Camden Commentary: Navy now says airport is a security threat as well as a safety concern.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Navy now says airport is a security threat as well as a safety concern.

http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2010-04-13/story/navy-st-marys-airport-security-threat

11 comments:

Anonymous said...: This is a good thing for the city. The Navy has been resisting stating publicly that the airport is a security risk or of asking the city to relocate it. They knew that by doing so, they would have to step up to bear the cost of the move. It now appears that, by dealing directly with the FAA, the Navy has taken the relocation decision out of our hands. The good side is that we should not have to worry about any cost to the city.; April 14, 2010 at 8:12 AM
Jay Moreno said...: I'm not at all sure that having now stated "security" concerns, the Navy is now obligated to fund the move. It could happen, I guess, but it sounds highly unlikely.; April 14, 2010 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...: If the Navy located beside the airport and then requested that the airport be moved, why should we pay for the move?

Its like the old story. If you build your new house beside my hog farm, don't come to me and ask me to move because you don't like the smell unless you are willing to pay for the move.; April 14, 2010 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: yep, those parachutists are keeping me awake at night. What a load of crap ..; April 14, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Jay,

Tthe security of SUBASE is the responsibility of the SUBASE commander. If that security is threatened, something has to be done right now. Waiting 5 or more years until the airport is moved is unacceptable. Who will be responsible if there is a serious security breach during those 5 years?; April 14, 2010 at 8:45 AM
Jay Moreno said...: Folks, the Navy is not in the business of including moving / building civilian, general aviation airports in its annual budget requests. The base CO has, however, made his support for the move known to the federal agency that does - the FAA. All is as it should be.; April 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: I did not see anything in the article in the GTU this morning that even hinted to the fact that the Federal Government would fund the closing and moving of the St. Marys Airport. Also, where will they consider moving the airport if Sea Island does not donate the land? Everything I have read leads me to believe that the property Sea Island was going to donate is not suitable for an airport. Many things to consider and questions to be answered.; April 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: "Everything I have read leads me to believe that the property Sea Island was going to donate is not suitable for an airport. Many things to consider and questions to be answered."

This is is potentially a gigantic problem. Certain of our city officials have pushed this airport relocation until it has become a national issue. They have vowed to only relocate to the site 1, Billyville, location and to only relocate if the city can retain title to the present airport property. Both of these conditions, while not impossible to achieve, are highly unlikely. Whether you agree or disagree, any development of Site 1 will likely be challenged on environmental grounds and the possibility of the federal government voluntarily giving up a payback of over $10 million is not very good.

If we cannot relocate the airport after the SUBASE commander has finally come out and said that the relocation decision will influence his manning and funding plans, we may, indeed, have placed ourselves in an unfavorable position with the Navy.; April 14, 2010 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: "Folks, the Navy is not in the business of including moving / building civilian, general aviation airports in its annual budget requests. The base CO has, however, made his support for the move known to the federal agency that does - the FAA. All is as it should be."

Jay,

Although I can see where you are coming from, I'm not sure that I totally agree with your conclusion. Security and safety of an installation is the responsibility of the Navy. The Defense Dept. is not without history of funding changes in the civilian communities surrounding their installations to achieve this goal.

Granted the FAA will pay most of the costs but why should the taxpayers of St. Marys pay anything for the safety and security of the base? We did not cause the safety and security problems. The Navy;s oversight in not foreseeing and resolving these problems when the base was being planned and constructed is of their own doing.; April 14, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: The good news is the base commander, Wes Stevens, is on his way out. He has not been a good community member, in fact does not even reside in Georgia. The opinion of this base commander is very small compared with that of THE US NAVY.; April 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Jay Moreno said...: Let me guess: you and the CNO are Facebook buddies?; April 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM