Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 95

Thread: Lancaster Airport owners seek buyer

  1. #76
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150

    Georgia L Schlager

  2. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    gorja, if I haven't said it before--I'll say it again--your research skills is amazing.

    I went on your websites you provided:

    2001 - 2005 BQR/Lancaster Airport had 50 aircraft denoted

    2005 - 2009 BQR/Lancaster Airport had 17 aircraft denoted

    2007 - 2011 BQR/Lancaster Airport had 47 aircraft denoted

    2011 - 2015 BQR/Lancaster Airport has 37 aircraft denoted

    SO TOM GELES STILL CONTINUES TO REPORT 70 AIRCRAFT TO DATE so as usual Tom Geles continues to provide false and misleading information.

    The FAA however continues to "look the other way" when Passaro & Tom Geles provide the wrong information to get TOP $$$.

    Oh the flights are only 3,000 less than International--is that something else or what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    gorja, if I haven't said it before--I'll say it again--your research skills is amazing.

    I went on your websites you provided:

    2001 - 2005 BQR/Lancaster Airport had 50 aircraft denoted

    2005 - 2009 BQR/Lancaster Airport had 17 aircraft denoted

    2007 - 2011 BQR/Lancaster Airport had 47 aircraft denoted

    2011 - 2015 BQR/Lancaster Airport has 37 aircraft denoted

    SO TOM GELES STILL CONTINUES TO REPORT 70 AIRCRAFT TO DATE so as usual Tom Geles continues to provide false and misleading information.

    The FAA however continues to "look the other way" when Passaro & Tom Geles provide the wrong information to get TOP $$$.

    Oh the flights are only 3,000 less than International--is that something else or what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    As someone who read the 2006 Lancaster Airport master plan, attended numerous town board, private and the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on the violation of the Special Use permit and the exceeding of the 25% ordained airport extension, read of some of the land transfer deals, it became quite obvious this project was froth with inaccurate information, overblown projections and whatever means could be used to justify a reliever airport status than is unjustifiable. This project stunk from the get-go and the Safe Aviation Coalition is to be commended for the time, effort and money they put into the research and for the legal fee to bring to light all that is wrong with this project.

    In turn, they are being labeled by a few individuals as NIMBY'S who should have known better that there was an airport when they moved into their homes - homes that were purchased for the most part when the airport was near defunct with less than 10 aircraft in use. One would have to expect that the unkind remarks are coming from the aircraft hobbyists or individuals that have no concept of the millions of dollars that are being misspent on a project that favors but a few, creates no jobs and adds little to the town in property taxes or general revenue.

  4. #79
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    As someone who read the 2006 Lancaster Airport master plan, attended numerous town board, private and the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on the violation of the Special Use permit and the exceeding of the 25% ordained airport extension, read of some of the land transfer deals, it became quite obvious this project was froth with inaccurate information, overblown projections and whatever means could be used to justify a reliever airport status than is unjustifiable. This project stunk from the get-go and the Safe Aviation Coalition is to be commended for the time, effort and money they put into the research and for the legal fee to bring to light all that is wrong with this project.

    In turn, they are being labeled by a few individuals as NIMBY'S who should have known better that there was an airport when they moved into their homes - homes that were purchased for the most part when the airport was near defunct with less than 10 aircraft in use. One would have to expect that the unkind remarks are coming from the aircraft hobbyists or individuals that have no concept of the millions of dollars that are being misspent on a project that favors but a few, creates no jobs and adds little to the town in property taxes or general revenue.
    Yes, if it weren't for SACL who knows what safety issues the residents would be facing now if their expansion would have been allowed to proceed

    Georgia L Schlager

  5. #80
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    234
    [QUOTE=Lancaster Resident;903272]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post

    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….
    Since a number of posters have been pointing out false and misleading information the Lancaster airport has used to obtained large amounts of taxpayer money from the FAA, I thought I would post one that I find the particularly outrageous. In the airport's 2006 Master Plan Section 6.14 (Noise) they submitted to get FAA grant money they stated "Given the nature of the surrounding lands, there is no noise sensitive area that could be a source of complaints”. Yet in 2006 the then airport manager also sent letters out to the pilots alerting them to the noise sensitive area on Nichter Rd. during takeoff. He also sent a letter to the residents on Nichter Rd. letting them know that the airport is aware of the noise problem they were now facing due to the takeoff flight pattern change that the airport had just instituted. So the airport's own documents show that they were blatently and intentionally misleading in their Master Plan. Yet, Mr. Felix at the FAA says he doesn't think they intentionally lied, even though he was made fully aware of this according to my contact in SACL! One has to wonder how bad things have to get before people are held accountable!

  6. #81
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    [QUOTE=Lancaster Resident;907250]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancaster Resident View Post

    Since a number of posters have been pointing out false and misleading information the Lancaster airport has used to obtained large amounts of taxpayer money from the FAA, I thought I would post one that I find the particularly outrageous. In the airport's 2006 Master Plan Section 6.14 (Noise) they submitted to get FAA grant money they stated "Given the nature of the surrounding lands, there is no noise sensitive area that could be a source of complaints”. Yet in 2006 the then airport manager also sent letters out to the pilots alerting them to the noise sensitive area on Nichter Rd. during takeoff. He also sent a letter to the residents on Nichter Rd. letting them know that the airport is aware of the noise problem they were now facing due to the takeoff flight pattern change that the airport had just instituted. So the airport's own documents show that they were blatently and intentionally misleading in their Master Plan. Yet, Mr. Felix at the FAA says he doesn't think they intentionally lied, even though he was made fully aware of this according to my contact in SACL! One has to wonder how bad things have to get before people are held accountable!
    That certainly was a boldfaced lie not not an unintentional one. It just shows that the FAA when having grant money to dole out, they do so without any accountability of the recipient

    Georgia L Schlager

  7. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    234
    [QUOTE=gorja;907458]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancaster Resident View Post

    That certainly was a boldfaced lie not not an unintentional one. It just shows that the FAA when having grant money to dole out, they do so without any accountability of the recipient
    I have never been involved in a grant from the FAA, however I am familiar with a different grant program from the Federal Government. In that case there are very serious consequences for providing false and misleading information in the grant applications. So it is very shocking that the FAA just looks the other way when someone is exposed red handed doing this! It is also interesting that Passero Associates has handled these grants for the Lancaster Airport, as well as the FAA AIP grant applications for the Syracuse Suburban Airport that you posted the newspaper links to in your earlier post in this thread. This makes one wonder if Passero Associates is advising their clients to just say whatever needs to be said, truth be damned, in the grant applications to get the FAA and NYSDOT grant money. Perhaps Passero Associates needs to be investigated along with the Lancaster Airport, the Syracuse Suburban Airport, and others Passero Associates has participated in the FAA AIP grant applications process with? They certainly are profiting from doing this....

  8. #83
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    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


    gorja, I just read these two articles you posted and found some similiarities as well as key factors.

    This airstrip Syracuse Suburban Airport in Oswego County demonstrated some valleys of "where did the money go." Dave Tobin the Post editor quotes , "An Oswego County. airfield bought and renoveated with $3 million in federal money has become a financial black hole for nearly everyone involved."

    For starters when relating this to our current airstrip in Lancaster-that about sums it up-- Black Hole.

    The similarities--Both airstrips filed a Chapter 7 & our airstrip Article 7-- both airstrips used the same engineering firm--Passaro Associates. The common denominator is the firm used to create a story by convincing the FAA that these airfields are "necessary to the economy."

    The FAA has bypassed proper protocol in establishing whether or not these airstrips qualify for "Reliever Status". According to the above article, "Under new FAA rules, Hastings couldn't quality, to be designated a reliever, an airport needed at least 100 based aircraft and 25,000 operations a year for starters."

    Even the FAA does not do their due diligence when they want something also.

    In the article, Airstrip to Nowhere--it represents frivolous spending of money that comes from passengers flying and mail delivery. One would think that since the FAA has a pot of over 200 million dollars to spend yearly that they would rather spend this money on updating the towers for traffic control or used for infrastructure purposes like major hubs runways for example.

    The other interesting part to this story which is similiar is the political component--Charles Schumer has played an intrical role in solidifying the funds to push the funding for all these rural/small airfields. His interest is superficial in my opinion. According to the article, "If it weren't for help froma US Senator Charles Schumer who successfully encouraged the FAA to bypass its own rules, the Hastings project might not be happening at all." Makes us wonder --it states that he wrote a letter to the FAA encouraging approval and a waiver of federal standards. Pretty scary ...
    Last edited by shortstuff; April 15th, 2012 at 12:22 PM.

  9. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    If the airport got an "income approach" why could every other business request the same?
    3 business valuation approaches
    3 fundamental ways to measure what a business is worth

    asset approach
    what will it cost to create another business like this one

    market approach
    what are other businesses worth that are similiar to my business

    income approach
    look at the core reason for running a business
    making money

  10. #85
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by reformthi$ View Post
    3 business valuation approaches
    3 fundamental ways to measure what a business is worth

    asset approach
    what will it cost to create another business like this one

    market approach
    what are other businesses worth that are similiar to my business

    income approach
    look at the core reason for running a business
    making money
    You are correct but that doesn't justify why one business would pay their taxes based on on another factor compared to another business.

    If property/school taxes are based on property value that is what it is. You can't have 20 businesses asking to base their property taxes on the income the business generates while others pay differently. Wouldn't be fair.

  11. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    496
    right-bingo
    open the doors to justify what
    conformity is a hot commodity
    it takes one business
    others will follow

  12. #87
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    113
    Chuck Schumer is the person responsible for getting funding for BQR. Now that there are problems, we have not been able to get a response from Mr. Schumer. He loves the camera but only when it makes him look good. He wants to avoid this topic. Time to vote him out of office.

    Articles from gorja's post:

    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

  13. #88
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by KevinL:
    Chuck Schumer is the person responsible for getting funding for BQR. Now that there are problems, we have not been able to get a response from Mr. Schumer. He loves the camera but only when it makes him look good. He wants to avoid this topic. Time to vote him out of office.
    Here's a few of Schumer's braggadocios (if that's a word) press releases-
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 31, 2004
    SCHUMER: BUFFALO-LANCASTER AIRPORT TO RECEIVE OVER $58,000
    Money will be used to construct a T-Hanger building
    US Senator Charles E. Schumer today announced that the US Department of Transportation has awarded $58,898 in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grants to Buffalo-Lancaster Airport for airport building constructions.
    “Safe and secure air service, both private and commercial, is a critical engine of Western New York's continued economic growth,” said Schumer. “This funding will improve the flow of aircraft traffic and safety at the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport so that it can meet today's modern aviation demands.”
    Buffalo-Lancaster Airport will use the funds to construct a T-Hanger building to house small and private jets.
    Schumer also announced that the US Department of Transportation will provide $300,000 for the Syracuse Suburban Airport to conduct an airport master plan study and rehabilitate a runway. The Lake Placid Airport will also receive $93,571 to conduct an environmental assessment in the airport's master plan study.
    http://schumer.senate.gov/Newsroom/r...89&&year=2004&
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 16, 2007
    SCHUMER, CLINTON ANNOUNCE OVER $1.2 MILLION FOR ERIE COUNTY AIRPORTS
    Federal Money Will be Used for Buffalo-Lancaster Airport, Buffalo Airfield and Akron Airport Improvements
    Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that the US Department of Transportation has awarded three grants amounting to $1,223,927 in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funds for airports in ErieCounty. The Lancaster Airport, Inc. will receive $1,053,024 for Buffalo-Lancaster Airport, to be used to acquire land for development and construct taxiway. The Buffalo Airfield, Inc. will receive $123,744 for Buffalo Airfield runway and taxi rehabilitation. The Christian Airmen’s Fellowship will receive $47,159 for AkronAirport to build a new apron.
    http://schumer.senate.gov/Newsroom/r...71&&year=2007&
    For Immediate Release
    Senators Schumer and Clinton Welcome New Funding for Buffalo- Lancaster Regional Airport
    August 13, 2008
    WASHINGTON, DC - Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced a new investment in the Buffalo-Lancaster Regional Airport. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has awarded the airport $214,651 in federal funds for a needed runway extension.
    These funds are a great step forward in making much-needed improvements to the Buffalo-Lancaster Regional airport. Extending the runway at this regional airport will give a critical boost to the airport's effectiveness and efficiency.

    Georgia L Schlager

  14. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Here's a few of Schumer's braggadocios (if that's a word) press releases-
    Great research again Gorja. Well that explains why Schumer is hiding his head in the sand on the issue of the Lancaster Airport obtaining FAA grants under very questionable circumstances. He used his political influence to help waste taxpayer money on a number of these airports in NYS. It seems what is needed is for a truely independent body, with the teeth to really hold people accountable, to investigate the FAA AIP program in depth and put an end to this. There are so many critical needs for valuable taxpayer money now that to continue waste like this is totally intolerable. Even using the AIP money only for more upgrades at commercial airports, like modernizing the air traffic control technology, would have been a far better use of this money. The FAA largely ignores the NTSB's safety recommendations, and we all know how they resisted needed changes as a result of the 3407 crash, so they really need an internal shakeup and an external watchdog to keep them in line now. This is another case of big government out of control....

  15. #90
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Great research again Gorja. Well that explains why Schumer is hiding his head in the sand on the issue of the Lancaster Airport obtaining FAA grants under very questionable circumstances. He used his political influence to help waste taxpayer money on a number of these airports in NYS.
    Well they need to try to justify why we pay them what we do.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 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
  •