FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

"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.

"Dave Stadt" wrote:
I think it's great news that the FAA is taking action against
Chicago, and
I
found nothing negative in the posted press release at all.

Pete


Like any of it is going to stick. $33K, $1.5 Million or $6 million its
all
peanuts to the city of chicago. Where else can a mayor buy his wife a
lakefront park for that kind of money?

And Daley will no doubt spin himself a role as the heroic defender of
the city persecuted by the big, bad feds.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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.



The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.


Matt

Blueskies wrote:

Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

If you seriously think that the Republican party would give Daley the time of day,
you have another think coming.

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

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.

Matt Whiting writes:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.



Doesn't Baghdad need a mayor?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Oh well, another American that doesn't know how the game is played!



On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:59:22 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Blueskies wrote:

Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

If you seriously think that the Republican party would give Daley the time of day,
you have another think coming.

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

1.5 million is, in Chicago, peanuts compared with the amount of
continual graft and corruption that goes on (entire state, not just
the city). The biggest potential cost is that increasing congestion
at OHare since the Meigs closure is going to give better ammunition to
the people that want to build the new airport at Peotone, outside the
city. There's a lot of maneuvering to get this done, since it opens
up an entirely new venue for corruption independent of the city. The
OHare expansion project may never get done, and Daley may have cost
the city a big airport, not a small one, in the long run.

Roy Smith wrote:

The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
the city

What a joke. $33,000 may be a big fine to you or me, but to the City of
Chicago, it's chump change.


They lose more in the couch!

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:27:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

:
:"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.

If they're serious about dealing with Chicago, they need to prevent
any expansion at O'Hare and stop construction of a third airport.


No, they don't need to prevent it, they just should not fund it.



After all, Chicago has clearly demonstrated that they don't think they
need more airport capacity.


Zackly.