Bad news day in Sacramento

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
But it is false logic to use a rash of accidents

True, but I don't see your point. The reality is that there are people
out there looking for amo to close the airport and this will do nicely
for them. Logic, statistics, etc is only meaningful if both sides agree
that they are meaningful. You'll be standing at the city council
meeting talking to yourself in the back of the room about logic while
the council votes to close the airport.

-Robert

And at this point it sounds like the statistics are on the side of those
that want to close the airport thanks to a couple of folks that apparently
ran out of fuel, an easily preventable circumstance.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:1139931673.628311.135660
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

But it is false logic to use a rash of accidents

True, but I don't see your point. The reality is that there are people
out there looking for amo to close the airport and this will do nicely
for them. Logic, statistics, etc is only meaningful if both sides agree
that they are meaningful. You'll be standing at the city council
meeting talking to yourself in the back of the room about logic while
the council votes to close the airport.

-Robert

Actually, that is exactly my point.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two in
a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a mirror
is needed to find the problem.

It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.

FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
profits to the County.

Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes). Yet the FAA wants
all the PROFITS from
their original acquisition funding.

RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed
taxes. Us boomers
like the temperate climate and nearby Sierra attractions. Gotta fix
that ground shaking issue..JG

wrote:
Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes)

That sounded familiar. So I looked and found it. Here are parts of
today's news article:

"...New projections buried in the Interior Departement's budget plan,
aniticpate that the government will let companies pump about $65
billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the
next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
"Based on adminostration figures, the government will give up more than
$7billion in payments by 2011. The Companies are expected to get the
largess, known as royalty relief, even though the adminstration assumes
that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout the period.
"Administration officials say THE BENEFITS ARE DICTATED BY LAWS THAT
DATE TO 1996 (my capitalization), when energy prices were low and
Congress wanted to encourage more exploration in the deep water of the
Gulf of Mexico.
.....
"But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
levels that alarm even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry.

There was a tax incentive some months ago that gave a $300million break
to oil companies to encourage development. Personally, I figure $60-70
a barrel is incentive enough. I'm no friend of these tax breaks, nor
particularly of big oil.

However, I quoted the news story above to point out that the tax breaks
started in 1996. Clinton was in office and Cheney was in private life
at that time, IIRC. And Cheney can't give away anything--Congress has
to act first. Accuracy, and not hypberbole, will get us a lot more
truth.

BACK ON TOPIC, I have no problem if the FAA demands the profits if the
airfield goes away. FAA made the investment after all. Furthermore,
this stance will help us keep airports active, and we need all the
tools we can get to counter these people that build/move next door to
airfields and then complain.

wrote:

wrote:

Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes)


That sounded familiar. So I looked and found it. Here are parts of
today's news article:

"...New projections buried in the Interior Departement's budget plan,
aniticpate that the government will let companies pump about $65
billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the
next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
"Based on adminostration figures, the government will give up more than
$7billion in payments by 2011. The Companies are expected to get the
largess, known as royalty relief, even though the adminstration assumes
that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout the period.
"Administration officials say THE BENEFITS ARE DICTATED BY LAWS THAT
DATE TO 1996 (my capitalization), when energy prices were low and
Congress wanted to encourage more exploration in the deep water of the
Gulf of Mexico.
....
"But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to
levels that alarm even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry.

There was a tax incentive some months ago that gave a $300million break
to oil companies to encourage development. Personally, I figure $60-70
a barrel is incentive enough. I'm no friend of these tax breaks, nor
particularly of big oil.

However, I quoted the news story above to point out that the tax breaks
started in 1996. Clinton was in office and Cheney was in private life
at that time, IIRC. And Cheney can't give away anything--Congress has
to act first. Accuracy, and not hypberbole, will get us a lot more
truth.

Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)


Matt

In article . com,
wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two
in
a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a
mirror
is needed to find the problem.

It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.

FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
profits to the County.

Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes). Yet the FAA wants
all the PROFITS from
their original acquisition funding.

RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed
taxes. Us boomers
like the temperate climate and nearby Sierra attractions. Gotta fix
that ground shaking issue..JG


The Sierras are three hour away by car -- only an hour by plane. And --
the developers are the ones that make the megabucks -- the taxpayers get
left holding the bag, with increased traffic, crime, etc. You really ARE
stupid, aren't you?

Matt Whiting - wrote:
Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)

Not that facts ever altered a good opinion, including mine. 8)))

wrote:
RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed taxes

I had to think about this for a while...

Why is "additional taxes" a reason to kill an airport, or anything
else?

First, I more than suspect that the push behind airport closures is so
that well-connected developers can put up houses, malls, whatever makes
the developers money. In itself, that's not necessarily a problem.

But think about why that land is "available". It's because the
aviation industry acquired it many years ago. They owned/operated it
(via municipal or private arrangements, aviation money goes into it.)
The infrastructure was invested in, etc.
That's not a developer's investment. It's aviation's investment. Now
comes the developer smelling a killing. So they manage to get the
airport closed. What happens to all the investment? Say RHV land
sells for a billion (I dunno, but it's a good easy-to-type number).
Maybe the city gets the billion, and the developer builds and makes a
few billion more.

What happened to aviation??? The aviation community investment is
poofed away. THEY don't get the billion. THEY don't get new land or a
new airport (ask Austin). All the infrastructure gets bulldozed (ask
Chicago), but the aviation community loses everything it had put into
it. To get a new airport, they/we essentially have to start from 0 on
our investment. We invested in the land, and when the value goes up it
gets ripped away with little or no remuneration (I've been waiting all
day to type that word).

Maybe some tax authority gets more money, but that's not the only
consideration. Frequently, many businesses are put out to pasture as
well. and that too is a loss of tax revenue.

It wouldn't hurt so bad maybe if the developers had to trade useable
land in return for the airport land, and reimburse us for the lost
infrastructure. But then they couldn't afford to take the land, now,
could they?????

wrote:
Matt Whiting - wrote:

Now you've done it. You've thrown facts into the mix. :-)


Not that facts ever altered a good opinion, including mine. 8)))


This is true. Someone, maybe Mark Twain, had a famous quote to that affect.

Matt

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

No but stupid pilots forgetting to gas up provide the ammunition and two
in
a month would make anybody stand up and ask questions. Sometimes a
mirror
is needed to find the problem.

It is the "Progressives" and the Hispano-Socialists, egged on by the
developers, who are putting the pressure on RHV. When I lived in Silicon
Valley, the local Hispano-Socialists made no bones about playing the
race card against the "rich people from the West Valley" who used RHV.

FAA has already told the County that they cannot simply pay back the
ADAP money to the Feds -- since the FAA paid for the acquisition of the
property, the FAA would get the proceeds from the sale of it if the
airport were to close. That puts a damper on any thoughts of windfall
profits to the County.

Amazing, Cheney is giving away $65 Billion in Gulf oil/gas to
ExxMobBpShell without
even collecting the 12.5 percent royalties (NyTimes). Yet the FAA wants
all the PROFITS from
their original acquisition funding.

RHV redev. would generate mega-millions in future local, state, fed
taxes. Us boomers
like the temperate climate and nearby Sierra attractions. Gotta fix
that ground shaking issue..JG

Upon closer review RHV is located in east San Jose, a dicey area
according to crime reports. However, PAO and Golf Course look like
prime boomer retirement housing. Bayfront views.
E. PA should finally get cleaned up. Hard to imagine ghetto conditions
in SC county.

E16 is stuck between US 101 and the RR tracks, train horn restrictions
would make this a good mixed use site.

JG


The Sierras are three hour away by car -- only an hour by plane. And --
the developers are the ones that make the megabucks -- the taxpayers get
left holding the bag, with increased traffic, crime, etc.

Boomer retirees able to afford the prices are no threat. And the ocean
is less than 1 hour away.
Wow, Yosemite is about 100 miles east. Muir's slice of heaven.
Hetch-Hetchy dam area is reportedly another Yosemite-like valley. Move
the water
storage else where and viola another National Park.

JG