Friday, October 2, 2009
Councilman G. "No Conflict" Bird heroically backstops Homeland Security at St. Marys International Airport.
Alright, Camden Comment reporters, you're slipping. I just got this in moments ago.
Yesterday, around mid morning, St. Marys Airport FBO (Fixed Base Operator) Jeff Stanford was taking delivery of a new piece of equipment in a wooden packing crate about the size of a refrigerator that had been delivered by an LTL carrier's truck. (10/3 Turns out it was actually a much larger crate being offloaded from a flatbed trailer by a crane, per today's GTU coverage). As Stanford and his crew were manhandling the box into the old Gilman hangar - which Stanford holds the exclusive lease for - councilman and fellow airport business man, St. Marys City Councilman Greg "No Conflict" Bird, barged into the hangar, uninvited, and demanded that Stanford tell him what was in the box. Stanford told him, with some choice expletives, that it was none of his business and that he wanted him to immediately get off of his property. Bird responded that it was not his property, then informed Stanford that he was "taking off (his) civilian hat and putting on (his) city council hat" and that the matter had then become an "official investigation." When Stanford was duly unimpressed, Bird got on his cell phone, dialled "911" and asked to be connected to Homeland Security." Apparently, he did not get he chance to talk to Homeland Security before the police (no, I don't know who called them) arrived and informed Bird that he had no "police powers" as a city councilman. Bird went on about how he was deeply concerned with he presence of such a large box in such proximity to airplanes and the Naval Submarine Base. Now there's a switch! Oh, yeah, Bird then tried to file assault charges against Stanford for spitting on him. Stanfords employees told cops that never happend. As you probably know, Bird and Stanford are on opposite sides of the debate on closing the airport. Bird is also accusing Stanford of deliberately overpricing his fuel, ostensibly in hopes of driving himself out of business at the current airport so that he can take a five year vacation while they build the new one. I don't make 'em up, I just report 'em.
Saturday, 10/3: More detailed GTU coverage.
http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2009-10-03/story/st_marys_councilman_and_airport_manager_involved_in_altercation
From TOPIX, Kingsland:
Marion
Kingsland, GA
Reply »
Report Abuse
Judge it!
#61
50 min ago Just mu opinion. As the FBO of the airport I believe he has the right to ascertain the contents of the box or Report it to Homeland Security. That does not mean he can search purses.
Church Lady, you bumbling fool, do try to keep up. You have it ass backwards: Stanford is the FBO - not Bird!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
After reading the GTU I agree that Stafford was trying to provoke a situation. Just because he does'nt LIKE Bird is no excuse for him to dismiss the position Bird serves in.
He could have very easily told Bird what was in the crate, just as he did with the police. Silly season in St. Marys politics as usual.
His name is STANFORD. So, let me get thsi straight: you agree that individually, the city councilmen of St. Marys have police powers?
If a UPS truck pulls up to your house to deliver a large on-line purchase, it would be okay with you if a passing councilman jumped out of his car, interecepted the UPS man halfway acroos your lawn, and demanded that you tell him what was in the box?
But you could easily tell him what was in the box. What's the problem?
P.S.
Commenter, would you just happen to be against closing the airport?
Jay,
Of course, this whole incident is just plain silly. Two supposedly grown men acting like two ten year old boys yelling, cursing, spitting, and pushing. I would not defend either.
But we should not lose sight of the issue of security. Since 9-11, we have all been asked to be aware of anything that might pose a security risk. There has been an inordinate amount of talk about security threats to SUBASE. We have all been advised to report any suspicious object or activity. Evidently, the wooden crate in question was very large. It was being unloaded into a hangar less than 2 miles from a nuclear submarine base. The individuals unloading it were unknown to Mr. Bird. I cannot say what happened because I was not there but, in a situation like this, I would rather that Mr. Bird erred in the manner he did byn trying to find out if the unknown contents posed a threat than had he ignored it.
I believe that if I had been in Councilman Bird's shoes, my suspicions would have been aroused as well. However, I would hope that I would have called 911 and asked to have the police check into the matter.
Bird has said that there isn't a security threat from the St Marys airport. He abused his power and should be taken to task. He had no business going to Jeff's hanger, he was just nosey.
Ironic, ain't it!
Jay and Anonymous,
Remember, I totally agree that this incident was handled poorly by both parties.
But we must remember that the crate was being unloaded from a truck parked on a taxiway of a public airport. That area is open to anyone. As I understand it, the crate was being transferred into an open hangar. The doors, which are approximately 40' wide and 20' tall, were wide open. The hangar is a commercial area and there are no signs to identify it as a private area.
Although a tenant has a reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom from unauthorized entrance, to try to make a case for trespass in this instance when the business is not locked up and the doors are open are is just more silliness.
The allegation that Mr. Bird is somehow disingenuous because he does not believe that the airport poses a security threat but chose to question this action is a red-herring argument. A large, heavy, unidentified packing crate being unloaded and moved out of sight in any storage area near SUBASE should be cause for concern from any one of us observing it. We would be lax if we didn't investigate or report it. This just happened to occur, this time, on the airport and happened to be seen by Mr. Bird. Whether or not he acted properly may be questionable; but he did act. And he did, by all reports, call 911.
However, once you are told by the lessee to leave and don't, you ARE trespassing. Called 911 after you have trespassed and shown your ass is qualitatively different than having called 911 and letting the proper authorities handle your suspicions from the git-go. The part about Bird's having reportedly said that he was "now putting on (his) city council hat" and that it had then become "an official investigation" is a bit troubling, if true.
Jay Moreno said...
P.S.
Commenter, would you just happen to be against closing the airport?
October 3, 2009 9:38 AM
I think they should close it, period if its not profitable. However I don't agree that we should build a new one in Woodbine.
I almost agree with you totally. However,it is not really a matter of it not being profitable. I'm not so sure thatr municipal airports are ever "profitable" to the sponsoring municipality.
My problem is with the ratio of the city owned capital tied up in the airport to the number of users. As I pointed out the other day, if the estimated value of the bare land is $10,000,000 and you have 20 pilots,the ratio is $500,000.00 per user. Again, at the $2,000,000 Gilman Memorial Waterfront Park, if you had that same ratio, only 4 people could use the park.
Jay,
"However, once you are told by the lessee to leave and don't, you ARE trespassing." True enough. But what would have been the problem if Mr. Stanford had simply answered the question instead of going off into a tirade about "get off my property"?
"The part about Bird's having reportedly said that he was "now putting on (his) city council hat"
is bothersome. But let's just agree that both of these 2 "gentlemen" acted immaturely and get over buying into their game and pointing fingers?
Jay,
"My problem is with the ratio of the city owned capital tied up in the airport to the number of users."
But that is not a real issue TODAY. The airport property is a city asset. It is not depreciating while it is being used as an airport. Say what you will, there is not a demonstrated need or use for this land today, in this depressed economy. If it just sits there, we are not losing a penny. Any speculation about how much money we would gain by selling and developing that land is just that, speculation.
Well, yes, Stanford could have just told him what was in the box, but given the bad blood between them over the airport issue and Bird's recent attemmpts to push some cockamamie theory that Stanford is deliberately overpricing his aviation fuel in furtherance of his diabolical plot to cause the closing of the airport, I can well empathize with
Stanford. My guess is that that "now I'm putting on my city coucnicl hat" crap was premeditated before Bird ever entered the hangar.
Re:"ratio of capital," etc.
Okay, but let me ask you this. if tomorrow, you picked up the paper and read that a Saudi sheik, to whom $10,000,000 was pocket change, had blown into town wanting to pay $10,000,000, CASH, for the airport property. Honestly, what would be your position then? Any different? Be honest, now.
Post a Comment