Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo
- - - - -

Statement from Airport Chairman


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
166 replies to this topic

#121 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 08:46 PM

An observation:

One: Your proposal is a capitulation, not a negotiation.

Two: You're not a friend of free enterprise and obviously like the notion of government over-regulation.

Three: Unless many of you have been lying, you already support the development of the 60 acres at the site. Even Todd Pownall is on record supporting the 60 acres in the original video from early October. Bottom line, that is not a point of contention. The only reason it is involved is that if folks who might want to develop that 60 acres see what has transpired, they'd have to wonder if they make a proposal for the property and that the authorities authorized to deal can be so easily have their issue over-turned, why even negotiate with the airport authority, IBA or county.

That, point - that we delegate and back up the decisions of these entities is the key, non-negotiable issue in this.

To wit, the proposal I suggested does not restrain or change the current agreement, which the AA was fully authorized to enter.

The objection, from what I've understood, is not commercial passenger traffic per se, but rather the prospect (however unlikely) that having commercial passenger traffic there magically turns this facility into a Hartsfield-Jackson mega-facility that features 2000-3000 flights a day with over 100,000,000 passengers a year.

Indeed, the prohibition of commercial passenger traffic, because of the FAA rules regarding commercial passenger aircraft noise abatement, means that these aircraft are significantly more quiet than comparable general aviation aircraft and especially military aircraft. Indeed, these kinds of aircraft are also significantly quieter than helicopters.

Bottom line, the issue with commercial passenger traffic is one of volume alone. One airstrip of a specified length is a significant limitation on the future growth of passenger volumes.

That there was no established referendum limiting the use of airport at its current size and configuration - the current size includes the planned for expansion of the taxiway - is the reason there is and should not be a vote allowing or disallowing the expansion into this market. The imposition of such a referendum in the future allows the residents at that future time decide whether the airport gets bigger.

My personal guess is that the current size of this airport will be more than adequate to meet the needs of this area now and into the indefinite future.

I will point out that the suggestion that we discuss a compromise changes the dynamic of the discussion so that we are considering real issues relating to the future of the facility. That frankly should be considered a positive development.

pubby

Pubby first no one on this board has the authority to negotiate or mediate this issue
Secondly I do not believe anyone with the group that filed the law suit would ever buy into your BS proposal, At least I would hope they would not
Thirdly what is the incentive to agree on such a proposal.

you got to keep in mind one simple thing eight years ago the top leaders in this county both elected, appointed and business owners bought into the concept of building a General Aviation Airport. And it was done. This was not the commitment from just Calvin Thompson. It was a commitment from almost all the leaders of this county. some as recent as the elections in 2012

In order for these leaders to ever regain the trust of the citizens they must find a way to make the General Aviation airport profitable.

Citizens of Paulding County will accept nothing less other than a vote on the issue that would be binding on all
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"

#122 jenilyn

jenilyn

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 09:12 PM

I don't live anywhere near the airport, so this isn't an issue for me. I used to live about a mile from Dobbins, right in the landing flight path. The AWACs were a PITA when they were running maneuvers. Those suckers are LOUD. It's like a train - you kinda get used to it, and those days after 9/11 when no jets except for random fighter jets were flying were just CREEPY. Of course, I bought WAY YONDER after Dobbins was built, so I knew what I was getting into.

The issue many of us have - esp. moi, since I live in NE Paulding - is that this was rammed through in secrecy, and after concerns were raised, the attitude of the proponents and PTB has been one of arrogance and condescension. If when concerns were first raised, the PTB said ok, we know how this looks, but we'll have one town hall meeting in each district (or three general town halls or something), and we'll lay everything out and explain why we did what we did, and then we believe you'll want to back the bond issue. If they'd done that, I probably wouldn't have given this entire issue a second look. But NO. And so, inasmuch as we've all been burned by politicians before, our concerns are now greater than ever.


This.
No man ever stands taller than when he kneels to help another.

If they laugh at you because you're different, laugh at them because they're all the same.

#123 DallasRED

DallasRED

    GO NAVY!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,427 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 09:15 PM

I don't live anywhere near the airport, so this isn't an issue for me. I used to live about a mile from Dobbins, right in the landing flight path. The AWACs were a PITA when they were running maneuvers. Those suckers are LOUD. It's like a train - you kinda get used to it, and those days after 9/11 when no jets except for random fighter jets were flying were just CREEPY. Of course, I bought WAY YONDER after Dobbins was built, so I knew what I was getting into.

The issue many of us have - esp. moi, since I live in NE Paulding - is that this was rammed through in secrecy, and after concerns were raised, the attitude of the proponents and PTB has been one of arrogance and condescension. If when concerns were first raised, the PTB said ok, we know how this looks, but we'll have one town hall meeting in each district (or three general town halls or something), and we'll lay everything out and explain why we did what we did, and then we believe you'll want to back the bond issue. If they'd done that, I probably wouldn't have given this entire issue a second look. But NO. And so, inasmuch as we've all been burned by politicians before, our concerns are now greater than ever.


I lived very close to Dobbins when my house was being built, never noticed the noise. I was on Delk rd....What is that 2-3 miles max from the base?

Paulding County = Good Ol BOY club...I can understand why people are upset....I was only commenting on how the noise wasn't that bad.
Posted Image

"Why are some people such assholes for no reason but then are the first to bitch to the mods when the tables are turned" GO BLUE

"You judge me and think you know me, and I'm quite sure we've never met. You know nothing." MADEA

"NOT ONE DAMN ONE OF YOU HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN NOT FEEL THE WAY I DO." SOLO

#124 Animal

Animal

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,988 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 09:24 PM

Pubby first no one on this board has the authority to negotiate or mediate this issue
Secondly I do not believe anyone with the group that filed the law suit would ever buy into your BS proposal, At least I would hope they would not
Thirdly what is the incentive to agree on such a proposal.

you got to keep in mind one simple thing eight years ago the top leaders in this county both elected, appointed and business owners bought into the concept of building a General Aviation Airport. And it was done. This was not the commitment from just Calvin Thompson. It was a commitment from almost all the leaders of this county. some as recent as the elections in 2012

In order for these leaders to ever regain the trust of the citizens they must find a way to make the General Aviation airport profitable.

Citizens of Paulding County will accept nothing less other than a vote on the issue that would be binding on all


Why vote,it's not a subject to vote on. The next business that wants to enter the gates to Paulding county we should tell them wait we need to vote on it.

Get a grip you are against the growth,so who allowed that movie building? Was it voted on? Pick and choose,spin the wheel.:pardon:



Men are like carpets,the better you lay them the longer you can walk on them.

#125 mei lan

mei lan

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,973 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 09:57 PM

Paulding County = Good Ol BOY club...I can understand why people are upset....I was only commenting on how the noise wasn't that bad.



10-4.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

William Shakespeare, Sonnet 116


#126 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,887 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:25 PM

Why vote,it's not a subject to vote on. The next business that wants to enter the gates to Paulding county we should tell them wait we need to vote on it.

Get a grip you are against the growth,so who allowed that movie building? Was it voted on? Pick and choose,spin the wheel.:pardon:


The Film Studio might very well be one reason some are looking at the bond issue so closely at the airport. The Film Studio and bond was slipped in quietly while we all slept in the comfort and security thinking all was good. I am open to be corrected. I think the projections were it would be utilized almost continiously while creating jobs, providing opportunities for local business's and also revenue to cover the bond payments and operating cost. I think it's been used for 1 project for about 2 weeks. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Looking at a printout showing expenditures thru 6-30-12 we were at a break even because Management and utilities were paid from the $5 million bond. As of the date of this printout there was only $60,049.12 of the $5 million bond not spent. I would guess we are now at a loss or more bond money has been borrowed or other budget money has been reallocated to cover operating cost.
Again correct me if I am wrong, I think we did create 1 job.

I am all for jobs and industry but let's make sure there is some logic and track record to help us identify we are gambling wisely with taxpayer money. Back to the airport. I am just starting to research profit and loss at airports. Again I'm just starting to study the subject. The first thing I have read in several reports is 30% of airports make a profit. I am also reading the carrier that's rumored to be a candidate for our carrier is known to jump ship if they don't quickly start filling their planes on every flight.

Again I'm all for industry. Dell is good for TN, BMW is good for SC. Toyo and KIA are good for GA. Caterpillar will be good for Athens. But who is Propeller? Found anything they have done? Anywhere? With anyone? I know Pubby will bring up Microsoft & Apple. Even with them starting in garages I'll bet some bank or lender backed each expansion. We the taxpayers are not a hedge fund or bank. We are certainly not the Fed's financing Solar Energy. We must balance our budget. We can't sell T-Bills and print money.

Edited by mojo413, 16 December 2013 - 10:39 PM.

  • mrshoward likes this
I Support Job Creation.
I Support Industrial Expansion.
I Oppose Commercial Air Service.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#127 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:46 PM

Hey pubby
can you help me out a little on this airport meeting
http://www.youtube.c...youtube.com/wat
It appears that these two you tubes is the meeting where you assert that the Agreements were hammered out with silver comet partners discussed openly honestly and very transparent, And nothing was discussed in secret?

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"

#128 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 11:05 PM

Now Pubby after you have the opportunity to view both of these videos will you please tell me where and when the contract Dated November 28 2012 was talked about openly in a Airport authority meeting I can save you some time if you like.
The first tape was the first part of the meeting at the end of the tape they went into closed session.
When they came out of closed session was the only discussion that I heard during the entire meeting concerning Silver Comet Partners.

The minutes even support the what was taped.

Are you really okay with this?
  • mojo413 likes this
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"

#129 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:02 AM

I don't live anywhere near the airport, so this isn't an issue for me. I used to live about a mile from Dobbins, right in the landing flight path. The AWACs were a PITA when they were running maneuvers. Those suckers are LOUD. It's like a train - you kinda get used to it, and those days after 9/11 when no jets except for random fighter jets were flying were just CREEPY. Of course, I bought WAY YONDER after Dobbins was built, so I knew what I was getting into.

The issue many of us have - esp. moi, since I live in NE Paulding - is that this was rammed through in secrecy, and after concerns were raised, the attitude of the proponents and PTB has been one of arrogance and condescension. If when concerns were first raised, the PTB said ok, we know how this looks, but we'll have one town hall meeting in each district (or three general town halls or something), and we'll lay everything out and explain why we did what we did, and then we believe you'll want to back the bond issue. If they'd done that, I probably wouldn't have given this entire issue a second look. But NO. And so, inasmuch as we've all been burned by politicians before, our concerns are now greater than ever.


Really, arrogance and condescension was the attitude you got from them.

I got surprise at the reaction first (to Todd calling them out), followed by a little incredulity that what they are doing is perceived as something that will turn the airport into H-J and Paulding into Clayton county overnight. The original piece - the outline at the so-called town hall meeting - cast the commission as corrupt and its been down hill since.

Elected officials are always slapped with allegations of arrogance and condescension. I'm not sensing that but perception of that sort is a very personal reaction.

The answer suggested was sort of preempted by the 'town hall' where the game was more or less rigged ... where the principals were invited to attend but were not allowed to speak... and yes they have the email.

So, mis and mal communication abounds. Because there was never an effort to negotiate ... rather the motive from the get go was to divide and presumably destroy ... we're seeing that. Oh, and if you think the county leaders are so sophisticated they can manipulate these things, forget it. They're just regular folks like you and I who stood up and said they'd try to do the people's work.

Which brings me to Whitey's post:

Pubby first no one on this board has the authority to negotiate or mediate this issue
Secondly I do not believe anyone with the group that filed the law suit would ever buy into your BS proposal, At least I would hope they would not
Thirdly what is the incentive to agree on such a proposal.

you got to keep in mind one simple thing eight years ago the top leaders in this county both elected, appointed and business owners bought into the concept of building a General Aviation Airport. And it was done. This was not the commitment from just Calvin Thompson. It was a commitment from almost all the leaders of this county. some as recent as the elections in 2012

In order for these leaders to ever regain the trust of the citizens they must find a way to make the General Aviation airport profitable.

Citizens of Paulding County will accept nothing less other than a vote on the issue that would be binding on all


First, an earlier post I suggested you were throwing around the comments about folks lying. I saw some comments that show you feel that but you didn't actually say the kind of inflammatory thing I suggested. Mea culpa.

Second, you're right, we don't have any special authority or standing. So what, if we have a better idea, we can press forward on it and learn what all we need to know. Let me explain.

The reason that those pursuing the lawsuit would go this direction is because today they know there is a good chance they'll lose in court. Their strategy in pursing the legal approach is to delay and discourage Brett Smith, hopefully by making it too costly for him to proceed. That is a factor of time and, notably, as they count the time on his threat, they count back to 2007 in Athens.

I' think they know that Smith is dedicated in his effort and as Calvin Thompson said, if not here, then he will try somewhere else.

What probably freaks the folks at Delta so much about Paulding is that they've looked at this site seriously before themselves. Among the things they know is there is a tremendous amount of land nearby that, despite its terrain, could be used to expand a facility as large or larger than H-J. If Silver Comet Field becomes a passenger airport and the market acceptance surprises them, they may fear that in twenty years they will be behind the 8-ball as the little airport adds one, two, three runways taking increasing amounts of passenger traffic and 10-15-20 percent of the greater market. A one-percent share, possibly the max they might get with a single 6000-foot runway, is a PIA, but not a serious threat.

Add to that the fact that the law is such that the commission/AA and IBA could expand it to multiple runways under the law and if this is a success, subsequent commissions could add runways and all that jazz without so much as a referendum or vote ... just like the city of Atlanta has done at H-J ... again, all without a public referendum or vote.

The requirement of a public referendum at some date in the future represents an election day certain that they can influence. They could contribute to and aid the predictable local group that will be recommending NO ...

More than that, if they believe Brett Smith's real agenda is to have a facility with five runways and 2000 flights a day like H-J, then putting this kind of constraint on him would dash his dreams and possibly convince him to move on.

Fact is, if Smith rejects this kind of initiative, it would inform us all the nature his plans for the facility indeed is more than what he's stated and not consistent even with the wishes of the commission or the people.

David Austin and the other commissioners also have every reason to embrace this. The commissioners and authority members have been saying that they don't want and would not support a big H-J airport. What better way to say that than by leading the effort for a compromise solution that clarifies what they want and what can be accomplished at the current facility with their blessing. I don't think they could reject such a proposal?

Indeed, I suspect they would embrace it as it says their motive is and has been to develop the facility as it is, not betray the vision of a small regional airport and replace it with 'a new Hartsfield-Jackson.'

To me the real issue here is the coming up with a reasonable consensus vision of the future. I reject the notion that 'commercial passenger traffic' is the the tipping point. To me the tipping point would be accepting aircraft larger than what the facility is designed to accommodate - so large they require a longer landing strip than the current authorization of 6000-ft or operations so intense that two or more runways are needed.

That is a decision for a future generation five or ten years from now but for now, I'm totally against expanding the facility to accept larger aircraft.

Finally, I think all those in government would LOVE, absolutely LOVE the idea of honest negotiations about the future in contrast to the polarizing rhetoric we have now. And, if the county rejects this approach (or one that is similar) that keeps the door wide open for expansion - and it is wide open right now - then you might get me on your side as well.

pubby

#130 rockster

rockster

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,406 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:02 AM

The Film Studio might very well be one reason some are looking at the bond issue so closely at the airport. The Film Studio and bond was slipped in quietly while we all slept in the comfort and security thinking all was good. I am open to be corrected. I think the projections were it would be utilized almost continiously while creating jobs, providing opportunities for local business's and also revenue to cover the bond payments and operating cost. I think it's been used for 1 project for about 2 weeks. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Looking at a printout showing expenditures thru 6-30-12 we were at a break even because Management and utilities were paid from the $5 million bond. As of the date of this printout there was only $60,049.12 of the $5 million bond not spent. I would guess we are now at a loss or more bond money has been borrowed or other budget money has been reallocated to cover operating cost.
Again correct me if I am wrong, I think we did create 1 job.

I am all for jobs and industry but let's make sure there is some logic and track record to help us identify we are gambling wisely with taxpayer money. Back to the airport. I am just starting to research profit and loss at airports. Again I'm just starting to study the subject. The first thing I have read in several reports is 30% of airports make a profit. I am also reading the carrier that's rumored to be a candidate for our carrier is known to jump ship if they don't quickly start filling their planes on every flight.

Again I'm all for industry. Dell is good for TN, BMW is good for SC. Toyo and KIA are good for GA. Caterpillar will be good for Athens. But who is Propeller? Found anything they have done? Anywhere? With anyone? I know Pubby will bring up Microsoft & Apple. Even with them starting in garages I'll bet some bank or lender backed each expansion. We the taxpayers are not a hedge fund or bank. We are certainly not the Fed's financing Solar Energy. We must balance our budget. We can't sell T-Bills and print money.


Yeah, I believe the movie studio is just one thorn people are really looking at how the county gets suckered into deals. The numbers you stated are what I have. Thing is, that is only up to 6-30-2012. $20,000 cash in bank for operating, another $60K left from bond to spend. Then there are some numbers from July 2013 - November 2013 that was around $137,000 for operating (give or take, I do not have the exact amount). Given no numbers are from July 2012 - June 2013, maybe we can assume the money pit is averaging $500,000 loss a year??? NOT to mention the BOND payoff!! And, if the studio is not doing anything who is receiving the salaries???

Edited by rockster, 17 December 2013 - 12:06 AM.

  • mojo413 likes this

#131 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 01:19 AM

Now Pubby after you have the opportunity to view both of these videos will you please tell me where and when the contract Dated November 28 2012 was talked about openly in a Airport authority meeting I can save you some time if you like.
The first tape was the first part of the meeting at the end of the tape they went into closed session.
When they came out of closed session was the only discussion that I heard during the entire meeting concerning Silver Comet Partners.

The minutes even support the what was taped.

Are you really okay with this?


No I'm not but how can I not be... What was done is specifically legal under the open meetings law of the state of Georgia passed in 2012. And you can't even blame the Republican Legislature ... there was only one vote in the house in opposition to the measure ... and it was a Democrat but one vote in opposition is hardly a cause for a partisan proclamation of superiority. (There were 20 legislators who ducked the vote.)

Mar/29/2012 - House Vote #829 Yea(169)Nay(1)NV(5) Exc(5)
Mar/27/2012 - Senate Vote #753Yea(46)Nay(0)NV(3)Exc(7)


Oh, and Governor Deal signed the legislation effective in April 2012.

The key phrase, passed in 2012, stated in bold below:

B) Subject to compliance with the other provisions of this chapter, executive sessions shall be permitted for:
(1) Meetings when any agency is discussing or voting to:
(A) Authorize the settlement of any matter which may be properly discussed in executive
session in accordance with paragraph (1) of Code Section 50-14-2;
(B) Authorize negotiations to purchase, dispose of or lease property;
© Authorize the ordering of an appraisal related to the acquisition or disposal of real
estate;
(D) Enter into a contract to purchase, dispose of, or lease property subject to approval in a
subsequent public vote; or
(E) Enter into an option to purchase, dispose of, or lease real estate subject to approval in
subsequent public vote.


No vote in executive session to acquire, dispose of, or lease real estate, or to settle
litigation, claims, or administrative proceedings, shall be binding on an agency until a
subsequent vote is taken in an open meeting where the identity of the property and the term


If I were a state legislator, I would have opposed these amendments - previously such discussion did have to occur in public session - but under the new law, the only thing that must be presented in public is the vote on the lease. I saw that the vote was taken on a motion by Dallas Mayor Boyd Austin and passed by an unanimous vote.

Did they do anything illegal? No. Are similar things happening across Georgia? Absolutely.

The obvious reason is the business-friendly nature of Republicans who want to protect the business interests in their dealings with the government, boards and authorities.

It would be fair to complain to Bill Heath, Howard Maxwell and Paulette Braddock as all three supported this legislation. No state senator voted against the measure and only one house member did vote against it ... a Democrat from Atlanta.

pubby

PS: the smilies are actually section of the law ... ( b )

#132 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,887 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 06:41 AM

Now Pubby after you have the opportunity to view both of these videos will you please tell me where and when the contract Dated November 28 2012 was talked about openly in a Airport authority meeting I can save you some time if you like.
The first tape was the first part of the meeting at the end of the tape they went into closed session.
When they came out of closed session was the only discussion that I heard during the entire meeting concerning Silver Comet Partners.

The minutes even support the what was taped.

Are you really okay with this?


Whitey I'm really afraid Pubby has found an old jug of Jerry Shearin Cool-Aid and is suffering deminished mental capacity from well aged political poisoning.

I totally get what you are saying. All along they've been saying something to the effect of "we did everything in the open and you were not listening".
And the video shows the only words discussed or mentioned in open session was "Silver Comet".
You have provided firm evidence the AA plotted to scam us citizens. And we are slow. It took us a year to finally figure it out.

My suspension of this partnership continues to grow. After reading only 30% of airports make a profit, I'm wondering what kind of assurances were made in Closed Session to protect Propeller Investors / Brett Smith from stockholder losses. This is why I propose each Post Commissioner appoint a member to the AA.
  • Captain Rhett Butler likes this
I Support Job Creation.
I Support Industrial Expansion.
I Oppose Commercial Air Service.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#133 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,887 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 06:46 AM

No I'm not but how can I not be... What was done is specifically legal under the open meetings law of the state of Georgia passed in 2012. And you can't even blame the Republican Legislature ... there was only one vote in the house in opposition to the measure ... and it was a Democrat but one vote in opposition is hardly a cause for a partisan proclamation of superiority. (There were 20 legislators who ducked the vote.)


Oh, and Governor Deal signed the legislation effective in April 2012.

The key phrase, passed in 2012, stated in bold below:


If I were a state legislator, I would have opposed these amendments - previously such discussion did have to occur in public session - but under the new law, the only thing that must be presented in public is the vote on the lease. I saw that the vote was taken on a motion by Dallas Mayor Boyd Austin and passed by an unanimous vote.

Did they do anything illegal? No. Are similar things happening across Georgia? Absolutely.

The obvious reason is the business-friendly nature of Republicans who want to protect the business interests in their dealings with the government, boards and authorities.

It would be fair to complain to Bill Heath, Howard Maxwell and Paulette Braddock as all three supported this legislation. No state senator voted against the measure and only one house member did vote against it ... a Democrat from Atlanta.

pubby

PS: the smilies are actually section of the law ... ( b )


Pubby... Help me out. Where does it say to manage and operate a business venture for the county can be within these requirements?
I Support Job Creation.
I Support Industrial Expansion.
I Oppose Commercial Air Service.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#134 tundra

tundra

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,556 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 06:55 AM

Whitey, thanks for the video that indeed shows "this was done according to the law". Yes, their legal council made sure the vote was public, code names are not illegal either. Bet they left that meeting feels oh so good about how they pulled that one off.

Bet a bunch of Good Ole Boy slaps on the back happened following that meeting. 8)

Character is defined by doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.
  • mojo413 likes this

Bring on the jobs, bring on the business leave the commercial flights at Hartsfield.

I OPPOSE COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE. Protect Paulding County  Put it on the Ballot
 


#135 mrshoward

mrshoward

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,209 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 07:47 AM

I don't live anywhere near the airport, so this isn't an issue for me. I used to live about a mile from Dobbins, right in the landing flight path. The AWACs were a PITA when they were running maneuvers. Those suckers are LOUD. It's like a train - you kinda get used to it, and those days after 9/11 when no jets except for random fighter jets were flying were just CREEPY. Of course, I bought WAY YONDER after Dobbins was built, so I knew what I was getting into.

The issue many of us have - esp. moi, since I live in NE Paulding - is that this was rammed through in secrecy, and after concerns were raised, the attitude of the proponents and PTB has been one of arrogance and condescension. If when concerns were first raised, the PTB said ok, we know how this looks, but we'll have one town hall meeting in each district (or three general town halls or something), and we'll lay everything out and explain why we did what we did, and then we believe you'll want to back the bond issue. If they'd done that, I probably wouldn't have given this entire issue a second look. But NO. And so, inasmuch as we've all been burned by politicians before, our concerns are now greater than ever.




Thank you, this entire kerfuffle is the result of arrogance and condescension.


When this deal was first announced and citizens voiced legitimate concerns,
those concerns were dismissed and ridiculed with a lofty wave of the hand.

Had those in charge been mindful and addressed those concerns thoughtfully,
the tidal wave of opposition to this deal could have been mostly mitigated.

It certainly seems that the taxpayer's reaction was never given a second thought,
as evidenced by the fact that they have yet to organize any informational avenues.

A good forward proactive PR campaign would have created the perception that the citizens voices are a respected
part of the process, the reactive attempt to repudiate and discredit those same voices is what created this mess.


8)

Edited by mrshoward, 17 December 2013 - 07:48 AM.

  • WHITEY, mojo413 and kyro like this
A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable,
who believes that there is no virtue but on his own side, and that there
are not men as honest as himself who may differ from him in political principles.


- Joseph Addison

#136 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 08:31 AM

No I'm not but how can I not be... What was done is specifically legal under the open meetings law of the state of Georgia passed in 2012. And you can't even blame the Republican Legislature ... there was only one vote in the house in opposition to the measure ... and it was a Democrat but one vote in opposition is hardly a cause for a partisan proclamation of superiority. (There were 20 legislators who ducked the vote.)


Oh, and Governor Deal signed the legislation effective in April 2012.

The key phrase, passed in 2012, stated in bold below:


If I were a state legislator, I would have opposed these amendments - previously such discussion did have to occur in public session - but under the new law, the only thing that must be presented in public is the vote on the lease. I saw that the vote was taken on a motion by Dallas Mayor Boyd Austin and passed by an unanimous vote.

Did they do anything illegal? No. Are similar things happening across Georgia? Absolutely.

The obvious reason is the business-friendly nature of Republicans who want to protect the business interests in their dealings with the government, boards and authorities.

It would be fair to complain to Bill Heath, Howard Maxwell and Paulette Braddock as all three supported this legislation. No state senator voted against the measure and only one house member did vote against it ... a Democrat from Atlanta.

pubby

PS: the smilies are actually section of the law ... ( b )

Pubby You ducked the question I will ask again.

Now Pubby after you have the opportunity to view both of these videos will you please tell me where and when the contract Dated November 28 2012 was talked about openly in a Airport authority meeting
As has been contended for months now
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"

#137 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,189 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 08:58 AM

If a C-130 flew low, over your house you must be hard of hearing. I know how extremely loud C-130's are from working on the flight line.
Plans do change, so let the citizens in on the planned change. Nothing was ever mentioned a back-up plan if the economy tanked.


I'm not hard of hearing. I've spent a lot of time on flight lines with C-130s in Afghanistan and Iraq to know how loud they are. I've flown in a lot of them, so I know how loud they are while inside one. They aren 't as loud when one flies over your head at 200'. While in Afghanistan, I worked l just over a quarter of a mile from the runway, as was the building I slept in. The noise from the C-130s weren't a problem. The noise from fighter jets though were a nuisance, especially while they were taking off in the middle of the night and would hit the afterburners as they lifted off.
Golly gee willickers.

#138 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:19 AM

Pubby... Help me out. Where does it say to manage and operate a business venture for the county can be within these requirements?


The AA board is authorized to discuss leases, that a lease can involve the scope of covered with the implications involved I sure was specifically anticipated by the legislators who changed the law in 2012.

That AG Sam Olens is the man who pushed these revisions into law and that he was a former county commission chairman (Cobb) pretty much says where his loyalties were. Get ready to be surprised some more. Add our airport deal to the Cobb/Braves deal, another one concocted in secret. Yes, the open meetings law is going to be the source of numerous surprises and you probably haven't seen nothing yet.

Here is the article on the passage of the law in the AJC.

But again, rather than gather the mob and point fingers at the people here you disagree with, I think we should be asking our legislators to amend the law to clarify that things like this have to be discussed in open session ... because if you tell these boards and commissions these items can be discussed in closed 'executive' sessions you can bet they will.

pubby

PS: I'm concerned about process. There are policies that promote and require open government and there are policies and laws that promote secret government. Look who gave us the laws and policies and you see that actions speak louder than words.

#139 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,189 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:19 AM

I really do not like to assume something but you have indicated that you do not live in Paulding County is that correct?
Tax revenues are not down they have been up the past two years and are expected to be even higher this year

So you do not think that we should hold our elected and appointed officials to the campaign promises wow. WHAT A CHANGE FOR YOU? Are you the same person that often post in the Political forum ??

I moved here in 1976 not for a job, But rather for the peace and quite of this rural setting, I really know of no one that moved here to work .
Heck over 75% of the chamber board of directors are not even Paulding County Residents.
I got to looking at the department heads at the BOC meeting the other day and it looked like about half of them were not Paulding residents, Dang the airport board even has a large number of out of county residents. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!!!!

BOC I am not okay with this we need to hire Paulding County Residents to these good paying department head jobs. and the appointed jobs.
Same applies to the new hospital... If we have bonded it like I am told then we need to hire Paulding county workers to do the jobs.
I personally know of no one that moved to Paulding County looking for a job maybe you do. I know of one person that does not have a job but he is disabled and can not do a lot of the jobs available.

I really do not understand why a lot of folks that live outside of the county have the authority to, expand airports Vote to Provide commercial service and to tax the citizens to accomplish this Their has got to be something wrong with this system?


Tax revenues are making a recovery in Paulding, but they are still down from what they were 10 years ago. We've had many discussions in this forum in the past years before the recession started, how the tax revenues collected were not enough to improve the infrastructure in the county, e.g. countywide sewerage and more revenue for the schools. Those discussions included how if manufacturing businesses located into the county they would not only provide decent paying jobs, but would generate much larger tax revenues compared to retail businesses.

You could have more and more retail businesses open up in the county, but they aren't going to provide decent paying jobs and they aren't going to provide the tax revenue that a light manufacturing business would. The current unemployment rate in the county is 7%. In 2004, the county's unemployment rate was less than 4% and less than 5% in 2009.

I know you want to see good paying jobs in the county as most people do. The question is what assets in the county do you utilize to bring them here? The airport is such an asset.

While I was in the Army, I once explained to a soldier that a good leader maximizes the use of all his assets to succeed in the mission. That's what the leaders in the county need to do.
  • Beach Bum likes this
Golly gee willickers.

#140 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:22 AM

Pubby You ducked the question I will ask again.

Now Pubby after you have the opportunity to view both of these videos will you please tell me where and when the contract Dated November 28 2012 was talked about openly in a Airport authority meeting
As has been contended for months now


All the law requires is that it be voted on in public, Whitey. It was and it was listed on the agenda as the Silver Comet Partners Terminal Lease. Boyd Austin moved that it be approved and it was done so unanimously.

Blame AG Sam Olens and Gov. Nathan Deal and all but the one Democratic state Rep from Atlanta who opposed the new open meetings law in 2012.

pubby

#141 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,887 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:40 AM

All the law requires is that it be voted on in public, Whitey. It was and it was listed on the agenda as the Silver Comet Partners Terminal Lease. Boyd Austin moved that it be approved and it was done so unanimously.

Blame AG Sam Olens and Gov. Nathan Deal and all but the one Democratic state Rep from Atlanta who opposed the new open meetings law in 2012.

pubby


I can't remember a single candidate running on the "I'll use the open meetings law to my fullest advantage" platform, instead I remember "open, honest and transparent government" promises.

Our county leaders might feel like they are totally within the law. I feel like we have a mess due to the lack of open, honest and transparent leadership.

And I'm certainly not an attorney but I'll bet the right attorney could argue this is not only a lease, it's also a management and operątions agreement.

I've said it before and I will say it again... In the end the winners will be the lawyers.
  • WHITEY likes this
I Support Job Creation.
I Support Industrial Expansion.
I Oppose Commercial Air Service.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#142 tundra

tundra

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,556 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:45 AM

All the law requires is that it be voted on in public, Whitey. It was and it was listed on the agenda as the Silver Comet Partners Terminal Lease. Boyd Austin moved that it be approved and it was done so unanimously.

Blame AG Sam Olens and Gov. Nathan Deal and all but the one Democratic state Rep from Atlanta who opposed the new open meetings law in 2012.

pubby


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Posted Image
  • mrshoward, crossroads and mojo413 like this

Bring on the jobs, bring on the business leave the commercial flights at Hartsfield.

I OPPOSE COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE. Protect Paulding County  Put it on the Ballot
 


#143 radiohead

radiohead

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:59 AM

Tax revenues are making a recovery in Paulding, but they are still down from what they were 10 years ago. We've had many discussions in this forum in the past years before the recession started, how the tax revenues collected were not enough to improve the infrastructure in the county, e.g. countywide sewerage and more revenue for the schools. Those discussions included how if manufacturing businesses located into the county they would not only provide decent paying jobs, but would generate much larger tax revenues compared to retail businesses.

You could have more and more retail businesses open up in the county, but they aren't going to provide decent paying jobs and they aren't going to provide the tax revenue that a light manufacturing business would. The current unemployment rate in the county is 7%. In 2004, the county's unemployment rate was less than 4% and less than 5% in 2009.

I know you want to see good paying jobs in the county as most people do. The question is what assets in the county do you utilize to bring them here? The airport is such an asset.
The airport is not a asset for jobs. There are several industrial sites located around the county and even in downtown Dallas.
Why don't we try to get some actual manufacturing businesses instead of something no one wants?

While I was in the Army, I once explained to a soldier that a good leader maximizes the use of all his assets to succeed in the mission. That's what the leaders in the county need to do.


  • WHITEY, mojo413 and tundra like this

ibatext.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cqQrqCbTHZ2l


#144 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 10:23 AM

All the law requires is that it be voted on in public, Whitey. It was and it was listed on the agenda as the Silver Comet Partners Terminal Lease. Boyd Austin moved that it be approved and it was done so unanimously.

Blame AG Sam Olens and Gov. Nathan Deal and all but the one Democratic state Rep from Atlanta who opposed the new open meetings law in 2012.

pubby

Pubby I am going to place the blame squarely where it belongs.

None of this could of occurred without the full force and support of the top elected appointed and business leaders of Paulding County.
Both elected, appointed, and some business leaders bought into the concept oft secretly turning our airport into a commercial passenger facility.
A meeting of less than two minutes to pass something that will affect every person in this county using codes names does not set to well with me.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this entire deal, in my opinion, is the full page ads ran by the chamber where it appears that the entire Board of directors of the chamber bought into this secret deal. Hopefully all of the board was not aware of how this entire deal was consummated???
The elected leaders can be dealt with come election time, The appointed leaders can also be dealt with after the elections.
The business leaders..... Well the citizens will have to decide if they want to do commerce with a business that supports this kind of representation by its elected and appointed officials.
  • mojo413 and radiohead like this
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"

#145 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 10:35 AM

I can't remember a single candidate running on the "I'll use the open meetings law to my fullest advantage" platform, instead I remember "open, honest and transparent government" promises.

Our county leaders might feel like they are totally within the law. I feel like we have a mess due to the lack of open, honest and transparent leadership.

And I'm certainly not an attorney but I'll bet the right attorney could argue this is not only a lease, it's also a management and operątions agreement.

I've said it before and I will say it again... In the end the winners will be the lawyers.

I truly hope that some citizen/group with some deep pockets will contest this in the superior court in Paulding County And the Georgia Supreme Court

Although the elected leaders are trying to cram this down our throats folks.
It ain't over til the fat lady sings.

Contact your commissioners, FAA, State and federal Representatives

Honest, open and Transparent government is what we expect, And should settle for no less.
  • mojo413 and radiohead like this
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"

#146 crossroads

crossroads

    Icon

  • +Unstoppable Woman
  • 4,352 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:00 PM

I'm not hard of hearing. I've spent a lot of time on flight lines with C-130s in Afghanistan and Iraq to know how loud they are. I've flown in a lot of them, so I know how loud they are while inside one. They aren 't as loud when one flies over your head at 200'. While in Afghanistan, I worked l just over a quarter of a mile from the runway, as was the building I slept in. The noise from the C-130s weren't a problem. The noise from fighter jets though were a nuisance, especially while they were taking off in the middle of the night and would hit the afterburners as they lifted off.


Well we share a lot when it come to the noise a C-130 makes. I can hear one coming from miles away. I became so accustomed to hearing them, they became like a lullaby, Mostly during engine testing. Nothing like a C-130.
Thanks for service to our Country.
I am for jobs and growth in PC. I am not for commercial service at the SCF. Get it right!

#147 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:24 PM

I truly hope that some citizen/group with some deep pockets will contest this in the superior court in Paulding County And the Georgia Supreme Court

Although the elected leaders are trying to cram this down our throats folks.
It ain't over til the fat lady sings.

Contact your commissioners, FAA, State and federal Representatives

Honest, open and Transparent government is what we expect, And should settle for no less.


It would be a total waste of money and time. This was exactly what Sam Olens wanted when he backed the changes to the open meetings laws in 2012. You don't think he had his fill of complainer's when he was Cobb Commission Chairman?

The elected leaders are trying to bring economic activity/development/jobs to the county. They're doing the best they can and they're not shoving anything down your throat.

I feel for them because I recognize this as a no-win situation for the elected leaders. Yes, they are damned if the do talk about it and damned if they don't. Smith had talked about his plans openly in Athens and also in Gwinnett and what was the result? So what makes you think that he is going to be eager to talk about it here from the get go. That so totally explains the 'secrecy' associated with this effort that no other explanation is really necessary.

But obviously, that is not good enough for you. So, I thought I might translate and communicate the depth of the 'no-win' situation.

The following video ought to suffice.



pubby

#148 radiohead

radiohead

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:53 PM

It would be a total waste of money and time. This was exactly what Sam Olens wanted when he backed the changes to the open meetings laws in 2012. You don't think he had his fill of complainer's when he was Cobb Commission Chairman?

The elected leaders are trying to bring economic activity/development/jobs to the county. They're doing the best they can and they're not shoving anything down your throat.

I feel for them because I recognize this as a no-win situation for the elected leaders. Yes, they are damned if the do talk about it and damned if they don't. Smith had talked about his plans openly in Athens and also in Gwinnett and what was the result? So what makes you think that he is going to be eager to talk about it here from the get go. That so totally explains the 'secrecy' associated with this effort that no other explanation is really necessary.

But obviously, that is not good enough for you. So, I thought I might translate and communicate the depth of the 'no-win' situation.

The following video ought to suffice.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/5rhwl1QKrCM?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/5rhwl1QKrCM?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

pubby


Thats your answer. The commissioners in the other county's were trying to save their jobs. It didn't work. They lost at the election,
plus some went to jail. And I know it wasn't all about the airport, but that is why there was a lot of investigation into their actions.
Same is happening here. The airport was the last straw. It has started something that won't end until everything they have done
is out in the open. That's what foia is about.

Edited by PUBBY, 17 December 2013 - 01:36 PM.

ibatext.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cqQrqCbTHZ2l


#149 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,887 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 01:31 PM

It would be a total waste of money and time. This was exactly what Sam Olens wanted when he backed the changes to the open meetings laws in 2012. You don't think he had his fill of complainer's when he was Cobb Commission Chairman?

The elected leaders are trying to bring economic activity/development/jobs to the county. They're doing the best they can and they're not shoving anything down your throat.

I feel for them because I recognize this as a no-win situation for the elected leaders. Yes, they are damned if the do talk about it and damned if they don't. Smith had talked about his plans openly in Athens and also in Gwinnett and what was the result? So what makes you think that he is going to be eager to talk about it here from the get go. That so totally explains the 'secrecy' associated with this effort that no other explanation is really necessary.

But obviously, that is not good enough for you. So, I thought I might translate and communicate the depth of the 'no-win' situation.

The following video ought to suffice.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/5rhwl1QKrCM?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/5rhwl1QKrCM?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

pubby


Pubby in all sincerity help me understand something.

Why is Commercial Air service so important? How much profit does commercial service bring to Propeller and to our county?

It sure seems to me developing the 60 acres for MRO is where the jobs, money, tax base and benefits for all of the county is.
I Support Job Creation.
I Support Industrial Expansion.
I Oppose Commercial Air Service.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#150 DallasRED

DallasRED

    GO NAVY!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,427 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 02:36 PM

Well we share a lot when it come to the noise a C-130 makes. I can hear one coming from miles away. I became so accustomed to hearing them, they became like a lullaby, Mostly during engine testing. Nothing like a C-130.
Thanks for service to our Country.


I should get hubby on here. He has worked on H-53, C-130, F-22, F-18, P-3 and P-8....And now he works on jets at the airport. He would def be the PCOM expert on how loud planes are.

I'm not hard of hearing. I've spent a lot of time on flight lines with C-130s in Afghanistan and Iraq to know how loud they are. I've flown in a lot of them, so I know how loud they are while inside one. They aren 't as loud when one flies over your head at 200'. While in Afghanistan, I worked l just over a quarter of a mile from the runway, as was the building I slept in. The noise from the C-130s weren't a problem. The noise from fighter jets though were a nuisance, especially while they were taking off in the middle of the night and would hit the afterburners as they lifted off.


Yep, just like I already said. :good:
Posted Image

"Why are some people such assholes for no reason but then are the first to bitch to the mods when the tables are turned" GO BLUE

"You judge me and think you know me, and I'm quite sure we've never met. You know nothing." MADEA

"NOT ONE DAMN ONE OF YOU HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN NOT FEEL THE WAY I DO." SOLO

#151 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 03:01 PM

Thats your answer. The commissioners in the other county's were trying to save their jobs. It didn't work. They lost at the election,
plus some went to jail. And I know it wasn't all about the airport, but that is why there was a lot of investigation into their actions.
Same is happening here. The airport was the last straw. It has started something that won't end until everything they have done
is out in the open. That's what foia is about.


If your amusing analysis is right, that Brett Smith's plan brings such scrutiny that corrupt local governments collapse, then you should be applauding his muckraking efforts. The only problem with that is that the connection is invented. The corruption in Gwinnett was not at all associated with the airport and a single report of a two-hour meeting that was not acted upon over in Athens certainly cannot be the primary or even a secondary reason that commission chairman was defeated at the polls.


Pubby in all sincerity help me understand something.

Why is Commercial Air service so important? How much profit does commercial service bring to Propeller and to our county?

It sure seems to me developing the 60 acres for MRO is where the jobs, money, tax base and benefits for all of the county is.


The issue here is simply the authority that goes along with being in the office. Yes, when you elect someone, you're bound by their legal decisions ... i.e. if you have the authority to make the contract, then you have the authority to make the contract and a bunch of folks - well meaning or not, right or wrong, don't have the legal ability to second guess you or stop you by anything other than the legal means.

And what has the opposition done? They've attempted to litigate a small part of the project - the intergovernmental agreement that allowed the taxpayers to fund the taxiway expansion. There are other sources of money and the IBA and AA are both empowered by their charters to employ those alternates so, overall, all that is being contested is whether the interest cost is going to be 2 percent and tax-free or 4 percent and taxable. That means the only question is whether this effort will get the best local financing possible.

The other litigation I've heard spoken of regards an environmental study of some sort. Given the difference between the original plans and the current plan is that they didn't have the money to complete the original job - they had to cut 500-feet off the length of the taxiway (it was graded but not poured) and add 15-feet to the existing taxiway - also graded but not poured - one can expect that lawsuit was a bit of a stretch.

Bottom line, both efforts in the court do not challenge the AA's, IBA's or county's power to do what they are doing. That power has been delegated to them and let me tell you that government entities are jealous of the power they have.

So, despite your chest beating, the legal challenges simply raise the cost to the business ... Delta is not happy with or desirous of seeing Brett Smith anywhere close to Atlanta and would sue you if they thought it would help them.

What else? Well, then there are the elections coming this spring. The hope I know is that the forces of regression can elect two knuckle-draggers to office and with Todd be able to turn Paulding's government into a miniature version of Washington DC complete with gridlock. The only problem with that plan is that while the primary is in May, the general election isn't until November and the earliest those guys could take office is January 2015.

That still doesn't do a diddling thing to change the composition of the AA or the IBA as post commissioners don't get to make those appointments. Further, there really isn't anything that can't be done by the Commission to turn that project back. Contracts are contracts and there have to be grounds to break them or else there is another very big lawsuit that taxpayers will have to pay ... and that law suit would likely include not only the legal costs for the county's attorneys but the cost of a settlement to make Brett Smith whole for his investment in the county ... oh and that would be repaying his attorneys as well as real and potentially punative damages.

Great plan guys, that way we can all be taxed for something that does us absolutely no good.

And, BTW, that is the best case scenario of your plan to muck things up.

That frankly is why I'm a lot more eager to see if the plan the commission has chosen is going to work. It has a much more likely positive payoff in jobs, economic development and progress. Heck, it would be cheaper for us in the county to let Smith and Propeller Investments try and fail - our exposure is really rather limited and largely covered by capital improvements, especially if we minimize the costs of the legal expense - than to try and stop him at this point by breaking the contract.

But go ahead, beat your chest, act like you're the reincarnation of King Kong and this time you're going to beat those pesky little planes and show the world.

Of course you could take my advice and angle for an amendment in the AA's charter that calls for an eventual vote if there is a move to expand the length of the runway or add a runway. Why do that? Because at this point in time that is a battle you have a chance of winning.

pubby

#152 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,887 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 03:33 PM

If your amusing analysis is right, that Brett Smith's plan brings such scrutiny that corrupt local governments collapse, then you should be applauding his muckraking efforts. The only problem with that is that the connection is invented. The corruption in Gwinnett was not at all associated with the airport and a single report of a two-hour meeting that was not acted upon over in Athens certainly cannot be the primary or even a secondary reason that commission chairman was defeated at the polls.




The issue here is simply the authority that goes along with being in the office. Yes, when you elect someone, you're bound by their legal decisions ... i.e. if you have the authority to make the contract, then you have the authority to make the contract and a bunch of folks - well meaning or not, right or wrong, don't have the legal ability to second guess you or stop you by anything other than the legal means.

And what has the opposition done? They've attempted to litigate a small part of the project - the intergovernmental agreement that allowed the taxpayers to fund the taxiway expansion. There are other sources of money and the IBA and AA are both empowered by their charters to employ those alternates so, overall, all that is being contested is whether the interest cost is going to be 2 percent and tax-free or 4 percent and taxable. That means the only question is whether this effort will get the best local financing possible.

The other litigation I've heard spoken of regards an environmental study of some sort. Given the difference between the original plans and the current plan is that they didn't have the money to complete the original job - they had to cut 500-feet off the length of the taxiway (it was graded but not poured) and add 15-feet to the existing taxiway - also graded but not poured - one can expect that lawsuit was a bit of a stretch.

Bottom line, both efforts in the court do not challenge the AA's, IBA's or county's power to do what they are doing. That power has been delegated to them and let me tell you that government entities are jealous of the power they have.

So, despite your chest beating, the legal challenges simply raise the cost to the business ... Delta is not happy with or desirous of seeing Brett Smith anywhere close to Atlanta and would sue you if they thought it would help them.

What else? Well, then there are the elections coming this spring. The hope I know is that the forces of regression can elect two knuckle-draggers to office and with Todd be able to turn Paulding's government into a miniature version of Washington DC complete with gridlock. The only problem with that plan is that while the primary is in May, the general election isn't until November and the earliest those guys could take office is January 2015.

That still doesn't do a diddling thing to change the composition of the AA or the IBA as post commissioners don't get to make those appointments. Further, there really isn't anything that can't be done by the Commission to turn that project back. Contracts are contracts and there have to be grounds to break them or else there is another very big lawsuit that taxpayers will have to pay ... and that law suit would likely include not only the legal costs for the county's attorneys but the cost of a settlement to make Brett Smith whole for his investment in the county ... oh and that would be repaying his attorneys as well as real and potentially punative damages.

Great plan guys, that way we can all be taxed for something that does us absolutely no good.

And, BTW, that is the best case scenario of your plan to muck things up.

That frankly is why I'm a lot more eager to see if the plan the commission has chosen is going to work. It has a much more likely positive payoff in jobs, economic development and progress. Heck, it would be cheaper for us in the county to let Smith and Propeller Investments try and fail - our exposure is really rather limited and largely covered by capital improvements, especially if we minimize the costs of the legal expense - than to try and stop him at this point by breaking the contract.

But go ahead, beat your chest, act like you're the reincarnation of King Kong and this time you're going to beat those pesky little planes and show the world.

Of course you could take my advice and angle for an amendment in the AA's charter that calls for an eventual vote if there is a move to expand the length of the runway or add a runway. Why do that? Because at this point in time that is a battle you have a chance of winning.

pubby


Wow what a lot of words to answer such a simple question.
Still seems to me the 60 acres is where the best paying and highest number jobs will be generated, not to mention business's needing supplies and support from other county business's.

I hope we are marching forward on developing the 60 acres.
I Support Job Creation.
I Support Industrial Expansion.
I Oppose Commercial Air Service.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#153 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 03:43 PM

Wow what a lot of words to answer such a simple question.
Still seems to me the 60 acres is where the best paying and highest number jobs will be generated, not to mention business's needing supplies and support from other county business's.

I hope we are marching forward on developing the 60 acres.


I would hope we are too. Litigation and all those kinds of distractions do add up. Again, solving the issue with a compromise and going forward has other advantages including good feelings. No one runs very fast when the BS is as deep as it is.

pubby

#154 I want my space!

I want my space!

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 04:07 PM

I would hope we are too. Litigation and all those kinds of distractions do add up. Again, solving the issue with a compromise and going forward has other advantages including good feelings. No one runs very fast when the BS is as deep as it is.

pubby


uubby:
So what "BS" are you referring to? Is that Brett Smith or Blake Swafford. Just askin'...
  • Rose Luxemburg likes this

#155 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 04:40 PM

I really like the avenue that the group is taking.

I really like the chances we have of exposing some things that would really shake up this discussion.

Of course there are still some folks that think the law suits is a lost cause but......... I am really of the opinion that the two citizens that brought this suit will be victorious at least the truth is on their side.

And of course time is on the side of those that brought the law suit.
Pubby you should be proud that we have finally found a way to hold our elected officials. responsible for their actions.

All this little group of 10 folks are looking for is honest, open and transparent government.

Surely it takes longer than 90 seconds to negotiate a ten page agreement.

Our elected officials must think we are just a bunch of country bumpkins to call that open honest and transparent meetings.

Oh well another day that justice has been delayed sort of reminds ne of the Million and a half dollars spent on Surepip and still no day in court But hey...................... It is not the commissioners money it is ours that could be spent on fixing the roads in the unfinished sub divisions, or maybe improve White Oak Park and the waling trails, Surely it could help the congestion in Hiram.

the commissioners have decided to fight a law suit over something that a majority of the citizens do not want. so ...... the beat goes on
  • mojo413 likes this
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"

#156 Jet_man1969

Jet_man1969

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,280 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 06:17 PM

I know enough about aviation to know that if this company gets anywhere near a million passengers a year to fly out of our little airport then some of the big boys will move in to compete with them. Fact is, they would rather keep things status quo and not have to. It just keeps more money in their pockets.

#157 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 06:34 PM

... snip ...

the commissioners have decided to fight a law suit over something that a majority of the citizens do not want. so ...... the beat goes on


That is pure conjecture that the majority of citizens don't want this. The poll on PCOM about the airport shows that better than half actually do favor the expansion.

Second, the commissioners are only asserting the fact that they were elected to make these decisions and not you. The law backs their authority to do so. The lawsuits are challenges to that authority.

Whitey, again, let me recommend that folks seek to solve the problem constructively through compromise.

The opportunity to negotiate a public vote on future expansion is a window that will close.

pubby

I know enough about aviation to know that if this company gets anywhere near a million passengers a year to fly out of our little airport then some of the big boys will move in to compete with them. Fact is, they would rather keep things status quo and not have to. It just keeps more money in their pockets.


And that is the reason that it is a good move to require a public vote on future expansion. (That more money in their pocket is our money they get because of the monopoly of the status quo.)

pubby

#158 radiohead

radiohead

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 06:36 PM

That is pure conjecture that the majority of citizens don't want this. The poll on PCOM about the airport shows that better than half actually do favor the expansion.

Second, the commissioners are only asserting the fact that they were elected to make these decisions and not you. The law backs their authority to do so. The lawsuits are challenges to that authority.

Whitey, again, let me recommend that folks seek to solve the problem constructively through compromise.

The opportunity to negotiate a public vote on future expansion is a window that will close.

pubby


I will have you know I went to some businesses today and not one person wanted the airport. There are alot
of people now that know more about it. I plan on going to more places tomorrow. Maybe, just maybe I will
find that one person that wants the airport.
  • I want my space! and tundra like this

ibatext.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cqQrqCbTHZ2l


#159 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:33 PM

That is pure conjecture that the majority of citizens don't want this. The poll on PCOM about the airport shows that better than half actually do favor the expansion.

Second, the commissioners are only asserting the fact that they were elected to make these decisions and not you. The law backs their authority to do so. The lawsuits are challenges to that authority.

Whitey, again, let me recommend that folks seek to solve the problem constructively through compromise.

The opportunity to negotiate a public vote on future expansion is a window that will close.

pubby



And that is the reason that it is a good move to require a public vote on future expansion. (That more money in their pocket is our money they get because of the monopoly of the status quo.)

pubby

A another vote/ promise/ whatever does not mean anything to those elected officials who think that a 90 second open meeting is being open honest and transparent. on a issue that is as vital to the well being of all citizens

To make deals that are binding you must have open honest and trusty worthy people to make the deal with.
Nothing will be accomplished until after the May primary votes.
Why compromise now, the project has halted the courts have got to rule.
Like David and the others treated Surepip lets appeal and appeal and appeal.
I believe when the Commissioners come before the people with a budget next year that has three or four million dollars in new taxes to cover the law suits surrounding the airport expansion that most people will say enough is enough
Pubby Lets have a real vote hundreds are looking at this site that cannot vote because they are not members. Heck all the members have not even voted.

Now that is a compromise I could live with four TOWN HALL type meetings everyone has their say in a open honest and transparent way have a county wide vote held along with the may primaries winner take all if you think your poll is accurate go for it win-win situation.
  • I want my space! likes this
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"

#160 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,151 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:52 PM

[quote name='WHITEY' timestamp='1387251999' post='3866669']
Hey pubby
can you help me out a little on this airport meeting
http://www.youtube.c...youtube.com/wat
It appears that these two you tubes is the meeting where you assert that the Agreements were hammered out with silver comet partners discussed openly honestly and very transparent, And nothing was discussed in secret?

[/quote
It is so hard for me to believe that grown men and women who are elected/appointed to such leadership positions in our County can contend that a 90 second meeting involving a $60 million dollar asset that covers a 12 page contract can openly avow that they were being open, honest and transparent in their dealings because they discussed it for about 20 seconds!!!!!! :angry: see last you tube
  • mojo413 likes this
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has Margaret Mead

I oppose the airport expansion

http://www.savepauldingco.com/blog/

"And believe you me, if there was going to be airliners I would not be a part of this, never ever would I be a part of this"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics