Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
WHITEY

Paulding Chamber being challanged on airport issue

Recommended Posts

E-mail that is circulating

 

EDITORS NOTE: This no doubt is an email that is circulating. I was contacted by Carolyn Wright who was not amused by the plagiarism and quasi-identity theft (AKA: Dirty Tricks) as it seemed that some folks didn't understand this was a spoof 'Chamber' letter. - Pubby

 

Dear Paulding Chamber Member,

 

Good Morning!

 

I wanted to take a moment of your time to let you know about the incredible meeting at the Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport (aka, Silver Comet Field). As you know Tuesday night was the public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment and I am thrilled to report that over 400 people were in attendance. As a local citizen, I am beyond thrilled to see so many wonderful citizens participate in this event.

 

The best part I can report is that the majority of those that attended were not in support of this secret, unethical, back-door project. Luckily, I can base my information not on clothing color (since not all wore or own red t-shirts) but on actually speaking to those in attendance. I estimate that 75% of those attending did NOT support the commercialization efforts and of the 25% remaining, 15% didn't live in Paulding County. Of those anti-commercialization citizens that chose to spoke to the crowd, 100% filled their speeches with facts not guesses or misinformation. I do not have the statistics on what the pro-commercialization speeches were about as I am still working hard to find any factual information at all. I can, however, verify two things from their speeches. One: shut up and move out of the way of "progress" because we do not matter. Two: At least those that spoke live in Paulding county. I apologize that is the only information I could gather from them.

 

The absolute majority citizens who frequent your businesses have repeatedly spoken against the commercialization of the airport in many ways. I hope you consider this when you allow your resigning chamber president to speak for you. Certainly it is the people who spend their money with your business that keep you going and not the one who is leading a failing chamber.

 

For those of you that did not get to attend, your voice can still be heard! Comments regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment can still be made until January 10, 2016. Here is a list of where you can send your comments, though I recommend you copy all of the below in any emails you send.

 

Blake Swafford: blake.swafford@pauldingairport.com

Lisa Favors: Lisa.Favors@faa.gov

Commissioner Vernon Collett: vcollett@paulding.gov

Commissioner Tony Crowe: tcrowe@paulding.gov

Commissioner Todd Pownall: todd.pownall@paulding.gov

 

Or Mail or Fax to:

Mr. Gordon Murphy

Michael Baker International (company who performed the EA)

700 Huger Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Fax: (803) 779-8749

 

Please keep a copy of your email or letter for your records!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was that full page ad located? They showed one at the meeting and I can't find it in the paper.

Looked like it had a list of business that I need to not deal with anymore.

Our local chamber needs a new leader. If we let the business know that we are not putting up with

them if they support the airport things will change in a hurry.

 

Are some of these people so stupid that they think this is going to give jobs to all the single moms?

Do they not realize that any company that comes here will bring their on people, plus to work at a airport

will require training and a security clearance.

 

 

STOP THE AUSTIN BROTHERS AIRPORT!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was that full page ad located? They showed one at the meeting and I can't find it in the paper.

Looked like it had a list of business that I need to not deal with anymore.

Our local chamber needs a new leader. If we let the business know that we are not putting up with

them if they support the airport things will change in a hurry.

 

Are some of these people so stupid that they think this is going to give jobs to all the single moms?

Do they not realize that any company that comes here will bring their on people, plus to work at a airport

will require training and a security clearance.

 

 

STOP THE AUSTIN BROTHERS AIRPORT!

Most of the business are pretty easy to recognize, they have a Chamber emblem on the entrance doors, And some are listed on the Chamber web site as Board members.

 

Looks as if the chamber wants to play a little hard ball since they did not allow us to film the meeting today...... I wonder how many Chamber members agree with this???

 

If I was a business owner I don't think I would want the chamber making my customers mad with some of the antics that they are displaying.?

 

Strange the County tax payers paid to have the meeting taped with a county employee, but a county resident cannot tape the meeting, Now something is wrong with that picture!!!

 

Way to go chamber members you are really earning our business!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading stuff on FB as well as watching the video. My interpretation from the video the folks against the airport going commercial dang sure presented actual, educated facts. The few folks that are for it, really did not interest me as they could not present factual information, just opinions (which is not bad).

 

Bottom line, someone needs to slap some sense on David Austin. Chairman and CEO of Paulding County holding up litigation re: airport that has divided numerous county residents. Take it to Court and be done with it. And for the folks saying it's costing taxpayers for the Court cases, who is holding it up as it's well known the Plaintiffs have been ready.

 

JOBS = none created @Airport or Movie Studio. You want corporate business to move there and set up shop to employ many local folks? Please encourage the Chairman to take this mess to Court and be done with it. Get the community friendly again.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a Chamber member for over 20 years, it didn't used to be like it is today. I refuse to renew my membership until the current director is GONE They used to care about small businesses, now if you don't have 5,000 to get a seat on the board, you're a nobody. Oh, you "might" get an email.

 

I went to a lot of 1st Thursday Forums, even participated in some of the table top meeting............We need a new Chamber Director, plain and simple.

 

Who ever wrote this letter is wise.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a Chamber member for over 20 years, it didn't used to be like it is today. I refuse to renew my membership until the current director is GONE They used to care about small businesses, now if you don't have 5,000 to get a seat on the board, you're a nobody. Oh, you "might" get an email.

 

I went to a lot of 1st Thursday Forums, even participated in some of the table top meeting............We need a new Chamber Director, plain and simple.

 

Who ever wrote this letter is wise.

Maybe off topic here, but my belief is having all authority members be county residents. Hey, they have the authority to issue bonds yet do not live in the County. Seriously, look at the folks mortgaging the taxpayers $$ via bonds, yet they don't not live in the county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Whitey, I thought I was very factual.

 

What I said was that the airport before and after the proposed 139 application would be pretty much the same. The runway won't change. It will have a few more electronics for a control tower and, yes, there would be a fence around the perimeter.

 

Oh, and the big change is not that airplanes would fly in and out ... but that the airplanes coming in and out would be authorized to carry people.

 

I pointed out that right now the airplanes could carry toxic substances, poisons, and any number of other things. These things fly in and out of general aviation airports all the time.

 

But what distinguishes a commercial airport from a general aviation is that a commercial airport is allowed to serve people.

 

And like I've said dozens of times, we have a lot more people in Paulding than we have businesses ... kind of comes with being a bedroom community.

 

I did acknowledge that the EA could have been better ... hell perfection eludes us all ... but that it seemed pretty comprehensive.

 

As far as the high dollar Washington lobbyist ... who talked about what a 139 permit means ... he really was entertaining but he was saying that Paulding shouldn't get it because they didn't project it as the second Atlanta airport with five 9000 foot runways and unlimited aircraft coming. What he failed to mention is that an extension of the runway beyond the planned 6500 ft. would require a full environmental impact statement.

 

Indeed expansion of the airport directly in any way would require a whole new environmental impact statement but no such expansion is planned or justified.

 

Still, he was entertaining.

 

So was the bat lady ... and the economic analysis guy - the key economic fact this patsy for HJ and Delta being that we should not have the airport because the metro area (not Paulding) gets extra money because hotels in Atlanta are more expensive than they are Paulding or some such.

 

Your analysis - did you even mention the Environmental assessment? was ... well was probably better and more factual than your post here.

 

I do give you kudoos for getting mentioned in the AJC article though. Congrats.

 

Oh, I heard a rumor today and that Todd wasn't going to run and that you had endorsed Virginia Galloway. Tell me its not so.

 

pubby

 

PS: I do have two other questions? First, what is wrong with serving people? And the other? Why not let the market decide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Whitey, I thought I was very factual.

 

What I said was that the airport before and after the proposed 139 application would be pretty much the same. The runway won't change. It will have a few more electronics for a control tower and, yes, there would be a fence around the perimeter.

 

Oh, and the big change is not that airplanes would fly in and out ... but that the airplanes coming in and out would be authorized to carry people.

 

I pointed out that right now the airplanes could carry toxic substances, poisons, and any number of other things. These things fly in and out of general aviation airports all the time.

 

But what distinguishes a commercial airport from a general aviation is that a commercial airport is allowed to serve people.

 

And like I've said dozens of times, we have a lot more people in Paulding than we have businesses ... kind of comes with being a bedroom community.

 

I did acknowledge that the EA could have been better ... hell perfection eludes us all ... but that it seemed pretty comprehensive.

 

As far as the high dollar Washington lobbyist ... who talked about what a 139 permit means ... he really was entertaining but he was saying that Paulding shouldn't get it because they didn't project it as the second Atlanta airport with five 9000 foot runways and unlimited aircraft coming. What he failed to mention is that an extension of the runway beyond the planned 6500 ft. would require a full environmental impact statement.

 

Indeed expansion of the airport directly in any way would require a whole new environmental impact statement but no such expansion is planned or justified.

 

Still, he was entertaining.

 

So was the bat lady ... and the economic analysis guy - the key economic fact this patsy for HJ and Delta being that we should not have the airport because the metro area (not Paulding) gets extra money because hotels in Atlanta are more expensive than they are Paulding or some such.

 

Your analysis - did you even mention the Environmental assessment? was ... well was probably better and more factual than your post here.

 

I do give you kudoos for getting mentioned in the AJC article though. Congrats.

 

Oh, I heard a rumor today and that Todd wasn't going to run and that you had endorsed Virginia Galloway. Tell me its not so.

 

pubby

 

PS: I do have two other questions? First, what is wrong with serving people? And the other? Why not let the market decide?

Once again and I hope you respond to me. WHAT jobs have been created to date since the General Aviation Airport has been operational?? How much $$$ has been mortgaged (bonds) that the taxpayers are on the hook for? It' s a very nice facility as a GA (didn't cost a damn cent, COUGH) to the taxpayers.

 

Bottom line, where are the jobs? Folks are upset having to accept an airport that was voted down twice, yet have to live with the fact it was built anyways and a failure of draining money from taxpayers.

 

Please respond to this and tell me..................how many JOBS have been created VS the money spent and/or bonded? Also, keep in mind the IBA failed to commit to a bond payment this past August, the BOC had to wire funds to keep credit rating.

 

How many millions $$$ committed, yet no employment???

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the (PUJ)FAA Part 139 application dated September 24, 2013 was not legally authorized by the sole airport sponsor, (BOC), at that time, would said application not be a fraudulent filing?

 

FAA's Part 139.115 addresses this:

 

Sec. 139.115 Falsification, reproduction, or alteration of applications, certificates, reports, or records.
(Add new Section 115 – template provided)
(a) No person shall make or cause to be made:

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a certificate or approval under this part.
(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or report that is required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement under this part.

(3) Any reproduction, for a fraudulent purpose, of any certificate or approval issued under this part.
(4) Any alteration, for a fraudulent purpose, of any certificate or approval issued under this part.

(B) The commission by any owner, operator, or other person acting on behalf of a certificate holder of an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for suspending or revoking any certificate or approval issued under this part and held by that certificate holder and any other certificate issued under this title and held by the person committing the act.

 

Were the early FAA AIP Grants legally authorized?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Whitey, I thought I was very factual.

 

What I said was that the airport before and after the proposed 139 application would be pretty much the same. The runway won't change. It will have a few more electronics for a control tower and, yes, there would be a fence around the perimeter.

Oh, and the big change is not that airplanes would fly in and out ... but that the airplanes coming in and out would be authorized to carry people.

Don't minimize the effect of the 139, it does have a major and long long long term effect.

I pointed out that right now the airplanes could carry toxic substances, poisons, and any number of other things. These things fly in and out of general aviation airports all the time.

Yeh, and I am not the only one that had no clue what that has to do with a 139 certificate.

 

But what distinguishes a commercial airport from a general aviation is that a commercial airport is allowed to serve people.

And the fact that now the county loses a major portion of control over what happens at it's own airport.

 

And like I've said dozens of times, we have a lot more people in Paulding than we have businesses ... kind of comes with being a bedroom community.

Keep this thought in mind, if Delta is behind the lawsuit, they are not a county but a company, one that has at least 50% as many employees as Paulding does citizens.

Plus, a hell of a lot more money that Paulding for lawyers.

Let's see the county and "the firm" drag these lawsuits out till they make Delta run out of money like they did a citizen of the county.

 

I did acknowledge that the EA could have been better ... hell perfection eludes us all ... but that it seemed pretty comprehensive.

 

As far as the high dollar Washington lobbyist ... who talked about what a 139 permit means ... he really was entertaining but he was saying that Paulding shouldn't get it because they didn't project it as the second Atlanta airport with five 9000 foot runways and unlimited aircraft coming. What he failed to mention is that an extension of the runway beyond the planned 6500 ft. would require a full environmental impact statement.

Yeh, that would stop it from happening.

That would never never ever happen, the AA would not be a part of that, if that was the case.

(whoa...major deja vu)

 

Indeed expansion of the airport directly in any way would require a whole new environmental impact statement but no such expansion is planned or justified.

Still, he was entertaining.

I would suggest you watch his talk again, perhaps with someone who can explain it to you since the perfection of understanding and comprehension eludes you.

 

So was the bat lady ... and the economic analysis guy - the key economic fact this patsy for HJ and Delta being that we should not have the airport because the metro area (not Paulding) gets extra money because hotels in Atlanta are more expensive than they are Paulding or some such.

What in the heck are you babbling about?

 

Your analysis - did you even mention the Environmental assessment? was ... well was probably better and more factual than your post here.

 

I do give you kudoos for getting mentioned in the AJC article though. Congrats.

 

Oh, I heard a rumor today and that Todd wasn't going to run and that you had endorsed Virginia Galloway. Tell me its not so.

How is this possible? Weren't you downing Whitey for not "knowing" that Todd was going to run?

Didn't you say you were surprised that Whitey didn't know about Todd running, because you knew Todd was running, after all, Todd told you.

pubby

 

PS: I do have two other questions? First, what is wrong with serving people? And the other? Why not let the market decide?

As I suggested, perhaps you should have someone watch and explain to your what the man from DC said about the 139.

Once you got it, you can't get ride of it, without paying back the money the government gave you for getting it.

​Money that would be spent on the airport.

The market doesn't decide, the Federal government decides.

(just like the man who spoke Thursday night and said, I am paraphrasing here; let's try commercial. what can it hurt? if it doesn't work, we will get rid of it.)

That's not the way it works.

 

I have always said I am not anti commercial for our airport.

But if we go commercial, we have to go into it with our eyes wide open and with full knowledge of what the possible upsides are and the possible downsides are.

And be prepared for both possibilities.

 

Heck, from what I can tell, Propeller has much experience in running a commercial or general aviation airport as I do.

But perhaps they would be willing to hire people that do have that experience and those skills, something the county or the AA or the IBA or whoever is now in charge, seems reluctant to do.

I mean we know Allegiant Air is a low end, crappy, don't care about their customer's, airline.

But, if you are a new commercial airport, chances are, you ain't getting the cream of the crop right out of the gate.

 

We have never had a realistic plan for that airport and we certainly haven't had a business plan for the past 7 years.

I was told that, to my face, by Blake Swafford, during my meeting with him.

 

So go commercial, don't go commercial.

Either way, we as a county; citizens, elected officials and those who work in positions that are responsible for the airport and it's functioning; need to be very very clear on what we are keeping out or what we are bringing in and what the consequences of both will be.

 

I am going to repeat myself, this time on purpose.

But if we go commercial, we have to go into it with our eyes wide open and with full knowledge of what the possible upsides are and the possible downsides are.

Because the 139 permit ain't no movie studio, where you can say, "Well that certainly didn't work out. Let's cut our losses and sell the dang thing for whatever we can get."

 

By the same token, if we don't go commercial at this time, that does not preclude us from going commercial at a later date, if we so choose to and have what we need in place to do so.

 

 

My only objection to going commercial, no one (speaking of our county and those who's jobs it is to do so) has shown me they can operate a general aviation airport with any success, so why would I trust them to operate a commercial aviation airport?

The only saving grace to that is, Propeller (as I understand it) will be the ones operating the commercial part of the airport.

And like I also said, despite their, to my knowledge, having never operated an airport before, you would think and hope that they could do a better job running a commercial airport, than we have done, so far, on the general aviation side.

 

Ohhhh, for those who wonder why I say Propeller hasn't ever operated a commercial airport before, that was one of the questions I asked Blake Swafford and that was his answer.

BTW, just for the record again, as I have said, several times, Mr Swafford answer every question I asked, and in my opinion, truthfully. And I appreciate that.

Edited by stradial
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about our school board member, Richard Manous, that thinks the schools are going to be helped by this and single moms will be able to support their families with the part time jobs commercial service will create...........

 

I grow tired of people screaming "it's for the kids", when in fact this will be detrimental to thousands of children that live within 5 miles of that airport. We have Poole Elementary, Ragsdale Elementary, Union Elementary and Scoggins Middle School in that 5 mile area. 800 students x 4, Allgood is in the flight path and is just at the end of that 5 mile radius. If you think those aren't loud planes, just go listen to a couple of them take off, then tell me how the kids will get used to the noise.

 

Sorry you lied about the General aviation airport bringing thousands of jobs, you lied about the film studio bringing thousands of jobs - both are absolute FAILURES while similar economic drivers in the area are thriving like McCollum and Cartersville airport, but General Aviation. Atlanta is the new "hot spot" for filiming, yet we get bits and pieces here and there, couple of game shows and lots of "holds".

 

You really want me to believe you know what you're doing this time? Really? Your track record speaks for itself. It's like the family of 4 that buys lottery tickets instead of using the money for food, because they know, one day they are going to "get lucky" and win. Is this how government should be operating? Spending taxpayer money on failed projects hoping to get "lucky" one day?

 

I am disgusted and disappointed that our local government thinks the taxpayers of Paulding County are idiots, now those that think this is a great idea just might fit in that category, useful idiots...........yea it's been proven government loves to friend those types.

Edited by tundra
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the (PUJ)FAA Part 139 application dated September 24, 2013 was not legally authorized by the sole airport sponsor, (BOC), at that time, would said application not be a fraudulent filing?

 

FAA's Part 139.115 addresses this:

 

Sec. 139.115 Falsification, reproduction, or alteration of applications, certificates, reports, or records.

(Add new Section 115 – template provided)

(a) No person shall make or cause to be made:

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a certificate or approval under this part.

(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or report that is required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement under this part.

(3) Any reproduction, for a fraudulent purpose, of any certificate or approval issued under this part.

(4) Any alteration, for a fraudulent purpose, of any certificate or approval issued under this part.

( B) The commission by any owner, operator, or other person acting on behalf of a certificate holder of an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for suspending or revoking any certificate or approval issued under this part and held by that certificate holder and any other certificate issued under this title and held by the person committing the act.

 

Were the early FAA AIP Grants legally authorized?

 

Sounds like it is not valid, and someone should be held responsible, maybe to the point of

a fine or jail.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Whitey, I thought I was very factual.

 

What I said was that the airport before and after the proposed 139 application would be pretty much the same. The runway won't change. It will have a few more electronics for a control tower and, yes, there would be a fence around the perimeter.

 

Oh, and the big change is not that airplanes would fly in and out ... but that the airplanes coming in and out would be authorized to carry people.

 

I pointed out that right now the airplanes could carry toxic substances, poisons, and any number of other things. These things fly in and out of general aviation airports all the time.

 

But what distinguishes a commercial airport from a general aviation is that a commercial airport is allowed to serve people.

 

And like I've said dozens of times, we have a lot more people in Paulding than we have businesses ... kind of comes with being a bedroom community.

 

I did acknowledge that the EA could have been better ... hell perfection eludes us all ... but that it seemed pretty comprehensive.

 

As far as the high dollar Washington lobbyist ... who talked about what a 139 permit means ... he really was entertaining but he was saying that Paulding shouldn't get it because they didn't project it as the second Atlanta airport with five 9000 foot runways and unlimited aircraft coming. What he failed to mention is that an extension of the runway beyond the planned 6500 ft. would require a full environmental impact statement.

 

Indeed expansion of the airport directly in any way would require a whole new environmental impact statement but no such expansion is planned or justified.

 

Still, he was entertaining.

 

So was the bat lady ... and the economic analysis guy - the key economic fact this patsy for HJ and Delta being that we should not have the airport because the metro area (not Paulding) gets extra money because hotels in Atlanta are more expensive than they are Paulding or some such.

 

Your analysis - did you even mention the Environmental assessment? was ... well was probably better and more factual than your post here.

 

I do give you kudoos for getting mentioned in the AJC article though. Congrats.

 

Oh, I heard a rumor today and that Todd wasn't going to run and that you had endorsed Virginia Galloway. Tell me its not so.

 

pubby

 

PS: I do have two other questions? First, what is wrong with serving people? And the other? Why not let the market decide?

Todd never has planned on running for commission chair that is some of David's bull chit that he spews from his mouth along with the Delta crap.

I would vote for and support Carmichael before I would even think about voting for Virginia Galloway.. And that Jack is a fact!!!!!!

 

What really gets me though is the secrecy that the Chamber plays in this entire airport deal, Where is Carolyn Wright at these meetings like we had Tuesday night.

 

Where were members of the Board of Directors or the executive board, Not the first one got up and spoke in favor of the airport to my knowledge? Nor did any of them speak in favor of the flawed environmental assessment

 

Where were the Airport Authority members ? They had a head table set up for them was there some reason that they chose not to speak or sit and face the audience ????

 

Are they ashamed of the manner in which they handled the entire airport deal?

 

Pubby you heard Pete Steenland explain the PART 139, once it is here we can't just say that we don't want it any more without paying the FAA millions of dollars back.

 

Pubby this is some of the same group of folks that believed that Paulding County was going to be the HOLLYWOOD OF THE SOUTH and built the FAMED FILM STUDIO and are now trying to walk away from it.

 

The Chamber needs to let the private sector do its job and step away from the tax payers funding these public/private partnerships If this is such a great deal then why is propeller not going around the Country building airports instead of trying to bring Passenger service to existing airports.

 

Bottom line we ( tax payers) provide all the infrastructure security, fire protection, etc, and if it is successful we get 2 1/2 % of the profit. That my friend is not a very good deal for the tax payers

 

And all of this by a group (airport Authority) who has no experience in running a airport of any kind and some of which are not even residents of Paulding County, And some of which are not elected by the citizens of this County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Chamber of Commerce web site.

http://pauldingchamber.org/aboutUs.php see some of them for yourself and the businesses they represent.

 

Wonder why so many of them do not live in Paulding County ??????

 

Just because they are chamber members doesn't mean they support the airport. I know several business that

do not and they are glad to tell you they don't. Maybe the way to stop the chamber would be for any business

not supporting it to not be a member anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E-mail that is circulating

 

Dear Paulding Chamber Member,

 

Good Morning!

 

I wanted to take a moment of your time to let you know about the incredible meeting at the Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport (aka, Silver Comet Field). As you know Tuesday night was the public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment and I am thrilled to report that over 400 people were in attendance. As a local citizen, I am beyond thrilled to see so many wonderful citizens participate in this event.

 

The best part I can report is that the majority of those that attended were not in support of this secret, unethical, back-door project. Luckily, I can base my information not on clothing color (since not all wore or own red t-shirts) but on actually speaking to those in attendance. I estimate that 75% of those attending did NOT support the commercialization efforts and of the 25% remaining, 15% didn't live in Paulding County. Of those anti-commercialization citizens that chose to spoke to the crowd, 100% filled their speeches with facts not guesses or misinformation. I do not have the statistics on what the pro-commercialization speeches were about as I am still working hard to find any factual information at all. I can, however, verify two things from their speeches. One: shut up and move out of the way of "progress" because we do not matter. Two: At least those that spoke live in Paulding county. I apologize that is the only information I could gather from them.

 

The absolute majority citizens who frequent your businesses have repeatedly spoken against the commercialization of the airport in many ways. I hope you consider this when you allow your resigning chamber president to speak for you. Certainly it is the people who spend their money with your business that keep you going and not the one who is leading a failing chamber.

 

For those of you that did not get to attend, your voice can still be heard! Comments regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment can still be made until January 10, 2016. Here is a list of where you can send your comments, though I recommend you copy all of the below in any emails you send.

 

Blake Swafford: blake.swafford@pauldingairport.com

Lisa Favors: Lisa.Favors@faa.gov

Commissioner Vernon Collett: vcollett@paulding.gov

Commissioner Tony Crowe: tcrowe@paulding.gov

Commissioner Todd Pownall: todd.pownall@paulding.gov

 

Or Mail or Fax to:

Mr. Gordon Murphy

Michael Baker International (company who performed the EA)

700 Huger Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Fax: (803) 779-8749

 

Please keep a copy of your email or letter for your records!

 

I notice you didn't tell the viewer who is circulating this e-mail. They must want to remain secret and stay behind closed doors. If this individuals cares I can send them exactly where my speech FACTS come from. I was very clear when I was speaking facts and when I was speaking opinion. I can also point out where some anti commercialization individuals where not speaking the truth, which in turn makes a claim in this letter false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice you didn't tell the viewer who is circulating this e-mail. They must want to remain secret and stay behind closed doors. If this individuals cares I can send them exactly where my speech FACTS come from. I was very clear when I was speaking facts and when I was speaking opinion. I can also point out where some anti commercialization individuals where not speaking the truth, which in turn makes a claim in this letter false.

Yes but NONE of the for were telling the truth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but NONE of the for were telling the truth!

Another completely FALSE statement.

 

As I have said I can show the origins of all my statements. I was very clear when I was stating my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice you didn't tell the viewer who is circulating this e-mail. They must want to remain secret and stay behind closed doors. If this individuals cares I can send them exactly where my speech FACTS come from. I was very clear when I was speaking facts and when I was speaking opinion. I can also point out where some anti commercialization individuals where not speaking the truth, which in turn makes a claim in this letter false.

Well can you share that info here? I'd like to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I am confused - I got a similar e-mail from the chamber that began the same but went on to say just the opposite after the first paragraph.

 

We are a member (for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the airport) but have not voiced any position on the matter to anyone at all nor do we intend to, for that matter.

 

I sincerely hope that whatever list was included with this obviously altered e-mail (if that is what is being said here) wherever it was seen did only include members who have stated a position on the matter and not just a random list of businesses who are chamber members.

 

Ok I did look at the above link but did not see that it stated these people were supporters of airport commercialization, only that they are directors, board members and staff of the chamber. Chamber membership should not be considered an indication of someone's position on the airport or any other issue. By the way, those are not necessarily the home addresses of the people shown. I imagine they are the addresses of the entities they represent...

 

The whole matter is getting out of hand (on both sides), in my opinion. If someone wanted to make a point or correct what was said about this meeting, to simply change the wording of someone else's message was not the way to go about it...say it in your own words and then put your name on it, for goodness' sake.

Edited by rednekkhikkchikk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitey - this is NOT an email from the Paulding Chamber of Commerce. I have VERIFIED this is not the email that sent out from the Paulding Chamber of Commerce. Whitey, I want to be clear - this is not an email from the Chamber.

 

Please share with us who sent this email. Or is this is a "closed door", "secret" email that you don't want to disclose the name of the sender? Isn't that what you and your group have condemned others for? :)

 

Your group continues to call for the "healing to begin"; however, it is evident to me that you really don't want the "healing to begin" when you post things like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just because they are chamber members doesn't mean they support the airport. I know several business that

do not and they are glad to tell you they don't. Maybe the way to stop the chamber would be for any business

not supporting it to not be a member anymore.

If I was a member of the Chamber and did not support what they were doing I would tell them so. Some members openly support the airport. Again the Board of directors and the executive board appear to be in full support of the Chamber actions.

For the CEO of the chamber to refuse to allow a citizen to video the presentation that is being presented to the Chamber in my opinion is totally unacceptable and she should be dealt with by the executive board.... After all the purpose of the study was to reinforce the chambers position on the airport. What are they trying to hide???

 

If the edited version is available on the County web site then the unedited version should be available on this and other social media!!!

 

To say that the County can use tax dollars and county employees to provide the production and deny the tax paying citizen the same opportunity is wrong.

 

That is the major thing about the entire airport fiasco too much closed door secret things going on.

 

The end result is the individual chamber members are the ones that suffer the financial loss the others are still making their six figure salaries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but NONE of the for were telling the truth!

Au contraire

 

This thread is a perfect example of the anti's effort to baffle people with BS:

 

The "official" purpose of the environmental assessment was to determine if the granting of a piece of paper and the modest improvements - adding a fence, building a control tower and fire station for instance - would significantly alter the environmental impact of THE EXISTING AIRPORT ... since the project does not include any major extension of the runway or other 'CAPACITY expanding' actions.

 

So, did anyone from the anties answer that question? jobs are. Well I see about five or six with Bret Smith and his company there. I think there is an FBO in operation as well.

 

But we all know that the circumstances of the economy hit just as the airport came on board and that has had an impact.

 

Still all the comments here ALL AVOID MY QUESTION.

 

Airplanes are airplanes. To have scheduled passenger service - people - use the airport you have to jump through a few more safety hoops.

 

Beyond that, the same runway is used, the same airplanes are used and right now, pretty much anyone can land there ... they just don't choose to do so with enough frequency to make it a profitable venture. If they did, the difference in operations at the airport in terms of the environment would be roughly the same ... except it would be authorized to serve the public with scheduled flights.

 

The only difference is we would be serving people and no one has answered the question "What is wrong with serving people?"

 

To compound the confusion, every anti-person in the county - yep those who think they are so principled - is dissing the 'free enterprise system' which says that questions like this need to be answered by the market.

 

Oh well, the contortions, the dirty tricks, the obfuscation, the misleading unadulterated BS is getting deep folks.

 

Flush it; simplify it and answer my question? What is wrong with serving people?

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Au contraire

 

This thread is a perfect example of the anti's effort to baffle people with BS:

 

The "official" purpose of the environmental assessment was to determine if the granting of a piece of paper and the modest improvements - adding a fence, building a control tower and fire station for instance - would significantly alter the environmental impact of THE EXISTING AIRPORT ... since the project does not include any major extension of the runway or other 'CAPACITY expanding' actions.

 

So, did anyone from the anties answer that question? jobs are. Well I see about five or six with Bret Smith and his company there. I think there is an FBO in operation as well.

 

But we all know that the circumstances of the economy hit just as the airport came on board and that has had an impact.

 

Still all the comments here ALL AVOID MY QUESTION.

 

Airplanes are airplanes. To have scheduled passenger service - people - use the airport you have to jump through a few more safety hoops.

 

Beyond that, the same runway is used, the same airplanes are used and right now, pretty much anyone can land there ... they just don't choose to do so with enough frequency to make it a profitable venture. If they did, the difference in operations at the airport in terms of the environment would be roughly the same ... except it would be authorized to serve the public with scheduled flights.

 

The only difference is we would be serving people and no one has answered the question "What is wrong with serving people?"

 

To compound the confusion, every anti-person in the county - yep those who think they are so principled - is dissing the 'free enterprise system' which says that questions like this need to be answered by the market.

 

Oh well, the contortions, the dirty tricks, the obfuscation, the misleading unadulterated BS is getting deep folks.

 

Flush it; simplify it and answer my question? What is wrong with serving people?

 

pubby

Nothing is wrong with serving people, that includes the residents that live within a five mile radius of this airport who happen to be taxpayers. What about government servicing them? Where are their sewers, their county water, their trash services? What is the county providing them while they continually throw more money in this pit?

 

What about serving the people on Mt. Moriah road and the church that is toting in water to flush toilets? What about sewer to large parcels of property that have been for sale for years and unable to move because of the lack of sewers? I guess they could sell it to a developer so more shoddy houses can be built with septic systems.

 

What about serving people of your community FIRST!! Commercial airliners will not pay taxes, will not bring in revenue to anyone but the airport. The real money is in manufacturing and technology, that does not require commercial passenger service and would be better neighbors that do pay property taxes.

 

Why are you so insistent on taxpayers financing a start up company that wants to turn this airport into a regional hub, that is unless their lawyers were not telling the truth.

Edited by tundra
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Au contraire

 

This thread is a perfect example of the anti's effort to baffle people with BS:

 

The "official" purpose of the environmental assessment was to determine if the granting of a piece of paper and the modest improvements - adding a fence, building a control tower and fire station for instance - would significantly alter the environmental impact of THE EXISTING AIRPORT ... since the project does not include any major extension of the runway or other 'CAPACITY expanding' actions.

 

So, did anyone from the anties answer that question? jobs are. Well I see about five or six with Bret Smith and his company there. I think there is an FBO in operation as well.

 

But we all know that the circumstances of the economy hit just as the airport came on board and that has had an impact.

 

Still all the comments here ALL AVOID MY QUESTION.

 

Airplanes are airplanes. To have scheduled passenger service - people - use the airport you have to jump through a few more safety hoops.

 

Beyond that, the same runway is used, the same airplanes are used and right now, pretty much anyone can land there ... they just don't choose to do so with enough frequency to make it a profitable venture. If they did, the difference in operations at the airport in terms of the environment would be roughly the same ... except it would be authorized to serve the public with scheduled flights.

 

The only difference is we would be serving people and no one has answered the question "What is wrong with serving people?"

 

To compound the confusion, every anti-person in the county - yep those who think they are so principled - is dissing the 'free enterprise system' which says that questions like this need to be answered by the market.

 

Oh well, the contortions, the dirty tricks, the obfuscation, the misleading unadulterated BS is getting deep folks.

 

Flush it; simplify it and answer my question? What is wrong with serving people?

 

Pubby

 

I offered to take you on a tour of an airport "SERVING THE PEOPLE" it is called HJIA and is only about 35 miles down Thornton road.

 

There you can see what a airport "SERVING THE PEOPLE" does for a County IE: terrible schools, crime, gangs, highest tax rates in the greater metropolitan area, traffic congestion, dirty contaminated air, pollution, corruption etc.

 

When do you want to go?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is wrong with serving people, that includes the residents that live within a five mile radius of this airport who happen to be taxpayers. What about government servicing them? Where are their sewers, their county water, their trash services? What is the county providing them while they continually throw more money in this pit?

 

What about serving the people on Mt. Moriah road and the church that is toting in water to flush toilets? What about sewer to large parcels of property that have been for sale for years and unable to move because of the lack of sewers? I guess they could sell it to a developer so more shoddy houses can be built with septic systems.

 

What about serving people of your community FIRST!! Commercial airliners will not pay taxes, will not bring in revenue to anyone but the airport. The real money is in manufacturing and technology, that does not require commercial passenger service and would be better neighbors that do pay property taxes.

 

Why are you so insistent on taxpayers financing a start up company that wants to turn this airport into a regional hub, that is unless their lawyers were not telling the truth.

The 2 1/2 % profit will not even pay the salaries of the police. marshals, and firemen that will be required to support the airport.

That is the one reason the taxes are so high in Clayton and Fulton Counties. They have plenty of jobs in the area but....... a large portion of them are city and county workers paid through tax dollars

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is wrong with serving people, that includes the residents that live within a five mile radius of this airport who happen to be taxpayers. What about government servicing them? Where are their sewers, their county water, their trash services? What is the county providing them while they continually throw more money in this pit?

 

What about serving the people on Mt. Moriah road and the church that is toting in water to flush toilets? What about sewer to large parcels of property that have been for sale for years and unable to move because of the lack of sewers? I guess they could sell it to a developer so more shoddy houses can be built with septic systems.

 

What about serving people of your community FIRST!! Commercial airliners will not pay taxes, will not bring in revenue to anyone but the airport. The real money is in manufacturing and technology, that does not require commercial passenger service and would be better neighbors that do pay property taxes.

 

Why are you so insistent on taxpayers financing a start up company that wants to turn this airport into a regional hub, that is unless their lawyers were not telling the truth.

 

You want those things (water, sewer, infrastructure? I wouldn't elect the slate of folks that you backed and elected if I wanted those things as they are dead set against such use of tax revenues. Talk to any of them about what government should do and they'll be the one's who say, government shouldn't do squat. They want the job of commissioner because they promise the people to do nothing meaning they got a job that pays them to do nothing.

 

The 2 1/2 % profit will not even pay the salaries of the police. marshals, and firemen that will be required to support the airport.

That is the one reason the taxes are so high in Clayton and Fulton Counties. They have plenty of jobs in the area but....... a large portion of them are city and county workers paid through tax dollars

 

That is a misstatement. There is a lease on the facility that guarantees that the bonds are paid (like rent) as overhead and at the end of the year, if the operations turn a profit, the county gets a bonus.

 

Beyond that, the presence of the facility and its utility in the long slog toward bringing jobs here for allied businesses - these are separate deals that are done with separate agreements (the agreement for the 60 acres of industrial land is a separate 'deal' for instance) and different dynamics.

 

The current administration, given that it inherited the airport, deep down looked at it as cost to local government and decided to privatize the operations. All you folks have done is work against the privatization and I suspect it is because you love HJIA so much. The question we all have is that how much HJIA and its sponsors love some of our local pols.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do not agree with the way this all came about, and I feel there should be some repercussions to discourage this kind of secrecy in matters affecting the county. That is my position on the airport and my feelings about the way our commissioners operate. Had they debated, negotiated and transacted this deal openly, we would be in a very different place today, so it is unfortunate their actions have resulted in this fiasco.

 

I am tired of the county and the state using taxpayer money for giveaways to private corporations under the guise of 'job creation'. They think those two words give them license to do whatever they please and do not seem to consider what the people who elect them and to whom they owe representation truly want.

 

Privatization has also become another avenue for corporate welfare where nobody ever verifies that it is fiscally responsible or the best manner by which to provide such services to their constituents. They act as if the county is theirs to run as they please when that is not at all the case.

 

Brian Kemp's recent mishandling of the private information of 6.2 million registered voters in Georgia and the subsequent cost to provide credit services to same is a perfect example of both points, but that is a different topic altogether.

Edited by rednekkhikkchikk
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You want those things (water, sewer, infrastructure? I wouldn't elect the slate of folks that you backed and elected if I wanted those things as they are dead set against such use of tax revenues. Talk to any of them about what government should do and they'll be the one's who say, government shouldn't do squat. They want the job of commissioner because they promise the people to do nothing meaning they got a job that pays them to do nothing.

 

 

That is a misstatement. There is a lease on the facility that guarantees that the bonds are paid (like rent) as overhead and at the end of the year, if the operations turn a profit, the county gets a bonus.

 

Beyond that, the presence of the facility and its utility in the long slog toward bringing jobs here for allied businesses - these are separate deals that are done with separate agreements (the agreement for the 60 acres of industrial land is a separate 'deal' for instance) and different dynamics.

 

The current administration, given that it inherited the airport, deep down looked at it as cost to local government and decided to privatize the operations. All you folks have done is work against the privatization and I suspect it is because you love HJIA so much. The question we all have is that how much HJIA and its sponsors love some of our local pols.

 

Pubby

 

Pubby that CONTRACT plainly states that $500,000 would be put in a escrow account to pay the bond do you know where that account is? Last I heard the money was not there, am I wrong?

 

The IGA agreement implies that the county will provide the man power for security, fire protection and a facility for the fire house and other things paid for with tax dollars.

 

David inherited a mess, He said he would fire Blake and hire someone to fix the mess, He did neither, He lied to the citizens about the airport during the Campaign and thousands of us know he lied.

 

Time for David Austin to have a Town Hall type meeting and answer to the people like Tony And Vernon has !!

 

David is either scared or ashamed to face the people in a open forum, He knows what he campaigned on and he has fell flat on his face with the campaign promises, and only digs a deeper hole every day, He should be ashamed of dividing the County like he has

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"and the church that is toting in water to flush toilets?" TeHeHe! (in Post #27)Tundra said, "toting". Ain't that a Southern hoot?

Edited by roadcrosses
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is wrong with serving people, that includes the residents that live within a five mile radius of this airport who happen to be taxpayers. What about government servicing them? Where are their sewers, their county water, their trash services? What is the county providing them while they continually throw more money in this pit?

 

What about serving the people on Mt. Moriah road and the church that is toting in water to flush toilets? What about sewer to large parcels of property that have been for sale for years and unable to move because of the lack of sewers? I guess they could sell it to a developer so more shoddy houses can be built with septic systems.

 

Why aren't they signing up to speak at commission meetings if those services are so crucial? Why should they count on anonymous internet commenters to carry their water? (Pardon the pun.)

 

If these topics were such a big deal to the property owners, they would organize and come up with a force to force the issues. Heck, they might even print up shirts that show folks what they stand for.

 

They aren't victims of the county spending money on the airport when they don't care enough to speak out, and you've provided no proof that if the issue were forced, that the county couldn't provide these services to these property owners AND spend money on the airport.

Edited by Nice Green
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grow tired of people screaming "it's for the kids", when in fact this will be detrimental to thousands of children that live within 5 miles of that airport. We have Poole Elementary, Ragsdale Elementary, Union Elementary and Scoggins Middle School in that 5 mile area. 800 students x 4, Allgood is in the flight path and is just at the end of that 5 mile radius. If you think those aren't loud planes, just go listen to a couple of them take off, then tell me how the kids will get used to the noise.

 

And yet a look on Google Maps shows, quite plainly, that there are several schools well within a 5-mile radius of Hartsfield-Jackson, such as North Clayton High School, Hapeville Charter Middle School, Woodward Academy, a *gasp* private school. I'm sure if one looked enough, one could find many more around the area.

 

Oh look, someone was dumb enough to put the Georgia International Conference Center near the airport. Don't they know that their conventions will be drowned out by all the loud planes?

 

And my word, there are even hotels within a 5-mile radius of the airport. People SLEEP in hotels! Don't companies like Marriott know that sleep would be impossible that close to an airport?!?

 

Glad you pulled out the "schools will be impacted by the airport" scare tactic when you have nothing to support such an outlandish claim, especially when schools still stand and other industries operate around a much larger airport.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh well, the contortions, the dirty tricks, the obfuscation, the misleading unadulterated BS is getting deep folks.

 

 

 

pubby

 

yep...Just like the WhiteHouse declaring the San Bernardino shooting was "workplace violence". 8)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why aren't they signing up to speak at commission meetings if those services are so crucial? Why should they count on anonymous internet commenters to carry their water? (Pardon the pun.)

 

If these topics were such a big deal to the property owners, they would organize and come up with a force to force the issues. Heck, they might even print up shirts that show folks what they stand for.

 

They aren't victims of the county spending money on the airport when they don't care enough to speak out, and you've provided no proof that if the issue were forced, that the county couldn't provide these services to these property owners AND spend money on the airport.

I guess you didn't go to the town hall meeting in Post 4?

Edited by tundra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why aren't they signing up to speak at commission meetings if those services are so crucial? Why should they count on anonymous internet commenters to carry their water? (Pardon the pun.)

 

If these topics were such a big deal to the property owners, they would organize and come up with a force to force the issues. Heck, they might even print up shirts that show folks what they stand for.

 

They aren't victims of the county spending money on the airport when they don't care enough to speak out, and you've provided no proof that if the issue were forced, that the county couldn't provide these services to these property owners AND spend money on the airport.

 

The nice elderly lady did speak up about those services being important.

She did not count on anonymous internet commentators to carry her water.

She attended one of those radical "town hall" meetings, you know, the ones that some poor deluded lady is suing over, and spoke directly to her county commissioner about the problems she and the people who attend her church are having.

I know, I was within 4' of her when she did so.

The gentleman that she indicated who helped carry water was another elderly fellow and while people from this generation are used to taking care of themselves and not complaining, I was happy (and saddened) to hear her bring up the point that her church has three wells on the property, all three which have run dry, and that the church doesn't have the money to dig another well and wanted to know when they could expect county water to be available in her church's area.

 

I have been very clear about my stance on the airport, don't (blanking) give a good (blanking) either way.

But I do give a good (blanking) damn when people in this county don't have water services in 2015.

That's right, it's 2015 and these poor elderly people are carrying water from their homes to the church to flush their toilets.

And your response is they should have have been bitching, loudly and often, before now, if they wanted water??

 

Yet, you put down people who are bitching loudly and often about something they don't like?

I guess this is a no (blanking) win deal for some people.

Don't say anything and you should have spoken up.

Say something and you are trouble makers.

 

I get it, I really do get it.

There is enough BS on both sides of this airport issue, but for goodness sake, why in the hell do we need to try and discredit the points that are made that are right and correct, no matter which side they come from.

 

The only part of your post that I consider in any way helpful or that isn't BS, is the part where you say, that having an airport doesn't preclude having water service.

I don't know how true that is, but at least it is, from what I understand, based on some (could be 100% for all I know) truth.

 

I can tell you this, that elderly lady speaking about the deacons having to carry water so they could flush their toilets really struck a nerve with me.

I do not know this to be a fact, but I would bet dollars to donuts that there isn't but maybe one of those deacons under 65 years old.

And like I said, people from that generation don't make it a habit of bitching about their problems, they make it a habit of taking care of themselves.

But there was a "town hall" style meeting and they decided to attend and say something and I for one was ashamed of my county.

We live withing 40 minutes one of the largest cities in the southeast and we have elderly people hauling water in the year 2015.

Unacceptable to me as well as unbelievable.

 

I made this point in another post a while back.

You ain't gonna get no (blanking) businesses worth a damn in this county, until you get a water and sewage system throughout the county.

Ask Cherokee county, they knew that and they put it in and now look at it.

(of course that is a double edge sword)

 

Yes, I'm mad.

I am mad at those who will not say:

"YES!!, that part of what you say is a real and true problem and we need to work on that. However, I disagree with your reasoning on the cause of the problem."

or

"I agree with "this", but "that" I do not agree with."

Instead, it is, who said it?

"Ohhhh, then let's degrade it and call it false."

This is not limited to any one side, I have seen it happen on both sides.

 

Let's move past that crap and try and make sure that in the year 2016, we don't have elderly people having to bring water to church, so they can go to the bathroom.

I don't think that is too much to ask, regardless if we want commercial airplanes or don't want commercial airplanes.

(besides, at my age, if I ever did go to church, I know I am going to have to go peepee a few times)

Edited by stradial
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The nice elderly lady did speak up about those services being important.

She did not count on anonymous internet commentators to carry her water.

She attended one of those radical "town hall" meetings, you know, the ones that some poor deluded lady is suing over, and spoke directly to her county commissioner about the problems she and the people who attend her church are having.

I know, I was within 4' of her when she did so.

The gentleman that she indicated who helped carry water was another elderly fellow and while people from this generation are used to taking care of themselves and not complaining, I was happy (and saddened) to hear her bring up the point that her church has three wells on the property, all three which have run dry, and that the church doesn't have the money to dig another well and wanted to know when they could expect county water to be available in her church's area.

 

I have been very clear about my stance on the airport, don't (blanking) give a good (blanking) either way.

But I do give a good (blanking) damn when people in this county don't have water services in 2015.

That's right, it's 2015 and these poor elderly people are carrying water from their homes to the church to flush their toilets.

And your response is they should have have been bitching, loudly and often, before now, if they wanted water??

 

Yet, you put down people who are bitching loudly and often about something they don't like?

I guess this is a no (blanking) win deal for some people.

Don't say anything and you should have spoken up.

Say something and you are trouble makers.

 

I get it, I really do get it.

There is enough BS on both sides of this airport issue, but for goodness sake, why in the hell do we need to try and discredit the points that are made that are right and correct, no matter which side they come from.

 

The only part of your post that I consider in any way helpful or that isn't BS, is the part where you say, that having an airport doesn't preclude having water service.

I don't know how true that is, but at least it is, from what I understand, based on some (could be 100% for all I know) truth.

 

I can tell you this, that elderly lady speaking about the deacons having to carry water so they could flush their toilets really struck a nerve with me.

I do not know this to be a fact, but I would bet dollars to donuts that there isn't but maybe one of those deacons under 65 years old.

And like I said, people from that generation don't make it a habit of bitching about their problems, they make it a habit of taking care of themselves.

But there was a "town hall" style meeting and they decided to attend and say something and I for one was ashamed of my county.

We live withing 40 minutes one of the largest cities in the southeast and we have elderly people hauling water in the year 2015.

Unacceptable to me as well as unbelievable.

 

I made this point in another post a while back.

You ain't gonna get no (blanking) businesses worth a damn in this county, until you get a water and sewage system throughout the county.

Ask Cherokee county, they knew that and they put it in and now look at it.

(of course that is a double edge sword)

 

Yes, I'm mad.

I am mad at those who will not say:

"YES!!, that part of what you say is a real and true problem and we need to work on that. However, I disagree with your reasoning on the cause of the problem."

or

"I agree with "this", but "that" I do not agree with."

Instead, it is, who said it?

"Ohhhh, then let's degrade it and call it false."

This is not limited to any one side, I have seen it happen on both sides.

 

Let's move past that crap and try and make sure that in the year 2016, we don't have elderly people having to bring water to church, so they can go to the bathroom.

I don't think that is too much to ask, regardless if we want commercial airplanes or don't want commercial airplanes.

(besides, at my age, if I ever did go to church, I know I am going to have to go peepee a few times)

:wub: :wub: :wub: :clapping: :good:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...