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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07...
I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing, is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid political move or law that restricts the rights of any group. Nawh, I have a better solution... Since the cause of all our problems is all the damn lawyers that we have, I suggest that we start off by killing half the lawyers... If that doesn't fix the problems, well, we'll just have to kill off the other half... And if that still doesn't fix it, we can dig 'em back up again, I guess... evil-grin |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$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
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$cf5.1910@lakeread07... I think the only way we are going to stop this kind of thing, is for EVERY rights group to join forces and fight every stupid political move or law that restricts the rights of any group. How about fighting any law that restricts the rights of any INDIVIDUAL? Groups don't have rights...only individuals. Well if you want to get nit picky, you replied to the wrong post. Obviously it is the individual people that have the rights. However, the only way to effectively fight for those rights is to organize into a group. The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to combine to fight for all rights. -- Chris W Gift Giving Made Easy Get the gifts you want & give the gifts they want http://thewishzone.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The problem, as I see it, is there are too many small groups fighting for only certain rights, what we need is for them all to combine to fight for all rights.
Rights conflict with each other. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Although I realize this is oversimplifying a complex issue, what you state actually is not true at least in the USA.
Under law, a corporation is considered an entity unto itself. It has been established by statute & precedent that corporations have a number of rights, free speech being one of the better known ones. The effective result of this is that those who control corporations have "double rights". If I run a corporation I have my personal right of free speech, plus my corporation's right (which of course is under my control). Eric Law "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "Chris W" wrote in message news:Agqee.2401$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:45 PM |
Best Home Base Work | Reynard | Simulators | 0 | November 9th 04 04:39 PM |
Best Home Base Work | Reynard | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | November 9th 04 04:37 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 |