Jump to content



Photo

Clark County Airport Screws Up Again


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#1 Matt

Matt

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 07:45 PM

Well, it looks like our wonderful airport board has done it again. I believe now is the time to pressure the board to be removed. Is there anyone out there that would make better decisions concerning this place? Is this board the best choice? Looking at their track record and all the information that has come to light over the past year I seriously doubt it.

It looks like the board forced imminent domain on a property owner and they sued. Looks like the ruling went against the airport and now the taxpayers may be stuck with the bill. So much for that 1.7 million the county just "found." So one has to wonder what other problems are out there lying in wait thanks to the airport debauchery? Lets see the council members defend this one.

http://newsandtribun...g-for-air-board

#2 Chuck Moore

Chuck Moore

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 08:37 PM

Well, it looks like our wonderful airport board has done it again. I believe now is the time to pressure the board to be removed. Is there anyone out there that would make better decisions concerning this place? Is this board the best choice? Looking at their track record and all the information that has come to light over the past year I seriously doubt it.

It looks like the board forced imminent domain on a property owner and they sued. Looks like the ruling went against the airport and now the taxpayers may be stuck with the bill. So much for that 1.7 million the county just "found." So one has to wonder what other problems are out there lying in wait thanks to the airport debauchery? Lets see the council members defend this one.

http://newsandtribun...g-for-air-board

You won't see me defend it.

Chuck Moore

#3 Citizen5

Citizen5

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 654 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 02:13 PM

It doesn't matter where the money to pay the judgement comes from it still comes out of the tax payers pocket. They messed up and again put their hands out to the feds. Accepting handouts from the feds is what got the airport into the mess it's in to start with.

I find it disturbing that my own county government tried to take land from someone at less then 25% of it's worth. That's not imminent domain at work, that's dishonesty and greed at best if not just plain thievery. This time they got caught. Of course everyone does not have over $24,000.00 to fight them so it makes me wonder how many times the county has got by with this type of behavior. I know there are times things have to be done, but there is not a reason they can not be done honestly, fairly and above board.

Get the airport out of my pocket.

Edited by Citizen5, 09 January 2012 - 02:14 PM.

  • Tina likes this

#4 Matt

Matt

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 04:35 PM

You won't see me defend it.

Chuck Moore


Thank you. There is one. Any others?

So are there steps that can be taken to replace the aviation board? A fresh start might be a step in a positive direction for a change.

#5 Guest_SteveVoelker_*

Guest_SteveVoelker_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:55 PM

not MAY, Will cost $600,000.00, plus interest at 8% and the cost of the attorney's fees.

#6 Chuck Moore

Chuck Moore

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 10:12 PM

not MAY, Will cost $600,000.00, plus interest at 8% and the cost of the attorney's fees.

Steve, who or where do you pin the fault of this on?

Chuck Moore

Edited by Chuck Moore, 09 January 2012 - 10:12 PM.


#7 rosietheriveter

rosietheriveter

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 11:32 PM

Ed Haire is related to who???

Property rights are the cornerstone of our country.The landowners appear to have done the right thing in protecting theirs.

I did not elect these Airport members. Were they trying to pull a fast one. Who appointed them?
The Commissioners? Aren't Les Young and Ed Meyer up for re-election this year. Their term expires end of 2012. Out with them!!

Also Ms. McNames..with grants come strings. I say absolutely no grants!! I as a citizen of Clark County and therefore ultimately responsible for whatever you people do out there at the airport towards attaining funds, forbid you from applying / or receiving such in my name.
Kelly Khuri

#8 Orange Guzzi

Orange Guzzi

    BANNED

  • Account Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 828 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:32 PM

Who is going to use these new longer runways? If they are so needed, let the companies pay for them. The county has not offered my business money to improve the services I offer. I know that the community would be a much better place if the government would spend money on my business. I could hire some employees also.

One issue I have not seen mentioned is the increased noise from the increase use of the airport. I know from my home, any increase in take offs and landings will not make my home anymore valuable. I think the government should compensate me for the loss in value of my home due to the increased noise and air pollution.

#9 Guest_SteveVoelker_*

Guest_SteveVoelker_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:50 PM

Steve, who or where do you pin the fault of this on?

Chuck Moore

No blame-when you have a trial anything can happen. Ask OJ.

#10 Bjohnson

Bjohnson

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:08 PM

Who was the ring leader w this mess? I havent paid a ton of attention to it.

#11 Serve

Serve

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 05:39 PM

Who is going to use these new longer runways? If they are so needed, let the companies pay for them. The county has not offered my business money to improve the services I offer. I know that the community would be a much better place if the government would spend money on my business. I could hire some employees also.


I agree... The people that are saying that business owners, etc.. will use this airport are wrong. The airport is for recreational use and will continue to be for recreational use. This is strictly to put more money in the people's pockets that run the private businesses at the airport.
  • goody200 likes this

#12 Citizen5

Citizen5

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 654 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 08:25 PM

No blame-when you have a trial anything can happen. Ask OJ.



Someone with a pulse made the decisions that lead to the trial. If the county really has to use imminent domain then we should pay the real value of the property. Now, not only are we paying for the property but we also have to pay for all the legal fees on both sides. Some very real person cost us a lot of very real money.

#13 Overit

Overit

    Closed by Request

  • Account Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,322 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 08:47 PM

"Also Ms. McNames..with grants come strings. I say absolutely no grants!! I as a citizen of Clark County and therefore ultimately responsible for whatever you people do out there at the airport towards attaining funds, forbid you from applying / or receiving such in my name. "
Kelly Khuri





WOW!

#14 Matt

Matt

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 13 January 2012 - 08:36 PM

So is the majority in agreement that a new board should be in order at a minimum? Is this the first step to a fiscally responsible and better managed leg of government?
  • Smokey likes this

#15 goody200

goody200

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 11:32 PM

Kevin Vissing is busily defending his support of the airport on the Clarksville post via the Medical Center. The airport is a huge drain on our county and it has been for years. It is a recreational airport that occasionally will have a company land. If it can't sustain itself then it's time to sell it off and let entrepreneurs put in neighborhoods or a business center that will create income through taxes. It is a simple business strategy.

#16 positive in jeff

positive in jeff

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 17 January 2012 - 08:02 PM

I don't use clark county airport nor do I have a plane or fly with someone who does. Clark county needs a good airport if it wants to continue to grow. If the case went to trial and they lost by 3 times as much you would think the county had a lowsey lawyer.

#17 Matt

Matt

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 17 January 2012 - 08:36 PM

I don't use clark county airport nor do I have a plane or fly with someone who does. Clark county needs a good airport if it wants to continue to grow. If the case went to trial and they lost by 3 times as much you would think the county had a lowsey lawyer.


So by your reasoning, sucking the citizens dry by gross negligence in mismanagement throughout the years is justification for the airport? Sorry, not buying into that.

My idea is simple. Replace the board completely. Start over and see what happens. It can not get any worse. My second idea if the first fails is look for a buyer in the private market. It may work, it may not. If one and two fail, close it down. The federal government can threaten all they want, but the county is broke. So what. If there is a true need, it will be reopened in a private fashion. That is how supply and demand works. If there is a demand a private entity can supply it in this case because the government is only supplying this bloated pig of an airport my tax money.

I saw it was comendable they asked for less money this time for operating expenses, but it looks like it will be more than eaten up several times worth by this lawsuit. It also makes me wonder how much back door money they intend to ask for to cover things like matching grants.
  • Tina likes this

#18 Chuck Moore

Chuck Moore

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:52 AM

So by your reasoning, sucking the citizens dry by gross negligence in mismanagement throughout the years is justification for the airport? Sorry, not buying into that.


My idea is simple. Replace the board completely. Start over and see what happens. It can not get any worse. My second idea if the first fails is look for a buyer in the private market. It may work, it may not. If one and two fail, close it down. The federal government can threaten all they want, but the county is broke. So what. If there is a true need, it will be reopened in a private fashion. That is how supply and demand works. If there is a demand a private entity can supply it in this case because the government is only supplying this bloated pig of an airport my tax money.

I saw it was comendable they asked for less money this time for operating expenses, but it looks like it will be more than eaten up several times worth by this lawsuit. It also makes me wonder how much back door money they intend to ask for to cover things like matching grants.

Good post Matt

Chuck Moore

Edited by Chuck Moore, 18 January 2012 - 10:54 AM.


#19 positive in jeff

positive in jeff

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 08:58 PM

So by your reasoning, sucking the citizens dry by gross negligence in mismanagement throughout the years is justification for the airport? Sorry, not buying into that.

My idea is simple. Replace the board completely. Start over and see what happens. It can not get any worse. My second idea if the first fails is look for a buyer in the private market. It may work, it may not. If one and two fail, close it down. The federal government can threaten all they want, but the county is broke. So what. If there is a true need, it will be reopened in a private fashion. That is how supply and demand works. If there is a demand a private entity can supply it in this case because the government is only supplying this bloated pig of an airport my tax money.

I saw it was comendable they asked for less money this time for operating expenses, but it looks like it will be more than eaten up several times worth by this lawsuit. It also makes me wonder how much back door money they intend to ask for to cover things like matching grants.







I see you beleive in the Moore policy of economic devopment send them someplace else

#20 lighthouse

lighthouse

    Councilman

  • Account Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 542 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 09:18 PM

So by your reasoning, sucking the citizens dry by gross negligence in mismanagement throughout the years is justification for the airport? Sorry, not buying into that.

My idea is simple. Replace the board completely. Start over and see what happens. It can not get any worse. My second idea if the first fails is look for a buyer in the private market. It may work, it may not. If one and two fail, close it down. The federal government can threaten all they want, but the county is broke. So what. If there is a true need, it will be reopened in a private fashion. That is how supply and demand works. If there is a demand a private entity can supply it in this case because the government is only supplying this bloated pig of an airport my tax money.

I saw it was comendable they asked for less money this time for operating expenses, but it looks like it will be more than eaten up several times worth by this lawsuit. It also makes me wonder how much back door money they intend to ask for to cover things like matching grants.



You are so right on this, Matt. The right programs or projects will pay for themselves and then some - either through user fees or sponsorship investments.

If public subsidies are required after start-up, something is not right, and if it can't be corrected, it should be eliminated. The best possible recourse is for a failed project/program like the airport to be spun off to a private entity that will benefit from its continuation.

If there are private businesses and individuals that are dependent upon the existence of this airport, spinning the ownership and expense responsibility off to them may well be the best possible solution for the Clark County Airport's drain on the county budget.

Edited by lighthouse, 19 January 2012 - 04:40 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users