financing of a GA airport

"James M. Knox" wrote in message
...
[...]
Additionally, if the airport is open to the public, it is eligible for
public tax monies. This is the MAJOR source of support for most
airports, amounting to 90 to 95% or the total capital budget. This
money is basically a recognition of the fact that everyone in the area
benefits by having the airport, not just those who actually have an
airplane.

Just to elaborate a tiny bit (but James's post left very little to elaborate
on ):

The "recognition" is just like the recognition that freeways and other roads
benefit everyone in the area. While many Americans lack the knowledge to
see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.

I haven't once heard of a neighborhood banding together to try to close a
public road. For some reason, those same people who would never think of
trying to close a public road think it makes perfect sense to try to close
an airport.

Pete

In article ,
Additionally, if the airport is open to the public, it is eligible for
public tax monies. This is the MAJOR source of support for most
airports, amounting to 90 to 95% or the total capital budget. This
money is basically a recognition of the fact that everyone in the area
benefits by having the airport, not just those who actually have an
airplane.

The "recognition" is just like the recognition that freeways and other roads
benefit everyone in the area. While many Americans lack the knowledge to
see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.

I haven't once heard of a neighborhood banding together to try to close a
public road. For some reason, those same people who would never think of
trying to close a public road think it makes perfect sense to try to close
an airport.

I know a few groups that want to close a few roads actually But the
main difference between a road and an airport is the road is used by
everyone, while 'only the rich' use the airport. It's not even a 'real'
airport (with jets and airline service) it's justs there for the wealthy
to play with their toys. etc. etc.
Most people are just not aware of how small local airports help the
area. Roads and schools (which almost everyone actually uses themselves)
have more direct benifits. To be fair, a lot of people in the USA have
trouble investing in anything that does not produce direct results...

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote in message
...
I know a few groups that want to close a few roads actually But the
main difference between a road and an airport is the road is used by
everyone, while 'only the rich' use the airport. It's not even a 'real'
airport (with jets and airline service) it's justs there for the wealthy
to play with their toys. etc. etc.

You are speaking of perception here, of course, not reality.

Most roads in the US are roads that I do not use. But they are available to
me if I choose to use them. Likewise, just because a person does not use an
airport themselves, that does not mean the airport is unavailable to them
should they choose to use it. That's ignoring, of course, the rest of the
story, the benefits an airport provides even to people who never set foot on
the airport grounds.

Most people are just not aware of how small local airports help the
area. Roads and schools (which almost everyone actually uses themselves)
have more direct benifits.

Just as the rest of the transportation infrastructure does. That's my
point.

Pete

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:11 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

While many Americans lack the knowledge to
see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.

When SATS* is eventually implemented, municipal airports will become
indispensable. But there won't be any place left to build them,
because the city governments chose to close them and build strip
malls. :-(


*
http://sats.nasa.gov/
http://www.unomaha.edu/~unoai/sats/
http://sats.larc.nasa.gov/main.html

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:42:12 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:11 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

While many Americans lack the knowledge to
see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.

When SATS* is eventually implemented, municipal airports will become
indispensable. But there won't be any place left to build them,
because the city governments chose to close them and build strip
malls. :-(

If the airport's a better economic deal for the city than the mall,
it'll be eminent domain and bring on the bulldozers. Stuff gets torn
down all the time for freeways.

Don

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:31:55 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote in Message-Id:
:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:42:12 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:11 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

While many Americans lack the knowledge to
see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.

When SATS* is eventually implemented, municipal airports will become
indispensable. But there won't be any place left to build them,
because the city governments chose to close them and build strip
malls. :-(

If the airport's a better economic deal for the city than the mall,
it'll be eminent domain and bring on the bulldozers. Stuff gets torn
down all the time for freeways.

We can hope.

But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
too. Can you imagine the EIR involved in reestablishing an airport in
an urban area today? Tomorrow? :-(

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:44:26 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:31:55 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote in Message-Id:
:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:42:12 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:11 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

While many Americans lack the knowledge to
see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.

When SATS* is eventually implemented, municipal airports will become
indispensable. But there won't be any place left to build them,
because the city governments chose to close them and build strip
malls. :-(

If the airport's a better economic deal for the city than the mall,
it'll be eminent domain and bring on the bulldozers. Stuff gets torn
down all the time for freeways.

We can hope.

But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
too. Can you imagine the EIR involved in reestablishing an airport in
an urban area today? Tomorrow? :-(

Actually, I see them being sited as part of new industrial parks.
Bye-bye more farmland, but it's only a matter of time before American
agribusiness goes whole-hog (*especially* hog farming) for outsourcing
production overseas. (Like beef, seafood, fruits and most veggies are
not already produced largely abroad.)

Don

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
too.

Seldom will a city council tear down either housing OR business property to
build an airport. It a matter of being short sited. Those houses and
business property produce tax revenue NOW. The airport may produce even
more benefit to the community EVENTUALLY, but meanwhile the council is
going to get the hit for raising taxes to make up for the shortfall. While
his opponent, some years later, is going to get the praise for the economic
improvements to the community.

Sadly, most politicians can't see beyond their own re-election.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:05:09 -0600, "James M. Knox"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
too.

Seldom will a city council tear down either housing OR business property to
build an airport. It a matter of being short sited. Those houses and
business property produce tax revenue NOW. The airport may produce even
more benefit to the community EVENTUALLY, but meanwhile the council is
going to get the hit for raising taxes to make up for the shortfall. While
his opponent, some years later, is going to get the praise for the economic
improvements to the community.

Sadly, most politicians can't see beyond their own re-election.

So where will the future SATS municipal airports be built?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:05:09 -0600, "James M. Knox"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
too.

Seldom will a city council tear down either housing OR business property to
build an airport. It a matter of being short sited. Those houses and
business property produce tax revenue NOW. The airport may produce even
more benefit to the community EVENTUALLY, but meanwhile the council is
going to get the hit for raising taxes to make up for the shortfall. While
his opponent, some years later, is going to get the praise for the economic
improvements to the community.

Sadly, most politicians can't see beyond their own re-election.

So where will the future SATS municipal airports be built?



They wont -- unless pilots get together and convince local entities that
closing or closed military airfields are valuable as airports -- not
housing developments.