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.