A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Da Mayor" At Work



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 5th 05, 08:01 PM
Paul kgyy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Given the amount of control that Daley has over the city, there was
nothing AOPA could ever have done short of outright bribery. I think
they do a great job given the amount of territory they have to cover
and the small amount of dues we pay. I get a little tired of the
self-hype but an organization like that does have to maintain high
visibility to its members.

  #12  
Old May 5th 05, 08:02 PM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
AOPA has done some good, and they are a constant lobby in Washington,

without which I suspect many more of us would be grounded due to
restrictions and excessive regulation.

However, AOPA certainly does appear to pick their battles. It seemed
pretty clear to me that Meigs wasn't a battle that they were willing to
spend a huge effort fighting. The battle had raged for years while the
City of Chicago played games and taunted the aviation community with
restrictions and harrassment. The City digs up the runway, and all of a
sudden AOPA is outraged. I was outraged years ago when my wife and I
tried to visit the terminal and were nearly subjected to a strip search
by two of "Chicago's Finest" before being turned away. The Meigs
situation had been deteriorating for years, and I suspect that AOPA was
focused on what they considered to be bigger, more important battles.
In my opinion, whatever AOPA is doing now with regards to Meigs is of
little consequence; the airport is gone and will likely never be
restored.

JKG


AOPA was smart not to spend significant time and money on Meigs. The mayor
owned the airport and had the law on his side. The only thing he did wrong
is he did not notify the FAA the required 30 days (or what ever the required
time is) prior to closing the airport. The penalty for violating that rule
is of little to no consequence. There was nothing legally AOPA or Friends of
Meigs could do. Meigs was a lost cause years before it was finally dug up.
Da Mayor has pulled a number of similar antics in Chicago but always has his
ducks lined up in an immaculate row.





  #13  
Old May 5th 05, 10:23 PM
Jonathan Goodish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Dave Stadt" wrote:
AOPA was smart not to spend significant time and money on Meigs. The mayor
owned the airport and had the law on his side. The only thing he did wrong
is he did not notify the FAA the required 30 days (or what ever the required
time is) prior to closing the airport. The penalty for violating that rule
is of little to no consequence. There was nothing legally AOPA or Friends of
Meigs could do. Meigs was a lost cause years before it was finally dug up.
Da Mayor has pulled a number of similar antics in Chicago but always has his
ducks lined up in an immaculate row.


I'm not sure that having the law on his side matters much to Mr. Daley.

Could AOPA have delayed or temporarily stopped the destruction of Meigs?
Who knows. However, the price of such an effort would have been so
high, and the benefit so low, that I doubt it would have been worth it.
The City of Chicago had a jewel that they chose not to utilize and
nurture, and that was their prerogative. I hope that the "park" works
out for them.


JKG
  #14  
Old May 6th 05, 06:59 AM
Grumman-581
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.


Nawh, I have a better solution... Since the cause of all our problems is all
the damn lawyers that we have, I suggest that we start off by killing half
the lawyers... If that doesn't fix the problems, well, we'll just have to
kill off the other half... And if that still doesn't fix it, we can dig 'em
back up again, I guess... evil-grin


  #15  
Old May 6th 05, 04:31 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.


How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?

Groups don't have rights...only individuals.





  #16  
Old May 6th 05, 07:33 PM
Chris W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...


I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.



How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?

Groups don't have rights...only individuals.



Well if you want to get nit picky, you replied to the wrong post.
Obviously it is the individual people that have the rights. However,
the only way to effectively fight for those rights is to organize into a
group. The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups
fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to
combine to fight for all rights.

--
Chris W

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com
  #17  
Old May 6th 05, 07:38 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to combine to fight for all rights.

Rights conflict with each other.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #18  
Old May 6th 05, 07:42 PM
EL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state actually is not true at least in the USA.

Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been established by statute & precedent that
corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better known ones.

The effective result of this is that those who control corporations have "double rights". If I run a corporation I have my
personal right of free speech, plus my corporation's right (which of course is under my control).

Eric Law


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing,
is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid
political move or law that restricts the rights of any group.


How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL?

Groups don't have rights...only individuals.







  #19  
Old May 6th 05, 09:54 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"EL" wrote:

Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state
actually is not true at least in the USA.


?


Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been
established by statute & precedent that
corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better
known ones.


corporation group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a group.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

  #20  
Old May 6th 05, 10:15 PM
AES
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article
,
Bob Noel wrote:


corporation group. A corporation is an entity. Singular. Not a group.


Don't quarrel with these assertions. But suppose the corp has multiple
stockholders, who own (ergo, in the last analysis control) it . . .
Then, everything the corp does is, at least in a certain sense, done by
those stockholders -- and they're a group.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! [email protected] Naval Aviation 2 December 17th 04 10:45 PM
Best Home Base Work Reynard Simulators 0 November 9th 04 05:39 PM
Best Home Base Work Reynard Instrument Flight Rules 0 November 9th 04 05:37 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 4 August 7th 03 05:12 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 July 4th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.