glassdogs

I may have to go down toward Villa Rica tomorrow. I'm starting from near EPHS. Would I be ahead of the game to go down 92 to ???? and cut across over to 61 below all the mess? What road goes across? Ridge Rd?

Really? Who knew you were into latex and all that?

Yeah. You were talking in circles then, too. Hint: Repeating your lies and misdirection doesn't make them any more believable the 3rd or 33rd time. Put up or shut up.

You saw a deed to what? In whose name? How did you see it? The actual document or a copy? Did the BOA do the land transfer or not? Is the PCAA "sitting" on an un-recorded deed? Just what ARE you trying to say? Why do you think the City of Atlanta could/would sue PCAA? Or, the BOC? Or PCIBA? Or, Propeller, for that matter? What contractual interest does Atlanta have? What would be their gain? And even more importantly, what difference would another suit make? The 4 yahoos on the BOC have pretty well buried us in legal fees and controversy. Pile on, HJIA. We Paulding

OMG... Your "writing" skills make my brain bleed. If I have correctly deciphered your babbling, the bottom line is that you claim that the BOC is, in effect, in default in the Intergovernmental Agreement of 10/31/14 because they haven't transferred the land deed to the 196 acres to the PCAA? And that the PCAA doesn't want the property? And somehow the City of Atlanta is sitting by drooling? So, how is it that you "know" the said land transfer has not been made? Why do you "think" the PCAA doesn't want the land? And how would that play into their "sneaky plans"?

Go read the intergovernmental contract dated 10/31/2014. On page 5 of the contract, Section 5 (h). "in addition to the contract payments, the County shall transfer by deed approximately 168 acres of property described on the attached Exhibit A that it owns to the Paulding County Airport Authority"

Cheat who out of what? If you have some specific claim to make, then spit it out. Otherwise, STFU.

I'm sure that Whitey and Tundra will be happy to help you out. As soon as they get done fixing the airport situation.

If you had any business experience or common sense you would intuitively know that almost every application submitted can be amended or corrected before any decision is made. Or, the agency can ask for updates or more information. You have obviously never filled out a business license application, or a commercial occupancy permit request, or a lighted sign app, or dealt with the EPA, or gotten sewer permits, or sales tax permits, or commercial vehicle registrations, or worker's comp claims, or the other hundreds of things that businesses go through every year? Or filed an amended IRS fo

Other than shaking hands with Mr. Carmichael at the most recent BOC meeting, I haven't seen him for more than 9 months. How do you think I am "listening" to him or anybody else? The property that was purchased for SCF was done by the IBA with their funds. Not at all sure how YOU think the BOC has any ownership stake?

Assuming for the moment that your assertion is correct, the only way that it would enter into the equation would be IF the FAA had already issued the Part 139 certificate based on the application as presented. Since the application is (apparently) still pending, and given that the former county employee is now an employee of the Airport Authority, all that would have to be done, (and may have already been done) is to submit an amendment/supplement to the original application. Since the BOC voluntarily ceded control to the AA, they really don't have a legal leg to stand on. I hope

Your record is stuck. None of those comments have a thing to do with the actual legalities.

Call it what you will. Selectively using parts of stories, suppositions, hearsay, erroneous conclusions due to ignorance or deceit, whatever the tactic, and building a "movement" on those grounds and proclaiming it as gospel is a total house of cards. To continually claim that a properly constituted legal entity (the airport authority) that conducted business and properly recorded said business in the minutes did something "in secret" because ONE county commissioner didn't read his emails or listen to his voice mails and was "allegedly" in the dark is, well, novel. Claiming that the

Or maybe the booster club shouldn't be violating the law.

If you looked out your kitchen window every morning to that trashy mess, pretty sure you would feel the same as I do.

More like implode.

If you sell advertisements on programs, in yearbooks...hey, go for it. If you have signs within the athletic fields that only the fans can see, that's fine. Where I draw the line is that a BOOSTER CLUB is using public property to facilitate the advertisement of a private business to the general public. Those signs hanging on the outside of the fence and the big billboard that faces E. Paulding are in violation of the GA code, as Nick Chester posted above. The operative phrase being "in athletic areas". Signs on the outside of a fence are not "IN" the athletic area.

I know that when you flunked out of school in the 7th grade, they hadn't gotten around to teaching contract law classes. So, ponder this.... The Airport Authority is an independent entity that is not under the supervision of the Commission. Just like the Water Board. They do not have to have a Commission approval for anything they do. The water board doesn't have to go to the commission for permission to DO anything. Neither does the Airport Authority. No Commissioner needed to sign any contract with any entity that the Airport Authority was dealing with. Any more than the

You need to have Skyline Plumbing come by and pump both you and your computer out. You. Be. Full. Of. It.

As it should be.

Well, the 3 amigos and their delay and block and deny tactics are going to come to a rather screeching halt when the Federal District Court up in Rome comes down and says that Propeller has a valid, legally binding contract with PC and the AA. All the naive stuff about Propeller delaying the suits in the Tallapoosa circuit just evaporated. They apparently mean business. Like it or not. it IS a valid, signed contract. It is enforceable. Propeller is about to do a head-slap on the 4 commissioners. I have had a gut feeling for months that Propeller had had enough of the childish maneu

Think you for that. IF the advertisements at EPHS were facing inward toward the seating area so ticketed fans and students ONLY could see the ads, I'd have no problem. BUT, when the advertisements are hanging on the exterior fence facing the street (E. Paulding Dr.) then the interscholastic program/booster club is using public property for the benefit of private enterprise. Edited to add: I could see almost 3 dozen signs facing out onto E. Paulding.

How could you tell the difference? It's pretty hard for a politician to hold his nose when both hands are stuffed full of cash.

All the CAVE-people have been so focused on the airport that they must have missed this secret, closed-door meeting.

Conveniently, there is an AA meeting located just about a block away. When I read about this new venture, my first reaction was, "How strange! Wasn't Dallas the city that just recently voted against Sunday sales and liquor by the drink?" How things change.