Tim is correct. Don't trivialize the airport. It acts as a reliever airport to MSP by diverting general aviation away from MSP. That means a smaller MSP, with fewer jets and other planes stacking up and waiting to land. It means quieter skys in the air over MSP and hopefully it means safer skies, too. However, there has been and continues to be controversy about who pays for reliever airports.
Tim Erickson wrote:
At 8:26 AM -0800 3/30/05, Dann Dobson wrote:
So in other words, the City, the Feds and the State are going to spend 35 million on this dike, so a corporate buddy of Kelly's can land his plane faster, instead of having to wait like the rest of us peons. Even assuming private jets have to circle.
I do not support the airport dike. However, in the interest of good public policy discussions - I think its of value to get the real arguments out there.
Its often said - that this is about making things convenient for Randy Kelly's bigwig friends. Assuming that they are his friends, just because he supports a policy that they like. I think that this is far to cynical, but we'll let that rest.
The argument is (like it or not): that corporations very much appreciate convenient access to an airport, where their sales folks and executives (that are paid huge amounts of money) can get quickly to and from out of state meetings and events.
The argument is - that keeping these very expensive executives productive is of great value to these companies. The argument is (and I suspect that there is some truth to it) that companies will factor the location of an airport like Holman field into decisions about where to locate their businesses - because it makes financial sense for them to do so. Yes, its about convenience to companies and their executives, which also affects the bottom line of those companies.
Its a legitimate thing for companies to look for airport access when locating a business, even if it only affects their top level executives (that might be traveling weekly). Its also a legitimate thing for a community to decide how attractive we want to be to those communities - or how many sacrifices that we are willing to make.
Whether or not you support the dike - I find it a vast oversimplifciation to trivialize this argument into one about whether or not Randy Kelly's buddies can land their planes faster.
Whether we like it or not, access to road, airports, or even sports stadiums are sometimes factors in business decisions. We can decide, that we aren't willing to support these things, because the costs or trade-offs are to high - that is fine. BUT, to trivialize the potential impact of these decisions by making them sound the idle whims of spoiled brats who want to joyride with their personal jets downtown St. Paul, is simply bad for public policy discussion in this town.
Whatever you think about the airport, I'm certain that the arguments are more complicated and more sophisticated than that - and I'm somewhat offended by the need to trivialize them so.
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson Hamline Midway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------
JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY:
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/
-------------------------------------------------
POST MESSAGES HERE: [email protected]To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
