Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo
- - - - -

Commission talks about changing rules of participation

BOC Commission Citizens wishing to speak KV Coggins

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

#1 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,546 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 05:07 PM



Complete video of today's commission meeting including discussion about changing the commission's citizens wishing to speak rules as well as two citizens wishing to speak.

;
Click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS


#2 stradial

stradial

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,338 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:32 PM

After watching the video, these phrases came to mind, not sure why.

 

"The check is in the mail."

"Trust me........"

"For the record, there have never been nor will there ever be a secret meeting."

"The dog ate my homework."

"Of course I'll respect you in the morning."

"..no airliners here..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..."

"I'm absolutely, 100 percent, not guilty"

"I am not a crook."


  • WHITEY, Dana, mojo413 and 2 others like this
"If you want any one thing too badly, it's likely to turn out to be a disappointment."
"The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things, like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself."

#3 mei lan

mei lan

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,387 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:02 PM

You left out "Let me be clear..."
  • mach4 likes this

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


#4 Mrs G

Mrs G

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:16 PM

I liked the last one, the best!!!  I went to the meeting this morning and saw the crowd and I thought to myself, WHAT IN THE HECK..................... They build this big huge building, with wide open spaces and they have the BOC meetings in this little rinky dinky room????? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??? Oh, I guess the weren't thinking!!   ALL but, one NEED to ousted, Pownall is the ONLY sensible one of the bunch!!!!


  • mach4, WHITEY and mojo413 like this
Do unto others, as you'd have others do unto you!

Live Simply, Love Generously, Care Deeply, Speak Kindly and Leave The Rest To God.

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does!!

Helping a Neighbor in need, is a Blessing, indeed!!! 04/25/2013

#5 stradial

stradial

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,338 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:20 PM

There are 8 quotes, 4 of these quotes are generic and 4 of these quotes were said by 4 separate people.

Can you match the 4 quotes to the person who said them?

 

"The check is in the mail."

"Trust me........"

"For the record, there have never been nor will there ever be a secret meeting."

"The dog ate my homework."

"Of course I'll respect you in the morning."

"..no airliners here..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..."

"I'm absolutely, 100 percent, not guilty"

"I am not a crook."


  • crossroads likes this
"If you want any one thing too badly, it's likely to turn out to be a disappointment."
"The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things, like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself."

#6 mei lan

mei lan

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,387 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:49 PM

Starting at the end - Tricky Dick Nixon; OJ; that airport commish dude with the mustache (at least in the video I saw); generic; generic; D. Austin?; generic; generic.

How'd I do?

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


#7 stradial

stradial

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,338 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 01:25 AM

Starting at the end - Tricky Dick Nixon; OJ; that airport commish dude with the mustache (at least in the video I saw); generic; generic; D. Austin?; generic; generic.
How'd I do?


You do good.
  • mei lan likes this
"If you want any one thing too badly, it's likely to turn out to be a disappointment."
"The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things, like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself."

#8 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:22 PM

My take on the meeting was quite different.   I was quite interested in the portion of the meeting that was oriented toward policy and openness and not middle school rants, taunts, rudeness and silliness, I was quite surprised at the discussion on changes in the citizens wishing to speak discussion. 

 

While nothing whatsoever was decided, this meeting was a milestone in that in all the past 25 years this is the first time that the changes suggested did not seem directed at shutting off debate and silencing critics.

 

Instead, the commission discussed approaches that were an effort to make the comments more rational in nature and germane to specific issues the commission faces.

 

Given the lack of properly interpreted fact and soup chicken rant that passed for commentary on topics that were not in play at this meeting at the end of the meeting in the section set aside in the citizens wishing to speak area, the idea that reform in this area is needed could not come too soon.

 

In the case of the 'secret meeting' and the allegations thereof, I've actually not seen the suit but I do know that the even was in the summer of 2013, since the lease was already in place from Nov. 2012 and it was an informational retreat that suggested what the lessee (propeller) was going to do, it may not have involved discussions of the public bodies actions as elements such as the widening of the taxiway, perimeter fence etc. are federal regulations; rather it was more a heads up retreat...  Of course the point is that there are a variety of defenses available including the most dramatic -  that no action was taken as a result of the meeting -  that there was adequate legal notice and that the suit may be summarily dismissed.

 

Hence, all allegations of secret meetings would be legally wrong and it would be inaccurate to call it a secret meeting.

 

But you'll say,  But Todd didn't know.   To which I'll say that Todd didn't want to know; Todd was not paying attention and Todd, because he had come out and backed Tony Crowe against Austin, was also being politically isolated.

 

I think that Chairman Austin believed that if Todd Pownall knew about the airport, that Todd Pownall because of his political bent and anti-growth approach in general, would do his best to derail the project and cause its failure.

 

Given that belief and given the belief that the project at the airport was the best approach for the people of Paulding County;  the only approach that will give us the ability to control the airport within our borders, I think that Chairman Austin, by keeping Todd Pownall out of the loop, did the smart thing at the time.

 

I think that Todd Pownall's actions since October 2013 has proven Chairman Austin belief that he would derail the airport project correct.

 

I think the miscalculation is that that Chairman Austin didn't count on an army of Tony Atlanta Lawyers swarming over the county and using the legal system to stymie what was expected to be a quick and painless entry into commercial aviation.

 

Those who oppose the airport locally don't even want to acknowledge this army of expensive Atlanta lawyers is the only reason there are not aircraft with passengers flying in and out of Silver Comet Field today.  They are blind to the motives of the powers that paid that enormous legal bill. They are telling us not to look at the man behind the curtain much less that the manipulation being performed is aimed at Paulding losing control over this airport by electing officials who will reject and abandon its ownership.   Abandon it to who?

 

Could it be the people that own an adjacent 9000+ acres and who have had plans for an airport on this site for nearly 40 years?

 

Awwww ... I  can it now ... that doesn't make sense.  Tony and Patti and Todd and Vernon would never argue we need to shut it down and make Paulding the best bedroom community we can be :)

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes   (aka: pubby)


George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#9 mrshoward

mrshoward

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,244 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:31 PM

Wow.. just wow.

 

 

(shakes head and walks away...)

 

 

:rolleyes:


  • Mrs G likes 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

#10 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,546 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 01:22 PM

Don't I remember you shaking your head and walking away back when someone suggested that the Iraq war was about Oil?

 

There are a lot of things out there that appear to be one thing to some people but are actually another and  sometimes the complete opposite.

 

The Tonkin Gulf Incident is one ... can you name another?

 

pubby



#11 SOLO

SOLO

    I Have Flying monkeys and Will Use Them

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,780 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 01:27 PM

My take on the meeting was quite different.   I was quite interested in the portion of the meeting that was oriented toward policy and openness and not middle school rants, taunts, rudeness and silliness, I was quite surprised at the discussion on changes in the citizens wishing to speak discussion. 
 
While nothing whatsoever was decided, this meeting was a milestone in that in all the past 25 years this is the first time that the changes suggested did not seem directed at shutting off debate and silencing critics.
 
Instead, the commission discussed approaches that were an effort to make the comments more rational in nature and germane to specific issues the commission faces.
 
Given the lack of properly interpreted fact and soup chicken rant that passed for commentary on topics that were not in play at this meeting at the end of the meeting in the section set aside in the citizens wishing to speak area, the idea that reform in this area is needed could not come too soon.
 
In the case of the 'secret meeting' and the allegations thereof, I've actually not seen the suit but I do know that the even was in the summer of 2013, since the lease was already in place from Nov. 2012 and it was an informational retreat that suggested what the lessee (propeller) was going to do, it may not have involved discussions of the public bodies actions as elements such as the widening of the taxiway, perimeter fence etc. are federal regulations; rather it was more a heads up retreat...  Of course the point is that there are a variety of defenses available including the most dramatic -  that no action was taken as a result of the meeting -  that there was adequate legal notice and that the suit may be summarily dismissed.
 
Hence, all allegations of secret meetings would be legally wrong and it would be inaccurate to call it a secret meeting.
 
But you'll say,  But Todd didn't know.   To which I'll say that Todd didn't want to know; Todd was not paying attention and Todd, because he had come out and backed Tony Crowe against Austin, was also being politically isolated.
 
I think that Chairman Austin believed that if Todd Pownall knew about the airport, that Todd Pownall because of his political bent and anti-growth approach in general, would do his best to derail the project and cause its failure.
 
Given that belief and given the belief that the project at the airport was the best approach for the people of Paulding County;  the only approach that will give us the ability to control the airport within our borders, I think that Chairman Austin, by keeping Todd Pownall out of the loop, did the smart thing at the time.
 
I think that Todd Pownall's actions since October 2013 has proven Chairman Austin belief that he would derail the airport project correct.
 
I think the miscalculation is that that Chairman Austin didn't count on an army of Tony Atlanta Lawyers swarming over the county and using the legal system to stymie what was expected to be a quick and painless entry into commercial aviation.
 
Those who oppose the airport locally don't even want to acknowledge this army of expensive Atlanta lawyers is the only reason there are not aircraft with passengers flying in and out of Silver Comet Field today.  They are blind to the motives of the powers that paid that enormous legal bill. They are telling us not to look at the man behind the curtain much less that the manipulation being performed is aimed at Paulding losing control over this airport by electing officials who will reject and abandon its ownership.   Abandon it to who?
 
Could it be the people that own an adjacent 9000+ acres and who have had plans for an airport on this site for nearly 40 years?
 
Awwww ... I  can it now ... that doesn't make sense.  Tony and Patti and Todd and Vernon would never argue we need to shut it down and make Paulding the best bedroom community we can be :)
 
George Patton "Pat" Hughes   (aka: pubby)



So glad everyone can plainly see if they elect you everything will stay the same.
  • mrshoward and WHITEY like this
Posted Image
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

Daily Thought: SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS


Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it or play with it Just pee on it and walk away.

s.l.u.t
Stressed-out Ladies Unwinding Together

"People are born so that they can learn how to live a good life like loving everybody all the time and being nice.....dogs already know how to do that, so they don't have to stay as long

#12 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 04:12 PM

So glad everyone can plainly see if they elect you everything will stay the same.

 

That is kind of silly Solo.  First it presumes that the issue with the airport is still an issue come January 2015.

 

Second,  I consider the current administration on net a positive in terms of growth and progress but with problems with transparency based largely on their adoption of the tradition that is a part of Paulding government going back years.

 

Third it assumes that my simple plan, which takes assent by the rest of the post commissioners to change the tradition that dates to the time of sole commissioners,  that ordinances, rules and even purchases are announced and then passed into law immediately at the same meeting is rejected.   That is a substantive change in favor of openness and transparency if for no other reason, the weekly newspapers can inform people what is going to happen. 

 

I've lobbied for that change for years and if you actually look at the issues here, you'd know that it is the speed with which the motions  become acts that is behind the attitudes.  That this rapid passage approach is a tradition and is legal and that is the reason that what has been done is legal.

 

The airport is just one of the many actions taken over the years by the commission using this rapid passage approach I call slam bam. Having been an observer for going on three decades, I'm a little perplexed that folks are, all of a sudden, concerned about it. I thought it was crazy way back when but you know the old saw, if it was good enough for grandpa, it is good nuff for me.

 

As far as the airport, I'm 100 percent in favor of abiding by the contracts we have, as a county, legally bound ourselves to.   Like numerous other actions taken by the rapid approval approach of the county over the years, we have little choice but to accept the status quo. 

 

What we can change is the future.

 

Because I look ahead,  I endorse  the requirement that if in aggregate, if expansion of the airport requires that more than 400-ft of runway is added either to the existing airstrip or a new runway altogether,  I want an amendment to the airport authority law that requires a bond issue must be authorized by the voters of Paulding County.  This is the referendum that would either endorse or reject expansion of the airport from its current 6000-ft length and the operational limitations that implies.

 

That suggestion, which goes back to early November and could have been a part of this last legislative session if folks had not been hell-bent on turning this airport issue into a political hot potato.

 

But no, lets polarize, lets divide,  lets throw the bums out.  Of course the effort is to get a new set of bums who I feel will try and repeal the IBA and Airport Authority, wreck economic development and otherwise halt progress.  I'm for progress and that means I think we should continue forward.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes


George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#13 tundra

tundra

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 05:05 PM

You fail to realize, no one is against planned, productive growth. We all want jobs, good jobs.  Please tell me who these people are, I'd love to talk to them.  We have an outstanding Economic Development team and need to utilize them for what they do best, bring business to Paulding county. 

Thanks to that 2.9 million dollar loan to subsidize a project that didn't have funding in place before they started, I'm pretty sure some of that economic development is being put on hold.  There is no telling how much other money has been thrown at that airport that could have been used for other, more productive projects to bring in the private sector. 

 

Blaming citizens for expecting their elected officials to do the right thing without requiring a special election is not very sensible. 

 

We should stop and realize this project, based on studies and reports, is doomed to fail.  Just as the general aviation airport did.  You have the same people calling the shots, if they can't make a GA airport successful do you really expect us to believe a commercial one will be productive and bring in much needed revenue? 

 

I've seen nothing that supports this is an economic boom for Paulding, Georgia or Alaska for that matter.


Edited by tundra, 23 April 2014 - 06:23 PM.

  • WHITEY, mojo413 and mei lan like this

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

I OPPOSE COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE. Protect Paulding County 
 


#14 stradial

stradial

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,338 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 05:24 PM

Can't we take all these millions and just distribute the money to the tax payers of Paulding?

I will be happy to help decide who gets how much.

 

(rhetorical question) 


  • mei lan, tundra and CitizenCain like this
"If you want any one thing too badly, it's likely to turn out to be a disappointment."
"The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things, like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself."

#15 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,546 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 10:53 PM

You fail to realize, no one is against planned, productive growth. We all want jobs, good jobs.  Please tell me who these people are, I'd love to talk to them.  We have an outstanding Economic Development team and need to utilize them for what they do best, bring business to Paulding county. 

Thanks to that 2.9 million dollar loan to subsidize a project that didn't have funding in place before they started, I'm pretty sure some of that economic development is being put on hold.  There is no telling how much other money has been thrown at that airport that could have been used for other, more productive projects to bring in the private sector. 

 

Blaming citizens for expecting their elected officials to do the right thing without requiring a special election is not very sensible. 

 

We should stop and realize this project, based on studies and reports, is doomed to fail.  Just as the general aviation airport did.  You have the same people calling the shots, if they can't make a GA airport successful do you really expect us to believe a commercial one will be productive and bring in much needed revenue? 

 

I've seen nothing that supports this is an economic boom for Paulding, Georgia or Alaska for that matter.

 

It must be nice to be for something until you're against it and then when someone says you're against it  you're for it again.   With skills like that you need to be the politician tundra

 

I mean I though from the get go you and whitey and all the bunch wanted a town hall meeting followed by a referendum on the contract the county - actually the airport authority - had already signed with propeller that set all this in motion ... and now a referendum or special election is not very sensible?

 

Now after that post I'm truly confused. 

 

I mean are you with Whitey or against him on his call to eliminate the IBA and Airport Authority?   A simple yes or no would help.

 

And since you  say bring on the jobs and bring on the industry... just leave the commercial flights at HJIA ... does that mean you're all for landing the company discussed at the last Airport Authority meeting that would refurbish commercial airliner interiors ...You do know that means larger craft -747s, 757s, 767s and maybe even 777s - that can land here because they won't have passengers (or weight) or large amounts of fuel.  Heck reading that bring on the jobs approach, I guess you'd be okay with expanding the length of the runway to 9000-ft so we can more easily take these super large planes, right?

 

It is good to know that you're in favor of the continuation of the IBA and AA as well.

 

pubby



#16 tundra

tundra

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 09:45 AM

 

It must be nice to be for something until you're against it and then when someone says you're against it  you're for it again.   With skills like that you need to be the politician tundra

 

I mean I though from the get go you and whitey and all the bunch wanted a town hall meeting followed by a referendum on the contract the county - actually the airport authority - had already signed with propeller that set all this in motion ... and now a referendum or special election is not very sensible?

 

Now after that post I'm truly confused. 

 

I mean are you with Whitey or against him on his call to eliminate the IBA and Airport Authority?   A simple yes or no would help.

 

And since you  say bring on the jobs and bring on the industry... just leave the commercial flights at HJIA ... does that mean you're all for landing the company discussed at the last Airport Authority meeting that would refurbish commercial airliner interiors ...You do know that means larger craft -747s, 757s, 767s and maybe even 777s - that can land here because they won't have passengers (or weight) or large amounts of fuel.  Heck reading that bring on the jobs approach, I guess you'd be okay with expanding the length of the runway to 9000-ft so we can more easily take these super large planes, right?

 

It is good to know that you're in favor of the continuation of the IBA and AA as well.

 

pubby

Talk about spin.  You're pretty good at it Pubby LMBO 

I find it funny that previous administrations thought putting the airport on the ballot was a good idea.  Not sure what happened that changed minds.  Could it be that it was voted down, twice, by a margin of 2-1?  Some things are worthy of being voted on, I think the airport is one of those. 

 

Here's a good spin for you, instead of just 737s landing and taking off now we're talking about 777s?  I guess you have some inside information that others aren't so privy to.  Does this mean you are in favor of 777s landing here? LOL 


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

I OPPOSE COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE. Protect Paulding County 
 


#17 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:00 AM

 
... Because I look ahead,  I endorse  the requirement that if in aggregate, if expansion of the airport requires that more than 400-ft of runway is added either to the existing airstrip or a new runway altogether,  I want an amendment to the airport authority law that requires a bond issue must be authorized by the voters of Paulding County.  This is the referendum that would either endorse or reject expansion of the airport from its current 6000-ft length and the operational limitations that implies...
 
George Patton "Pat" Hughes


Pubby I totally agree with your suggestion on how approval and financing of future airstrip / runway expansions and additions should be handled. But let me ask a more pointed question...

First the reason for my question... Considering we have a $3.6 million Bond Issue tied up in litagation. And considering we have the BOC having recently taken over the contract and financal responsibility for the taxiway widening project until the Bond Issue is resolved or we get the FAA reimbursement. And considering we do not have financing in place for the runway extension project. And considering we recently heard a 5 year plan that involved many millions of dollars.

My question... How do you suggest any and all future projects at the airport (that exceed the yearly budget) be approved and financed?
Retired. I only work 12 noon to 1pm.
Most days I take an hour lunch break.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#18 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:45 AM

tundra:

 

I thought it was commercial passengers on an aircraft that bothered you. 

 

Certainly as presently configured the airport couldn't handle a plane the size of a 777 with more than just a skeleton crew and near empty fuel tanks ... which might be arranged if you were going to redo the interior at a MRO operation ... and you've been on the record favoring those for some time.  I mean it would be a  task of bringing one in one week and then, after a refurbishing - which may take two weeks - they'd fly it out - also with no passengers, a skeleton crew and a short on fuel but plenty of fuel to get it to HJIA where it would start to make money for an airline.

 

I have no inside information. I just listened to a video taken at the AA meeting that discussed a MRO that is looking to move here that refurbishes interiors and since I know that all aircraft have interiors and I know enough about physics to know that an unloaded BIG  plane like the 777 is, when unloaded, quite nimble - i.e. it can take off on shorter runways and land on them as well because they are designed to carry lots of weight and when empty, are really capable of some amazing performance.   That said, I have no idea if it is feasible or reasonable or legal to fly such a large plane into a place like PUJ unloaded for MRO services.  I'm simply assuming it is possible to so safely with an empty plane from a physics standpoint.

 

 

Pubby I totally agree with your suggestion on how approval and financing of future airstrip / runway expansions and additions should be handled. But let me ask a more pointed question...

First the reason for my question... Considering we have a $3.6 million Bond Issue tied up in litagation. And considering we have the BOC having recently taken over the contract and financal responsibility for the taxiway widening project until the Bond Issue is resolved or we get the FAA reimbursement. And considering we do not have financing in place for the runway extension project. And considering we recently heard a 5 year plan that involved many millions of dollars.

My question... How do you suggest any and all future projects at the airport (that exceed the yearly budget) be approved and financed?

 

Mojo:

 

The runway expansion is something that would fall upon the public for financing and because it would define the expansion capacities of the airport to the 'next level' if you will, I think given the contractual obligations we have, that would constitute a redefinition of the role of the airport.

 

This would not happen without success at the airport as a commercial passenger terminal and its passage would be an endorsement of an expanded role for commercial passenger service from our airport.

 

As far as building a hanger for a MRO that the county leases on a 20 year or so terms and provides some tax advantages as a sweetener to get the people to move here and bring good paying jobs ... the current IBA - based enterprise process has a long and proven ability to cut  red tape and make things happen.  Interroll is a primary example.  Further, this is a common process used by similar authorities nationwide to bring and encourage economic development.

 

If you listened to Jamie Gilbert's presentation  on economic development before the PBA you'd know that his group only points to the opportunities for financing etc. possible through groups like the IBA or airport authority.  Even he didn't go into the details of these kinds of arrangements in his hour-long presentation and I'll not attempt to do so here.

 

Still, it is important to realize that we are in a business universe that is highly impacted by the spread sheet and the incremental advantages of small percentages of performance make a big difference between success and failure in recruiting businesses and industries to our community.

 

Understanding these realities is why I have not problem with the language allowing the IBA to better serve the community.

 

What you've got to realize is that success is not easy or guaranteed in any endeavor.  Competition is intense and sometimes the difference between success and failure is an otherwise insignificant and almost absurd incident that really has nothing to do with anything.  To wit the less than stellar success of the movie studio apparently has been isolated to the state office of film which is undermining the efforts of the local studio and pushing projects to competing facilities in Gwinnett county.  Is that because a waitress was curt the one time some muckity muck from the state office came here, was it because someone at the studio didn't take a phone call or what?

 

My personal guess is that someone from the state film office tried to get here from there in a late-afternoon during the rush home and assumed that west bound traffic on 278 at 5 p.m. is indicative of west bound traffic on 278 at 7 am ... when in fact this traffic is against the commute.  That they had been checking the studios in Gwinnett at 7 am when the traffic going there was modestly lighter because it was against the commute just didn't register.  They instead got it in their heads that traffic was good going to Gwinnett and bad coming to Paulding and make their recommendations on that basis.

 

The point is that cutting red tape and making things happen are assets that we can exhibit.  Forcing things through a sieve of a public referendum is proclaiming to the world that not only is red tape immense if you come here but that you've got to please better than half the people who don't care about, don't  really want you (at least the NIMBYs) and think you're going to rip them off.

 

We need to be the can do folks ... not the "wait, lets see what mojo, tundra and whitey thinks first. oh, they're out of town?  I guess we'll have to wait... "  

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes  (aka: pubby)

 

PS: I didn't ask David, Jerry, Carolyn, ... you, tundra, Whitey, surepip, or even LPPT whether I should start Paulding.com ... and most businesspeople are slightly insulted when they have to ask folks.  Fact is, one of the reasons I chose the business I'm in is because I don't have to ask anyone's permission to write or speak here. It is kind of my prerogative under the first amendment.

 

 

 


George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#19 tundra

tundra

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 11:22 AM


George Patton "Pat" Hughes  (aka: pubby)

 

PS: I didn't ask David, Jerry, Carolyn, ... you, tundra, Whitey, surepip, or even LPPT whether I should start Paulding.com ... and most businesspeople are slightly insulted when they have to ask folks.  Fact is, one of the reasons I chose the business I'm in is because I don't have to ask anyone's permission to write or speak here. It is kind of my prerogative under the first amendment.

 

 

 

 Remind us again how much taxpayer money was involved in your start up of Pcom?  I don't seem to remember.  :unsure:

As for the rest, you totally missed the point.  It was spin, lots of spin on the 777 and inside information stuff.  LMBO


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

I OPPOSE COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE. Protect Paulding County 
 


#20 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,546 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:03 PM

 Remind us again how much taxpayer money was involved in your start up of Pcom?  I don't seem to remember.  :unsure:

As for the rest, you totally missed the point.  It was spin, lots of spin on the 777 and inside information stuff.  LMBO

 

tundra:

 

Absolutely the same amount as was involved in propellers startup and, for that matter, Interroll's. 

 

Indeed, if it wasn't for the infrastructure that was built, in large part by DARPA in creating the Internet and the tax breaks to the telecos etc. for wiring and broadband (what a ripoff) there would have been no paulding.com and no Internet.)

 

Similarly the taxi way expansion and fencing around PUJ is and will remain the property of the people of Paulding County and the lease is only of the infrastructure associated with the airport in the case of propeller.  The lease agreement calls for the county providing certain parts of the infrastructure and the property remains the property of the people.  

 

Just like the home building business benefited from the construction of roads and water and sewerage throughout the county on the public's cost in some limited way, so too was there sharing in the cost of the infrastructure improvements there.

 

This is just doing business the way that business has been done in this country for hundreds of  years.  It is one of the reasons we're as prosperous as a nation as we are.

 

And as far as spinning ... the only spinning going on is yours.

 

pubby



#21 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 01:54 PM

tundra:
 
I thought it was commercial passengers on an aircraft that bothered you. 
 
Certainly as presently configured the airport couldn't handle a plane the size of a 777 with more than just a skeleton crew and near empty fuel tanks ... which might be arranged if you were going to redo the interior at a MRO operation ... and you've been on the record favoring those for some time.  I mean it would be a  task of bringing one in one week and then, after a refurbishing - which may take two weeks - they'd fly it out - also with no passengers, a skeleton crew and a short on fuel but plenty of fuel to get it to HJIA where it would start to make money for an airline.
 
I have no inside information. I just listened to a video taken at the AA meeting that discussed a MRO that is looking to move here that refurbishes interiors and since I know that all aircraft have interiors and I know enough about physics to know that an unloaded BIG  plane like the 777 is, when unloaded, quite nimble - i.e. it can take off on shorter runways and land on them as well because they are designed to carry lots of weight and when empty, are really capable of some amazing performance.   That said, I have no idea if it is feasible or reasonable or legal to fly such a large plane into a place like PUJ unloaded for MRO services.  I'm simply assuming it is possible to so safely with an empty plane from a physics standpoint.
 
 

 
Mojo:
 
The runway expansion is something that would fall upon the public for financing and because it would define the expansion capacities of the airport to the 'next level' if you will, I think given the contractual obligations we have, that would constitute a redefinition of the role of the airport.
 
This would not happen without success at the airport as a commercial passenger terminal and its passage would be an endorsement of an expanded role for commercial passenger service from our airport.
 
As far as building a hanger for a MRO that the county leases on a 20 year or so terms and provides some tax advantages as a sweetener to get the people to move here and bring good paying jobs ... the current IBA - based enterprise process has a long and proven ability to cut  red tape and make things happen.  Interroll is a primary example.  Further, this is a common process used by similar authorities nationwide to bring and encourage economic development.
 
If you listened to Jamie Gilbert's presentation  on economic development before the PBA you'd know that his group only points to the opportunities for financing etc. possible through groups like the IBA or airport authority.  Even he didn't go into the details of these kinds of arrangements in his hour-long presentation and I'll not attempt to do so here.
 
Still, it is important to realize that we are in a business universe that is highly impacted by the spread sheet and the incremental advantages of small percentages of performance make a big difference between success and failure in recruiting businesses and industries to our community.
 
Understanding these realities is why I have not problem with the language allowing the IBA to better serve the community.
 
What you've got to realize is that success is not easy or guaranteed in any endeavor.  Competition is intense and sometimes the difference between success and failure is an otherwise insignificant and almost absurd incident that really has nothing to do with anything.  To wit the less than stellar success of the movie studio apparently has been isolated to the state office of film which is undermining the efforts of the local studio and pushing projects to competing facilities in Gwinnett county.  Is that because a waitress was curt the one time some muckity muck from the state office came here, was it because someone at the studio didn't take a phone call or what?
 
My personal guess is that someone from the state film office tried to get here from there in a late-afternoon during the rush home and assumed that west bound traffic on 278 at 5 p.m. is indicative of west bound traffic on 278 at 7 am ... when in fact this traffic is against the commute.  That they had been checking the studios in Gwinnett at 7 am when the traffic going there was modestly lighter because it was against the commute just didn't register.  They instead got it in their heads that traffic was good going to Gwinnett and bad coming to Paulding and make their recommendations on that basis.
 
The point is that cutting red tape and making things happen are assets that we can exhibit.  Forcing things through a sieve of a public referendum is proclaiming to the world that not only is red tape immense if you come here but that you've got to please better than half the people who don't care about, don't  really want you (at least the NIMBYs) and think you're going to rip them off.
 
We need to be the can do folks ... not the "wait, lets see what mojo, tundra and whitey thinks first. oh, they're out of town?  I guess we'll have to wait... "  
 
George Patton "Pat" Hughes  (aka: pubby)
 
PS: I didn't ask David, Jerry, Carolyn, ... you, tundra, Whitey, surepip, or even LPPT whether I should start Paulding.com ... and most businesspeople are slightly insulted when they have to ask folks.  Fact is, one of the reasons I chose the business I'm in is because I don't have to ask anyone's permission to write or speak here. It is kind of my prerogative under the first amendment.


I must admit you are a politician. I asked a simple question. You answered it by bouncing all over may issues, I don't understand your answer, yet it sounds good.
Retired. I only work 12 noon to 1pm.
Most days I take an hour lunch break.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#22 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 04:33 PM

Mojo:

 

I appreciate your criticisms.  Let me try again.

 

I would have gotten the change that was proposed by Tom Cable through on the IBA to let them do the job they were created to do this past session but I would have insisted that the change include the requirement that we have a public bond issue on the second runway for my support.   It is called forging a compromise.

 

But things like that don't happen if you are totally opposed to compromise.   My experience over a bunch of years in regard to all or nothing approaches tell me to be suspicious.  Reasonable people are able, willing and desire compromise because that drives progress.  Those with secret agendas, however, are notorious for all-or-nothing options because that drives crisis and hard decisions. 

 

I actually think we have one chance to get this airport project right.   We have no choice but to do what we can to make it a success. I've talked about that enough times that I don't feel compelled to repeat that here.

 

Those who say that our local government is incompetent and incapable of doing it are saying essentially that we need to give up the airport; but to whom?    They won't say but the obvious answer is on the property tax maps and the name is the same name that has been there for going on 40 years. 

 

If they ever get their hands on this, the people of Paulding are going to lose control over the airport and that whole area of Paulding.

 

I get really nervous when I hear folks like Whitey call for the abolition of the IBA and Airport Authority because that is a 'creature' not of the county but of the state.  That means that the Georgia General Assembly will decide what to do with its assets.  No reasonable person would even consider going that route.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes


George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#23 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 05:42 PM

Mojo: I appreciate your criticisms.  Let me try again. I would have gotten the change that was proposed by Tom Cable through on the IBA to let them do the job they were created to do this past session but I would have insisted that the change include the requirement that we have a public bond issue on the second runway for my support.   It is called forging a compromise. But things like that don't happen if you are totally opposed to compromise.   My experience over a bunch of years in regard to all or nothing approaches tell me to be suspicious.  Reasonable people are able, willing and desire compromise because that drives progress.  Those with secret agendas, however, are notorious for all-or-nothing options because that drives crisis and hard decisions.  I actually think we have one chance to get this airport project right.   We have no choice but to do what we can to make it a success. I've talked about that enough times that I don't feel compelled to repeat that here. Those who say that our local government is incompetent and incapable of doing it are saying essentially that we need to give up the airport; but to whom?    They won't say but the obvious answer is on the property tax maps and the name is the same name that has been there for going on 40 years.  If they ever get their hands on this, the people of Paulding are going to lose control over the airport and that whole area of Paulding. I get really nervous when I hear folks like Whitey call for the abolition of the IBA and Airport Authority because that is a 'creature' not of the county but of the state.  That means that the Georgia General Assembly will decide what to do with its assets.  No reasonable person would even consider going that route. George Patton "Pat" Hughes


Let me try this again. I guess I'm missing the simple answer in all the words. My question... How do you suggest any and all future projects at the airport (that exceed the yearly budget) be approved and financed?
Retired. I only work 12 noon to 1pm.
Most days I take an hour lunch break.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#24 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,867 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 08:37 PM

Mojo:

 

I appreciate your criticisms.  Let me try again.

 

I would have gotten the change that was proposed by Tom Cable through on the IBA to let them do the job they were created to do this past session but I would have insisted that the change include the requirement that we have a public bond issue on the second runway for my support.   It is called forging a compromise.

 

But things like that don't happen if you are totally opposed to compromise.   My experience over a bunch of years in regard to all or nothing approaches tell me to be suspicious.  Reasonable people are able, willing and desire compromise because that drives progress.  Those with secret agendas, however, are notorious for all-or-nothing options because that drives crisis and hard decisions. 

 

I actually think we have one chance to get this airport project right.   We have no choice but to do what we can to make it a success. I've talked about that enough times that I don't feel compelled to repeat that here.

 

Those who say that our local government is incompetent and incapable of doing it are saying essentially that we need to give up the airport; but to whom?    They won't say but the obvious answer is on the property tax maps and the name is the same name that has been there for going on 40 years. 

 

If they ever get their hands on this, the people of Paulding are going to lose control over the airport and that whole area of Paulding.

 

I get really nervous when I hear folks like Whitey call for the abolition of the IBA and Airport Authority because that is a 'creature' not of the county but of the state.  That means that the Georgia General Assembly will decide what to do with its assets.  No reasonable person would even consider going that route.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes

Unlike you George Patton "Pat" Hughes I do try to deal in the truth and only in facts. If you will read the Constitutional Amendment that created the IBA in 1962 you will find that the general assembly covered that issue in the original bill. Fact is it is spelled out that all the assets will become the property of the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS you need to stick with the facts when you campaign, The worst thing a politician can do is get caught in a lie while campaigning, before he ever takes office.

 

The IBA and the PCAA are out of control and need to be reigned in. Of course you are so hell bent on supporting a airport that a majority of citizens do not want then you become blindly posting items that are simply not the truth. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED 


  • secondhandsmith 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"

#25 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 09:12 PM

Whitey:

 

The board of commissioners already have title to the airport.  If your plan is to turn it into a county department, say so.  There is precedent for such things.  Look at the county water department.  It used to be an independent board just like the airport authority.  It was called the Paulding County Water Authority and I used to attend its meetings. 

 

If you wanted that, why you didn't say that you wanted to turn it into a county department.  For the most  part you want to dump the airport and the authority and the whole thing.  Why would you want the county to have it?  If you did, why didn't you say so.

 

Just know that in the grand scheme of things, the county, the IBA, the AA, the school board, etc. are all creatures of the state. What the legislature gives, the legislature can take away.

 

What constrains them is tradition more than anything else.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes


George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#26 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 05:11 AM

Whitey:
 
The board of commissioners already have title to the airport.  If your plan is to turn it into a county department, say so.  There is precedent for such things.  Look at the county water department.  It used to be an independent board just like the airport authority.  It was called the Paulding County Water Authority and I used to attend its meetings. 
 
If you wanted that, why you didn't say that you wanted to turn it into a county department.  For the most  part you want to dump the airport and the authority and the whole thing.  Why would you want the county to have it?  If you did, why didn't you say so.
 
Just know that in the grand scheme of things, the county, the IBA, the AA, the school board, etc. are all creatures of the state. What the legislature gives, the legislature can take away.
 
What constrains them is tradition more than anything else.
 
George Patton "Pat" Hughes


Pubby you bring up a couple of good points...
1) "The board of commissioners already have title to the airport."
This statement brings up a few questions on my part. I will address my questions to those who actually might have an opportunity to address my questions. Us debating these questions here, would be a waste of time. Thank you for pointing me in this direction.

2) "If your plan is to turn it (airport) into a county department, say so."
I totally and absolutely agree. I feel the airport (and IBA) should be county departments, responsible to the BOC and citizens. I intend to lobby for this change.
Retired. I only work 12 noon to 1pm.
Most days I take an hour lunch break.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#27 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,867 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 05:45 AM

Whitey:

 

The board of commissioners already have title to the airport.  If your plan is to turn it into a county department, say so.  There is precedent for such things.  Look at the county water department.  It used to be an independent board just like the airport authority.  It was called the Paulding County Water Authority and I used to attend its meetings. 

 

If you wanted that, why you didn't say that you wanted to turn it into a county department.  For the most  part you want to dump the airport and the authority and the whole thing.  Why would you want the county to have it?  If you did, why didn't you say so.

 

Just know that in the grand scheme of things, the county, the IBA, the AA, the school board, etc. are all creatures of the state. What the legislature gives, the legislature can take away.

 

What constrains them is tradition more than anything else.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes

George Patton "Pat' Hughes

 

You plainly stated      " That means that the Georgia General Assembly will decide what to do with its assets.  No reasonable person would even consider going that route."

That statement sir is a LIE and you know it. Be honest in your discussions.

Deal in the facts , not some far fetched off the wall BS that has no basis of truthfulness whatsoever.


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"

#28 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,546 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 05:50 AM

Pubby you bring up a couple of good points...
1) "The board of commissioners already have title to the airport."
This statement brings up a few questions on my part. I will address my questions to those who actually might have an opportunity to address my questions. Us debating these questions here, would be a waste of time. Thank you for pointing me in this direction.

2) "If your plan is to turn it (airport) into a county department, say so."
I totally and absolutely agree. I feel the airport (and IBA) should be county departments, responsible to the BOC and citizens. I intend to lobby for this change.

 

Mojo:

 

You ought  to think those positions through before you make that kind of choice. I don't think you have.  I mean you want to hire an entire professional staff to actually do these tasks and give them civil service protection, pay insurance and benefits and recognize that those employees may live outside the county ... as opposed to a volunteer board of leading members of the community, key elected officials from the cities as well as the county that is supported by an independent staff (exec. director) ... By making the project a county department you've 'bureaucratized' the effort by a factor of fifty. 

 

I suppose it is worthy of considering but there is no 'magic bullet' solution and there is good and bad to both forms.

 

pubby



#29 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,546 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 06:04 AM

George Patton "Pat' Hughes

 

You plainly stated      " That means that the Georgia General Assembly will decide what to do with its assets.  No reasonable person would even consider going that route."

That statement sir is a LIE and you know it. Be honest in your discussions.

Deal in the facts , not some far fetched off the wall BS that has no basis of truthfulness whatsoever.

 

You want to elect a BOC that is anti-airport and the presumption is that before the Georgia General Assembly gets to make the decision, the BOC you elected said " we don't want the airport, we want to turn it into a drag strip."  

 

Or maybe I ought to say, Oh, good Whitey,  I see you want to bring it into the county government and because of the strife and the fact that you ran off the folks leasing it, and you are only interested in certain kinds of businesses there that don't fly planes in and out because that disturbs the neighbors, we can look at subsidizing the facility to the tune of $400,000 a year for the next 20 years. 

 

Oh, looking at the prospect you say, close it.

 

The FAA  which has a say in this, claws back and either says, pay us back or better yet, well take it over.

 

And given the don't want attitude of your preferred candidates, I can guarantee you that if we can't make up our minds, the Georgia General Assembly will.

 

But I know that is not good enough for you.

 

So let me say, take comfort in this fairy tale I'll spin.

 

 

Whitey was right.  His group won the election and they ordered the airport be closed, the runway turned into a sub division street because, as Todd Pownall said and inspired the Whitey-ites, "we will make Paulding the best bedroom community it can be."

 

All was well, the FAA said 'never mind' about the $50 million they spent here and the state laughed when we bulldozed the terminal building saying, aw, that's so boring, we could have taken it down with C-4 in minutes.

 

Daisies bloomed, pubby was wrong and Whitey, confident in his analysis and inspired by the best bedroom community ever, sat on the porch of his subdivision home watching the sun set.  All was well and the Georgia General Assembly never made another law all all people lived happily ever after.

 

pubby



#30 WHITEY

WHITEY

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus Orange
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,867 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 06:43 AM

 

You want to elect a BOC that is anti-airport and the presumption is that before the Georgia General Assembly gets to make the decision, the BOC you elected said " we don't want the airport, we want to turn it into a drag strip."  

 

Or maybe I ought to say, Oh, good Whitey,  I see you want to bring it into the county government and because of the strife and the fact that you ran off the folks leasing it, and you are only interested in certain kinds of businesses there that don't fly planes in and out because that disturbs the neighbors, we can look at subsidizing the facility to the tune of $400,000 a year for the next 20 years. 

 

Oh, looking at the prospect you say, close it.

 

The FAA  which has a say in this, claws back and either says, pay us back or better yet, well take it over.

 

And given the don't want attitude of your preferred candidates, I can guarantee you that if we can't make up our minds, the Georgia General Assembly will.

 

But I know that is not good enough for you.

 

So let me say, take comfort in this fairy tale I'll spin.

 

 

pubby

George Patton 'Pat' Hughes

 

Just some more of your trivia....... This does not explain why you lied and continue to lie to your constituents. Come on and man up.   OH BTW I do recall that you supported the secret meetings that THE PCAA and The IBA had, Is this part of your platform??    You remind me of Bill Heath tactics when you were supporting Bill Corrupt last election


  • SOLO and mojo413 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"

#31 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,546 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:03 AM

Whitey:

 

Lets recap here.

 

You say I'm misleading my constituents because I suggested that the state would be in line to take over the airport if the county abandons it and since I believe that one of the methods the county might use to abandon it is the dissolution of the IBA as you so forcefully suggested, your reading of the enabling legislation said the county would inherit their property and that makes me a liar.

 

My only real point is that it would be idiotic to dissolve the IBA.

 

pubby



#32 SOLO

SOLO

    I Have Flying monkeys and Will Use Them

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,780 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 05:45 PM

That is kind of silly Solo.  First it presumes that the issue with the airport is still an issue come January 2015.
 
Second,  I consider the current administration on net a positive in terms of growth and progress but with problems with transparency based largely on their adoption of the tradition that is a part of Paulding government going back years.
 
Third it assumes that my simple plan, which takes assent by the rest of the post commissioners to change the tradition that dates to the time of sole commissioners,  that ordinances, rules and even purchases are announced and then passed into law immediately at the same meeting is rejected.   That is a substantive change in favor of openness and transparency if for no other reason, the weekly newspapers can inform people what is going to happen. 
 
I've lobbied for that change for years and if you actually look at the issues here, you'd know that it is the speed with which the motions  become acts that is behind the attitudes.  That this rapid passage approach is a tradition and is legal and that is the reason that what has been done is legal.
 
The airport is just one of the many actions taken over the years by the commission using this rapid passage approach I call slam bam. Having been an observer for going on three decades, I'm a little perplexed that folks are, all of a sudden, concerned about it. I thought it was crazy way back when but you know the old saw, if it was good enough for grandpa, it is good nuff for me.
 
As far as the airport, I'm 100 percent in favor of abiding by the contracts we have, as a county, legally bound ourselves to.   Like numerous other actions taken by the rapid approval approach of the county over the years, we have little choice but to accept the status quo. 
 
What we can change is the future.
 
Because I look ahead,  I endorse  the requirement that if in aggregate, if expansion of the airport requires that more than 400-ft of runway is added either to the existing airstrip or a new runway altogether,  I want an amendment to the airport authority law that requires a bond issue must be authorized by the voters of Paulding County.  This is the referendum that would either endorse or reject expansion of the airport from its current 6000-ft length and the operational limitations that implies.
 
That suggestion, which goes back to early November and could have been a part of this last legislative session if folks had not been hell-bent on turning this airport issue into a political hot potato.
 
But no, lets polarize, lets divide,  lets throw the bums out.  Of course the effort is to get a new set of bums who I feel will try and repeal the IBA and Airport Authority, wreck economic development and otherwise halt progress.  I'm for progress and that means I think we should continue forward.
 
George Patton "Pat" Hughes


As long as you see nothing wrong then you will repeat the past problems. It would help to elect people who had some knowledge of success in life not just envying others who have reach it. Let's get people in who do not just talk a bunch of long winded BS to cover the fact they really can not or will not answer straight questions...oh and it would be nice also to elect people who have respect others and their views not mock , name call and TRY to belittle. Sad you seem to think anyone who does not tow your line is against economic development ....and very short sighted of you....But we all know with you it is your way or the highway....oops that is what so many want to change.
  • mrshoward and secondhandsmith like this
Posted Image
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

Daily Thought: SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS


Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it or play with it Just pee on it and walk away.

s.l.u.t
Stressed-out Ladies Unwinding Together

"People are born so that they can learn how to live a good life like loving everybody all the time and being nice.....dogs already know how to do that, so they don't have to stay as long

#33 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 07:22 PM

Solo:

 

I see plenty of things that are wrong.  What I don't do is look at people as somehow bad, incompetent or criminal because I disagree with them on this or that issue.   Disagreement to me is a process that involves research, discussion, compromise, negotiation and resolution.  Because I see these other folks as partners in progress instead of flawed humans who must be rebuked and discarded, I think I can be more effective in discussion, compromise, negotiation and resolution.

 

The thing I think you fail to grasp is that negotiation, discussion, compromise are paths to resolution that require you have a partner who can not only discuss the issue with, but negotiate a resolution.  The trick is to first, know what you want and second see a deal that gives your partner/opponent/adversary what they want.  The whole process is not meant to be easy and some folks play the game in ways that can make one wince. 

 

Take the airport deal for instance.  One side in this has a signed contract that they've promised to deliver certain things that they had full authority under law to agree to.  I suggested that the two groups agree that to expand the airport without pursuing the lawsuits could be  had if both sides agree to require any significant expansion of the runway length or an additional runway would require a public referendum in the form of a bond issue.

 

While the opponents can tie things up in court for a time, it is highly likely they will ultimately lose in court on the merits  The county will then be out the cost of litigation but it will not be liable for costs associated with the breach of the original contract.

 

If the county were to fold, we would be liable for breach of contract and no doubt will have to pay more to our former partners.  We've also ruined the reputation of the county as a place where businesses can come and be certain that the county administration will do as they agree to do in contracts.   If we were to just flip on the contracts, that would our hurt economic development efforts even more.

 

Of course the anti forces backed by Atlanta money, could care less about the people of Paulding.  Heck, it is not inconceivable they have their eyes on taking over the airport which becomes more likely if we don't fight to maintain the contract to the bitter end. (If we just go into breach, we become liable for our partners expenses and losses) ...  Of course if the courts force the breach, and depending on the severability clauses, we may avoid some liability. Oh, and commercial use is part of the existing contract.

 

The point is that the county has no choice but to do what it is doing to defend the contracts it has signed and a reasonable opposition, recognizing this, would accept  the status quo on the current contracts as a given in any negotiation.  The next question then becomes, what thing of value could they anti-forces extract from the county in this situation in exchange for dropping the suits?

 

They used to say they wanted a referendum.  They could probably still get one but not until next January when the general assembly meets again.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes

 

 PS: I really don't have any direct interest in this except as a taxpayer.  As a candidate I'm standing by that wildly liberal - maybe even communist concept that you ought to abide by the contracts you sign.  (I used to think that was a conservative value but you folks disabused me of that quaint notion.)


  • LPPT likes this

George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#34 tundra

tundra

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:20 PM

Solo:

 

I see plenty of things that are wrong.  What I don't do is look at people as somehow bad, incompetent or criminal because I disagree with them on this or that issue.   Disagreement to me is a process that involves research, discussion, compromise, negotiation and resolution.  Because I see these other folks as partners in progress instead of flawed humans who must be rebuked and discarded, I think I can be more effective in discussion, compromise, negotiation and resolution.

 

The thing I think you fail to grasp is that negotiation, discussion, compromise are paths to resolution that require you have a partner who can not only discuss the issue with, but negotiate a resolution.  The trick is to first, know what you want and second see a deal that gives your partner/opponent/adversary what they want.  The whole process is not meant to be easy and some folks play the game in ways that can make one wince. 

 

Take the airport deal for instance.  One side in this has a signed contract that they've promised to deliver certain things that they had full authority under law to agree to.  I suggested that the two groups agree that to expand the airport without pursuing the lawsuits could be  had if both sides agree to require any significant expansion of the runway length or an additional runway would require a public referendum in the form of a bond issue.

 

While the opponents can tie things up in court for a time, it is highly likely they will ultimately lose in court on the merits  The county will then be out the cost of litigation but it will not be liable for costs associated with the breach of the original contract.

 

If the county were to fold, we would be liable for breach of contract and no doubt will have to pay more to our former partners.  We've also ruined the reputation of the county as a place where businesses can come and be certain that the county administration will do as they agree to do in contracts.   If we were to just flip on the contracts, that would our hurt economic development efforts even more.

 

Of course the anti forces backed by Atlanta money, could care less about the people of Paulding.  Heck, it is not inconceivable they have their eyes on taking over the airport which becomes more likely if we don't fight to maintain the contract to the bitter end. (If we just go into breach, we become liable for our partners expenses and losses) ...  Of course if the courts force the breach, and depending on the severability clauses, we may avoid some liability. Oh, and commercial use is part of the existing contract.

 

The point is that the county has no choice but to do what it is doing to defend the contracts it has signed and a reasonable opposition, recognizing this, would accept  the status quo on the current contracts as a given in any negotiation.  The next question then becomes, what thing of value could they anti-forces extract from the county in this situation in exchange for dropping the suits?

 

They used to say they wanted a referendum.  They could probably still get one but not until next January when the general assembly meets again.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes

 

 PS: I really don't have any direct interest in this except as a taxpayer.  As a candidate I'm standing by that wildly liberal - maybe even communist concept that you ought to abide by the contracts you sign.  (I used to think that was a conservative value but you folks disabused me of that quaint notion.)

Contracts are two sided, has the other party upheld their end of the contract?


  • WHITEY 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 
 


#35 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:28 PM

Contracts are two sided, has the other party upheld their end of the contract?

From what I saw from the video of the AA meeting, they are.

 

Beyond that, are you suggesting that there is a willingness on the part of the litigants to drop their suits if they are?

 

I will say that I imagine prudence is appropriate, given the willingness of those opposing this effort to litigate.

 

pubby


George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#36 tundra

tundra

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 09:19 PM

From what I saw from the video of the AA meeting, they are.

 

Beyond that, are you suggesting that there is a willingness on the part of the litigants to drop their suits if they are?

 

I will say that I imagine prudence is appropriate, given the willingness of those opposing this effort to litigate.

 

pubby

Hmmmmmm, seems like I remember something about a 500,000 deposit.  And didn't the Chamber of Commerce say Silver Comet would cover the bond payments until the FAA reimbursed the county?  Why did the IBA and the BOC (a/ka/ the taxpayers) loan the PCAA 3.9 million dollars instead of Silver Comet Terminal Partners paying?  Surely the Chamber wouldn't lie and SCTP is upholding their end of the contract. 


  • WHITEY 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 
 


#37 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 10:40 PM

Hmmmmmm, seems like I remember something about a 500,000 deposit.  And didn't the Chamber of Commerce say Silver Comet would cover the bond payments until the FAA reimbursed the county?  Why did the IBA and the BOC (a/ka/ the taxpayers) loan the PCAA 3.9 million dollars instead of Silver Comet Terminal Partners paying?  Surely the Chamber wouldn't lie and SCTP is upholding their end of the contract. 

 

I think there has to be a bond ... you know the one that was blocked by the suits for them to make the payments on tundra and when plan B - having the IBA pay for them was blocked by another suit and then, they heard Todd say he just wanted to fill in and waste $1 million in dirt work expanding the taxiway that the county had to come up with the cash for plan C. 

 

I know you're ROTFLYAO ... but I wouldn't be proud of costing the county - NEEDLESSLY costing the county the delays as well as the costs of litigation and embarrassment - but hey, it's all in service to the mighty folks capable of hiring hundreds of big city Atlanta lawyers whomever they are and whatever their ultimate motives. 

 

I'm beginning to think that is the real 'secret' - and I'm sure there have been some meetings - surrounding this whole thing.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes


George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#38 mojo413

mojo413

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 05:53 AM

Pubby I've got a question for you.

Were you asked to run by an elected official?
  • WHITEY likes this
Retired. I only work 12 noon to 1pm.
Most days I take an hour lunch break.
John Hyden
770-366-1552

#39 George Patton Hughes

George Patton Hughes

    Democrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 02:20 PM

Pubby I've got a question for you.

Were you asked to run by an elected official?

 

NO - absolutely not ... you might say it was my hair-brained idea ... that is if I had any hair :)

 

George Patton  "Pat" Hughes (aka: pubby)

 

PS:  I did see that I might get support of some elected officials if I ran but that is me surveying the landscape ... but no, no one suggested or encouraged me to run at all.  I have to take 100 percent of the responsibility.


  • mojo413 likes this

George Patton "Pat" Hughes
 


#40 surepip

surepip

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,533 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 02:35 PM

 

I think there has to be a bond ... you know the one that was blocked by the suits for them to make the payments on tundra and when plan B - having the IBA pay for them was blocked by another suit and then, they heard Todd say he just wanted to fill in and waste $1 million in dirt work expanding the taxiway that the county had to come up with the cash for plan C. 

 

I know you're ROTFLYAO ... but I wouldn't be proud of costing the county - NEEDLESSLY costing the county the delays as well as the costs of litigation and embarrassment - but hey, it's all in service to the mighty folks capable of hiring hundreds of big city Atlanta lawyers whomever they are and whatever their ultimate motives. 

 

I'm beginning to think that is the real 'secret' - and I'm sure there have been some meetings - surrounding this whole thing.

 

George Patton "Pat" Hughes

Isn't that akin to our very own Board of Commissioners hiring the Holland & Knight firm from Atlanta and paying them $1.5 Million Dollars of Paulding tax payer money to litigate us and prevent our cases from even entering the courtroom ?  For a case that should have been settled for $25,000 and some apologies within 6 weeks of starting ?

 

Just wondering out loud  :ninja:


When you think they are ganging up against you....."Illigitimus non es carborundum"





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: BOC, Commission, Citizens wishing to speak, KV Coggins

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics