Once again, you can see that the pro-status quo side, which denies the existence of such a letter, has no problem with lying. They're getting better at it every day.Now, I got this e-mail from Councilwoman Deborah Hase about 30 minutes ago.
Jay please post the following blog response for me (including this part) because since I never blog I can’t seem to figure out how to make a post, and it isn’t allowing me to do so. I keep getting an “error” message.
To Camden Commentary Bloggers: I never blog, but since a question has come up about Mr. Moreno posting only a portion of an email I sent to him regarding the airport issue, I decided to make an exception. For the most part I don’t blog because it is very time consuming, and I don’t care to read the anonymous and mostly uninformed comments, not to mention that I don’t care for the language and negativity that consumes most bloggers.
My response: I always answer every email and question that I get from the constituency. Mr. Moreno occasionally sends me a blogger’s comments that he thinks I need to respond to and he sometimes asks me for information. He could have posted the entire email that I sent to him because it became a public record when I sent it; however, he is considerate enough to always ask me first. In this particular email I made some comments about the briefing that is currently being held for all candidates at the base . I didn’t want anyone to read it and make a big deal out of it before the briefing. Not that anything that I had to say is that important, but certain people tend to take things out of context and I wanted those candidates to go to the briefing with an open mind today, and not try to use anything I said while they were there. They need to make up their own minds about what those in authority have to say concerning the military and the issues in our community that concern the military. Thus I asked him to wait to post that part of the email until today. There was nothing “top secret” or anything about it. I am sure that he will finish that post today, and you will understand why I wanted to wait.
I hope that this answers any question someone may have had about my email to Mr. Moreno. If not, please feel free to email me at Deborah.hase@ci.st-marys.ga.us. Or if you insist on remaining anonymous, Jay can ask me for you. Respectfully, Deb Hase, Post 2, St Marys
So, where are our St. Marys candidates even as we speak? They are having lunch as the guests of the base CO after he asked them to come to a meeting with him earlier this morning. I don't yet know for a fact what it was about, but I'm fairly certain it was NOT to tell them how happy he was to have an airport in no warning time proximity to his base. NEVER before in the history of the base and Camden County has this happened.
As soon as I get a reliable report from one of the attendees, I'll pass it on to y'all.
Update @2:36 PM. Okay, here's what happened. The candidates were first given an extensive guided tour of the base. Next, they had lunch. After lunch, the CO addressed them for some 45 minutes. He gave them all a copy of the above letter. He told them that the Navy's position has not changed. That is that, optimally, they would like to see this airport "go away." Failing that, as a bare minimum, they want the longer of the two runways, the one which puts departing planes on a heading directly over the base, to be shut down. My understanding is that that is the 5,000 foot runway which can handle private jets, such as the one Senator Isakson flew in on on Saturday. If that were closed, all that would be left is the shorter runway, 3,000 feet, I believe, suitable only for our handful of local hobbyists. Of course, Roger Rillo was heard to say afterwards that we have the option of extending the other runway. Well, yes. If we extend it to the east, we will have to shift Point Peter Rd. over to where the woodstork rookery is on the old mill property. If we extend it to the west, the city willl have to condemn houses off the west end of the runway almost all the way to Martha Drive. Alternatively, the runway at the new airport will be 6,000 feet long and only require a few salmanders to crawl over to another mudhole. I can't wait to see how the Luddite tribals spin this one.
25 comments:
Jay,
Help me out here.
If you move the airport out of St. Marys, then it is not a St. Marys issue anymore. Correct?
So why doesn't the county handle building the new airport, and once the new airport is built, then we can debate what to do with the current one.
Help me understand this, as we hear nothing on the airport from the commissioners.
Jay,
What is your take on the information in the letter from Capt. Stevens?
Why does the Navy refuse to come to the Airport Authority meetings when invited to recommend the airport be moved? That request has been made and turned down. If it is such a threat for sure there would be a some one in authority coming forward to confirm that. The Authoriy has indicated that if it is matter of national security the Authority would most likely vote to close it. Plus the Coast Guard is satisfied with the airport. Also, the airport in Fernandina is just as much a threat. Plus the boat ramps should also be closed because boats can be in the Base waters in a few minutes.
So there it is. I can't wait for the lyin' to start. By the way, did you ever consider that a buzzard is a bird?
Rick,
The county has little to do with this. It is between the FAA and St. Marys, insofar as the FAA will not support two airports and is only making the offer to build a new one because of the concerns of the Navy and the fact that the current airport is landlocked.
My "take" is that the Navy wants it gone, but it is not thier place to pay for the move. That's the FAA's baliwick. Yeah, the Buzzard could be Bird, but my top suspect is Rillo.
Why would the Navy want to mess with the Airport Authority which has neither the legal ability nor the inclination to close the airport?
Jay - you're on target on why the Navy does not attend airport authority meetings, although they have attended a few.
The important take-away is the base CO and his bosses agree with what is in the letter or he wouldn't have written it. Besides, the Coast Guard doesn't run the base nor makes decisions about the base.
And for crying out will the naysayers actually read the letter? It says nothing about security or national security threat - IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE!
It seems to me that, if the Navy had a specific safety concern, they would talk with the Airport Authority first to see if the problem could be resolved. Then, if the Authority could not or would not do anything, go to the city and request that the airport be moved.
I believe that the Airport Authority does still control the existing airport but has no say in planning for a new airport.
Why is it a safety issue now when the base has been here for over 20 yrs and it was not a safety issue before? I thought it had to move because of base security. This whole thing and everyone saying this way and that way is confusing.
Once you come to the stark realization that the pro-status quoers will say or do anything -truth be damned - to "save" the current airport, all will become clear.
Why don't people read the letter. Back in 1985 the Navy wanted to move the airport. Their position hasn't changed.
Because that would be an inconvenient truth - and clearly, these people find all truth in this matter highly problematic.
Jay,
One correction. The planned length of the runway at the new airport is 5000' not 6000'. This is from the RS&H study.
There was talk of the runway being 6000' but that involves a lot more than just adding on to the length. A 6000' runway is designed for a heavier aircraft and all of the specs of the runway change. It would also involve a longer taxiway and additional lighting. Because of the increased length, the overall dimensions or the airport would also increase.
The engineering and cost estimates were all developed for a 5000' main runway with no crosswind runway. The bottom line is that increasing the runway length by 1000' would significantly increase the costs.
Thanks for the info. I believe I'm correct that a 5,000 foot runway will easily handle all corporate jets. Those who need a larger, commercial flight can simply make the 30 minute trip to JIA, as they do now.
Jay,
Right on. That is the reasoning of the FAA who, very early in this discussion, indicated that they would only fund a 5000' runway. Only the biggest Gulfstream corporate jets need a longer runway and they can land in Jacksonville or Brunswick.
Anonymous said that back in 1985 the Navy wanted to move the airport. If they wanted to move it then, why didn't they move?
Another question. Jay said that the Navy wants it gone, but it is not thier place to pay for the move. Why should the taxpayers of St. Marys pay for the move if the Navy does not want it gone badly enough to help pay for it?
Okay, try to follow me here. The Navy is a branch of the U.S. armed forces, charged with controlling the sea lanes and projecting U.S. power from the sea where it is needed to protect and further American national interests. They are not in the business of financing civilian airports. That would be the bailiwick of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which has, in fact, offered to pay 95% of the cost of the new airport.
Do you get it now?
I can see what your saying but it still doesn't answer my question why the taxpayers of St Marys should have to pay anything. And my first question why they didn't move the airport when the base was built.
Not having to pay anything is exactly what the city is trying for in talks with the FAA.
It is my understanding that the FAA already told the city that we did have to pay ten million to relocate the airport. This ten million is the assessed market value of the airport property.
I still don't understand why the airport was not moved when the base was built.
Respectfully, my understanding is that your understanding is a misunderstanding, deliberately fostered by oponents of closing / moving the airport.
Here are the facts as I understand them from asking some of the principals in the matter.
Scenario A. We close the airport, sell it, and DO NOT build a new one. In that case, the FAA would demand thatr the city repay the DEPRECIATED value of all of the improvements that the FAA has paid for in the last 20 years. That is currently estimated at only $500,000. If we sold it for $10,000,000, we would keep $9,500,000.
Scenario B: We close it, sell it, and build a new airport. In that case the city would be obligated,
under the ORIGINAL correspondence fro the FAA, to remit to them the proceeds of the sale of the airport (whatever that may actually be - $10,000,000 is the estimated MARKET VALUE,not the assessed value) to be applied to the city's oblgatrion to pay 2.5% of the total cost of construction of the airport, whatever that turns out to be.
Scenario C: The ACTUAL current situation: The city is in negotiations to have the FAA accept the value of the donation by the city of the land the Sea Island Co. wants to donate to it in lieu of the sales price of the old airport to fulfill the city's 2.5% share of the cost. If that does NOT happen, i.e., if the FAA does not ultimately agree, then the deal is off, per the non-binding referendum. We either keep the aiport, or, as I would hope, close it, sell it, pay back $500,000 to the FAA and put the balance into the city coffers. We could beef up the fund balance to where it ought to be and likely lower water and sewer rates back to where they were.
Jay,
I have been reading, with interest, the ongoing correspondence on this thread. I would like to corrct a serious misunderstanding illustrated bt your assumtions in your scenerios B & C.
The money realized from the sale of the airport property in St. Marys, approximately $10,000,000, will not be used to fulfil the city's 2.5% share of the construction cost. This will be offset by the value of the donated land.
The idea that the value of the donated land will be accepted by the FAA in lieu of the $10,000,000 sale value of the airport land is a fallicy. It sounds great from the point of view of the city, but, to understand, we have to look at it from the point of view of the FAA. They are charged with spending as little as possible to build the replacement airport. If the total cost of the airport is $25,000,000, the federal portion will be $23,750,000. When the $10,000,000 received from the city is applied, the resulting federal cost will be $13,750,000. On a project of this size, the math will be reviewed by the GOA and a $10,000,000 overpay will surely be questioned.
You should note that the appraised value of the donated property on which the airport is constructed does not enter into this equation. That is because it will become the property of the city. It can not and will not become the property of the federal government. Therefore, it can not be used to offset the federal cost of airport construction.
I hope this clears up some of the ongoing misunderstanding of this issue.
With all do respect, is Englsih your original language? Go back and re-read my last comment. You will find that your observations make no sense relative to what I actually said.
Let's try this again. The original estimates of the total cost of building a new airport assumed that the required acres would have to be PURCHASED at market value, or, in the case of condemnation, whatever the court ruled was fair compensation. The Sea Island Property donation was not conceived of at that time. If the FAA agrees, Sea Island will doante the land to the city. It thne becomes the property of the city, with a market value way ion excess of the estimated $10,000,000 MARKET value of the current airport property. The FAA has already agree - and has from day one - to pay 95% of the cost of the new airport (an unknown mnumber at this time). Whatever it turns out to be, the FAA expects the cioty to pay an amount equal to 2.5% of that. Prior to the Sea Island donation becoming a possiblilty, the FAA of course expected the proceeds - whatever they may actually turn out to be - from the sale of the old property to be applied against that 2.5%.
The city is now proposing that the value of the then former Sea Island property would be counted against the city's 2.5% obligation.
Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Furthermore, you wrote:
"You should note that the appraised value of the donated property on which the airport is constructed does not enter into this equation. That is because it will become the property of the city. It can not and will not become the property of the federal government. Therefore, it can not be used to offset the federal cost of airport construction."
Nor will any of the new airprot become the property of the FAA. Is our current aiport the property of the FAA?
If the original cost estimates contemplating having to buy the land for the new airport at makrket value and the city is able to donate that land (after recieving it from Sea Island) how can the donation help but lower the toal cost of the airport?marklet value? Surely, you do not think that the market value of the land involved would be LESS than 2.5%, the city's obligated share of the cost of the airport?
If you do not understand the actual facts now, then you are probably not really trying to.
Jay,
Before the Sea Island donation became part of the equation, the FAA expected the city to pay 2.5% of the construction costs PLUS payback the value of the present airport property. The donation of the land, since it is equal to or greater than the 2.5% will be accepted in lieu of the 2.5% of construction cost. That has no effect on the fact that the FAA still requires a repayment of the value of the present airport property.
You statement that "the city is able to donate that land (after recieving it from Sea Island)" doesn't make sense. The city cannot donate the land to the FAA because the FAA doesn't own airports. And the city doesn't need to donate the land to itself.
Post a Comment