Lancaster Airport owners seek buyer

[4248]

Its not really fair to blame mainstream media ! When it comes to what is usually printed in the Bufnews or most TV stations(especially Puke Mottetti) - they don't have the time to investigate. They tend to use whats handed to them - they don't consider personal agendas or political motives.

They have a portion of time and space to fill - how could they possibly take the needed time to dig any deeper. You cant blame them because press releases are more thought out than their articles - they cant possibly have as many people working on each story as the tax funded - private interests folks do.

Look at how many past reporters Lancaster has had - if they start getting close to fair and balanced - the controlling members have them replaced.

What has been giving me and others hope is the fact that more and more of them(mainstream writers) are visiting sites like this one. They cant help but to see some of the story isn't in the press packages they receive. Thats a good thing. Now if they would just learn that no ten word correction or retraction can ever undue the false or misleading info in their original article.

We can always hope that "Fair and balanced" will some day be fact instead of a catch phrase.

[Lee Chowaniec]

[QUOTE=KevinL;902930]

Facts will get you nowhere in Lancaster, KevinL. People are more apt to believe the airport owner who has the backing of the FFA and the backing of the old Town Board. Very true Lee....

The master plan to this day was never approved by the town board...

Thank you Kevin L for opening that door.

You have done more research into the matter that anyone I know. You have uncovered and exposed numerous instances when incorrect information was presented by the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport (BLA), the town and the FAA.

I well remember your letter to the FAA where you wrote:

To date, we have not found one town resolution or meeting that discussed or provided information to the general public on accepting master plans for 1995 and/or 2006. Certain projects have been pulled and approved (ex: two hangers). The Town of Lancaster Clerk has never had a 2006 updated master plan. We were forced to request a copy through our Congressman.

You are correct in stating that the town never officially approved the master plan, but you wouldn’t know it from the way the town supported the project – right up to giving the permits for the expansion to take place. Or did the airport expand without the necessary permits in place, because like hell, who would ever check into the matter. And, BLA owner Tom Geles openly stated at town board and other meetings that if not for the town, he would never have received the $10 million in federal and state grants.

There have been so many untruths associated with this project and so much taxpayer money invested in it, where three IDAS were granted and for so little projected return.

The FFA has designated BLA a regional reliever airport along with three others and has poured $32 million into the Niagara International Airport and not one of them is near capacity. And the BLA owner is crying about his tax load ($60,000 on 141 acres of property) and wants to be assessed on income because he s not doing so well. He wants the sucker taxpayers to pony up more money so he can further expand and just maybe become more profitable.

No wonder there were no public hearings on the matter. The town and FFA would have been exposed as to the inappropriate manner this expansion took place.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Its not really fair to blame mainstream media ! When it comes to what is usually printed in the Bufnews or most TV stations(especially Puke Mottetti) - they don't have the time to investigate. They tend to use whats handed to them - they don't consider personal agendas or political motives.

They have a portion of time and space to fill - how could they possibly take the needed time to dig any deeper. You cant blame them because press releases are more thought out than their articles - they cant possibly have as many people working on each story as the tax funded - private interests folks do.

Look at how many past reporters Lancaster has had - if they start getting close to fair and balanced - the controlling members have them replaced.

What has been giving me and others hope is the fact that more and more of them(mainstream writers) are visiting sites like this one. They cant help but to see some of the story isn't in the press packages they receive. Thats a good thing. Now if they would just learn that no ten word correction or retraction can ever undue the false or misleading info in their original article.

We can always hope that "Fair and balanced" will some day be fact instead of a catch phrase.

Buffalo News reporter Steve Watson has been a pleasnt surprise since he took over the Lancaster beat last year. More and more he is doing research, interviewing individuals with different viewpoints to get both sides of the story, and most importanly, to get the story right.

So refreshing from some past reporters who were taken into the supervisor's lair and told what to write, and/or mailing it in from the packet of information received from the Town Clerk.

Now this packet of information that contains the Town Board meeting agenda, the pre-filed resolutions and communications can be accessed on the town's website and people need to know what took place at the meeting.

So too has the reporting improved with the Lancaster Bee's new reporter and the Lancaster Source now that the reporter is no longer worried about being admonished by the supervisor for writing something that may not favor the town's position.

The residents of Lancaster need to know what is actually taking place in their town, the good and the bad - not only the good as presented by the town.

Fair and balanced? More so than ever!

[ichingtheory]

Buffalo News reporter Steve Watson has been a pleasnt surprise since he took over the Lancaster beat last year. More and more he is doing research, interviewing individuals with different viewpoints to get both sides of the story, and most importanly, to get the story right.

So refreshing from some past reporters who were taken into the supervisor's lair and told what to write, and/or mailing it in from the packet of information received from the Town Clerk.

Now this packet of information that contains the Town Board meeting agenda, the pre-filed resolutions and communications can be accessed on the town's website and people need to know what took place at the meeting.

So too has the reporting improved with the Lancaster Bee's new reporter and the Lancaster Source now that the reporter is no longer worried about being admonished by the supervisor for writing something that may not favor the town's position.

The residents of Lancaster need to know what is actually taking place in their town, the good and the bad - not only the good as presented by the town.

Fair and balanced? More so than ever!

I agree Lee. I see a huge difference along with many of my neighbors.

[Lancaster Resident]

[QUOTE=Lee Chowaniec;903161]

Thank you Kevin L for opening that door.

You have done more research into the matter that anyone I know. You have uncovered and exposed numerous instances when incorrect information was presented by the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport (BLA), the town and the FAA.

I well remember your letter to the FAA where you wrote:

To date, we have not found one town resolution or meeting that discussed or provided information to the general public on accepting master plans for 1995 and/or 2006. Certain projects have been pulled and approved (ex: two hangers). The Town of Lancaster Clerk has never had a 2006 updated master plan. We were forced to request a copy through our Congressman.

You are correct in stating that the town never officially approved the master plan, but you wouldn’t know it from the way the town supported the project – right up to giving the permits for the expansion to take place. Or did the airport expand without the necessary permits in place, because like hell, who would ever check into the matter. And, BLA owner Tom Geles openly stated at town board and other meetings that if not for the town, he would never have received the $10 million in federal and state grants.

There have been so many untruths associated with this project and so much taxpayer money invested in it, where three IDAS were granted and for so little projected return.

The FFA has designated BLA a regional reliever airport along with three others and has poured $32 million into the Niagara International Airport and not one of them is near capacity. And the BLA owner is crying about his tax load ($60,000 on 141 acres of property) and wants to be assessed on income because he s not doing so well. He wants the sucker taxpayers to pony up more money so he can further expand and just maybe become more profitable.

No wonder there were no public hearings on the matter. The town and FFA would have been exposed as to the inappropriate manner this expansion took place.

If you want to be even more outraged, here is some additional information I obtained from my contact within SACL. SACL contacted FAA official Mr. Tom Felix, Manager of Eastern Region, Airports Division - Planning & Programming Branch of the FAA, regarding the false and misleading statements the Lancaster Airport has made in their 2006 Master Plan and 2007 Environmental Assessment that was submitted to the FAA to obtain their substantial expansion grant money. Mr. Felix’s response was: the New York Airport District Office of the FAA reviewed and accepted the 2006 Master Plan. The Master Plan is a sponsor document and is not approved by the FAA. However, in reviewing the information, we do not consider the statements in the Master Plan to be intentionally misleading.
Think about this reply. The FAA “reviews and accepts” these documents for supporting the airport grant applications but does not “approve” them. So you can say anything you want in these documents. Exaggerations, false information, omitted key information, and outright lies can be submitted in these documents to obtain huge amounts of taxpayer money with no consequences. Also consider Mr. Felix’s sweeping this under the rug by saying “we do not consider the statements in the Master Plan to be INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING”. The statements he is referring to are so obviously false and misleading, and consequently in favor of the airport receiving the grants when they should not, that this response is totally mind blowing.
The Lancaster Airport receiving about $10M in taxpayer money from the FAA in this way, makes one wonder how many other airports across the country have likewise received large amounts of taxpayer money from the FAA with false and misleading supporting documents? This may be a large national story. Mr. Watson may want to penetrate this issue much deeper….

[ichingtheory]

They keep their reliever airport status when they don't fall within the guidelines for a reliever airport with the FAA. They receive IDA incentives when they don't fall within the LIDA's mission statement criteria for job creation. They receive a reduction on their property assessment on land purchased with taxpayer dollars. They had several expansions with out a public hearing, yet the owner complains of high taxes and strict regulations.

Frustrating, isn't it?? If memory serves, we were told that they keep their reliever status since they are "grandfathered"...

[shortstuff]

They keep their reliever airport status when they don't fall within the guidelines for a reliever airport with the FAA. They receive IDA incentives when they don't fall within the LIDA's mission statement criteria for job creation. They receive a reduction on their property assessment on land purchased with taxpayer dollars. They had several expansions with out a public hearing, yet the owner complains of high taxes and strict regulations.

You know gorja, if the school district had to reinburse the Lancaster Airport $25.500, I wonder how much the Town/County had to reinburse the Lancaster Airport?

This story with the Lancaster Airport is a story that needed to be told, IMO. This story began many years ago when the fight for rights started. Throughout the years I am finding that more and more people are standing up for their rights. The residents no matter what town you live in, the rise in taxes are at the level now that it is unsustainable--when it reaches that level we have an uprise of citizens speaking out "Enough is Enough!"

Fact be known, the Lancaster Airport has finally come to the crossroads where it looks like the "worm has turned."

[4248]

I was not in any way trying to down play recent shift in reporting or its writer. Its refreshing to see and read a more expanding view point. Its been frustrating for many of us over the years. Some of us have invited them in (reporters) and offered contrasting views - believed fair and balanced was a play - only to be the subject of "Selective" reporting and in some cases deliberate assassination. A moment is time is not history -

The full affect of the air strips tax dodging is still a dark area - home owners need more info - not just a article that says, "Air Strip expansion approved" - or - "Billy's bikes to create new jobs" - the total and extent of actual subsidies should be exposed prior to these articles being published and I for one believe the press/media should play a larger role in those areas.

[BorderBob]

Is this the airport???? Where is the conflicting development? I see the warehouse short of the approach for RWY #8 but the subdivisions are more than a mile away. There are more houses short of KBUF #5 than showing here.




b.b.


KBRQ.jpg

[KevinL]

In 1966, the owners of the airport and the Town of Lancaster entered into a special use permit agreement allowing the airport to operate with restrictions. Without getting into too much detail, the airport, under this agreement would only be allowed to have approximately 30 acres and one hanger with 13 bays. To date, we have not discovered any documentation that this agreement was nulified or removed. The fact that the FAA granted the airport funding for land purchases should not in any way interfere with the town, county or state from controling the land use under their jurisdiction. The tax issue with the airport, in my opinion, was not handled correctly by the legal parties for the town and/or school board. Why would you put all the land purchased by the airport under one SBL when above land restictions apply. While the Town or County could not stop Lancaster Airport Inc. from purchasing properties over and above the 30 acres, they do not have to recognize this property as airport use only.
The agreement between the FAA and the private airport owners is a problem between these two parties only and should not be used to reflect any restrictions on any other local goverment.

Any and all other buildings and property owned by Lancaster Airport Inc. in excess of above should not be considered as airport use by the Town or County. County property and tax maps should be changed to reflect the properities properly at the expense of Lancaster Airport Inc.

[gorja]

Kevin L, does the 25% expansion prohibition include land?

[KevinL]

Kevin L, does the 25% expansion prohibition include land?

Yes... they cannot expand beyond 30 acre parcel.

[gorja]

So, if the other 110.71 acres that are above and beyond the 30 acres were classified as non-airport use, should that acreage be assessed using the market approach rather than the income approach which was used in lowering their assessment?

[shortstuff]

The airport wanted the income approach, but from what I read--they went with the market approach because there is no income generated from the airport. That is the issue when referring to the 3 IDA's they received relative to what the criteria is anyways.

This town should be lucky that we have a reporter like Steve Watson reporting the news.

[KevinL]

So, if the other 110.71 acres that are above and beyond the 30 acres were classified as non-airport use, should that acreage be assessed using the market approach rather than the income approach which was used in lowering their assessment?

Yes, that would make sense in the real world, wouldn't it?