Thursday, November 12, 2009
Governor Perdue pursuing more aviation business for Georgia.
Unfortunately, our development-locked airport is not in the running. Perhaps a new one could be.
http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2009-11-12/story/georgia_wants_more_aviation_business
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Did Governor Perdue tell you, personally, that our airport was not in the running? If not, where did you get the information?
well, smart ass, you tell me: what are rhe chances that say, an airplane manufacturer, would choose an airport with a relatively short runway which cannot be extended without exercising eminent domain; an airport without sufficient room to build a plant without also exercising eminent domain (for which there would not only not be the political will but not a ghost of a chance in hell of its surviving a court challenege by unwilling owners); oh, and the abutting proximity of restricted airspace? Does that sound like a winner to you?
So are you telling me that this is only your opinion and that nobody has told you that St. Marys would not be considered? It seems to me that many people on these sites are too willing to publish their opinions as facts. City Council member Hase, for instance, published a widely distributed e-mail that tried to convince us that electing "her" candidates would help assure the relocation of the Navy Riverine forces to Kings Bay. In fact, our election had no bearing on the Navy decision. I am happy to read your opinions as long as you don't try yo sell them as facts.
Well, in this case, my "opinion" is so so evidently and incontrovertably backed up by the facts on the ground that it is, for all intents and purposes, "fact." Any opinion to the contrary is just self-deluded wishful thinking.
OK, lets check your "facts.
1. "A relatively short runway." I really doubt if Boeing is going to move here. A 5000' runway is plenty large enough for all but the very largest of business jets.
2. "An airport without sufficient room to build a plant." There is a very large industrial area adjacent to the airport that would benefit from a clean aircraft related industry. This area has been on the market for about 30 years. Plus, there is approximately 50 acres on the airport that could be available for location of an aviation related industry.
3. "The abutting proximity of restricted airspace." Any competent pilot can avoid that airspace with absolutely no problem. They do it every day in many locations in the country.
4. "Eminent domain" Now come on, that's nothing but a word chosen to scare people. With the land we have available, there is no need to even consider eminent domain.
If there should be even a chance of getting an aviation related industry, we should be ready to fight for it. And it should be in St. Marys, not Woodbine. We need clean, well paying industry right here. Our first responsibility is to our own city.
Well, there you go. We are at a competitive disadvantage with those airports whcih in fact CAn handle "the largest corporate jets."
We are at a disadvantage when compared to airports with nop abutting restricted airpsace.
We are at a disadvantage when compared to airports that would not have to use eminent domain to tear down house all the way over to martha Drive to extgend the runway to handle the largest corporate jets.
A new airport wopuld have NONE of those disadvantages.
Do you really think that St. marys residents in need of a job would opt not to drive the communte to far away Billyville Road?
And another thing to add Jay, if any airtraffic with jets, you would have a outrage of citizens wanting to shut down the airport for noise pollution. These folks that think we need to keep the airport in town and increase traffic, have never been around a jet when it is taking off. These pissers and moaners in ST Marys make me laugh. But a good point was brought up about Hase and her email and call for arms. She is digging herself a hole that is soon going to be to deep to get out of. Which I honestly can say, good.
You keep repeating that the restricted airspace is a disadvantage to an aviation related business on the airport. But I see no evidence that you are a pilot or that you know anything at all about how pilots deal with restricted airspace. The answer is that they simply fly around it. It is no more complicated than that and it is no more bother than that.
You keep bringing up eminent domain which, you imagine, we would have to use to lengthen a runway. But you have no evidence that we even have to lengthen a runway.
St. Marys residents might travel to the Billyville Road to work. I know that I would if the opportunity was there. But if a business located there, they would pay no taxes to St. Marys. In today's economy, we have to give up the "what's good for Camden County is good for St. Marys" mantra. It is this attitude that allowed Kingsland to expand the commercial tax base while St. Marys stood by and let it happen. We have to get aggressive about growing St. Marys. We have to look at every asset, even the airport, and see how it can help our future growth.
Why don't you investigate how many pilots have had their licenses revoked for violating the restricted airspace over NSBKB and get back to us.
Simple answer. According to FAA records, no pilot has had his license revoked for violation of the P-50 Prohibited Area over SUBASE Kingsbay. Several years ago, a helicopter pilot wandered into the area and was investigated but evidently he was let off with something less than a revocation.
As for the possibility of jet traffic at the airport, despite the claims of those who say that the airport is only used by a few hobby pilots, we have several jets in and out almost every week. Earlier this week, there were 2 twin engine business jets visiting in one day. These jets are very quiet and hardly anyone notices them.
Ironically, the noisiest aircraft using the airport are Navy Sea Stallion helicopters who use the airport for training. Amazing isn't it- the airport is still being used by the Navy for the purpose for which it was originally constructed.
Back on the subject of violations of the Prohibited Area. we shouldn't forget that the Navy also uses the airport regularly to fly critical personnel in for SUBASE. These Navy pilots are responsible for a majority of the reported violations as was evidenced by the report in the local news about a month ago. This alleged violation was by a Navy Beech Kingair.
Post a Comment