Lancaster Airport-New Thread

[shortstuff]

Part I & Part II of the article Lee wrote is informative. It raises the bar when you see how politics affects a town economically.

The economic crisis that has all of us scraping to make our bills, we are reminded that we have a political dog and pony show that is strangling the american people.

It is one thing to move progress smartly, it is another to move progress with misleading information to meet "political" needs and not the people's needs.

I am encouraging the people of Lancaster to make your officials accountable for their decisions that does not meet the needs of the~~taxpayers.

Write letters to your congressman, write letters to your governor let your voices be heard. No more waste and frivolous spending of our taxpayer monies.

Good article Lee.

[4248]

As with the new license plate scam/tax - you can make a difference. Our emails did turn the tide. Governor Patterson said, "Our email system was over loaded and went down."

Every person who made a phone call, wrote a letter, sent emails - Everyone succeeded in staving off another unjust tax. Maybe not for ever, but you can rest assured you were heard in Albany.

Congratulations! Its not time to rest on the Lancaster Airport Issue - letters still need to be written to our elected officials. Call Mr.Giza and tell him how you feel - he says, "I work 40-50 hours a week" - so call his office, he's waiting to hear from each and every one of us.

Roads, water, sewer, Parks, Highway Department, Town Parks, Property questions - what ever:
Call:
Supervisor Bob Giza
21 Central Ave.
Lancaster,NY
683-1328

[Lee Chowaniec]

Damn Airport NIMBY’s

“They should just stop their whining and not try to make the Lancaster Airport expansion project into more than it is.” Well, at least that’s what the town, the airport, FFA and some writers on the message boards would like you to believe.

The Safe Aviation Coalition (SAC) is not made up of only Nichter Road residents, but has supporters who live not only within the flight pattern but throughout town. They have appeared at Town Board meetings, the meeting held at the airport hangar (to reach compromise) and some even write on the message board.

There safety and quality of life concerns have been well documented and supported. It is unfortunate they received no like support from the Town Board. But setting that aspect aside, I find it interesting that the rock throwers on this subject matter are not focused on the tax dollars that have been spent, and will be spent, on expanding a private airport that was near defunct, was deemed a reliever airport for the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport and will not be used to service, most likely, 90 percent of the public.

Taxpayers will be footing $12 million to expand an airport that most likely is not even needed. $32 million of taxpayer money was spent to improve the Niagara International Airport and it has been reported in the media that they are grossly under-utilized and are advertising for business.

I find it interesting that no one is carping about the three IDA’s that were given to the airport for the stated purpose of keeping hangar fees lows and with no promise of job creation. And we taxpayers make up the difference in lost revenue. Has the number of based small aircraft at the airport increased primarily because of the lower hangar fees? Do we need jet service in the area to service and convenience but a few customers at the expense of the taxpayer? Who really profits from this enterprise? Is this another example of government waste at the expense of the taxpayer?

I find it interesting that the Town Assessor recently stated that he will assess the 20 acres of Ecology & Environment (E&E) purchased by the airport (with federal/state funding) at $938,000; the arms-length sale purchase price. The Assessor also states that most likely the town will be taken to court and challenged over the full market assessed value. The airport paid $938,000 for approximately 50 percent of land with two buildings on it that was assessed at $1.2 million. The purchase price was outrageous. It was bought with taxpayer money, but this doesn’t seem to bother some of you.

There now are many underlying issues and concerns that have been uncovered during research since SAC and their supporters were told that they should have known better when they moved near the airport; or that the airport was there before them. The airport has been there since 1968, but not declared a reliever airport until 1991 (or 1993 depending on what document you read). At that time there were many homes built near the airport. You just don’t tell people they should have known better when they moved into their houses 30 (and more years ago), that they should just move and/or that they have no right to voice their opinions without expecting push back.

But let’s forget about all the facts and reason for opposition, let’s just discredit the opposition and call them NIMBY’s, whiners and worse; the usual diversionary tactic. That’s how the game is played.

[KevinL]

Damn Airport NIMBY’s

“They should just stop their whining and not try to make the Lancaster Airport expansion project into more than it is.” Well, at least that’s what the town, the airport, FFA and some writers on the message boards would like you to believe.

The Safe Aviation Coalition (SAC) is not made up of only Nichter Road residents, but has supporters who live not only within the flight pattern but throughout town. They have appeared at Town Board meetings, the meeting held at the airport hangar (to reach compromise) and some even write on the message board.

There safety and quality of life concerns have been well documented and supported. It is unfortunate they received no like support from the Town Board. But setting that aspect aside, I find it interesting that the rock throwers on this subject matter are not focused on the tax dollars that have been spent, and will be spent, on expanding a private airport that was near defunct, was deemed a reliever airport for the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport and will not be used to service, most likely, 90 percent of the public.

Taxpayers will be footing $12 million to expand an airport that most likely is not even needed. $32 million of taxpayer money was spent to improve the Niagara International Airport and it has been reported in the media that they are grossly under-utilized and are advertising for business.

I find it interesting that no one is carping about the three IDA’s that were given to the airport for the stated purpose of keeping hangar fees lows and with no promise of job creation. And we taxpayers make up the difference in lost revenue. Has the number of based small aircraft at the airport increased primarily because of the lower hangar fees? Do we need jet service in the area to service and convenience but a few customers at the expense of the taxpayer? Who really profits from this enterprise? Is this another example of government waste at the expense of the taxpayer?

I find it interesting that the Town Assessor recently stated that he will assess the 20 acres of Ecology & Environment (E&E) purchased by the airport (with federal/state funding) at $938,000; the arms-length sale purchase price. The Assessor also states that most likely the town will be taken to court and challenged over the full market assessed value. The airport paid $938,000 for approximately 50 percent of land with two buildings on it that was assessed at $1.2 million. The purchase price was outrageous. It was bought with taxpayer money, but this doesn’t seem to bother some of you.

There now are many underlying issues and concerns that have been uncovered during research since SAC and their supporters were told that they should have known better when they moved near the airport; or that the airport was there before them. The airport has been there since 1968, but not declared a reliever airport until 1991 (or 1993 depending on what document you read). At that time there were many homes built near the airport. You just don’t tell people they should have known better when they moved into their houses 30 (and more years ago), that they should just move and/or that they have no right to voice their opinions without expecting push back.

But let’s forget about all the facts and reason for opposition, let’s just discredit the opposition and call them NIMBY’s, whiners and worse; the usual diversionary tactic. That’s how the game is played.

Great points Lee. I myself cannot understand how Lancaster Airport qualifies for IDA breaks and wish someone explain how IDA breaks benefit Lancaster. I just don't get it!! Airport produces nothing and has no plans on hiring. As far as I can tell, the only reason airport survives is due to federal & state funds. Add IDA's on top of that and I doubt airport contributes anything. Low hanger costs are pulling pilots away from other airports & air parks. How is that a plus?

[KevinL]

As with the new license plate scam/tax - you can make a difference. Our emails did turn the tide. Governor Patterson said, "Our email system was over loaded and went down."

Every person who made a phone call, wrote a letter, sent emails - Everyone succeeded in staving off another unjust tax. Maybe not for ever, but you can rest assured you were heard in Albany.

Congratulations! Its not time to rest on the Lancaster Airport Issue - letters still need to be written to our elected officials. Call Mr.Giza and tell him how you feel - he says, "I work 40-50 hours a week" - so call his office, he's waiting to hear from each and every one of us.

Roads, water, sewer, Parks, Highway Department, Town Parks, Property questions - what ever:
Call:
Supervisor Bob Giza
21 Central Ave.
Lancaster,NY
683-1328

I actually wrote Governor Patterson regarding airport issue. I gave up on Mr. Giza as it is obvious he does not want town involvement.

[shortstuff]

It does focus us to the main points:

--MONEY -------MONEY ----------MONEY

Why? This hub adventure has not paid much in taxes, the town taxpayers pick up the rest.

Why? Land sold to such a substantial amount of money, will change the valuation of the land.

Why? Hangar rates so low, that it puts an edge on the other competing airports

Why? Gas rates lower than anywhere in the COUNTRY, that costs taxpayers money for we pay the tax on that fuel

Why? Why? Why?

To effect the quality of life.

[gorja]

New flight pattern???

http://www.erie.gov/lancaster/pdfs/a...da12.07.09.pdf
On the upcoming Town Board agenda, there is a letter or communication from the Lancaster airport-

464. Lancaster Airport to Town Board
Update of suggested flight pattern when departing Buffalo-Lancaster Airport.
DISPOSITION =

Are they planning on changing the departure flight pattern? Is this suggested flight pattern a good change for SAC?

[shortstuff]

New flight pattern???



Are they planning on changing the departure flight pattern? Is this suggested flight pattern a good change for SAC?

interesting. thanx

[ichingtheory]

New flight pattern???



Are they planning on changing the departure flight pattern? Is this suggested flight pattern a good change for SAC?

Not sure what they are up to but whatever it is, FAA has to approve any flight change. Letter to town will probably be noted and filed only. I guess we will have to get a copy to see what is going on.

[TTDeathInLan]

After all the questions to the assessor, why has no one asked him what the assessed value will be after the building(s) are bulldozed?

It seems everyone only focused on the purchase price of the. "improved property". Once the improvements are removed, will the property revert back to its original status, and assessed as such.

It's my understanding that State law for property value cannot be tied to the selling price of the property. The value must be equated to other like kind properties. If the buildings are bulldozed for the airport runway expansion, you are looking at open land and the valuation of open land on the Walden Ave. corridor.

[gorja]

Originally posted by TTDeathInLan:
After all the questions to the assessor, why has no one asked him what the assessed value will be after the building(s) are bulldozed?

It seems everyone only focused on the purchase price of the. "improved property". Once the improvements are removed, will the property revert back to its original status, and assessed as such.

It's my understanding that State law for property value cannot be tied to the selling price of the property. The value must be equated to other like kind properties. If the buildings are bulldozed for the airport runway expansion, you are looking at open land and the valuation of open land on the Walden Ave. corridor.

That's a very valid point if there are buildings on it.

But why does the assessor refer to it as vacant land?

Originally posted by DMarrano:
In the case of the airport purchase of the E&E property, since it was only on the vacant land, there was no IDA PILOT on it, so the airport will not have an IDA on the land .

[shortstuff]

After all the questions to the assessor, why has no one asked him what the assessed value will be after the building(s) are bulldozed?

It seems everyone only focused on the purchase price of the. "improved property". Once the improvements are removed, will the property revert back to its original status, and assessed as such.

It's my understanding that State law for property value cannot be tied to the selling price of the property. The value must be equated to other like kind properties. If the buildings are bulldozed for the airport runway expansion, you are looking at open land and the valuation of open land on the Walden Ave. corridor.

and welcome to the thread. I love collabrative ideas. Many of us tend to miss something. Thank you. Valid, and we will ask that question.

[therising]

First of all, I thought that there were no buildings on the E&E property.

Secondly, does anyone know how much land was conveyed? 10 acres, 20 acres, etc?

Finally, and correct me if you think I'm wrong -- but I get the feeling that if the assessor had said the land would be assessed lowed than the $940k sale price, that many of you would be angry. But, now he has indicated that it will, likely, be assessed for that amount....yet you're still all up in arms.

[Lee Chowaniec]

First of all, I thought that there were no buildings on the E&E property.

After sale, there are two buildings on the 14 acres of E&E property remaining.

Secondly, does anyone know how much land was conveyed? 10 acres, 20 acres, etc?

20 of the total 34 acres were purchased by the airport - no buildings on the property conveyed.

Finally, and correct me if you think I'm wrong -- but I get the feeling that if the assessor had said the land would be assessed lowed than the $940k sale price, that many of you would be angry. But, now he has indicated that it will, likely, be assessed for that amount....yet you're still all up in arms.

It is my understanding that everyone is pleased that the assessor declared that he will assess the property purchased by the airport for $938,000 - an arms-length sale. Market value is market value.

[ichingtheory]

It is my understanding that everyone is pleased that the assessor declared that he will assess the property purchased by the airport for $938,000 - an arms-length sale. Market value is market value.

We are happy with Dave's decision.