Councilwoman Hase is home recovering from the flu. Earlier today, I e-mailed an inquiry to all of city council. I'll get to that question and answer in a bit, but she was prompted to not only answer my question but a few she has been asked by numerous citizens of late. The "FYI" above is dated this morning and from Councilwoman Hase.
Now, here is the text of the e-mail I sent this morning to all of city council and the city manager.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My understanding is that if we sell the airport and build a new one, we must remit 100% of the purchase price to the FAA UNLESS we can get them to accept the value of the donated land at the new site in lieu of the sale proceeds.
However, I'm not clear on what would happen to the sale proceeds if we sold the airport property and DID NOT build a new airport.
Could some one tell me definitively what the answer is? If there is an FAA letter stating what would happen in that event, a copy would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Jay Moreno
Based upon the answer I got from Councilwoman Hase, here is the comment that I made on another post this morning in response to a reader' question on the matter.
Okay, having not heard back from Mr. Shanahan, I sent an e-mail to all of city council. So far, Councilwoman Hase has responded.
Here are the facts.
1. If we sell the airport in the course of building a new one (which, incidentally, would be done AFTER the new one is built - a five year project), then 100% of the proceeds of the sale will go back to the FAA UNLESS the city can convince (as they are now trying to do) the FAA to take the value of the donated land at "Site 1" in lieu of the sale proceeds.
2. If we decide to sell the airport property and NOT build a new airport, the city must pay back all of the money that the FAA has spent on airport improvements for the last 20 years. That is currently estimated at $500,000.
However, the estimated sales price of the property is $10,000,000. If those numbers were to turn out to be accurate, we would keep $9,500,000 AND get the tax revenues from the developed property in perpetuity.
4:45 PM: I just retrieved an e-mail from Bill Shanahan. He just got off of the phone with the FAA in response to my question. In turns out that not only was Councilwoman Hase correct, but it gets better. If we closed it and did not rebuild another, we would only have to reimburse the FAA for the DEPRECIATED value of the FAA-funded improvements of the last 20 years! Relative peanuts.
20 comments:
A peanut here and a peanut there adds up. It is only our tax dollars. Why in the hell do we keep spending time (which is money) on the airport when the City is heading down the road to being broke? I will be so glad when we bust up that bunch and we can start addressing the real issues. Hase is just trying to cover her butt because she is tied into this crap. What a waste of our time and money. I can't wait until I pull the lever to flush her. I don't understand your continuing support for this loser. She is just a menace to the city and any man who is unfortunate to come in contact with the iron shorts woman.
How long have you harbored these mysogynistic fears of intelligent, aserrtive women?
"...However, the estimated sales price of the property is $10,000,000."
How has the value/assessment of the property been established? Seems a tad (remember the tad and the former mill property?) bit high compared to CC prices. Did this property get moved to Dubai?
I don't but I do hate lying bitchy women.
Trust me Jay, she is not "Intelligent, aserrtive women". I know you habor good feelings about Ms. Hase, but she is far from an intelligent woman. I know her, and she is as dumb as a box of rocks. I know this post won't see the light of day, but the people of St. Marys need to take a close look and question, in person, those that are running. Don't e-mail them, and allow them to take time to send you back what they think you want to hear. Ask them in person, and see the reaction. I know for a fact Ms. Hase will draw blanks, and be in full spin mode. I have no problem with a woman in power, as long as she can handle such power. I think Ms. Hase has shown us she cannot handle the power.
That's odd, becuase I know her as well, and find her to be quite intelligent. Do you speak with her often? Have you worked with her? Do you have the balls to resubmit that comment under your real name? No, I thought not.
Regarding the sales price, remeber, these are nearly 400 contiguous, readily developable acres in a prime setting. I beleive the figure is right at 375 acres. If that is the case, a $10,000,000 price comes to $26,666.00 per acre. Hell, my house, less than a yaer old, was built on .20 of an acre. The assessors valued my land at $20,000. At that price, the airport should go for $37,500,000.
Nice try, but $10,000,000 actually sounds quite reasonable.
I think the 20 or so (if that many) that use the airport should buy it. That way they get to keep the airport, the city gets money from the sale and it is back on the tax role. Win-Win-Win.
You may find Debra to be quite intelligent but you also consider yourself to be very intelligent. It seems like your are wrong both times.
Thats not a good batting average.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I placed too much reliance upon an IQ score of 136; a Navy GCT of 140; a 99+ percentile performance on the verbal section of the SAT; the highest language aptitude test score ever recorded at Camp Pendleton, etc, etc.
Has anyone stopped to think the fixed base operation at the airport have been under the care of jeff who stands to gain a good bit with a new larger airport. He will run it. That may be why our fuel costs more than other area airports . He does not want it to do well.
Interesting theory. Ridiculous, but interesting.
Jay & Anonymous,
"Interesting theory. Ridiculous, but interesting."
This is an interesting theory. Please explain why you think it is ridiculous? How would he gain if the airport is relocated and what do you mean "he would run it?" Is there something we don't know?
I'm trying to think of a set of circumstances under which the theory would not be ridiculous. Here's the best I could come up with.
The FBO is acytually an independently wealthuy trust fund baby who runs his buisiness as a hobby. He does not realy need the money and can well afford to deliberately price himself out of the aviation fuel market ikn a clever scheme to force trhe relocation of the airport (although the exact mechanism is unclear) so that he may enjoy his hobby on a larger scale.
My recollection is that way back when this idea (a new airport) first surfaced, it was stated that whatever buinesses exited on airport proprty at the time of the closure of the old aiport would be relocated to the new one. Moreover, the city would cover the actual moving expenses.
By the way, regarding the earlier idea of having the 20 or so plane owners buy the aiport, the individual share of the market price of $10,000,000, $500,000, further illustrates the incredibly generous subsidy the other 99.999% of us are GIVING to these few aeronautical hobbyists.
Jay,
"My recollection is that way back when this idea (a new airport) first surfaced, it was stated that whatever buinesses exited on airport proprty at the time of the closure of the old aiport would be relocated to the new one. Moreover, the city would cover the actual moving expenses."
So why wouldn't this tend to disprove your argument that the theory is "ridiculus?" If the airport is relocated, the FBO would be moved, at city expense, to new building on a new airport which will have more air traffic.
How can this not be a benefit to the FBO owner?
I am still waiting for an answer from "Anonymous" (The other Anonymous) to explain why he or she believes that Jeff would benefit and be running the new airport.
Well, of course the FBO would eventually benefit from a new airport with increased traffice. But unles he really is independently wealthy and just doing this ofr a hobby, he surely would not deliberately hurt his current busines just to hasthe the very, very iffy arrival of a new airport. As to the gas, why, hell , if his prices get too out of line, a nice scenic flight over to Fernandina or up to Brunswick with a stop for cheaper fuel would soon put an end to that.
Jay,
"Well, of course the FBO would eventually benefit from a new airport with increased traffice."
And since the city airport will stay in operation until the new airport opens(per Ms. Hase in her FAQ's) and, therefore, the FBO will remain in business until he is moved, at no cost, to a brand new facility, how can he possibly not stand to gain by supporting the relocation?
Well, Sir, insofar as you keep moving the goal posts, you clearly did not copme on here simply to get an answer, but to let everyone know - and I don't think he is trying to keep it a secret - that the FBO is definitely in favor of a new airport; you are not; and you would apprieciate it if I would let you use my blog, in a sneaky way, to gin up dislike of the FBO, Mr. Stanford, among your fellow anti-airport types. I think we're done.
Try just saying what you mean in yor first comment, please.
Councilwoman Hase FAQs are eye opening. They point out the lies that have been told by the airport move opponents. Please ask her if she will put this in the Tribune and Georgian so more people will see it. We need to get the truth out.
I'll pass that on to her.
Post a Comment