FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

That should not happen. The City of Chicago cannot close one
perfectly good public airport and expect federal funds to expand
another one.


Wanna bet.


Okay. The City of Chicago cannot close one perfectly good public airport
and reasonably expect federal funds to expand another one. Better?

Excellent grammar, spelling, syntax, semantics, show a good grasp
of the English language.

But, the question still applies. "Wanna bet?"

-jav

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

Okay. The City of Chicago cannot close one perfectly good public airport
and reasonably expect federal funds to expand another one. Better?


Excellent grammar, spelling, syntax, semantics, show a good grasp
of the English language.

But, the question still applies. "Wanna bet?"


Your question indicates you do not know the meaning of "reasonably".

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.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:FSm7d.303820$Fg5.269114@attbi_s53...
Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?

Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six months...

I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have
escaped,
and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.

You must have missed the part where Chicago could be on the hook for as much
as $6 million total (not counting the $33K penalty for violating the 30-day
notice requirement).

The 30-day notice requirement violation is a relatively minor infraction,
and as such wouldn't justify a very large penalty. Diverting funds
illegally is a much more egregious violation, and carries with it a much
greater penalty.

I think it's great news that the FAA is taking action against Chicago, and I
found nothing negative in the posted press release at all.

Pete



Perhaps diverting funds qualifies Daley for RICO (racketeering) charges.
I would LOVE to see him go to Leavenworth!

That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
machine left in the country.

Dave Reinhart


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

David Lesher wrote:

And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?

According to AOPA articles, "In 1994, Daley announced plans to close the airport and
build a park in its place on Northerly Island. He could do that because of a unique
FAA grant agreement that gave him an "escape clause." While most federal grants to
airports specify that the airport must remain open 20 years, the Meigs grant
obligated the city to maintain the airport only for the length of its lease for the
land. Northerly Island was owned by the Chicago Park District, which refused to renew
the airport lease in 1996. Without the federal obligation in place, the airport
became private property."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"David Reinhart" wrote in message ...
That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
machine left in the country.

Dave Reinhart




Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

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

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

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