WHO wants an airport? Everything said, topic closed
Posted 29 March 2004 - 07:11 PM
If so, I vote NO.
If is is going to be a private venture that the county is donating land and possibly some funding for, I say YES.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 02:49 PM
Posted 31 March 2004 - 02:54 PM
airport in Paulding, but I believe when all are weighed, the
best answer is YES, Paulding needs an airport.
Paulding is really growing, but unfortunately the planning
and zoning commission keeps approving the wrong mix
of developments. For the most part, most of Paulding's
growth is residential single family homes, followed by retail/
commercial. This mix isn't helping to generate JOBS inside the
county borders and it's weakening the tax base.
Studies surrounding similar airports built in similar counties
have shown that an airport of the scope of McCollum airfield
would draw in a lot of light industrial, and commercial developments
(this means a stronger tax base) not to mention that it's construction
and operation would create appx. 3000 jobs inside the county.
It's clear to me that Paulding really needs an airport in order
to help move it's status forward in the years ahead. The airport
would be a key belweather of Paulding's growing population. US Hwy 278
is more than capable of handling the traffic from the airport. In fact, that
was it's original purpose. Years ago, a second "Hartsfield" airport was
proposed in Bartow or Cartersville to handle all of the cargo traffic from
Hartsfield and relieve congestion there. Effectively making Hartsfield a
passenger only airport. US Hwy 278 was developed to become an
artery for these trucks hauling the air-freight cargo back into Atlanta.
Hopefully, we will have an airport constructed by 2010 and that
it will be positioned along US Hwy 278 north of Dallas. As far as funding
goes, it's my understanding that 90% of the cost would be federally funded,
with the state picking up 5%. That just leaves us with 5% to fund from the
Does anyone disagree or agree with my logic? let me know I'm interested in
hearing some other thoughts. Especially WHY some are opposed to it..
Posted 31 March 2004 - 10:33 PM
This is by far not the first discussion we've had about the airport. We've had many and you can probably get most of the reasons why people oppose or support it here. Including some comments from Jerry Shearin the county commissioner.
Here are the threads:
Commissioner casts dissenting vote on airport plan, March 9 Commission Meeting
Paulding Airport, Location
Commissioners meet and approve Airport Study, Seven Hills project tabled indefinitely
VIDEO: Airport presentation at chamber forum, Complete First Thursday Forum coverage
General Aviation Airport subject of January Forum, Chamber to hear about recent progress
Paulding County Airport, horizon section of AJC Thursday
What's this about an airport I hear in the AJC?, Will we be able to Vote (it down?)
Posted 01 April 2004 - 07:50 AM
Oh boy! Even better!
Glad to know my parents in Maryland are helping to pay for our airport down here. Wonder who's airport we are paying for... or sewers or roads or....
Posted 01 April 2004 - 09:47 AM
Posted 01 April 2004 - 12:07 PM
We should have a referendum on this one folks.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 12:47 PM
I find that remark offensive. First of all, you need to show me someone who lives within a half mile of the proposed airport. The sites seem to be a long way from any reidences. Secondly, I have seen no empirical data to suggest that airports such as this negatively impact surrounding residences. In-fact, if they are well-done they will enhance surrounding property values. There are examples right here in Ga, where high end developments were built adjacent to airfields.
Your suggestion that this is for the wealthy is way off base. We are getting deluged with requests for info on the airport by Corporate interests who want to be near such a facility. Everyone shouts for more industry, more jobs, lower residential property taxes and then when we have an opportunity to do something that will do all that, we get that good ol' class warfare argument.
So far the process has been very open and no one can say it has NOT been above board. There is still a long way to go. LETS NOT START A BUNCH OF NAME CALLING.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 12:50 PM
Posted 01 April 2004 - 01:32 PM
Also from what I understand there is supposed to be alot of hangar/cargo space that would be available for rent. And apparently there is a lack of this in the metro area, thus renting this out will feed right into the demand.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 03:01 PM
There are no homes within half-a-mile of the 278 site (that I know of).
It won't cost the county a penny to build.
The business it can bring will help the tax base. (And, yes, there are people/business who will use it, not to mention the related businesses that will grow around it).
This is not a class-warfare issue of "rich" people getting the benefit. This means jobs for people.
And to be honest, most folks don't understand the issue at all. We're not talkin' about a 2nd Atlanta airport here; this is a small proposition, not intended for 757 planes.
And don't get me started on the "rich" as the tax code punishes productivity.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 03:10 PM
Who cares if they are the ones creating the jobs for the one's complaining.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 03:36 PM
Posted 01 April 2004 - 04:01 PM
Everyone on p.com is discussing gangs, drugs, and violence in the county. If we have an airport in Paulding, that is us begging for more gangs, drugs, and violence. With gang members comes drugs. With drugs comes gang members. And with both, comes violence.
This is PAULDING County. Have any of you ever lived around an airport? Well, I have. It is terrible. The noise is awful and there are a lot of shady characters around that area.
Paulding County does not need an airport!
Posted 01 April 2004 - 04:23 PM
Aren't the gangs/drugs already here before there is an airport?
Paulding needs a job base & an industrial base if it is to keep up with needed revenue to support an expanding population. That cannot be done without building the structures needed to support that. Otherwise, the taxes on homes will go even higher.
Yes, we need an airport. Like all growth problems, it is something that must be dealt with on a logical basis & not emotions. Would I want it in my backyard? Maybe. Maybe not. But that is just part of being in any growing area. If I didn't like it, I'd move & use the land for other purposes. That is called capitalism & it is foundational to our gov't system.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 09:15 PM
We need something to spur industrial/business growth in the county. An airport could do the trick. Taxes on homes alone can't do all we need.
Plus I really rather not fight traffic into Kennesaw everyday. I'd love to work in PC.
Posted 02 April 2004 - 02:12 PM
I don't agree with your premise that the feasibility study was hard to come by on the CC. We were very concerned about land speculators and realtors snatching up property around the thing and making it impossible to succeed by crowding it with houses. The goal was to make the thing an economic engine for the immediate area. (You aren't one or the other of these are you??). But it certainly was available. I saw a black and white copy in the hands of more than one "citizen".
But as far as the feasibility study for the airport goes, it is available right now. I know there are several citizens who have seen it. There is also an ALP (airport layout plan) being designed right now, an environmental assesment being done, and a consultant is presently getting the rest of the data you requested about the economics and its costs/benefits to the taxpayers.
There will be a Public Hearing this summer as required by law to accept the first grant that we have gotten for 1 million dollars. At that meeting there will be all the info you have asked for and more. But, if you want to see the present feasibility study, just call DOT.
Posted 02 April 2004 - 04:40 PM
Posted 02 April 2004 - 09:47 PM
Look at the airports around us, all undergo expansion, and with the expansion goes court battles. I just get the feeling this one will end up the same way. So, I would propose, if in fact the airport's location is truly remote, enlarge it now so as it could truly be of economic impact. Run Prop Cargo planes and land charter Jets (like mine) after all what is another 1,000 ft on a runway, I'm not talking about 727's or C5A's.
McCollum already lands small jets, Fulton Co. Already moves Cargo (INTERSTATE prox). We would need a draw. I also feel that the lack of adequate roadways will hinder any significant job creation. Here is alist of local airports that have an industry base close by:
McCollum Field: Close to I-75 less than 2 miles, did not begin true growth in the area until Town Center was completed.
Charlie Brown: Close to I-20 and I-285 enough said
Brisco Field: Practically on 316 and Ga 20 8 minutes from I-85
PDK: less than 2miles from I-285 and 4 miles from Clairmont and I-85
Proposed paulding airport: at least 10 miles to any interstate by 2 lane road. If using 278 it is about a 40 to 60 minute ride to I-20, at least an hour anyway you go to I-75.
Cartersville airport: no growth but 15 to 30 min ride to I-75 all by two lane roads. Through downtown Cartersville or through Emerson.
Yes 47 million is generated by McCollum, but how much was Generated Prior to 1986? You cannot begin to think a new airport way out here would generate those types of numbers. I used to live in Kennesaw, so I know what I am saying when I say it was almost a ghost town there till the mall got there.
As far as federal grant money goes, and I am not sure about this one, but once you buy or build something with a federal grant, it is your responsibilty to maintain, repair, and replace it. i.e. if we build it we won't be able to close it without the feds permission, so the tax payers will be on the hook. So, if we build it, do it big enough to really draw in some buisness, build a limited access hwy to the county lines and help the county or counties it would have to run through continue it to the interstate.
Posted 03 April 2004 - 12:26 AM
I am pretty much of the impression ... possibly mistaken ... that the proposed airport would have a runway long enough for small commercial aircraft such as twin engine six or eight passenger.
I also understand that one of the benefits of more modern aircraft ... even commercial jets ... is the ability to land and take off from shorter runways.
I would certainly suggest that your assertion that the airport as proposed would only be capable of handling small two-seat ... maybe four seat ... 'training' aircraft.
As far as the general locations being selected, I am pretty sure there is more than adequate land in the intial project for an expansion without issue.
One of the unique features of Paulding is that in several specific areas, there are a limited number of large landowners. This is because, until very recently, the 'highest and best use' for much of the land in western Paulding was forestry. Growing trees. The land was acquired by the limited number of players because it was marginal in terms of other agricultural uses and many of the owners in these marginal areas had to abandon that land during the Great Depression.
To get an idea of the isolation in this part of the county, simply look at a road map of the county. Go about two miles west of Dallas on US 278 and you'll see a few roads going north into the Braswell Mountain area but there are vast areas with absolutely no public roads.
As far as residences, find one of the sections of Old 278 and travel down it and note the scarcity of homes along this US Highway. When you do happen on a road, probably gravel, you might see one house every couple of miles ... and you'd know it only because of the mail box.
That part of Paulding is a forest and forests are pretty lonely places.
A couple of final observations. It takes you an hour to get to I-20.
Paulding is 35 miles from Hartsfield-Jackson airport which means it is about 30 miles to 285 at the airport and about ten-12 miles to I-20.
The point being you gave the absolutely worse case scenario ... travel in rush hour with an accident ... in your calculation of travel time. I calculate that on a typical Saturday one can travel from the Chamber office to I-75 in Cobb (north loop) in 30-40 minutes and to I-20 and Thornton road in 25-35 minutes without exceeding the speed limit.
Posted 03 April 2004 - 08:55 AM
Posted 27 April 2004 - 09:07 PM
Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:14 AM
Posted 28 April 2004 - 08:41 AM
Posted 28 April 2004 - 10:07 AM
There was a vote for a bond issue to have local taxpayers foot the local share -- several million dollars total -- for building an airport.
The bond issue, which would have raised taxes for this purpose, was defeated as have most property tax initiatives offered in the county.
In essence, one wonders if a bond issue raising taxes would pass regardless of the purpose. If I'm not mistaken, and I may be, a bond-issue (property tax hike) to build new schools may have also been defeated in the early 1990's. School funding turned to the sales tax method which represents one of the two-cent premium local residents pay as that effort passed.
What makes the current effort to build an airport different is that the plan is to finance it with a public-private partnership that involves no local tax monies and therefore no local tax hike.
Most local leaders, knowing that the federal funds allocated to the project will be spent somewhere, prefer those dollars to be spent here rather than in Texas, Florida, Alabama, in Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas or one of the other 45 states and Iraq.
Posted 28 April 2004 - 02:00 PM
Why not build a ramp at the end of the runway, and use arresting gear at the other. Then you'd have your short runway with large plane abilities...plus you could run your ATV over the ramp.
Give me a break guys.
How is creating more jobs going to help Paulding?
Will it reduce the population?
Will it slow the seemingly unbridled growth?
Or will it just allow the county to hire enough police, firefighters, and teachers to STILL be behind the growth curve?
Maybe the money will allow the county to build schools that are far too small? Maybe allow Paulding to be dependant on other counties for their water supply? Maybe you should think about the cost to the county as it relates to this project. If the Federal government pays for 95%, that is great. But who pays for the new jail? Who pays for the new schools? Who pays for the new County Police Department (which really should exist already...behind the times again)? Who pays for water and waste upgrades and expansion? Who pays for county positions that are created to support the airport? All of these items are without regard for any profitability of the facility. They will be costs in the future no matter whether the airport profits the county or not.
Building an airport isn't a solution to anything...apart from the current lack of an airport.
If you want transportation dollars in the county, get a senator to put Paulding in the way of an Interstate construction project. The successful meduim-sized airports mostly seem to be near a Federal highway. I guess Hwy316 is a misfit (except that it empties into I-85 in what seems like less than 10 miles).
This whole thing seems a lot like Americans sending food to "starving countries". If you cannot feed your current population, why would you increase the number of mouths that need to be fed?
Posted 28 April 2004 - 04:31 PM
The biggest reason we need an airpot is very simple: we need to bring in businesses & the added tax revenue. Without that added tax revenue, property taxes will have to be increased in the future just to pay the bills for the existing infrastructures, even with zero additional growth. Paulding must have more revenue coming into the coffers because the costs of running a county go up overtime, not down. So even with zero additional homes being built, the tax burden is going to grow astronomically in a short time.
Yes, an airport may add more costs to Paulding in services as well. However, more businesses mean more in the tax base to cover that. It is just that simple.
I agree we do need a major road, but there are no more interstates being built right now. But, Paulding did have the opportunity for I-20 or even I-75 at one point & the powers in the county at that time pitched such a hissy fit that Paulding was axed from consideration.
Funny: the same folks in Dallas City who didn't want 278 expanded through Dallas now complain that Dallas is dead. I've heard it with my own ears. Hmmm.
We cannot stop the growth. We cannot tell landowners not to sell their land for development. We cannot revert to being Mayberry anymore.
Resistance is futile.
Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:22 PM
Our commissioners say they are republicans and conservative, lets act like it and not spend money just because it is there to spend. Lead by example. I have seen some good alternatives to an airport on this site not just on this thread. Before land is purchased with tax payer money, to build something that will impact the enviroment so profoundly, the citizens of the county should have the final word on whether it happens or not. That is just an old paulding resident talking, but can anyone say why we should not have the opportunity to vote this up or down? Would the Commission Chairman, or any of the commissioners like to disagree that we should have the right to vote on this?
Does anyone know how to start a petition to stop the airport before it gets started? If so send me a message on here, lets not wait and let it sneak up on us.
Posted 29 April 2004 - 08:21 AM
Do a little research via the Internet (one of the few times I reference searching the Internet due to the crapola out there) on something called the Delphi Principle.
You might be suprised that the vote will mean very little when decisions are made.