Camden Commentary: While Lilliputian "leaders" dithered, Brantley County beat us to it.

Friday, April 3, 2009

While Lilliputian "leaders" dithered, Brantley County beat us to it.

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2009-04-03/story/brantley_hopes_improved_airport_will_lure_industry

13 comments:

Anonymous said...: Who would have thought it?; April 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Please note that unlike Camden, Brantley is expanding an existing airport. It will still be smaller than the St. Marys Airport. When we begin treating public assets as something to be preserved and maintained rather than plowed under for the good of a few (sea Island, Debra Haze) then we will begin to make progress. Too bad the rednecks are showing us up.; April 3, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Jay Moreno said...: Man, the ambient level of misogyny per se, and fear and loathing of strong, intelligent women in particular in this county is really pathetic.

Note also that Charlton's airport is apparently out in an area of the county where they would want to zone industry. Downtown St. Marys is NOT. Billyville Road IS.; April 3, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Jay said in another post about what is possible for the Sea Island plan:
"Sea Island builds a high end, fly-in community. A lot of wealthy, empty nesters (no school age kids -just lots of diposable income.)"

Do you honestly believe that these people will want any kind of industry around them?!! Most of the retired, no school aged, with disposable income people in St. Marys said that if the paper mill reopened they would leave (when it was up for auction).

I truly do not follow your logic. We need businesses and industry in this county NOT more houses.

We have lots and lots of "empty nesters (no school age kids -just lots of diposable income)" in this county and businesses have been struggling. They do NOT shop here. They do not go out to eat here. If they did, we would not have the KIIC (Keep It In Camden" campaign and still have businesses closing left and right.

Where are the big restaurants that were promised when we hit the magical 50,000 population? Oh, we get a Ruby Tuesday and IHOP. Oh, boy! Those were worth the tax increases.

No, if nothing else can be done with the airport property other than make more houses then leave the airport alone. Any airport to bring in businesses is better than no airport.

Stop trying to kill the airport because you want more houses! We have more than enough houses that are not selling as it is.

You wonder why people are so against Ms. Hase. My question is truly why are you so against an airport and why you want more houses?; April 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Man, it is truly amazing how one's reading comprehension suffers when one reads with an apriori hatred of the author.

The houses for the well healed empty mnesters would be in the fly-in community onthe existing Sea Island propert next adjacentr to the site ofr the new airport which Sea Island donated the land for. Any industries - the landing of which might arguably have been made easier by having a corproate jetway centrally located int he county, would not have to be built cheeek by jowel next tot said development. Take a ridfe from Kingsland to Folkston on Hwy 40. Look on either side of the road as you go. If you're really on your toes, you might spot a few 10s of thousnads of acres suitable for industrial development along that route.

As to the old airport property, i do believe if you will chill out and re-read my comments - or have some one not afflicted with your hatred read it to you, you will find that I did not suggest industry on the old airport property. Nor id I say that he only desired developemnt inthe county should be residential. Ask the Board of Directors of the JDA what I said when I addressed them at some lenght onthe subject at their last meetng. Or you might ask Chip Keene or Beth Daniel or Jill Helton. They were all there.

No, Sir or Madam, you are not even in the same Zip Code as the reality of my long standing and often stated position on the need for more businesses and jobs and fewer new bedrooms in Camden.; April 3, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I may have confused you. I was not referring to the people of St. Marys not wanting industry at the old airport location. I know you want only houses on the airport location. I was referring to the possible wealthy retirees of the Sea Island development not wanting industry around them. And if the airport is not located very close to industry then why move it at all unless it is only for the benefit of one fly-in development.

“There should be room for a grocery store in the mix somewhere. Restaurants, for sure. Mixed retail. Mostly residential on the interior of the property, though.” (in reference to current airport property)

“I'm for closing the airport and selling it to a private developer whether they build a new one or not.”

The reason that I am confused is that I did think that I understood you to want business/industrial development in the county. You have given proper criticism to the JDA and I am behind you for that. But when you make the above comments that seem to support more houses then I am left very confused.; April 3, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Okay, let's look at the St. Marys Airport issue in isloation.

Is the current use of the +/- 400 acres in the heart of St. Marys known as "the airport property" the "highest and best use." Clearly, it is not. Is there an overwhelming public interest served buythe airport which justifies holding it off the tax roles and using it for a purpose way far below its "highest and best use?"

Well, let's see. It serves as a highly tax-payer subsidized club for, at best, 20 private plane owners, few,if any of whom use their small planes for anything other than weekend pleasure flights. The loss in net tax revenues (i.e, net after the added expense of supporting infrastructure and servives for the added development of the property) is in the millions.

Answer: Definitely not.

Coclusion: Whether a replacement airport is built or not, returning the aiport property back to privatre, tax-paying ownership is CLEARLY a more intelligent alternative to the current gross underutilization of the prime property and subsidization of a few local elites' pleasure flying by the other 99.99% of us.

As the redevelopment of the property, it seems that we both agree that the heart of St. Marys is no place for industry. Mixed use residential and commercial is the way to go at that location.

There is plenty of appropriate land for industrial development - including clean, heavy industry, generally west of Highway 17. Thoise locations are plenty close enought to U.S. 1, Hwy 17, I-95, I-10, Corridor Z, U.S. 301 , rail service, the jax Airport, the Ports of Jax, Brunswick, and Savannah to be attractive to any number of industries without a Camden Airport. A Camden jetway would just be icing on the cake.
The Billyville location would be plenty close enough to anywhere else in the county.; April 4, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Can't you have an airport there without closing the one we already have? Float a bond, get Jones off his ever dwindling pocketbook, etc. Glynn has three airports (at least) that coexist quite nicely. All 3 of them are WWII legacies just like St. Marys.; April 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Okay, I can see that my rationalizations so far have not really penetrated your brain. Let me try another approach.

Imagine for the momnet that the St. Marys Aiport is functioning exactly like it actually is today, with one major difference. It turns out that your doting, half-crazy, senile old uncle owns it. He sits out on the edge of the runway all day on top pof a dog house, dressed in a leather flying cap, googles and a flowing scarf, and yells "Curse you Red Baron" all day long. One day he keels over dead and toples form the dog house. It turns out that he wills the airport to you, lock stock and barrel.

As yuo begin to lok into the leases for businesses on the airport, yuo are shocked at how riduculously low the rents are that the old man has been getting for 60 years from the leaseholders.
Moreover, the old man is barely in the ground before youy sart getting very enticing offers from developers.

However, the three guys with small businesses leasing the property tell you that the old man promised them he would never raise their rent - and besides that, why a dozen wekend hobby flyers might have to relocate to Fernandina, Charlton County, or Brunswick and have to drive 30 minutes to get to their airplanes on the weekend.

So, would you A, let the status quo ante continue on indefintely while you spent every red cent of the meager revenue fromt he leases to pay the taxes and maintain the airfiled, or, B, sell it for a few million to a developer, or, C,develop it to it's highest and best use yourself.

If your answer is "A," I can't wait to hear the rationale behind that one. If it is NOT "A," then tell me why you would impose the utterly irrational choice "A" on the other 99.9% of us, the owners of the airport, who do not fly a Cessna around in circles on the weekend.; April 4, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: The development of the current airport begs the question of just who in the hell is coming in to develop it after the George, Dick and Sonny show has put us in a depression. There are thousands of houses sitting vacant in Camden County right now and nothing on the horizon for an economic boom for us.

Sea Island will be able to develop their fly in with the golf course and fishing and other Cabin Bluff amenities (probably to former Wall Street bandits looking to get out of town) and the rich will get richer.

There just not a reason for the main street folks to go along with moving the airport at this point in time. If an airport is a part of the Sea Island plan, let them pay for it.; April 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Jay you are so busy sucking up to D. Hase that you have lost your prospective. This is just another way to get the taxpayers to foot the bill for some special interest folks. When you are wrong you are really wrong.; April 5, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Jay Moreno said...: The word you were looking for was
"perspective." My prospects are just fine,thank you.

Your assertion is absurd. What Earthly reason would I have for "sucking up" to Deborah Hase?

The fact is that I do not like to see anyone being victimised by viscious lies.

And no, I am not wrong. My take on the airport is clearlyt the one that is oint he best interest of the 99.99% of my fellow St. Marys taxpayers who are not tax-payer subsidized, weekend hobby flyers.

Why not come clean and tell us what YOUR actual selfish interest is in the matter?; April 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: My selfish interest is that I don't want to see the tax payers take it their wallet for a bunch of developers. If it is going to be an airport out side of the city limits why should the St. Marys council be concerned with the location? Why doesn't the county take it up if it is such a good idea? Probably because they see no need for it. Certainly not a need that affects the tax payers. Debra Hase is in the real estate business. The Sea Island bunch are in the real estate business. Doesn't that add up to a big old smell? Let the Sea Island company put in their own damn airport. This is just like Kingsland putting in the golf course for a bunch of developers only to learn that it was of no benefit to the tax payers. Same sort of foolishness. What the hell is so difficult to see this for what it is. A developement for developers paid for by the tax payers. Now we really need that.; April 6, 2009 at 3:07 PM