FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

bryan chaisone wrote:

Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
fine, then this is a great deal for them.

The Feds should have either went after Daley in a big way or not at all.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
bryan chaisone wrote:

Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will only
encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of the
federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K fine,
then this is a great deal for them.


Do you think this encourages others more than doing nothing does?



The Feds should have either went after Daley in a big way or not at all.


The Feds should follow the law. If the law allows only a fine of $33,000.00
then that is what they should pursue.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

bryan chaisone wrote:


Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will only
encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of the
federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K fine,
then this is a great deal for them.



Do you think this encourages others more than doing nothing does?

Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did what
Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most
people will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a
trivial fine.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did what
Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most people
will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a trivial
fine.


Chicago was hit with the maximum fine. Because of Meigs the fine has been
increased.

Matt Whiting wrote:

bryan chaisone wrote:

Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
fine, then this is a great deal for them.

If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote:

bryan chaisone wrote:


Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
fine, then this is a great deal for them.


If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.

Still chump change for a city the size of Chicago. The fine should be a
percentage of the cities annual budget, something like 50% of its budget
would work for me. A fixed rate fine only deters the small towns and
cities.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

A fixed rate fine only deters the small towns and cities.

And how many cities the size of Chicago have an airport that they might reasonably
want to tear up without warning?

Although I don't agree with you on that side of it, I *do* agree that the fine should
be set up in a different fashion. Like any fixed price, inflation will eventually
render it trivial for some people, and requiring an act of Congress to increase it is
not a good idea.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

That's good to hear George. Where did you hear/read that from? I
hope this will help dicourage any future incidents. There are less
and less places to land anymore. I'm glad I fly helos too! I better
declare/register a heliport on my property soon, before it gets hard
to do.

Bryan "Formerly known as 'The Monk'" Chaisone

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Matt Whiting wrote:

bryan chaisone wrote:

Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
fine, then this is a great deal for them.

If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

bryan chaisone wrote:

That's good to hear George. Where did you hear/read that from?

AOPA mainly. The "Meigs Legacy" ammendment was attached to the last FAA
Reauthorization bill. It increased the notice from 30 days to 90 and increased the
fine from $1,100 a day to $10,000 a day.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:13:45 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
::

Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
investigation to determine whether the
city improperly diverted $1.5 million
in restricted airport revenues to pay
for demolishing the runway at Meigs
and for its conversion from an airport
into a city park.


If true, Daley's diversion of FAA Airport Improvement funds to
demolish Meigs Airport is such an arrogant misuse of federal grant
money for the exact opposite of the use it is intended, that it again
publicly confirms the Chicago mayor's blatant disregard for legal
justice. Wouldn't it be nice if that were an impeachable offence?
Perhaps the folks that got 'Aaahnod' elected in California could be
persuaded to mount a similar campaign to RECALL DALEY.