 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Tigg
Posts:549
 | | 09/27/2007 5:25 PM |
 Alert | | If you need a catch phrase to get your point across - it's usually because you don't have a point to make that is worth your pay-rate. Anyone who has a truly unique and worthy ideas knows that their ideas will stand up to the test of time without a 'cute' catch phrase. | | | |
|
| | maricopacabana
Posts:356
| | 09/27/2007 6:28 PM |
Alert | | If you wanna fly you have to buy.... | | | |
|
| | golf_rules2
Posts:0
| | 10/03/2007 9:26 PM |
Alert | I just read through this thread and I really can't understand why any of you would be against this airport.
Grants will pay for $72M and the city pays $2M. Who in their right mind would turn that down? If Maricopa doesn't take it some other city will. It's not like you are saving tax dollars because you don't take the grant money.
A city would be foolish to turn that down. That's free money!
Based on the direction of companies and their need to go global, air transportation and the development of lite aircraft is making owning aircraft more feasible and practical for businesses. Now that's an incentive to move their company to Maricopa, if they can fly their lite aircraft within miles of their company.
Who would pass up that kind of money? Not me.
btw, The Communicator has some Q&A on this topic. Especially if your worried about noise, fuel, etc.
Who would pass up that kind of money? It still floors me that anyone would. | | | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:258
| | 10/03/2007 11:01 PM |
Alert | The Communicator asked a bunch of high level, uneducated, and glossed-over questions. Why would Ed Beauvais ever say that an airport didn't make sense. Has he ever advised against building one?
The reason to pass on the $72 Mil is that we need to not waste the money. Maricopa spending it before somebody else does isn't a responsible viewpoint. Perhaps the money could be spent to develop an airport where it will do some good. The more significant reasons to pass on the money were clearly defined by Carl Diedrich. Yes the federal government is willing to waste more money than Maricopa is. That said, the federal government has more money to waste. Maricopa is looking to use $72 mil of federal money to build an industrial park. That is the end of the statement because there has never been even an smidgeon of evidence to indicate that aviation based businesses will bring financial development that will come close to recovering just the city's expenditures for decades to come.
The fact is that there is no reason to fly to Maricopa. Building an airport doesn't change that. I stated it before, and I'll keep hammering on it - until Williams can attract the 737 and Airbus traffic that Beauvais is selling, there is no way that Maricopa will do any better. What Beauvais and the Council didn't tell us is who they think will be using the airport. My office overlooks the Casa Grande Municipal airport, and I'll tell you that the airport is under-utilized. Until this easy to access, well established airport reaches capacity, why would any but a few local residents fly to Maricopa.
The state trust land Beauvais and the Council want to build on isn't going anywhere. This land is inside the planning area, and won't be sold without discussions with the city. There is no need to rush into debt to build an airport. The land is secure for future use. The same is true about the federal dollars. They were available last year, and every year for the last two decades before that, and the money will still be there when the airport makes sense. If I gave you a $72 mil house and all you had to do was maintain it and pay operating expenses it would sound like a great deal. When the reality set in that you didn't have the income to keep it up, the situation would change. Combine that with the fact that if the airport is breaking the city, the city still can't sell it. It isn't like winning a new car in raffle. When the hidden costs start coming in, there isn't any way out.
Oh, and the federal money comes with catches. Every federal dollar is tied to federal requirements. you get their money , you play by their rules. Payson decided that the federal requirements on their airport were too restrictive and costly and decided not to adhere to them. Not only did the FAA restrict them from receiving any additional monies for airport improvements, but they also demanded repayment to the tune of millions of dollars for the last several years worth of grants.
This federal money is a contract. Maricopa doesn't have a financial base to gamble on for this venture, and the payoff numbers provided from the proceeds from the airport itself don't cover the bet. If you think this is a good deal, why don't you just send Ed Beauvais and the Council to Vegas with the city's money? | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | golf_rules2
Posts:0
| | 10/04/2007 11:09 AM |
Alert | I'll accept that we have difference of opinion. I do believe you over exaggerate some of your points hugely. I'll agree to disagree with you and most in this forum on this topic.
However, I'm not letting you get away with your last comment. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you draw meaningless connections, like:
"If you think this is a good deal, why don't you just send Ed Beauvais and the Council to Vegas with the city's money?"
Those type of comments diminishes all of your previous comments because, it's judgemental, and makes bad assumptions. Your credibility goes down the drain.
| | | |
|
| | ravensnest
Posts:138
| | 10/04/2007 11:22 AM |
Alert | | Great golf rules then we have the site selected . We will put it right next to your house. Then as the planes fly and buzz your house all day and night you can love the free money all you want. | | | |
|
|  | golf_rules2
Posts:0
| | 10/04/2007 2:26 PM |
Alert | | Sounds great! I'm not worried about it! Nor do I think anyone else should be. | | | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:258
| | 10/04/2007 5:59 PM |
Alert | OK, I'll bite. What points specifically do you think are over-exaggerated? Can you provide clear examples from other local cities to support your statements? What will be different about this airport from all the other municipal airports in the state that will keep this one from being just another tax burden?
As for the last comment: I was making a point that there is no guarantee of success from this venture. The council are willing to gamble our tax dollars on this project over many others. Just like entering into any other business, there are huge financial risks involved with getting into the airport business. There are lots of ways to spend that money. Some ways are more reckless than others. | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|