FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

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

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.

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/y20...LSAA/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/

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

"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.

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" 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.

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 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

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.