![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Having had some experience with federal grants in the past, I agree with
all you've said, except the last sentence. Misportraying the project as purely for safety rather than the expansion that it obviously is just generates more distrust of the people running the airport. They've lost all credibility with me and other locals I know. That's why I've bypassed them and gone directly to the press and politicians. Many people are aware that the project is really an expansion now, although one of the local pols admitted he had no idea what was going on until I wrote him. Then he realized (hallelujah!), that the "safety improvements" were in fact just a business plan; playing off the much higher prices of BED (landing fees, higher fuel prices, etc.) Anyway, they had to put the whole project on hold because of wetlands impact. Originally, they had no intention of doing an environmental impact study. Or an update to the nearly 20 year old part 150 study (not that that means anything, they never implemented some of the requirements anyway). At one of the public meetings, one resident actually stood up and said something like: "If you're not going to study the noise, or the groundwater, or the traffic (car traffic -- airport is in a largely residential area), what ARE you going to study?' The FAA person sat quietly in the audience writing something on a notepad, while the consultant fumbled for an answer that would sound good. Sad state of affairs. Basically the airport knows that if they call the project what it is --expansion -- there would be a backlash. Thats y they are trying to give us the bum rush. And what they've gotten is ........a backlash. And lost credibility |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steve Foley" wrote They're calling it a safety improvement because that's where the money is. It also makes them look good by bringing money into the local economy. Not necessarily. The FAA has long term plans for airport improvements. In Hickory NC, the runway and over run area being extended is one thing that the FAA was "very" much interested in seeing done. We had to relocate streets, to get the job done. Once again, the local people often have no say in these things. The FAA gets its way, if you want it's money. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Death toll now 10 times 9/11 | X98 | Military Aviation | 9 | June 11th 04 05:23 AM |
~ US JOINS CHINA & IRAN AS TOP DEATH PENALTY USERS ~ | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | April 8th 04 02:55 PM |
About death threats and other Usenet potpourri :-) | Dudley Henriques | Military Aviation | 4 | December 23rd 03 07:16 AM |
"Air Force rules out death in spy case" | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 5 | November 10th 03 07:24 AM |