Figures.
They want 30 million so a CEO can avoid the traffic we all have to deal with, but they fail to do a damned thing about the planes and heiocopters that fly WAY below the legal altitude on the East Side. This includes the National Guard.
I get tired of being woke up at 4am by these jerks flying too low. I also noticed a huge influx of low-flowing planes over East Side at night and in the early hours of the morning when the Capital went into session. There are Reps and Senators breaking the laws on this as well. If these Reps and Senators can't abide by FAA, State, and City airspace rules, then they need their planes and licenses taken away.
If I had a perfectly legal [No FAA Permit Required] 200 foot radio tower, I wouldn't be surprised if it got hit by these suckers.
Dann Dobson wrote:
I may have been too flip, saying Kelly was supporting the Holman Field Dike for one corporate exec.Mark Baker, the President of Gander Mountain. While I was being sarcastic, about the President of Gander Mtn, the amount of time a few corporate executives and sales people will save having to drive from Holman Field to MSP is clearly minimal.
I went to Mapquest and it is exactly 9.59 miles and 17 minutes from Gander Mountains new corporate headquarters at 180 East Fifth Street to Signature Flight Services Terminal at 3800 East 70th Street at the Minneapolis Airport. So we are talking about a distance of 9 miles and 17 minutes.
http://www.stpaul.gov/mayor/newsroom/sep2304b.html
Gee, I wish someone would spend $30 million doillars for me, so I could save 17 minutes when I have to go to the airport.
Dann Dobson
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 costsor > 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]
jim
--
"Religious fundamentalism is the biggest threat to international security that exists today."
United Nations Secretary General B.B.Ghali, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom..." -- Benito Mussilini, 1932
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf -- The GOP agrees
-------------------------------------------------
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/
