FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

[Orval Fairbairn]

For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


APA 35
October 1, 2004
Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427

FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure

WASHINGTON, DC * The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) today announced
that it is taking legal action over
the 2003 closure of Meigs Field which
could result in penalties against the
city of Chicago. The FAA is citing the
agency¹s regulatory responsibility to
preserve the national airspace system
and ensure the traveling public with
reasonable access to airports as the
basis for its action today.

The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
the city and, separately, is
initiating an investigation into
possible violations by the city of its
federal grant assurances and its
airport sponsor obligations.

The $33,000 proposed civil penalty
stems from the city¹s failure to
provide the required 30-day notice to
the FAA of the deactivation of Meigs
Field. The notice requirement is
intended to allow the FAA to study
proposed actions that may affect the
national airspace system prior to the
actions being taken. According to FAA
regulations, a maximum penalty of
$1,100 per day can be assessed for a
violation of this type.

Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
investigation to determine whether the
city improperly diverted $1.5 million
in restricted airport revenues to pay
for demolishing the runway at Meigs
and for its conversion from an airport
into a city park. The city has 30
days to reply to the FAA on these
issues.

The FAA has held several discussions
with representatives of the city to
reach an informal resolution of the
issues, but it will now move forward
with these formal actions to obtain
additional facts. In addition to the
possibility of a civil penalty of
$33,000, the city of Chicago could be
required to return monies to the
O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
Should the city refuse to return any
improperly diverted revenue to the
Fund, further sanctions are possible,
including a civil penalty of up to
three times the amount of the diverted
funds.

Gary Orpe
A79228
E690190
Certified Virus free by Ed Norton.
All are absolutely free.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:


<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jay Honeck]

Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?

Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six months...

I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have escaped,
and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> The FAA has held several discussions
> with representatives of the city to
> reach an informal resolution of the
> issues, but it will now move forward
> with these formal actions to obtain
> additional facts. In addition to the
> possibility of a civil penalty of
> $33,000, the city of Chicago could be
> required to return monies to the
> O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
> Should the city refuse to return any
> improperly diverted revenue to the
> Fund, further sanctions are possible,
> including a civil penalty of up to
> three times the amount of the diverted
> funds.

The city should require Daley to pay these fines personally.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:

YEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[William W. Plummer]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
> APA 35
> October 1, 2004
> Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
> Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427
>
> FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure
>
> WASHINGTON, DC * The Federal Aviation
> Administration (FAA) today announced
> that it is taking legal action over
> the 2003 closure of Meigs Field which
> could result in penalties against the
> city of Chicago. The FAA is citing the
> agency¹s regulatory responsibility to
> preserve the national airspace system
> and ensure the traveling public with
> reasonable access to airports as the
> basis for its action today.
>
> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
> the city and, separately, is
> initiating an investigation into
> possible violations by the city of its
> federal grant assurances and its
> airport sponsor obligations.
>
> The $33,000 proposed civil penalty
> stems from the city¹s failure to
> provide the required 30-day notice to
> the FAA of the deactivation of Meigs
> Field. The notice requirement is
> intended to allow the FAA to study
> proposed actions that may affect the
> national airspace system prior to the
> actions being taken. According to FAA
> regulations, a maximum penalty of
> $1,100 per day can be assessed for a
> violation of this type.
>
> Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
> investigation to determine whether the
> city improperly diverted $1.5 million
> in restricted airport revenues to pay
> for demolishing the runway at Meigs
> and for its conversion from an airport
> into a city park. The city has 30
> days to reply to the FAA on these
> issues.
>
> The FAA has held several discussions
> with representatives of the city to
> reach an informal resolution of the
> issues, but it will now move forward
> with these formal actions to obtain
> additional facts. In addition to the
> possibility of a civil penalty of
> $33,000, the city of Chicago could be
> required to return monies to the
> O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
> Should the city refuse to return any
> improperly diverted revenue to the
> Fund, further sanctions are possible,
> including a civil penalty of up to
> three times the amount of the diverted
> funds.
>
> Gary Orpe
> A79228
> E690190
> Certified Virus free by Ed Norton.
> All are absolutely free.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>


How much will the FAA's legal team charge for pressing this suit?

[Bob Noel]

In article <Yds7d.55101$He1.15875@attbi_s01>, "William W. Plummer"
> wrote:

> How much will the FAA's legal team charge for pressing this suit?

better that than going after some poor sod sharing expenses
on a flight. :-/

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Thomas Borchert]

Orval,

if anything, that fine is an encouragement to other cities wanting to
close their airports. Bad move, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roy Smith]

>> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
>> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
>> the city

What a joke. $33,000 may be a big fine to you or me, but to the City of
Chicago, it's chump change.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?
>
> Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six months...
>
> I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have escaped,
> and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. And why wait so long to act?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The FAA has held several discussions
>>with representatives of the city to
>>reach an informal resolution of the
>>issues, but it will now move forward
>>with these formal actions to obtain
>>additional facts. In addition to the
>>possibility of a civil penalty of
>>$33,000, the city of Chicago could be
>>required to return monies to the
>>O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
>>Should the city refuse to return any
>>improperly diverted revenue to the
>>Fund, further sanctions are possible,
>>including a civil penalty of up to
>>three times the amount of the diverted
>>funds.
>
>
> The city should require Daley to pay these fines personally.
>
>

No, they should put him in jail for a few years. I'm sure that $33K
isn't all that significant to even him personally. He probably gets
that much in union kickbacks every month.


Matt

[Al Marzo]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:54:50 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>>> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
>>> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
>>> the city
>
>What a joke. $33,000 may be a big fine to you or me, but to the City of
>Chicago, it's chump change.

I've got to agree. Little Daley can punk this much out of the petty
cash without anyone asking questions. This reaction, although it
appears commendable, was long thought out by the Daley team prior to
their escapades. The only way to get this ******* back is to find
something else he's done that will put him in jail. Unfortunately
most people know little to nothing about the real workings of filthy
politics.

[bryan chaisone]

Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message >...
> For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
> APA 35
> October 1, 2004
> Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
> Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427
>
> FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure
>
> WASHINGTON, DC * The Federal Aviation
> Administration (FAA) today announced
> that it is taking legal action over
> the 2003 closure of Meigs Field which
> could result in penalties against the
> city of Chicago. The FAA is citing the
> agency¹s regulatory responsibility to
> preserve the national airspace system
> and ensure the traveling public with
> reasonable access to airports as the
> basis for its action today.
>
> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
> the city and, separately, is
> initiating an investigation into
> possible violations by the city of its
> federal grant assurances and its
> airport sponsor obligations.
>
> The $33,000 proposed civil penalty
> stems from the city¹s failure to
> provide the required 30-day notice to
> the FAA of the deactivation of Meigs
> Field. The notice requirement is
> intended to allow the FAA to study
> proposed actions that may affect the
> national airspace system prior to the
> actions being taken. According to FAA
> regulations, a maximum penalty of
> $1,100 per day can be assessed for a
> violation of this type.
>
> Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
> investigation to determine whether the
> city improperly diverted $1.5 million
> in restricted airport revenues to pay
> for demolishing the runway at Meigs
> and for its conversion from an airport
> into a city park. The city has 30
> days to reply to the FAA on these
> issues.
>
> The FAA has held several discussions
> with representatives of the city to
> reach an informal resolution of the
> issues, but it will now move forward
> with these formal actions to obtain
> additional facts. In addition to the
> possibility of a civil penalty of
> $33,000, the city of Chicago could be
> required to return monies to the
> O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
> Should the city refuse to return any
> improperly diverted revenue to the
> Fund, further sanctions are possible,
> including a civil penalty of up to
> three times the amount of the diverted
> funds.
>
> Gary Orpe
> A79228
> E690190
> Certified Virus free by Ed Norton.
> All are absolutely free.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[David Reinhart]

Not so. The fine is the maximum allowed at the time. Since then the
Meigs Legacy provision has become law, and the maximum fine goes up to
$10,000/per day and the required notice goes up to 90 days. Nine million
may not have kept Chicago from ripping up Meigs, but there aren't many
cities that can afford that.

On top of that, Meigs is the only airport that had special provisions in
its grant assurances that let them off the hook. Not only would another
airport sponsor risk the larger fines, they'd also be responsible for
paying back AIP grant money, which could me tens of millions of dollars,
or more.

Dave Reinhart


Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Orval,
>
> if anything, that fine is an encouragement to other cities wanting to
> close their airports. Bad move, IMHO.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
message
> >
...
> >
> >>The FAA has held several discussions
> >>with representatives of the city to
> >>reach an informal resolution of the
> >>issues, but it will now move forward
> >>with these formal actions to obtain
> >>additional facts. In addition to the
> >>possibility of a civil penalty of
> >>$33,000, the city of Chicago could be
> >>required to return monies to the
> >>O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
> >>Should the city refuse to return any
> >>improperly diverted revenue to the
> >>Fund, further sanctions are possible,
> >>including a civil penalty of up to
> >>three times the amount of the diverted
> >>funds.
> >
> >
> > The city should require Daley to pay these fines personally.
> >
> >
>
> No, they should put him in jail for a few years. I'm sure that $33K
> isn't all that significant to even him personally. He probably gets
> that much in union kickbacks every month.

It is not just $33,000. He stole $1.5 million and the city is on the hook
for that and possible treble damages. Daley should personally reimburse the
city for that as well.

[Mike Patterson]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:55:09 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?
>>
>> Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six months...
>>
>> I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have escaped,
>> and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.
>
>Yes, my thoughts exactly. And why wait so long to act?
>
>
>Matt

Maybe because when you go after the bear in his own cave, especially
if it wasn't your idea, you want to take your time and prepare for it.

Or maybe they know it's a lost cause and were grudgingly forced into
any action at all.


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." - Lily Tomlin

[S Narayan]

Also on Avweb
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_40b/briefs/188257-1.html


"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
> APA 35
> October 1, 2004
> Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
> Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427
>
> FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure

[Matt Whiting]

bryan chaisone wrote:

> Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
fine, then this is a great deal for them.

The Feds should have either went after Daley in a big way or not at all.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> bryan chaisone wrote:
>
>> Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
>
> I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will only
> encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of the
> federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K fine,
> then this is a great deal for them.
>

Do you think this encourages others more than doing nothing does?


>
> The Feds should have either went after Daley in a big way or not at all.
>

The Feds should follow the law. If the law allows only a fine of $33,000.00
then that is what they should pursue.

[RobertR237]

>
>Not so. The fine is the maximum allowed at the time. Since then the
>Meigs Legacy provision has become law, and the maximum fine goes up to
>$10,000/per day and the required notice goes up to 90 days. Nine million
>may not have kept Chicago from ripping up Meigs, but there aren't many
>cities that can afford that.
>
>On top of that, Meigs is the only airport that had special provisions in
>its grant assurances that let them off the hook. Not only would another
>airport sponsor risk the larger fines, they'd also be responsible for
>paying back AIP grant money, which could me tens of millions of dollars,
>or more.
>
>Dave Reinhart

>
>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Orval,
>>
>> if anything, that fine is an encouragement to other cities wanting to
>> close their airports. Bad move, IMHO.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

What they should do is force them to rebuild it exactly as before.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Ted Azito]

Personally, I hope Daley gets thrown off the platform on the El tracks
and hits the third rail.

[David Lesher]

David Reinhart > writes:


>On top of that, Meigs is the only airport that had special provisions in
>its grant assurances that let them off the hook. Not only would another
>airport sponsor risk the larger fines, they'd also be responsible for
>paying back AIP grant money, which could me tens of millions of dollars,
>or more.

And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Jay Honeck]

> > For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
> YEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Howard? Howard Dean? Is that you?

We've been WONDERING what you've been up to lately!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Lesher wrote:
>
> And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?

According to AOPA articles, "In 1994, Daley announced plans to close the airport and
build a park in its place on Northerly Island. He could do that because of a unique
FAA grant agreement that gave him an "escape clause." While most federal grants to
airports specify that the airport must remain open 20 years, the Meigs grant
obligated the city to maintain the airport only for the length of its lease for the
land. Northerly Island was owned by the Chicago Park District, which refused to renew
the airport lease in 1996. Without the federal obligation in place, the airport
became private property."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> bryan chaisone wrote:
>
> > Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
>
> I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
> only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
> the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
> fine, then this is a great deal for them.

If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Orval,
>
> if anything, that fine is an encouragement to other cities wanting to
> close their airports. Bad move, IMHO.


But other cities have not had their obligations lifted, the way Chicago
did.

[David Reinhart]

That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
machine left in the country.

Dave Reinhart


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> David Lesher wrote:
> >
> > And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?
>
> According to AOPA articles, "In 1994, Daley announced plans to close the airport and
> build a park in its place on Northerly Island. He could do that because of a unique
> FAA grant agreement that gave him an "escape clause." While most federal grants to
> airports specify that the airport must remain open 20 years, the Meigs grant
> obligated the city to maintain the airport only for the length of its lease for the
> land. Northerly Island was owned by the Chicago Park District, which refused to renew
> the airport lease in 1996. Without the federal obligation in place, the airport
> became private property."
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[Blueskies]

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message ...
> That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
> machine left in the country.
>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>


Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>bryan chaisone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
>>
>>I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will only
>>encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of the
>>federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K fine,
>>then this is a great deal for them.
>>
>
>
> Do you think this encourages others more than doing nothing does?

Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did what
Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most
people will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a
trivial fine.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

David Lesher wrote:

> David Reinhart > writes:
>
>
>
>>On top of that, Meigs is the only airport that had special provisions in
>>its grant assurances that let them off the hook. Not only would another
>>airport sponsor risk the larger fines, they'd also be responsible for
>>paying back AIP grant money, which could me tens of millions of dollars,
>>or more.
>
>
> And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?
>

You really don't know much about Chicago do you? :-)

This is the corruption capital of the US. I'm sure some money greased
the right palms...


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>bryan chaisone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
>>
>>I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
>>only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
>>the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
>>fine, then this is a great deal for them.
>
>
> If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.

Still chump change for a city the size of Chicago. The fine should be a
percentage of the cities annual budget, something like 50% of its budget
would work for me. A fixed rate fine only deters the small towns and
cities.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did what
> Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most people
> will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
> wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a trivial
> fine.
>

Chicago was hit with the maximum fine. Because of Meigs the fine has been
increased.

[Jim Carriere]

Blueskies wrote:

> "David Reinhart" > wrote in message ...
>
>>That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
>>machine left in the country.
>>
>>Dave Reinhart

>>
>
>
>
> Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

Neither- ANN! :)

Heeheeheeheehee...

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did what
>>Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most people
>>will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
>>wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a trivial
>>fine.
>>
>
>
> Chicago was hit with the maximum fine. Because of Meigs the fine has been
> increased.
>
>

The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.


Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

If you seriously think that the Republican party would give Daley the time of day,
you have another think coming.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> A fixed rate fine only deters the small towns and cities.

And how many cities the size of Chicago have an airport that they might reasonably
want to tear up without warning?

Although I don't agree with you on that side of it, I *do* agree that the fine should
be set up in a different fashion. Like any fixed price, inflation will eventually
render it trivial for some people, and requiring an act of Congress to increase it is
not a good idea.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[David Lesher]

Matt Whiting > writes:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


>The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
>this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.



Doesn't Baghdad need a mayor?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Al Marzo]

Oh well, another American that doesn't know how the game is played!



On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:59:22 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Blueskies wrote:
>>
>> Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?
>
>If you seriously think that the Republican party would give Daley the time of day,
>you have another think coming.
>
>George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[PaulH]

1.5 million is, in Chicago, peanuts compared with the amount of
continual graft and corruption that goes on (entire state, not just
the city). The biggest potential cost is that increasing congestion
at OHare since the Meigs closure is going to give better ammunition to
the people that want to build the new airport at Peotone, outside the
city. There's a lot of maneuvering to get this done, since it opens
up an entirely new venue for corruption independent of the city. The
OHare expansion project may never get done, and Daley may have cost
the city a big airport, not a small one, in the long run.

[UltraJohn]

Roy Smith wrote:

>>> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
>>> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
>>> the city
>
> What a joke. $33,000 may be a big fine to you or me, but to the City of
> Chicago, it's chump change.


They lose more in the couch!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:27:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> :
> :"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> :>
> :> Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did
> what
> :> Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most
> people
> :> will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
> :> wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a
> trivial
> :> fine.
> :>
> :
> :Chicago was hit with the maximum fine. Because of Meigs the fine has
> been
> :increased.
>
> If they're serious about dealing with Chicago, they need to prevent
> any expansion at O'Hare and stop construction of a third airport.
>

No, they don't need to prevent it, they just should not fund it.


>
> After all, Chicago has clearly demonstrated that they don't think they
> need more airport capacity.
>

Zackly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
> this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.
>

On what charge?

[bryan chaisone]

That's good to hear George. Where did you hear/read that from? I
hope this will help dicourage any future incidents. There are less
and less places to land anymore. I'm glad I fly helos too! I better
declare/register a heliport on my property soon, before it gets hard
to do.

Bryan "Formerly known as 'The Monk'" Chaisone

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> > bryan chaisone wrote:
> >
> > > Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
> >
> > I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
> > only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
> > the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
> > fine, then this is a great deal for them.
>
> If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

bryan chaisone wrote:
>
> That's good to hear George. Where did you hear/read that from?

AOPA mainly. The "Meigs Legacy" ammendment was attached to the last FAA
Reauthorization bill. It increased the notice from 30 days to 90 and increased the
fine from $1,100 a day to $10,000 a day.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[David Reinhart]

If he used the grant money to tear up the runway, maybe they can get him on a
federal fraud charge.

Dave Reinhart


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
> > this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.
> >
>
> On what charge?

[David Reinhart]

No, I mean the Democratic Party in Chicago & Cook county, which is run by Daley. It's one of, if not the,
last true, ward-heeling, buy anything, vote early vote often, who cares if they're dead-register them,
don't screw with the Boss political machine in the U.S. The national committees are tea and crumpets
compared to Chicago.

Dave Reinhart


Blueskies wrote:

> "David Reinhart" > wrote in message ...
> > That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
> > machine left in the country.
> >
> > Dave Reinhart
> >
> >
>
> Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
>>this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.
>>
>
>
> On what charge?
>
>

I'm sure they could find something if they look closely.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

David Reinhart wrote:

> If he used the grant money to tear up the runway, maybe they can get him on a
> federal fraud charge.
>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>
>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
>>>this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.
>>>
>>
>>On what charge?
>
>

Didn't he violate the law that required 30 days notice?


Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> David Reinhart wrote:
>
> > If he used the grant money to tear up the runway, maybe they can get him
on a
> > federal fraud charge.
> >
> > Dave Reinhart
> >
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
> >>>this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome
though.
> >>>
> >>
> >>On what charge?
> >
> >
>
> Didn't he violate the law that required 30 days notice?
>
>
> Matt


The punishment for which is a meager fine not jail time.

[bryan chaisone]

Good deal. Thanks George.

Bryan

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> bryan chaisone wrote:
> >
> > That's good to hear George. Where did you hear/read that from?
>
> AOPA mainly. The "Meigs Legacy" ammendment was attached to the last FAA
> Reauthorization bill. It increased the notice from 30 days to 90 and increased the
> fine from $1,100 a day to $10,000 a day.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.