Camden Commentary: Councilwoman Hase responds.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Councilwoman Hase responds.

Click on image to enlarge.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...: Oh oh. The heat is on. The bloomers are hot. This is an attempt to cover over the libel and slander. Probably dawned on the dip stick that freedom of speech does not give you the right to cry fire in a crowed theater. You accussed the man of extortion, etc. That is not good. That is a bad thing. That can land your butt in a very bad position. No letter to Jay will make it better. You need to print a retraction to Bird.

Just to prove this was sent I am also sending to topix.; January 19, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Excuse me, you idiot: I don't check for you whack jobs' comments every other minute.; January 19, 2010 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: It is obvious she is back peddling. I just talked to the reporter and they have a very, very different take on how the conversation went. Looks like BTD is on the hot seat. If I was Bird, I would seek retribution, at the very least, a public apology. False extortion accusations are not looked upon with great favor in the eyes of most judges before they send it to a jury for compensation deliberations.

BTD = Big Thug Deb; January 19, 2010 at 8:55 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Trust me, she is a tougher bird than Bird. She is not back pedaling.; January 19, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...: I have been following this controversy with interest. I don't give credence to the anonymous comments, either for or against, found here and on other blogs and forums. Based only on the story in the Times Union and correspondence from Mrs. Hase, it does sound like we have a serious conflict of interest.

I don't understand why anyone, including Mr. Bird, would value the abandonment of his opposition to the airport move at $2,000,000. Mrs. Hase reported that he made the request to her in April of 2003. It is my understanding that Mr. Bird was not elected to the city council until 2008. Even then, the idea that he though anyone anyone would pay him $2,000,000 is ludicrous.; January 19, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Please explain in detail why you support the moving of the aiport (for those of us who have not read or heard your position in detail). Please include your reasoning regarding site #1 as the appropriate site for the new airport, given its environmentally sensitive status. Why do you choose to ignore the impact on those wetlands, and the findings of the studies? Thank you; January 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...: What is ludicrous is the agenda and motive of Hase. The woman is so transparent it is looking through an open window. She got her bloomers in a wad because Bird keeps up his inquiries and complaints about this airport never ending battle. Bird is questioning her agenda. Don't eat before you go to a council meeting. It will make you sick.; January 20, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Jay Moreno said...: Obviously, you are one of those who has not read my "position." I have always said and written that my preference is to shut down the current airport, sell it, pay the FAA the depreciated value of the improvements they have made (that would be all that would be required and the figure is millions less than the estimated market value of the land) and get the property built out to highest and best use and put back on the tax rolls.

We don't really need an airport. For the commercial traveler, Jax International is plenty close enough. The 20 or so general aviation pilots homebased at the current airport ( at an annual capital gift of +/- $500,000 per pilot) can move their planes elsewhere.

On the other hand, if a new airport is to be built in spite of the fact wed don't need one, I am not that "alarmed" about the purported ecological disaster" that would result from using donated property at "site 1." Those who claim to be are not really. As Alex Kearns so tellingly put it, she and her fellow travelers are just engaging in a little "environmental rabble rousing." It's one of her hobbies.; January 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM
Jay Moreno said...: anon
Saint Marys, GA
Reply »
|Report Abuse
|Judge it!
|#590
12 min ago This should be interesting. Hase and Bird have been asked, by the Tribune, to each write a 1,000 word article on why the airport should be moved - or shouldn't. Following that they may each submit a 250 word rebuttal.(I expect that Moreno will write Hase' article for her so that she can use really BIG words).
Take cover, people! There's gonna be a tornado of bull flying around

For the record, idiot, Mrs. Hase was once an English teacher. She surely will not need my help.; January 20, 2010 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh Boy!!! The mystery is solved and all doubt is removed. Ms. Hase now says that some unknown person at some unspecified time heard Mr. Bird make an unquoted statement about compensation.; January 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Jay Moreno said...: Good. I'm glad that that question has been answered for you.; January 20, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Please refute, if you can, the following:

As far as the environmental impacts are concerned, there is enough available documentation to have ended this discussion long ago. An airport cannot be built on Site 1, (the City's preferred location due to its donation by Sea Island) for many reasons including acres of wetlands, the Satilla River, the Rose Basin, threatened species and a 100 Year Floodplain (the FAA prohibits the construction of any airport in a floodplain): http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/environmental_desk_ref/media/desk_ref_chap12.pdf

According to the Department of the Interior, construction at this site would lead to greater wetlands impacts than at the other sites, would impact approximately 59 acres within the 100-year floodplain of a river crossing the site, would involve Georgia Power Company Utility lines that would have to be relocated at an estimated cost of $7 million (and which would lead to additional impacts to natural resources).

Given the Dept. of the Interior, EPA, DNR and initial USACE reports, the chance of being granted a 404 are slim to nil - and if, for some reason, it slides through it will most likely be legally challenged. Wetlands, 100 Year flood-plain, the Rose Basin, one of the most fragile points of the Satilla River, 10 threatened species (listed by the Dept of the Interior, (Dec. 11, 2006) - these are prohibitive and vast in scope. All documents are available to the citizens at http://www.ci.st-marys.ga.us/pubdocs/studies/Airport%20Study%20Website/frame.htm Final Site Selection.

USACE law "places the burden of proof squarely on a 404 permit applicant to demonstrate that the destruction of any portion of a wetland is necessary. If the proposed activity does not absolutely have to be conducted in or near the water, the permitting agency is to begin with the assumption that practicable alternatives do exist. However, in practice, it is not this burden of proof that most often deters potential applicants from pursuing a 404 permit. More often, it is the cost of mitigating environmental damage that provides the greatest disincentive to filling a wetland or altering a waterway".

Who will pay these massive costs? They were not included in the final CIP.

Why would the USACE not consider the existing airport as "practicable alternative given Department of the Navy Capt. W. E. Stevens, (May 5, 2008) "final word" -

"Although the Navy supports the relocation of the airport, no funding is available for such an initiative and I am advised that the prospects of the Navy supporting a legislative initiative for relocation are remote."; January 20, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Pittsoff said...: Jay,

Here is a question I have asked...several places (not sure if on here) but I would like to hear your input.

Why is the St Marys City Council the only local government entity, if you will, involved in what would become...a County Airport? Why is St Marys so heavily involved with an airport move to Woodbine? Shouldn't the City of Kingsland, Woodbine, and County be "in the mix" so to speak? Why will all the burden, fall on St Marys on an airport that won't be in St Marys?

Maybe I missed something, but if they want to build an aiprort in Woodbine....build one, then they can close the one in St Marys and do what they wantwith the land.

Hell, maybe I am so done with the whole shenanigan deal in the first place....I have forgotten why St Marys is supposed to handle the new county airport.; January 20, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Oh, Alex, give it up.

If all of that is true, I really don't give a damn. When it comes to man versus salamanders - especially when there is no shortage of nearby salamander (or whatever creature you "rabble rousing" Green eco-weenies choose as your best bet to sabotage any capitalist endeavor you oppose)habitat- I'll goes with the needs of man everytime.; January 20, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Remember - the original impetus (or impeti?)was twofold: allay the Navy's post 911 concerns and return a grossly underutilized and off-tax rolls piece of publicly owned property - the current airport - to private ownership so that it might be developed to its highest and best use and returned to the tax rolls. That was a goal independent of having a new airport to replace it.

However, two things happened: the incredibly generously publicly subsidized handful of businesses and about 20 plane owners using the airport started pissing an moaning about the unfairness of
having the public teat yanked away AND then Councilwoman Hase got the idea that if Sea Island (or some large land owner)would donate sufficient property, that donation plus the FAA's known willingness to finance 95% of a new airport, might keep all parties (save the Canadian, roving eco-rabble rouser, Alex Kearns and her fellow travelers)satisfied at little to no cost to the local taxpayers.

St. Marys is involved because that is where the current airport happens to be located AND because part of the deal with FAA financing is that the proceeds of the sale of the old airport must be applied towards the cost of the new one. That is FAA SOP. However, it appears all but certain now that if the donation of the land at "Site 1" to St. Marys becomes a fait accompli, the FAA will accept the value of the land - which far exceeds the value of the old airport property - in lieu of the proceeds of the old airport sale - in satisfaction of not only the requirement to surrender the sale proceeds, but also as either total or partial payment (depending upon the assessed value of Site 1) of the city's obligation to pay 2.5% of the construction cost for the new airport. The state will pay the remaining 2.5%.

Why it would continue to be called the St. Marys Airport vice the Camden County Airport is beyond me. The latter seems more logical.; January 20, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Anonymous said...: "However, it appears all but certain now that if the donation of the land at "Site 1" to St. Marys becomes a fait accompli, the FAA will accept the value of the land - which far exceeds the value of the old airport property - in lieu of the proceeds of the old airport sale - in satisfaction of not only the requirement to surrender the sale proceeds, but also as either total or partial payment (depending upon the assessed value of Site 1) of the city's obligation to pay 2.5% of the construction cost for the new airport. The state will pay the remaining 2.5%."

Jay,

I have only one simple question. On what do you base the quoted assumption?

Buzzard; January 20, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Jay Moreno said...: I rarely miss a city council meeting. The city (i.e., in the person of City Manager Shanahan, has been in discussions about this with the FAA for some time. The FAA has pretty much agreed to the iea of accepting the value of the donated land, contingent, to the best of my recollection, only upon the finalization of the actual donation by Sea Island to St. Marys. This has been stated verbaly to the mayor and council by Shanahan in an open meeting when giving updates on the matter.; January 20, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: jay, something i have not heard anyone ask. when/if the new airport is built what will county zone it as and what will that taxbill be. we dont need to take money from county either.
sp; January 20, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Not exactly sure of the logistics (sovereign territory of St. Marys?)but it would surely not be taxed. Of course the county would have a "free" airport for use in the JDA directors quiver of recruiting arrows.; January 20, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You are technically right that you "rarely miss a council meeting" with the caveat that you are only talking about the last 3 or 4 meetings. Before that, it seems to me that you rarely, if ever, attended.; January 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: "The FAA has pretty much agreed to the iea of accepting the value of the donated land, contingent, to the best of my recollection, only upon the finalization of the actual donation by Sea Island to St. Marys. This has been stated verbaly to the mayor and council by Shanahan in an open meeting when giving updates on the matter."

Jay,

I have never heard Mr. Shanahan state that the FAA has pretty much agreed to this idea. He has said that the city proposed the idea to the FAA in their funding request letter of last November. This letter was sent via Scott Seritt at the regional office to the FAA in Washington. I have not heard of any response to the request and the last time I asked (Shanahan), none had been received.

The FAA (Washington) will be hard put to ignore the requirement for the city to invest the fair market value of the existing airport property in the new airport construction. This has been a standard requirement for years. If the FAA does choose to ignore it, that will set a precedent for all future airport construction. They might well be in trouble with some completed airport projects. Panama City is completing construction of a new replacement airport. They have already sold or contracted for the sale of their old airport property. All of the proceeds were turned over to pay and repay for construction. If the FAA allows St. Marys to get away without the existing airport value payback, I can see Panama City going to their congressional representatives in an effort to get their money back.

By the way, before anyone starts to think that our situation is much different that that of Panama City, you should know that their new airport was constructed on land donated by the St. Joe Company. The difference is that St, Joe did not try to hide the fact that the new airport will be a huge benefit to their development plans.

Buzzard; January 20, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...: From: Deborah Hase

Date: January 20, 2010 4:44:57 PM EST

To: editor1

Cc: Darlene Roellig , "'bill.deloughy@tds.net'"

Subject: RE: Debate Offer

Jill, I appreciate your offer and your continued efforts to keep the public informed about all issues in our city. I must say that it is a real pleasure working with Emily and Susan and their non bias versus that reporter at the Times, who certainly has his own agenda.

However, due to the fact that my position is that Mr. Bird has a conflict of interest according to state law and the City Charter in the airport issue; and according to my interpretation of state law, he should not be debating any such issue in which he has a conflict with any other elected official in an attempt to persuade our vote. Therefore, I must decline.

Another reason I must decline is that the voters have voted, and the council has voted, and it is my position that this debate is over. Continued discussions and disputes only tend to confuse the public. The City is waiting on the FAA's decision, and at that point all discussion should most assuredly cease.

Thanks again for your offer.

Deborah Hase, Post 2, St Marys City Council"

The Tribune asked Deb Hase and Greg Bird to write 1,000 words each, addressing both sides of the relocation issue. Hase "declined". How godly of Ms Hase to spare the poor feeble-minded citizens from becoming "confused". This debate is NOT over. The FAA's decision is meaningless because the USACE 404 permit is unlikely to be issued. If it is it will no doubt be challenged. How she goes on about other's "agenda's" or so-called "conflict of interest" when hers is so disgustingly obvious. Bird was willing to offer the public documents that support those who oppose relocation. Hase has no such documents. Perhaps the debate IS over. You lose Ms Hase.; January 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...: If there was any civility at all in Mrs. Hase she would've taken Jill up on the offer!!! By her declining assures ME, for one, that she is'nt real clear on her thought process.

Therefore, she is unable to articulate her position. Which leads me to believe she would've been better off asking Jay to write a position paper for her!!; January 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM
Jay Moreno said...: For the roughly three years ending in May of 2009, I was tied up with night classes on Monday nights at the Brunswick Center in pursuit of my teacher certification via the AASU post-baccalaureate techer certification program. Ditto for Tuesday nights. Ergo, I could not attend city council meetings and county commission meetings during that extended period. I completed the program in May and was certified in 4 fields shortly thereafter. Ergo, I have been able to resume my attendance at both meetings.; January 24, 2010 at 7:33 AM
Jay Moreno said...: Nice try, but you are simply pissed because Councilwomn Hase antennae are apparently better tuned to detect traps than mine are.

Obviously, she correctly assessed the offer as a no win situation.

I can't speak for her, but were it my decision to make, the fact that the T&G is, at $5,000, the single largest donor (that they acknowledge)to date to the St. Marys Earth Keepers would have clinched it for me.; January 24, 2010 at 7:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Why is it that petty politicians so often describe any situation where they might be called on publicly to answer a question and are not left the opportunity to blame their statements an bias or misquotation by a second party as a "trap?"

Ms. Hase seems to be the leader and spokesperson for the airport relocation faction. If she and the others are certain that the relocation is the best for the community, they should have the backbone to answer questions and to explain their position forthrightly.; January 24, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Jay Moreno said...: I, Jay Moreno, and NOT Councilwoman Hase, characterized the invitation as a trap.; January 24, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: "I, Jay Moreno, and NOT Councilwoman Hase, characterized the invitation as a trap."

So why is she afraid to take her arguments straight to the public? There would be no biased reporter to distort her statements and she would be on equal footing with Mr. Bird.; January 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Ask her yourself: she's in the phone book and her e-mail address is on the city website. My guess would be that she realized that nothing she could say would satisfy you jackals but only encourage your cowardly, anonymous, ad hominem attacks and unfounded accusations of corruption.; January 24, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: I note that you refer to voters with questions as "jackals" who employ "cowardly, anonymous, ad hominem attacks and unfounded accusations of corruption". Yet you are willing to accept an unfounded attack on a fellow city council member by Deb Hase as right and proper. How strange.; January 25, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Jay Moreno said...: No, Alex, not strange at all. It's really quite simple: I beleive Councilwoman Hase; I do not believe Councilman Le Minors Bird, the Two Million Dollar Man, and I don't beleive that you and your fellow travelers give a damn about salamanders, flood plains, etc.

Where is your evidence that Councilwoman Bird has done or intends to do anything immoral, unethical, or illegal regarding the airport issue? If you have it, let's be getting it to the district attorney or shut the hell up.; January 25, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Anonymous said...: "No, Alex, not strange at all. It's really quite simple: I beleive Councilwoman Hase; I do not believe Councilman Le Minors Bird, the Two Million Dollar Man, and I don't beleive that you and your fellow travelers give a damn about salamanders, flood plains, etc.

Where is your evidence that Councilwoman Bird has done or intends to do anything immoral, unethical, or illegal regarding the airport issue? If you have it, let's be getting it to the district attorney or shut the hell up."

Wow...time to check your meds, Jay!; January 25, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: 'Not exactly sure of the logistics (sovereign territory of St. Marys?)but it would surely not be taxed. Of course the county would have a "free" airport for use in the JDA directors quiver of recruiting arrows.

The last time I looked, the JDA already had a free airport for use in their "quiver of recruiting arrows." Until now, they have just been too stupid or unmotivated to use it. The new director has been attending Airport Authority meetings and wants to work with them to use the airport.; January 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Of course he is. I would not expect him to do otherwise. However, that does not negate the fact that he would be a lot happier with a new, more centrally located airport in closer proximity to I-95 and with immensely more surrounding land for industrial development as opposed to the current land-locked airport.; January 26, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: "....he would be a lot happier with a new, more centrally located airport...."

May I ask if you are quoting him, paraphrasing a public statement by him, relating a private conversation you have had with him, stating what you believe he might say, or just imagining things.; January 26, 2010 at 11:50 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Stating what I know, beyond a scintilla of doubt, he would say now were he not way to politically savy to throw you rabid jackals any red meat before the first ceremonial shovel of dirt is turned at the new airport.; January 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: So you are saying that it is what you imagine he would say.; January 27, 2010 at 11:43 AM