private planes lower housing prices

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:45:30 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in ::

There will be no multi-million penalty.

Do you think the city of Chicago's defense is credible?

No I don't but that has absolutely nothing to do with the city being
assessed a penalty. It's all politics you know.

Hey: here's an airport on the hit list. The OWNER wants to sell it to a
developer because he's losing too much money.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/8B1

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:b_t3f.9120$vi2.4460@trndny04...
Thus the $12K penalty for failing to provide adequate notice,

$33,000.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...0907meigs.html

Thanks...that was off the top of my head, figured there might be a chance it
was wrong. IMHO, mentionable whether $12K or $33K.

Pete

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.. .
Do you think the city of Chicago's defense is credible?

No I don't but that has absolutely nothing to do with the city being
assessed a penalty. It's all politics you know.

There's a difference between a "legal right" and "getting away with it".

Oh well...at least you admitted you were wrong.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.. .
Do you think the city of Chicago's defense is credible?

No I don't but that has absolutely nothing to do with the city being
assessed a penalty. It's all politics you know.

There's a difference between a "legal right" and "getting away with it".

Oh well...at least you admitted you were wrong.


I admitted nothing.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.. .
Oh well...at least you admitted you were wrong.

I admitted nothing.

You wrote that you don't feel that the City of Chicago's defense is
credible. That means that they did in fact engage in an illegal activity,
which is the opposite of your statement that "Actually he did [have the
legal right to destroy Meigs, strand planes, and violate the FAA grant for
public use].".

If that's not an admission of error, what would be?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.. .
Oh well...at least you admitted you were wrong.

I admitted nothing.

You wrote that you don't feel that the City of Chicago's defense is
credible. That means that they did in fact engage in an illegal activity,

It means no such thing.

which is the opposite of your statement that "Actually he did [have the
legal right to destroy Meigs, strand planes, and violate the FAA grant for
public use].".

If that's not an admission of error, what would be?

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..
You wrote that you don't feel that the City of Chicago's defense is
credible. That means that they did in fact engage in an illegal
activity,

It means no such thing.

So it's your claim that they have a non-credible defense, but that there is
a credible defense?

And what would that defense be, pray tell? And for extra credit, how is
that the City of Chicago is pursuing a non-credible defense, when they have
a perfectly good credible defense they could have tried?

Skylune wrote:
Pilots and airport sponsors need to take the lead in policing their own,
as the FAA is hopelessly compromised in their conflicting missions.

Couldn't of said it better myself.

The FAA wasn't interested in my noise problem. They said to take it
up with the airport.

big difference between the Denver airport that was eliminated and
Meigs. When DIA (DEN in aerospeak) was legally opened for commercial
avtivities, Stapleton was required to be closed. And there was
very little GA traffic there, unlike Meigs, which was pretty much
entirely GA.

Stapleton was Class B. Meigs (and Austin) wasn't.