Meigs now enjoyed by all!

Dave Stadt wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

We upgraded to underground lines, cha-cha. Be Gone FLYBOY MOOCHERS,
off
my property tax bill.


Your property taxes aren't supporting the airport.

Then where has all the money gone over 15 years? 300 DOLLARS

Seeing as it is Dupage County I would suspect your money has been diverted
to some politicians pet pork project.

It was almost like they were an independent nation out there, with
**********no accountability**************
to the taxpayers," Schillerstrom said.

That has changed, he said.

"I think they've turned the corner. I'm very proud of what they're
doing," Schillerstrom said. "My goal is to get them off the taxes as
soon as possible."

The Airport Authority now collects about $6.5 million annually in real
estate taxes--about 20 percent of its $29.9 million a year budget. None

of the property-tax revenue is used to pay airport operating costs.
Instead, the funds are used to retire debt........ (OF THE AIRPORT)

Moochers, pay your own DEBT, JG

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Years ago, in California, the California Pilots Assn. got the Division
of Aeronautics to conduct surveys to determine the economic value of the
state's GA airports.

Was this the 1991 Watsonville Airport Economic Study, prepared under
the direction of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)?

That's cited he

http://www.watsonvilleairport.com/facts.html

There was also a study of Manassas Regional in 2002 by Infrastructure
Management Group Inc. which found a $45.8 million impact on the local
and county economies and 562 jobs provided by the airport.

Glendale Arizona also did a study:

http://www.ci.glendale.az.us/Airport/impactstudy.cfm

Massachusetts:

http://www.edrgroup.com/edr1/library...economic.shtml

This includes profiles for individual airports. I found this especially
interesting as I've spent a fair bit of time flying into MA airports
for various reasons (though less so since they've mandated prop locks
on transients). Little Chatham Airport has almost 2000 MA visitors
a year (of which my wife and I have been a pair on occasion). That
quiet little strip generates over a million in salary and over four
million in sales.

Culpeper, VA:

http://www.culpepercounty.gov/Airpor...tesArticle.asp

There are plenty of these to be found. Anyone ignoring these has
some agenda that extends beyond the realm of facts involving economic
impact. Yes, airports may receive funds of one sort or another, but so
do roads. The benefits of having roads are pretty clear, but they occur
in ways that are hard to charge back to the road (unless you want toll
booths everywhere {8^). Airports are similar. There's no special sales
tax; they just pay the normal sales tax that everyone else pays. There's
no special payroll tax; just the normal payroll tax that everyone pays.

And so on.

To merely look at the funding provided and call it a drain, ignoring
the benefits, is akin to calling roads a drain because we pay for their
upkeep. It's false to fact, and the claim itself is, as I wrote above,
indication that facts are not the topic of discussion.

Looking at a more global level, there's "The National Economic Impact of
Civil Aviation" from 2002 at:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/DRI-WEFA...mpactStudy.pdf

Even more global:

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/assembl/a35/wp/wp042_en.pdf

- Andrew

wrote:


Then where has the $300 over 15 years on my residential property tax
bill
gone?

In the salaries of employees at the airport, all of whom suffer payroll
taxes, use what money is left to purchase items on which there is sales
tax, etc.

It funds operations at the airport like maintaining the surface, necessary
so pilots can land there, tie down, and leave the airport grounds. What
they then do is spend money in the area, mostly on items which suffer a
sales tax.

And so on.

You pay for roads because they've a benefit. Roads cannot be charged their
cost directly (unless you want all roads to be tolled), but the benefits
exist nevertheless. It's therefore a sound investment. Airports, as shown
in the various studies I cited in a previous posting, operate in a similar
indirect fashion.

To ignore indirect payments such as these is to ignore economic reality. Is
that your intent, or are you merely ignorant of how money works? I hope
the latter, as ignorance is something one can correct. A willful avoidance
of facts is dishonesty (and an unwillful avoidance is psychosis).

So take a look at those studies, or not. Learn, or not.

- Andrew

In article .com,
wet the bed (yet again) and whined:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article .com,
wet the bed (again) and wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

We upgraded to underground lines, cha-cha. Be Gone FLYBOY MOOCHERS,
off
my property tax bill.


Your property taxes aren't supporting the airport.

Then where has all the money gone over 15 years? 300 DOLLARS

The politicians didn't like that, so they suppressed this program.

What is suppressed, plenty of GA airports in CA and plenty of WRECKS
compare Fullerton to LAX.


I see that "jgrove" omitted the fact that CA airports study showed
$110K/year economic benefit to airport areas per based aircraft (old
data, so we should assume more). He doesn't mention the amount of his
taxes going toward supporting street bums (sorry -- "homeless") or
bicycle lanes or other "feel good" tax-supported programs.

Geez, GA is just like SANTA CLAUS,leave out some milk and cookies and
santa will
fly you all kinds of presents. Another "suppressed" study, PLONK.

JG

But... for "jgrove" Santa has a nice bundle of sticks and coal!

Whine, whine, whine!





IMHO, he is just a jealous whiner who has nothing to offer but criticism.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

All produced for customers biased towards GA, using statements like
"estimates and multipliers".
The 190,000 operation of DuPage can afford another paying another $35
each and GET OFF MY
PERSONAL HOME'S PROPERTY TAX BILL! Use the savings from the DEATH TAX'S
Demise
and pay for your toys.

JG

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Years ago, in California, the California Pilots Assn. got the Division
of Aeronautics to conduct surveys to determine the economic value of the
state's GA airports.

Was this the 1991 Watsonville Airport Economic Study, prepared under
the direction of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)?

That's cited he

http://www.watsonvilleairport.com/facts.html

There was also a study of Manassas Regional in 2002 by Infrastructure
Management Group Inc. which found a $45.8 million impact on the local
and county economies and 562 jobs provided by the airport.

Glendale Arizona also did a study:

http://www.ci.glendale.az.us/Airport/impactstudy.cfm

Massachusetts:

http://www.edrgroup.com/edr1/library...economic.shtml

This includes profiles for individual airports. I found this especially
interesting as I've spent a fair bit of time flying into MA airports
for various reasons (though less so since they've mandated prop locks
on transients). Little Chatham Airport has almost 2000 MA visitors
a year (of which my wife and I have been a pair on occasion). That
quiet little strip generates over a million in salary and over four
million in sales.

Culpeper, VA:

http://www.culpepercounty.gov/Airpor...tesArticle.asp

There are plenty of these to be found. Anyone ignoring these has
some agenda that extends beyond the realm of facts involving economic
impact. Yes, airports may receive funds of one sort or another, but so
do roads. The benefits of having roads are pretty clear, but they occur
in ways that are hard to charge back to the road (unless you want toll
booths everywhere {8^). Airports are similar. There's no special sales
tax; they just pay the normal sales tax that everyone else pays. There's
no special payroll tax; just the normal payroll tax that everyone pays.

And so on.

To merely look at the funding provided and call it a drain, ignoring
the benefits, is akin to calling roads a drain because we pay for their
upkeep. It's false to fact, and the claim itself is, as I wrote above,
indication that facts are not the topic of discussion.

Looking at a more global level, there's "The National Economic Impact of
Civil Aviation" from 2002 at:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/DRI-WEFA...mpactStudy.pdf

Even more global:

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/assembl/a35/wp/wp042_en.pdf

- Andrew

In article .com,
wet the bed some more and whined:

All produced for customers biased towards GA, using statements like
"estimates and multipliers".
The 190,000 operation of DuPage can afford another paying another $35
each and GET OFF MY
PERSONAL HOME'S PROPERTY TAX BILL! Use the savings from the DEATH TAX'S
Demise
and pay for your toys.



Call it what you want, but the fact is that GA airports more than pay
for themselves and support the economy. I doubt that JG contributes much
to the economy -- certainly not as much as one GA pilot at the airport
that he disparages.

I doubt that his rundown trailer pays much tax anyhow -- he never
commented whether you support paying taxes to support street bums,
bicycle lanes and parks devoted only to backpackers, yet begrudges small
taxes toward productive airports.


Again: WHINE, WHINE, WHINE!

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Years ago, in California, the California Pilots Assn. got the Division
of Aeronautics to conduct surveys to determine the economic value of the
state's GA airports.

Was this the 1991 Watsonville Airport Economic Study, prepared under
the direction of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)?

That's cited he

http://www.watsonvilleairport.com/facts.html

There was also a study of Manassas Regional in 2002 by Infrastructure
Management Group Inc. which found a $45.8 million impact on the local
and county economies and 562 jobs provided by the airport.

Glendale Arizona also did a study:

http://www.ci.glendale.az.us/Airport/impactstudy.cfm

Massachusetts:

http://www.edrgroup.com/edr1/library...airports-econo
mic.shtml

This includes profiles for individual airports. I found this especially
interesting as I've spent a fair bit of time flying into MA airports
for various reasons (though less so since they've mandated prop locks
on transients). Little Chatham Airport has almost 2000 MA visitors
a year (of which my wife and I have been a pair on occasion). That
quiet little strip generates over a million in salary and over four
million in sales.

Culpeper, VA:

http://www.culpepercounty.gov/Airpor...tesArticle.asp

There are plenty of these to be found. Anyone ignoring these has
some agenda that extends beyond the realm of facts involving economic
impact. Yes, airports may receive funds of one sort or another, but so
do roads. The benefits of having roads are pretty clear, but they occur
in ways that are hard to charge back to the road (unless you want toll
booths everywhere {8^). Airports are similar. There's no special sales
tax; they just pay the normal sales tax that everyone else pays. There's
no special payroll tax; just the normal payroll tax that everyone pays.

And so on.

To merely look at the funding provided and call it a drain, ignoring
the benefits, is akin to calling roads a drain because we pay for their
upkeep. It's false to fact, and the claim itself is, as I wrote above,
indication that facts are not the topic of discussion.

Looking at a more global level, there's "The National Economic Impact of
Civil Aviation" from 2002 at:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/DRI-WEFA...mpactStudy.pdf

Even more global:

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/assembl/a35/wp/wp042_en.pdf

- Andrew

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

In article .com,
wrote:

All produced for customers biased towards GA,

have you done any legitimate study?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

wrote in message
oups.com...

Involving airborne aircraft with severe damage and passenger injuries,
yes,


Why are you changing the criteria now? Previously you defined a wreck as
missing the concrete and raising dirt clouds. Did you find that that
definition put ORD at a disadvantage?



and still waiting for detailed benefits from GA, so far NONE.


Are you saying that transportation has no benefits?

Call it what you want, but the fact is that GA airports more than pay
for themselves and support the economy.

That's for sure.

Our all-GA airport (Iowa City Municipal) contributes $5.7 million to the
local economy annually, for a yearly operational expense of around $180K.

Source: Iowa State University. Read it he

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

If only the rest of our government was so "expensive"...we'd all be
billionaires.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote in message
oups.com...

1. Have you seen those ticket prices? You could have learned to fly for
less!


Free listening on a blanket in the park.


That's for moochers.



2. Jets didn't land at Meigs. The folks who flew out of Meigs were
specifically NOT jet-setters.


Others have reputed this.


Few jets could use Meigs, the runway was only 3899' long and runway 18 had a
displaced threshold leaving only 3350' available for landing traffic.



4. Companies like Clear Channel and TicketMaster will give back much more
to the local community than the aviation businesses based at Meigs?


AV moved to MDW, a great savings due to economies of scale: fuel, mech,
fire etc. already there. BooKoo GA capacity in CGX area.


GA capacity in the CGX area has been zero since CGX was closed.



How many jobs have they created at the concert arena?


The usual arena type: vending, ushers, stage, etc.


How does that compare with the jobs lost by the closure of CGX?



The common taxpayer was swindled into subsidizing another Media
Conglomerate winfall project...


The revenues from Clear Channel will fund future park facilities on
NORTHERLY ISLAND. No
mooching from taxpayers.


The revenues from Clear Channel will find their way to Daley's pocket. The
taxpayers lost an asset when Meigs was closed, they didn't need another
park.



Congratulations!


Its a great addition, air pollution will be reduced as people don't
need to drive to remote concert
sheds.


It's a loss. Parks were surplus in Chicago, they're short on airports.