The deliberate misinformation versus the truth.

The lies: Bennie Reply » Report Abuse Judge it! #409 19 min ago As far as I know, the relocation proposal involves $20 to $30 million in federal funds to build an airport in Woodbine. St. Marys (taxpayers) would then be required to pay the monies back through the sale of the current airport property estimated to be over $10 million (based on the true market value). So we pay $10 million to lose our airport and pay for one in Woodbine. Add to that the estimated $7 million plus for Georgia Power line relocation (Dept. of the Interior report), massive mitigation bank expenses (USACE report), law suits (Satilla Riverkeepers), the loss of a city asset that could attract developers when the economy turns around (Dept. of Industry, Trade and Tourism) and the cost of giving the airport away is huge. Buzzard, you seem to be the most knowledgeable. Can you reply to Piglet's question? The Truth: The federal government's estimate of the cost of building a new airport is $20 to $30 million. A large part of that $10 million variance was the uncertainty of the cost of the land. The deal was that when the city closed and sold the old airport, whatever the city got from the sale of the airport had to be turned over to the FAA as the city's share of the cost of the new airport. Insofar as one study has shown that the estimated fair market value of the current airport property is $10,000,000, the pro status quo liars (and let's face it - that's what they are) have relentlessly spread the lie that the new airport will cost the taxpayers $10,000,000. Even if we did have to turn over a sales price of $10,000,000, the money would have come from the buyer, not the taxpayers. The taxpayers' cost basis in the property is the $1.00 St. Marys paid for the airport after it was declared government surplus after WWII. The land would still be there, albeit under private ownership, being developed and producing ever increasing tax revenues as it was built out. Okay, all that I've said so far is absolutely true and paints the picture BEFORE Sea Island stepped up and volunteered to DONATE land for the new airport. The fact of the matter is that the city is currently negotiating with the FAA to accept the donation of the land (from the city after it is first donated to the city by Sea Island Co.) as the city's share of the cost of the new airport in lieu of the sales price of the old airport. Now, if they agree, we get to have a new airport, sell the old one, AND keep the sales price, estimated a $10,000,000. If they do not agree, see the previous paragraph. Thems the facts. Everything else you've heard is a pack of lies based on the liars' assumption that they can fool the overwhelming majority of you, especially if you are already looking for an excuse to appear that your opposition to the new airport is rational rather than knee jerk, tribal, obstructionism. Update, 10/18 @8:15 AM. My, my! Look who has been forced to engage in a little "truthiness!"

Buzzard Reply » Report Abuse Judge it! #412 9 hrs ago Just asking wrote: Buzzard is biased against the move. The cost is 95% Feds, 2.5% State, 2.5% St. Marys. They are working on having the Sea Island land count as the St Marys 2.5%. You are absolutely right. As long as the valuation of the Sea Island property is more than the mandated 2.5% local match amount, FAA policy is that the donation of the property can be used to offset our contribution. If total airport construction costs are $25 million, the local 2.5% match would be $625,000. The donated property value is greater then $625,000, so the city's share of the airport airport construction project would be nothing. But that is not the whole story. Update: 10/19

"Being oddly silent, isn't he? There's little to say in the face of logic and truth." No, I've simply decided to further respond would be pointless because "Buzzard'" has amply demonstrated his willingness to lie repeatedly in support of his specious assertions. Insofar as the actual fact set - as I have accurately stated it - is finite while the supply of possible lies is infinite, there is no point in arguing with an inveterate liar.