Cleaning up bogus Buzzard puke.

Buzzard Reply » Report Abuse Judge it! #5 58 min ago Get a clue wrote: Candidates will say what they think they people want to hear. I can't understand why anyone would want to keep the airport where it is. It doesn't do anything for St Marys. Very few people use it. Most have never been there. It cost money to maintain, that the city never got back. It isn't marketed properly to get people to use it. There aren't any ads to come fly to St Marys. I understand that a lot of folks do not want to spend money for a new airport outside of the city. I think that is the real debate. If you want a good airport that will grow and make some money, you have to build it. The old one will never be anything more than it is, it needs to close. For too long people have been getting wrapped around the axle on this topic. (Buzzard)I agree wholeheartedly that this airport issue has dragged on way too long. However, there can be no doubt that a well run modern airport can be an asset to a community. The present proposal calls for a total investment of $20 to $30 million in federal funds to build an airport in Woodbine. The cost to the city is estimated to be over $10 million based on the true market value of the old airport property which we must pay back to the federal government to offset their expenditure. Would we be further ahead to spend perhaps $2 to $3 million of federal funds to improve the airport we already own and which is, incidentally, located in St. Marys. This improvement could be done at no cost to the Taxpayers and the improved airport could be used as a draw for potential businesses looking to relocate in St. Marys. As to your statement that "Candidates will say what they think they people want to hear." Absolutely. And it appears that a growing number of people, the people who will cast the votes, want to vote for a candidate that will not spend our money to move a valuable city asset to a competing community. Watching The 2nd paragraph of Buzzard's response contains an egregious misstatement of the facts. Whether or not that was deliberate, I will leave to the reader to decide. However, I would note that the "error," were it to be believed, would inure to the benefit of the status quoers. Here are the facts: If we close the old airport, sell it, and build a new airport, the FAA will get not a set amount (i.e., "$10,000,000"), but WHATEVER the airport ACTUALLY sells for. The estimated fair market value is $10,000,000, but that is not what we would be OBLIGATED to pay if it did not, in fact, sell for that. If we get $10,000,000 at closing,then write a check for that same amount to the FAA, did it cost us, the taxpayers, $10,000,000 in collected taxes? Of course not. Here's another fact. Remember, the city's original cost basis is $1.00 paid to the Federal government years ago. If we sell the old airport but DO NOT build a new airport, we do not have to give the sales price back to the FAA. All we have to give back to the FAA, in that instance, is the DEPRECIATED value of all of the airport improvements the FAA has made in the last 20 YEARS ONLY. That is currently estimated to be $500,000. So, if we sell it for $10,000,000, we KEEP $9,500,000. Folks, the entire city budget for this year is only $10,274,828! Think what we could do with $9,500,000. After beefing up the "rainy day " fund, we could set up a revolving loan fund for business development for the St. Marys Development Authority - the one tasked with bringing prosperity to where the other 99% of us live. Now, ponder this. Suppose that there really is a buyer out there willing to pay $10,000,000 for the airport property. That is the estimated value of the property stripped of evey structure currently on it. Now, furhter assume that there are 20 pilots who enjoy their hobby flights out of the airport on a regular basis. If youy divide a $10,000,000 value of the land alone by 20 pilots, we are subsidizing those 20 pilots' hobby to the tune of $500,000 per pilot. Now, by comparison, the cost to acquire the Howard Gilman Waterfront Park was about $960,000. By the time you add the structures and landscaping, you're looking at about $2,000,000. Now, if we had the same cost per user as the airport, only 4, FOUR, people would be able to use the park. Would the public sit still for that? Why not? We have exactly that situation at the airport!