Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 95

Thread: Lancaster Airport owners seek buyer

  1. #61
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    Sorry gorja if I confused you. I came back and read it to see what you meant, and darn I confused myself....ha ha ha ha ha oh well glad KevnL gave you a different scenerio. It must be a guy thing that understands stuff like that.
    Shortie, I'm easily confused

    Georgia L Schlager

  2. #62
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinL View Post
    Hi gorja,
    Yes, the 111 acres mentioned should have been valued as vacant & marketable land not associated as airport use land. There is no proof that original "special use permit" was ever altered or changed in any way. Just because airport owners approached the FAA, and the FAA never checked "facts" before giving them them grant money, this does not hold the Town, County or State accountable. THIS IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.
    KevinL,

    Are you saying that the when Town of Lancaster approved expansion beyond 25% (hangar construction) without a Zoning hearing, they should not be held accountable because the FAA had faulty research?

    Georgia L Schlager

  3. #63
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by LancasterResident:
    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….
    Yes, Lancaster resident. Here's an example of an airport near Oswego in 2009.
    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...businessm.html

    Here's the same airport in 2011

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...on_of_fed.html

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    KevinL,

    Are you saying that the when Town of Lancaster approved expansion beyond 25% (hangar construction) without a Zoning hearing, they should not be held accountable because the FAA had faulty research?
    gorja... Great question!! Just because bad goverance allowed the airport to build a few extra hangers that the town board and previous Supervisor approved, does not mean the complete special use permit should be tossed aside.

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    Why?

    A strip plaza that is empty produces no income and for the most part neither does a home. Do you really want developers building strip plazas that can sit empty and generate no property/school taxes?
    You value it on potential income, with a reasonable vacancy factor.

  6. #66
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    You value it on what it's worth and charge accordingly. Just like home owners are assessed. You know by now it is my opinion our "government" locally/state wise spends too much. Even with taking that into account everyone should pay like everyone else does.

    We would end up with spec buildings sitting empty all over our community.. WAIT... we sort of have that now

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    the rising, is the income approach what is used for the patio homes under the condo law? You know where someone builds the same $300,000 ranch home with one in a subdivision with condo status and one in a subdivision without condo status, which results in the home in the condo status subdivision receiving much lower tax bills.
    The answer is no. But I defer to Lee on matters on condo law.

    Theoretically, I do know why condos pay less, though. The provision was put in place because of area like NYC, where most condos are apartments in high-rises. As you may have hundreds of apartments in one building, sharing limited frontage, it does make sense that they pay slightly less in taxes.

    Unfortunately, that law hasn't been revised, and people living in patio homes throughout the State get to take advantage of it.

    Oh, and its therising - not the rising.

  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    You value it on what it's worth and charge accordingly. Just like home owners are assessed.
    Yes, you do value it on "what it's worth."

    But you jusy made a good argument for reducing the assessments of vacant plazas. Because a vacant retail plaza is not worth nearly as much as a fully leased plaza.

  9. #69
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinL View Post
    gorja... Great question!! Just because bad goverance allowed the airport to build a few extra hangers that the town board and previous Supervisor approved, does not mean the complete special use permit should be tossed aside.
    The lancaster airport has a Special Use permit, correct?
    They are also a non-conforming use, correct?
    They received 3 IDAs with NO job creation, correct?
    They have received $10,000,000 in fed and state grant money, correct?
    They just received a lower property tax assessment in which the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference, correct?

    If all the above is true, we have an airport with a special use permit and is of non-conforming use who violated the zoning ordinance on more than one occasions without a zoning hearing and this is a PRIVATE COMPANY who received $10,000,000 in taxpayer grant money plus 3 IDAs, plus lower property assessment. Who has more invested in this PRIVATE COMPANY the taxpayers or the owner?
    To top it off, they are a designated reliever airport who doesn't meet the FAA guidelines but was grandfathered in based on previous false information regarding their stats, correct?

    Georgia L Schlager

  10. #70
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by therising View Post
    The answer is no. But I defer to Lee on matters on condo law.

    Theoretically, I do know why condos pay less, though. The provision was put in place because of area like NYC, where most condos are apartments in high-rises. As you may have hundreds of apartments in one building, sharing limited frontage, it does make sense that they pay slightly less in taxes.

    Unfortunately, that law hasn't been revised, and people living in patio homes throughout the State get to take advantage of it.

    Oh, and its therising - not the rising.
    Thanks, therising. I'll try not to hit the space bar when addressing you.

    Georgia L Schlager

  11. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    Click on title for more info:
    Feds keep little-used airports in business

    The Williamsburg airport is the result of an obscure federal program that raises billions of dollars a year through taxes on every airplane ticket sold in the United States. The taxes can add up to 15% to the cost of a flight — or about $29 to a $200 round-trip ticket.

    Federal lawmakers have used some of the money to build and maintain the world's most expansive and expensive network of airports — 2,834 of them nationwide — with no scheduled passenger flights. Known as general-aviation airports, they operate separately from the 139 well-known commercial airports that handle almost all passenger flights.

    In the first full accounting of the 28-year-old Airport Improvement Program, USA TODAY found that Congress has directed $15 billion to general-aviation airports, which typically are tucked on country roads and industrial byways.

    Members of Congress say the general-aviation airports can attract development and provide services such as air-medical transport.

    The lawmakers also regularly use general-aviation airports to get around their districts and states, sometimes in planes with lobbyists. Members of Congress took 2,154 trips on corporate-owned jets from 2001 to 2006, according to a 2006 study by PoliticalMoneyLine, an independent research group.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  12. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    The map with this article indicates the Lancaster Airport has 30,000 take offs and landings - has recieved 22 grants and $8,736,598 +/- in grants.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  13. #73
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    The map with this article indicates the Lancaster Airport has 30,000 take offs and landings - has recieved 22 grants and $8,736,598 +/- in grants.
    It is also very hard to believe that Lancaster airport had only 3,300 less take offs and landings than Niagara International airport

    Georgia L Schlager

  14. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    17,449
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    The map with this article indicates the Lancaster Airport has 30,000 take offs and landings
    Is that annually? Doesn't seem possible.

  15. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    4248 wrote

    The map with this article indicates the Lancaster Airport has 30,000 take offs and landings
    Therising wrote:

    Is that annually? Doesn't seem possible.
    Of course that's not possible - today and especially in 2009 when the article was written.

    It is Tom Geles and Passero submitting inaccurate information to the media who publish what they are given by so-called experts who know better.

    It is no different than the declared 70 aircraft based at the Lancaster Airport when there are only 37. This reliever airport concept was ill-founded, is underutilized (and why the owner is screaming he is making no money and wants his property assessment lowered) and whose final intent is to spend the more than $10 million already spent to bring in some small jets to service moneyed corporate individuals and most likely entitled politicos.

    If there are anywhere near 30,000 takeoffs and landings the majority would come from the touch and go practice air flights (two flight schools) and from itinerant aircraft coming in to but some of that cheap fuel that was made possible by the three IDAS - and where there was no job creation.

    But hey, we have a country on the verge of bankruptcy and no one seems to give a rat's ass. It's just spend, spend, spend!

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster responds to Buffalo-Lancaster Airport flight pat
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 6th, 2011, 08:33 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 6th, 2011, 03:20 PM
  3. Resident questions Lancaster Town Board on Lancaster Airport SEQR; Part I
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 21st, 2009, 01:11 PM
  4. Buffalo-Lancaster Airport meeting, Part II: Airport, FFA, presentations continued
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 10th, 2009, 09:30 AM
  5. Buffalo-Lancaster Airport meeting, Part I: Airport, FFA, presentations
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 7th, 2009, 11:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •