Trouble ahead over small plane fees

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 05:52 PM


The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but
traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations
of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some
MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.

Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Jose




Back to form! I think those are legitimate questions. As I mentioned
though, I think if those towns want access THEY should provide local tax
(or state tax) subsidies, not you or I. On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.


The Reason Foundation (libertarian leanings, in sync with my own political
philosophy) has interesting publications on their view of subsidies
(generally against) that you might be interested in.

On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.

What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program. It
is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I
don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by
the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe
libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves a
valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that
serves pure science.

It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by
the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees...

You are correct, I was imprecise. However the result would be quite
similar. It would eliminate the public libraries we all (or most of us)
know and love. It would eliminate support for pure science (and the
part of the space program that generates results accessible to the public)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at 06:31
PM


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I
don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of
libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by

the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe

libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves
a

valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that
serves pure science.




Yes. In general, user fees that do not distort economic behaviour are
favored over general tax support. If I provide a subsidy for something,
more of it will be created than the economics justify. For that reason,
taxes should only be levied for things that are purely in the interest of
the public at large.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a local airport, they
charge no landing fees, charge only about $600 per year for a tie down,
and thats it. Overnight tie-down is $5. Yet, they receive millions of
dollars in AIP grants (derived from general taxpayer dollars and
commercial airline ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state
subsidies, etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to
"burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It costs $3500
per year for the slip; transient slips will cost upwards of $75 per
night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal infrastructure compared to an
active GA airport. Tax subsidies make GA flying artificially cheap.

"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at
06:31 PM


The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program?
I don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of
libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries
by

the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not
believe

libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that
serves a

valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion
that serves pure science.




Yes. In general, user fees that do not distort economic behaviour are
favored over general tax support. If I provide a subsidy for
something, more of it will be created than the economics justify. For
that reason, taxes should only be levied for things that are purely in
the interest of the public at large.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should
therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a local airport,
they charge no landing fees, charge only about $600 per year for a tie
down, and thats it. Overnight tie-down is $5. Yet, they receive
millions of dollars in AIP grants (derived from general taxpayer
dollars and commercial airline ticket taxes), $150K annual operating
subsidy, state subsidies, etc. They even wanted the city to kick in
some $$ so as not to "burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my
boating: It costs $3500 per year for the slip; transient slips will
cost upwards of $75 per night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal
infrastructure compared to an active GA airport. Tax subsidies make
GA flying artificially cheap.






So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.



The economic benefit studies are bogus. They simply tally the payrolls,
then add a multiplier. If the airport ceased to exist entirely, the
discretionary entertainment $$ would be spent elsewhere and have some
economic value as well.

I don't know of any govt. dredging for private marinas (none that I have
ever visited), only for public ports that import/export cargo ships use.
I never really looked into it, but if public $$ go to a private marina, I
would definitely be opposed on principal: Why should you pay for what I
use if it provides no benefit to society??

Dams: built to generate power, primarily. Low cost hydro power. Not for
boaters.

Shoreline maintenance: I agree with that. But it is mostly done to
protect housing built (stupidly, I think) along the coastline. Homeowners
should bear that risk (or pay an insurer to bear the risk), not taxpayers.
(Unless it supports a military base or Cape Canaveral, or something like
that.)

I don't know of any govt. dredging for private marinas (none that I have
ever visited), only for public ports that import/export cargo ships use.

Dams: built to generate power, primarily. Low cost hydro power. Not for
boaters.

You benefit from the dredging, you benefit from the dams. Are you
claiming that you shouldn't have to pay just because "they would be
there anyway"? That's a mighty familiar argument.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"ET" wrote in message
...
"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:


Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and
should therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a
local airport, they charge no landing fees, charge only about
$600 per year for a tie down, and thats it. Overnight tie-down
is $5. Yet, they receive millions of dollars in AIP grants
(derived from general taxpayer dollars and commercial airline
ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state subsidies,
etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to
"burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It
costs $3500 per year for the slip; transient slips will
cost upwards of $75 per night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal
infrastructure compared to an active GA airport. Tax subsidies
make GA flying artificially cheap.

So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.


We have to stop repeating this AOPA talking point, and stick with the facts.
Whenever we say this we just look like deer in the headlights; i.e. clueless
and dumbfounded. Yes, GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

In article et,
"Tom Conner" wrote:

Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

based on ....?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate