Trouble ahead over small plane fees

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 07:39 PM


If I provide a subsidy for something,
more of it will be created than the economics justify.

And sometimes that is a Good Thing. Economics is not the be-all and
end-all of life, something libertarians do not see.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large




How does rec flying serve the greater public interest. Sure there is some
benefit to having a CAP, and some airline captains come from the ranks of
GA. But rec flying? Where is the benefit?

How do parks, wildlife areas, wilderness aeas, marinas, golf courses,
tennis courts, etc. serve the public benefit?


Economics is not the be-all, but allocation of scarce resources is
critical to all. Having special interest groups (whether it be GA,
agribusiness, boating, etc.) pulling the political strings is a shame,
though.

They have to pull the strings just to survive in a hostile political
environment dominated by real estate developers.

Skylune wrote:
How does rec flying serve the greater public interest. Sure there is some
benefit to having a CAP, and some airline captains come from the ranks of
GA. But rec flying? Where is the benefit?

Fine, if everything were looked at that way.
Does "public art" beneift the general public? Or does it just benefit
the arts community, whomever that is. Yet many communities
(unfortunately) have a "percent for the arts" or similar programs.
Aviation is an economic engine, and a transportation mode. It is a
general benefit in those areas, the same as having individual cars
instead of mass transportation (which should change, but that's a
different thread, and possibly ng.)

Tom Conner wrote:
Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

But when a community closes an airport, what happens to the value of
the infrastructure, not just the land.

If the community buys your house, they buy the house and the lot.
Maybe they bulldoze the house, but they have to buy that first.
I'm not aware of communities paying for the runways, towers, hangars,
etc. Those investments seem to just disappear, and the aviation
community is supposed to wander in the desert for 40 years looking for
a new. home.
The developers didn't tie up their money for decades, investing in the
land. They use commmunity government connections to get them condemned
or otherwise closed, and reap $$$$$$$$ on aviations investment. This
is doubly dammned because they build the houses next to the airport,
that got the residents, that complained about the noise, that was there
before they moved in, that was less than their kid's boombox cars.

End of rant. Continue with your normal programming.

Many communities have noise ordinances

.... that are totally ineffectual against leaf blowers. They don't blow
at 2 AM , that's not the problem. They blow all day, from 8AM to 8PM.

If there is noise that
exceeds the community thresholds...

Balderdash on the "community". They exceed =my= standards. Why should
a bunch of noise loving fastidious lawn zealots ruin my quiet so that
they can have pristine green?

If
you circle in a Mooney at 1000 feet at 2 am, generating even more noise...

A Mooney at 1000 feet doesw not generate more noise than a leafblower.

...there is no penalty. And, the noise maker is completely anonymous.

Hardly. Radar tracks are all over the place. You can even get them
yourself on the internet. It's going to get even more pervasive.

Yes, every time you cross a NYC
bridge in a car, you are subsidizing the subways. [...]
But I was talking about direct federal subsidies by
transporation mode:

A subsidy is a subsidy.

And, I think some modes of
transportation should receive tax subsidies as they create a general
public good.

That's the first step.

GA should not fall into that category because the
subsidies are huge, it benefits an extremely small segment of society...

The size of the subsidy is irrelevant to whether it creates a public
good. GA creates a general public good.

...(unlike most forms of mass transit that virtually
everybody has used at some point, and some use regularly)

If everybody uses it, then there is no need to subsidize it. Let 'em
pay for their subway rides. Ten bucks a pop, so be it. Why not?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I don't know of any govt. dredging for private marinas (none that I have
ever visited), only for public ports that import/export cargo ships use.

Dams: built to generate power, primarily. Low cost hydro power. Not for
boaters.

You benefit from the dredging, you benefit from the dams. Are you
claiming that you shouldn't have to pay just because "they would be
there anyway"? That's a mighty familiar argument.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Yes, GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

Well, not really. What happens is that the existance of DXR makes the
existance of BID more valuable. DXR is providing positive economic
impact to BID (and the rest of Block Island). Were DXR to be leveled
and replaced with condos or some such, the economic benefit would go to
the land developers, BUT IT WOULD COME OUT OF BID (and other places that
have no say in the matter).

It just =looks= like condos are a better deal, but that's because the
benefit of one airport is spread out over all the other airports.

It's the same argument against getting "corporate taxpayers" on the real
estate rolls. More business developement should mean more town taxes
coming from their corporate tax, and lessen the burden on homeowners.
But it doesn't work that way. Graph the mill rates of towns vs their
corporate development ratio, and you'll see (at least I've found in my
area) that the more corporate developement, the HIGHER the mill rate.

The EXPENSES to the town generated by businesses is diluted so it can't
be seen, but it is juts as real.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose writes:

Many communities have noise ordinances

... that are totally ineffectual against leaf blowers. They don't
blow at 2 AM , that's not the problem. They blow all day, from 8AM to
8PM.

If there is noise that
exceeds the community thresholds...

Balderdash on the "community". They exceed =my= standards. Why
should a bunch of noise loving fastidious lawn zealots ruin my quiet
so that they can have pristine green?

For the same reason that a bunch of late-and-light-sleeping pilots, or
programmers, or photographers, or whatever should be able to prevent
people from working on their lawn before it gets hot outside.

Perfectly legitemate desires can conflict.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On 2006-04-11, Skylune wrote:
or silly variants
like the airport was there first.

Why is it 'silly'? I agree pilots should be neigbourly and operate in a
manner not to cause undue noise, but really - if you don't like the
sound of aircraft, don't live close to an airport or under busy flight
paths. It's common sense to do at least that much due diligence when
buying a house (almost certainly the most expensive purchase you'll ever
make).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

by Jose teacherjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Apr 12, 2006 at 04:13 AM


You benefit from the dredging, you benefit from the dams. Are you
claiming that you shouldn't have to pay just because "they would be
there anyway"? That's a mighty familiar argument




Wait: Dams directly benefit consumers of electricity, farmers and other
water users, lakefront property owners, and boaters. None would be built
if they had to be financed by private boat owners alone.

On the other hand, GA airports benefit only pilots. (No, I don't believe
the economic benefit studies. There are also studies that say taxpayer
subsidized sports stadiums are economic drivers: more nonsense.)

by Dylan Smith Apr 12, 2006 at 11:19 AM



Why is it 'silly'? I agree pilots should be neigbourly and operate in a
manner not to cause undue noise, but really - if you don't like the
sound of aircraft, don't live close to an airport or under busy flight
paths. It's common sense to do at least that much due diligence when
buying a house (almost certainly the most expensive purchase you'll ever
make).




It is "silly" because it is a pseudo-fact, not an argument. It is
irrelevant, even if true. Lots of things existed that are no longer there
because they were deemed no longer in the best interest of the community
(mills, landfills, etc.).

And if that is the argument, Native Americans would have legitimate
grounds to throw all our asses back across the pond to Europe.

I don't think my opinions are radical: airports have a right to exist,
but they must co-exist with the surrounding townships. They must not rely
on taxpayer subsidies, but should be funded by the users unless the local
community finds it beneficial to subsidize the airstrip.

This FAA funding creates a huge mess, and a welfare state, which is what
GA is in this country.