But, it doesn't change the fact that no "real" city in the country maintains an airport of this size within its city limits. Holman field has existed because it is in the flood plain and it floods! Don't you think that if it were dry that it would have been put to better use a long, long, time ago? Every other "real" city got rid of their 1920's style airports decades ago to create tax producing land. If you now can dike Holeman and take it out of the flood plain and create over 500 acres of dry land in the center of the city is the highest and best use to have a couple of hundred plains a day take off and land? Don't you think that $0 tax revenue for the city of Saint Paul is kinda low for what 500 acres of dry land should bring you? Now, $0 isn't bad for a filled in swap that you use to protect the tax producing businesses by allowing it to flood every few years, but if the Fed's are going to let us take this land of of the flood pain without raising flood insurance ra tes, then maybe the City should discuss how long they want MAC to use the City's land as an airport? Now, I know that we are still waiting for the Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce and the Ppress editorial pages to enter the 20th century, (don't tell them its the 21st they couldn't handle it) but one would hope that someone out there would recognize that if the Fed's have changed the rules since the 80's when they were still saying that we couldn't take land out of the flood plain that maybe there is something better we could do with this land that practice taking off and landing Piper Cubs. Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers Past, Present Or Future Chuck Repke -----Original Message----- From: Mike Schoenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:03:43 -0600 Subject: Re: [StPaul] Airport Dike
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/ ------------------------------------------------- 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/
