as an airfield, with its need for land and
infrastructure, there needs to be a reasonable assumption that it will
continue in existance, and not be forced out just because someone has
an idea for more money, or someone who should have known better moved
in next door. IMO, anyway. Especially when the "better use" is just a
developer putting in more homes, which themselves could be put
somewhere else, eliminating the need for destroying an airfield.

I believe if somehow we could stop the non-reimbursement for the
infrastructure, we could save a few more airports.

Well, it would be nice anyway.

In article .com,
wet the bed, took a drink from the toilet and
scrawled:

(snipped)

BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.


By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
wet the bed, took a drink from the toilet and
scrawled:

(snipped)

BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

Its a matter of the highest and best use of the land, simple economics.


By that ass(umption), then let'$ $ell all the park$ and turn them over
to developer$ -- highe$t and be$t u$e of the land, after all!

And schools. They produce no revenue and are a huge tax burden.