Trouble ahead over small plane fees

"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.

by Jose teacherjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Apr 12, 2006 at 04:13 AM


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




Wait: Dams directly benefit consumers of electricity, farmers and other
water users, lakefront property owners, and boaters. None would be built
if they had to be financed by private boat owners alone.

On the other hand, GA airports benefit only pilots. (No, I don't believe
the economic benefit studies. There are also studies that say taxpayer
subsidized sports stadiums are economic drivers: more nonsense.)

"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

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

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 ....?

still waiting for the source of your claim...

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

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:07:51 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in et::

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.

Agreed.

The airport's value lies in it's existence in the nation's/world's
infrastructure as a portal for aerial transport. Further, the value
of the real estate upon which the airport is sited is obviously not in
the revenue the airport generates for the municipality operating it.
And the value of the property tax on the real estate if it were zoned
for development would surely be several times more than the airport
pays. Both economic issues motivate airport closures as do noise
complaints and developer lobbying.

But consider the future. If the airport real estate is allowed to be
subdivided into residential lots, the municipality's reacquiring the
property in 2020, when a local airport is being demanded by the
citizens, may prove difficult and unpopular.

There are a lot of issues in life that require foresight to achieve
long term goals, rather than failing to plan ahead in the face of
immediate gratification.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:07:51 +0000, Tom Conner wrote:

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

This turns out to be false, much to my town's annoyance.

We're learning that new housing is *expensive*. Sure, it means taxes.
But in our town, a new home means kids. And schooling two or more kids
costs more than most houses pay in taxes.

Anything more dense than a house (ie. an apartment building) which is well
suited to children is worse. A couple of developers got projects past the
town by claiming that the resulting homes would be kid-unfriendly. This
was recent, with the projects still under construction, so it remains to
be seen if kid-unfriendly can actually work. I've my doubts.

High density commercial or industry might generate more cash than a GA
airport. But it might also have additional costs. More, an airport
nearby is an asset for corporate sites. Take the airport away, and large
corporations will be less willing to pay for the space.

- Andrew

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

But when a community closes an airport, what happens to the value of
the infrastructure, not just the land.

If the community buys your house, they buy the house and the lot.
Maybe they bulldoze the house, but they have to buy that first.
I'm not aware of communities paying for the runways, towers, hangars,
etc. Those investments seem to just disappear, and the aviation
community is supposed to wander in the desert for 40 years looking for
a new. home.
The developers didn't tie up their money for decades, investing in the
land. They use commmunity government connections to get them condemned
or otherwise closed, and reap $$$$$$$$ on aviations investment. This
is doubly dammned because they build the houses next to the airport,
that got the residents, that complained about the noise, that was there
before they moved in, that was less than their kid's boombox cars.

End of rant. Continue with your normal programming.