Bad news day in Sacramento

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.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:


"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.

And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
property taxes.

And it's already happening.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise wrote:
"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562

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.

And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
property taxes.

And it's already happening.

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".
When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

And these politicians are the fiscal conservatives.

JG

wrote in message
ups.com...

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".

Okay!

When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

Figured how?

No revenue from the "resell"?

wrote in
ups.com:


Skywise wrote:
"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:bzTIf.29175$Jd.14562

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.

And the neighborhood you live in. After all, a mall or Big Box
store would bring in far more tax revenue than your paltry
property taxes.

And it's already happening.

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".
When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

And these politicians are the fiscal conservatives.

JG

Actually, what I was specifically refering to is the increasing
use of imminent domain to forceably remove people from their
homes and then turning the land over to some developer for
commercial private use.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Robert M. Gary wrote:
One less airport means fewer crashes?

No, but RHV has been on borrowed time for some time now. All the
paperwork is already done to close the airport (EI study etc). The
developers are circling and its just a question of when. Its an
interesting airport to fly into. Its about the most city-locked airport
I've seen. On final you can expect updrafts from the A/C units at the
shopping mall.

-Robert

The adjoining homeowners should be able to cash out at valley market
rates, get a bigger home (out of state) and invest the remaining
equity. America, berry berry good !

JG

Matt Barrow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

There are ample empty Big Box vacancies around suburban Chicago. The
scheme from
the Alan Keyes disciples is to declare a suburban downtown area
"blighted" (usually containing 1950's and earlier buildings) and issue
mega $Millions in bonds to buy up the
blighted real estate (at a hefty price) and resell to connected
developers for your typical yuppie condo/$tarbucks "improvements".

Okay!

When the taxes from the "redevelopment zone" fail to pay off the bonds,
all the town HOMEOWNERS are hit with property tax increases to fund the
mess.

Figured how?

When the "tax increment" fails to pay off that year's bond payment, the
gov. levies
prop. taxes for the difference.

No revenue from the "resell"?

Not enough to cover the gov. purchase price, but some places handled it
free market style:

August 25, 1985
"For homeowners in the subdivisions, such as Oak Brook residents John
Nichols and Perry Johansen, the opportunity to sell their property to a
commercial developer is something of a dream come true. Both struck a
deal
with Vantage Cos., a national developer.
``We thought we`d have to retire in this house,`` said Johansen`s wife,
Linda. ``Now, we`ll be able to afford a bigger home, which the children
need
(the Johansens have two daughters), and a bigger yard, which the dogs
need.
We feel very blessed with this whole deal.``

John Nichols, who lives down the block and around the corner, says his
brick split-level house probably would bring about $90,000 on the
residential market, but he stands to make twice that by selling his lot
to Vantage for $12 a square foot. What`s more, he can keep the house if
he wants by moving it to another site, an idea he plans to investigate.
He also can sell it to a
salvage firm that will strip the house, or he can just walk away and
leave it to the bulldozer.

Vantage has negoitated contracts on all 16 parcels, including 15
houses,
that make up a 5.5-acre site. The company`s objective is to build a
five-
story, 185,000-square-foot office building, said Robert Sholiton,
managing
partner of Vantage`s Chicago-area office.
``Rezoning and redevelopment make sense because time has proved that
the
existing land use is inappropriate,`` Sholiton said. ``Increases in
traffic,
noise and pollution have created undesirable living conditions for
single-
family homes.``

And no TIF funds involved, amazing...JG