Federal government closes privately owned airport

The expression needs to be replaced with "home of the fee"

"Jose" wrote in message
...
How can this happen in America, the home of the free?

Surely you jest.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

All your worries are over. There is a love fest between Boyer and Mineta
going on at the Expo. The airport should be reopened as soon as Boyer's
people let Norm know about this outrage. Maybe it can even receive the
$150,000 "entitlement" (at least Mineta calls it what it is).

Everyone can relax about the user fees and the ADIZ. Boyer won over
Mineta's heart. It was a truly moving performance, and Mineta really knew
what his audience wanted to hear!

So, don't worry anymore about these things, from "his perspective" there
will not be user fees. (I like how he used the words "from my
perspective."

Apparently NOT only the FAA can close an airport. Looks like the TSA,
Mayors (like the wonderful mayor of Chicago), private owners, and the FAA
can close airports.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

In San Francisco the city is taking property away from a tire store to
give to a condo developer. Given our current state of liberal judges
nothing related taking private property suprises me.

I may never understand American politics. I thought that "conservative" in
the US included "promoting/protecting big business". So wouldn't the
particular example of "taking" (ie. legalized theft) be a "conservative"
position in the US?

Wrong is wrong, of course. But I'm still trying to get this "liberal vs.
conservative" thing straight.

[Of course, when a "conservative" administration explodes the deficit,
raises steel tariffs, and such perhaps I'm just kidding myself that
understanding is possible.]

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:



I may never understand American politics. I thought that "conservative" in
the US included "promoting/protecting big business". So wouldn't the
particular example of "taking" (ie. legalized theft) be a "conservative"
position in the US?

Nope, it is a liberal left wing position. Basically, "we can better
take care of your property than you can."



Wrong is wrong, of course. But I'm still trying to get this "liberal vs.
conservative" thing straight.

A bill passed one of the houses this week that will cut off federal
funding to a city if they take property in this manner.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
I may never understand American politics.

As if one could understand politics anywhere.

I thought that "conservative" in
the US included "promoting/protecting big business". So wouldn't the
particular example of "taking" (ie. legalized theft) be a "conservative"
position in the US?

There's no such thing as a true "conservative" or a true "liberal" today.
"Libertarian" probably comes the closest to what might have been considered
a "conservative" in the past.

A true conservative would be caution about ANY government regulation. Yes,
this has the tendency to be hands-off with respect to business. But it also
would mean being hands-off with civil liberties and personal freedom.
Today's "conservatives" are anything but.

A true conservative would also be fiscally responsible. Spending only
today's money today, rather than tomorrow's, for example. Again, not
something any "conservative" today seems to be in favor of.

Wrong is wrong, of course. But I'm still trying to get this "liberal vs.
conservative" thing straight.

They are just terms used to divide the country. And I mean "divide" in the
most obnoxious, inefficient, conflict-creating way. They have very little
relation to the dictionary definitions of the words. Both sides are fairly
liberal in their interpretation of what a government should do;
"conservatives" are liberal in their attitude that they should decide what
you should and should not do, while "liberals" are liberal in their attitude
that they should decide who you should and should not help.

Neither seems to understand the concept of keeping their grubby fingers out
of the daily lives of the people they govern.

Pete

Personally, this looks like a counter move by the administration against the over 17000 comments received about the
permanent ADIZ proposal. I've also noticed that many folks almost end up in jail, but charges are never made, thus these
issues never end up in court; not that I would like to be the one charged. ;-)


"Michelle P" wrote in message
nk.net...
The TSA can and has closed Potomac field (VKX). Old news... Kinda.
They "owner" ie manager. ****ed off the TSA and nearly landed in jail. They shut him down.
This all started when one of his based pilots made an un-authorized take off from our W32 field and landed at his. The
"well that's not the way we do it at Potomac" started. We had to report the un-authorized departure and an
investigation ensued. The person was briefed and chose to ignore local procedures. Stay tuned for the rest of the
story......
Michelle

.Blueskies. wrote:

How can this happen in America, the home of the free?

________________________________________________ ________________________________


http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#190897

TSA Closes D.C.-Area Airport...

Potomac Airfield "Not In Compliance"

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on Tuesday informed Potomac Airfield -- one of three small GA
airports in the Washington area that operate under special post-9/11 security regulations -- that its security
program has been suspended, effectively closing down operations. "The airport was told it is not in compliance with
its approved security plan," TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser told AVweb yesterday. "We had told them they were not
meeting certain criteria, and then did a spot check over the weekend, and found they are still not in compliance."
Exactly what those measures are that were supposed to be followed, or what the transgressions were, the TSA will not
discuss. "Planes utilizing this airfield, which is a part of the Maryland Three group [Potomac Airfield, College Park
Airport, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field], fly in close proximity to many key assets and critical infrastructure
in the DC metropolitan area," the TSA said on Tuesday, in a news release announcing the closure of the field.



In February 2005, the TSA assumed management of a program that allowed the three airports to continue operations under
a rule that was created specifically for them, due to their location within the Washington, D.C., Flight Restricted
Zone (FRZ), which extends to approximately a 15-mile radius from the Washington Monument. (The FRZ is separate and
distinct from the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that extends at its widest point to 90 miles and is currently
being considered in an FAA rulemaking.) The rule also grants access to pilots not based at the Maryland Three airports
if they comply with the TSA-mandated security requirements and procedures. The TSA said it routinely monitors these
airports to ensure compliance through regular inspections and communications with the airport security coordinator.
Operations at College Park and Washington Executive/Hyde Field are not impacted by the suspension of the Potomac
Airfield security plan.





...Airfield Owner Defiant...

David Wartofsky, owner of Potomac Airfield, told AVweb yesterday that he is working to get the situation rectified.
He says the security procedures he has put into place at Potomac are not exactly those prescribed by the TSA plan,
but in fact are enhanced. "It's like if they told you to use 25-watt light bulbs and instead I put in 100 watts," he
said. "It's not what is in the plan, but it meets and exceeds what is in the plan." He also said that he's been
caught in a Catch-22 because the TSA says the only approved procedures are the ones they sign off on, but then the
agency won't sign off on any of his requests for revisions to enhance the procedures. Wartofsky added that he is
working through the White House and Congress to try to get clarification of whether the TSA has the authority to
dictate to him what is acceptable for what he says is a "private security plan" that he has implemented in addition
to the plan required by the TSA. "There's no precedent for all this weirdness," Wartofsky said. Kayser, of the TSA
office, said: "Security for the national capital region is a shared responsibility. We must take steps to work
together."





...And 90 Airplanes Grounded

About 90 airplanes are on the ground at the airport and about 400 pilots have passed the necessary security
procedures to operate there. A plan is in place to allow those airplanes to be flown off the field tomorrow, Saturday
and Sunday. (Hopefully, nobody had other plans.) Wartofsky said he is hopeful that a mutually agreeable solution to
the problem can be reached soon and the airport will be back in operation. "The agency will continue to work with the
Potomac Airfield staff on the issues surrounding the suspension," the TSA said in its news release. Pilots in need of
more information from the TSA regarding Potomac Airfield, including aircraft relocation plans, should contact TSA
program manager Dirk Ahle at (571) 227-1898. The toll-free hotline for GA pilots is (866) GA-SECUR.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
In San Francisco the city is taking property away from a tire store to
give to a condo developer. Given our current state of liberal judges
nothing related taking private property suprises me.

-Robert

It was our CONSERVATIVE judges who stood in support of that piece
of socialism. The "liberals" led by Sandra Day O'Connor were
the ones who decided that BIG MONEY shouldn't be allowed to displace
the little guy on the "promise" of some future tax revenue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...300783_pf.html

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
Robert M. Gary wrote:
In San Francisco the city is taking property away from a tire store to
give to a condo developer. Given our current state of liberal judges
nothing related taking private property suprises me.

-Robert

It was our CONSERVATIVE judges who stood in support of that piece
of socialism. The "liberals" led by Sandra Day O'Connor were
the ones who decided that BIG MONEY shouldn't be allowed to displace
the little guy on the "promise" of some future tax revenue.

You are sure misinformed. It was the liberal judges that supported that
descision. There is a ton of info about this on the web and it was all over
the news. Check out the above link. And yes, it fits the liberal adgenda.
The motivation is the amount of taxes that are generated by replacing a
small business or residence with a large business or multiple residences.
Ever wonder how many condos will fit on your airport? I encourage anyone who
questions how something like this can happen to research this particular
descision, how the justices voted, and what their poliical affiliation is.
Regarding the San Francisco tirestore---------
Just the amount of permit fees collected from the developer will probably
exceed tax revenue from the tire shop, and in that area, the city will force
the developer to improve or fund improvement to the surrounding city streets
as a condition of project approval. The motivation for the local govornment
are the taxes and fees generated.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

It was our CONSERVATIVE judges who stood in support of that piece
of socialism. The "liberals" led by Sandra Day O'Connor were
the ones who decided that BIG MONEY shouldn't be allowed to displace
the little guy on the "promise" of some future tax revenue.


Right. Sandra Day O'Connor and her fellow "liberals", Rehnquist, Scalia,
and Thomas were opposed to seizures of private property for other than
public use while "conservative" justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy,
and Souter were in favor of it.