Lancaster Airport Inc. seeks Town support

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Thanks again gorja. I must be getting old as I didn't remember these resolutions - most likely because there was no reason to at the time. The date is wrong on the one. It should be 7/21/03. At least others will know your data has been verified.

Thanks Lee for correcting my faux pas.

Game, set, match as far as the town board denying complicity in helping the airport receive state funding. But then again, even Lancaster Airport owner Tom Geles stated at a TB meeting early in 2009 that he found it onerous that the Town Board was in denial that it had helped make the airport expansion possible.


And they wonder why we don't place any trust in our local government. $12 million of taxpayer money pissed away on a project that brings little investment and revenue to the town. $28,000 in property taxes and less than $10,000 in fuel taxes on over a hundred acres of property.

These pilots just stop in to fuel up on the low prices, then stop back to top the tank off on the way home. They don't call for a rental car and spend money in town.

Who really profited from this fiasco? Gee, one would have to think the airport, the parties selling the land at grossly inflated values and .....? $938,000 for less than 20 acres of E&E property? Who was asleep at the wheel at the FAA?

With the profit E&E made on that sale, they shouldn't be crying poverty and asking for more IDAs.

It doesn't matter which government entity it is - state, fed, or local, they have no qualms about wasting taxpayer money.

All three pigs are responsible for the pork barrel spending on the Buffalo-Lancaster airport project.

Edit- Anyone know why the town board minutes index does not have the years - 2001 & 2002?

[4248]

The SAC group and anyone who cares should once again push Senator Dale Volker, Senator Schumer and the FAA to end funding this tax fed money pit.

volker@senate.state.ny.us
NYS Assembly:
Home Page: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us

click here to email Brian Higgins

Click here to email Charles Schumer

gwarner@buffnews

info@citizenactionny.org

mpasciak@buffnews.com

bandriatch@buffnews.com

Don't just post here, make your self heard. Its not to late to help our Town Board do the right thing for taxpayers and residents with safety concerns.

Simply email and ask them to stop funding the Lancaster/Buffalo Airport Expansion.

[shortstuff]

Thanks again gorja. I must be getting old as I didn't remember these resolutions - most likely because there was no reason to at the time. The date is wrong on the one. It should be 7/21/03. At least others will know your data has been verified.

Game, set, match as far as the town board denying complicity in helping the airport receive state funding. But then again, even Lancaster Airport owner Tom Geles stated at a TB meeting early in 2009 that he found it onerous that the Town Board was in denial that it had helped make the airport expansion possible.

And they wonder why we don't place any trust in our local government. $12 million of taxpayer money pissed away on a project that brings little investment and revenue to the town. $28,000 in property taxes and less than $10,000 in fuel taxes on over a hundred acres of property.

Who really profited from this fiasco? Gee, one would have to think the airport, the parties selling the land at grossly inflated values and .....? $938,000 for less than 20 acres of E&E property? Who was asleep at the wheel at the FAA?

Not only did they pay outragious monies to E&E, now since they have been chatting with Advanced Thermal for what 3 1/2 years, I bet Thermal now wants a ton of money because E&E got what they wanted. Can you imagine the price tag on that land & building? Well FAA needs to wake up and do their Due Diligence.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lancaster Airport, he said, she said; Part II: Town involvement/resident input
http://www.speakupwny.com/article_4132.shtml

This September 4th Speakup article should be read again, especially the part that reads:

At several meetings, Lancaster Town Board members have commented that they were not involved in the Lancaster Airport expansion process. When residents came before the board complaining of issues that impacted their safety and quality of life, they were told in no uncertain terms the board had no jurisdiction in the matter, that the FAA was running the show.

Town Board Comments

March 23 - Supervisor Robert Giza: “I won’t lie to you, the airport is increasing in capacity,” said Giza. “And, there’s even going to be more planes. This is what the FAA wanted to do. If you are going to buy expensive homes, and they are nice, expensive homes there, wouldn’t you do research to see if there is an airport nearby, or a train?”

June 1 – Supervisor Giza: The Town has no money invested in it. I don’t know where the idea is coming from that the town gave the airport money to improve the property. The property has always been maintained through federal grant money. Once the federal government takes over with this commitment of dollars, we can’t reverse this that easily."

June 1 - Councilman Dan Amatura: Interjected that he has been on the board 5 years and he doesn’t remember the town giving them anything. “We don’t issue permits.”

June 1 - Councilman John Abraham: suggested residents contact Congressman Christopher Lee as the matter was in his realm of jurisdiction; that the board could do nothing. It was also suggested they contact NYS Senator Charles Schumer and the FAA.

July 6 - Airport owner Tom Geles said he found Giza’s jurisdiction* statement interesting regarding the town not being involved in the airport project process. “The board seen me come before them in the past because when we receive grants we need authorizing resolution that says the town board concurs with our project. That (resolution) simply allows the state the criteria of the airport getting the state’s share of funds (hello, isn't what residents have been saying all along).

July 6 - Supervisor Giza declares again that the town gave them (airport) “no money”. While a resident attempted to bring up that as the town acted as lead agency and approved resolutions, they made it possible for the airport to receive funding, Supervisor Giza declared that he didn’t care what residents read or heard. “I’m telling you now that the town did not give them one penny,” said Giza.

A resident claimed the town could still hold up building permit issuance for all future airport projects. “I don’t think that’s true,” declared Councilman Dan Amatura. “We just acknowledge them (permits). We don’t issue them. I think we said that before.”

“You’re telling me that the buildings that have been put up were done without our building inspector being there,” asked the resident? Supervisor Giza replied that when the property is zoned properly, “We can’t say no!” The resident countered with, “You left yourself an out in your own thinking. Just because you passed a resolution does not mean you are bound to turn around and issue another building permit.”

When questioned on the matter, Building Department code officer Leonard Campisano declared, “We issued building permits for the hangars. We have not issued any permits for the runway.” Councilman Amatura interjected that it states in the resolution that the town acknowledges the permits. “We don’t give the permits; we acknowledge them; like we have been saying all along.” Comment: Double-speak! Of course the town board only acknowledges the building permits. They are issued by the Building Department. But the Town has the authority to deny them.)

BS and spin to the max!

It would not be surprising to hear the town spin this and respond by saying that they had no control of the airspace – which is true. But Airport owner Geles on several occasions has openly spoke on the town’s complicity in getting funding while using the word jurisdiction.

*Jurisdiction – besides meaning authority or control, the word is used to mean influence or sway. Rereading the archives, it becomes crystal clear how much spin and BS was directed to SAC and the residents.

Unfortunately, none of what’s been written in this thread, or others in fact, gets into the professional media – in the Lancaster Bee, Lancaster Source or Buffalo News. The Bee and Source slants its news to favor the town and the Buffalo News has been a no show at Town Board meetings for months.

[ichingtheory]

Article taken from Bob Miller's "Over the Airways"
July 2009,

Neighbors Complaining About Airport Noise!

It's the same story, different airport. Folks residing in the shadow of little airports suddenly discover that airplanes make noise! Such is the case at my home airport in Lancaster, NY.

Not impressed by the fact that our airport pre-dates their residency by over 45 years, several clusters of recently arriving neighbors have been engaged in an active anti-airport letter writing campaign to federal, state, and local government officials.

Their demands, they say, are simple. "Stop these little airplanes from flying over their homes!"

What have we done about these complaints?

Shortly after these complaints started surfacing about six months ago, a team of airport leaders and local pilots met to assess the possibility of altering our traffic pattern to avoid noise sensitive homes.

Tom Geles, Lancaster Airport Board Chairman and manager addressing supporters.]

It didn't take us long, however, to conclude that altering the traffic pattern would be like the little Dutch boy moving his thumb around to plug holes in the dike. Avoiding one neighborhood placed us over other neighborhoods. Hence, we opted to not alter the traffic pattern.

We even tried extending our arrival and departure legs to avoid turning over residential areas, but our proximity to nearby Class C airspace precluded that option.

It's all a matter of votes!

Despite the fact that right and reason were on our side, we recognized that our local town officials could make life difficult for our airport, if they so chose, by withholding future building permits necessary for our planned expansion.

So what influences local town officials?

Answer: Votes . . . votes needed to secure re-election.

Thus, our next step was to build a big list of pro-airport people. These people not only included our pilots, our hangar tenants, and our airport employees, it also included Bob Miller Flight Training, Inc. (BMFT) and our many present and past students.

More than these folks, it included transient pilots, local business owners, and members of the general public who liked airplanes.

What better way to compile a list of pro-airport people was there than to host a community-wide airport open house, which we did on Saturday, June 13th of this year. Our first such effort, with the help of EAA Chapter 46 and its "Young Eagles" staff and our local Civil Air Patrol Squadron who made breakfast for everybody, attracted nearly 500 people! Many of these fine folks joined our "Friends of the Lancaster Airport" roster right there on the spot.

Next, we hosted a special VIP reception on the evening prior to our open house. We invited all of our federal, state, and local elected officials and area business leaders.

Supporting us in this effort was the Cessna Aircraft Company who, at our request, flew in a brand new Cessna Mustang Jet, and several other new single engine aircraft to place on static display.

The Mustang arrived in grand style just as our VIP guests were finishing a first-class supper in our new hangar. Needless to say, the people we needed to impress were impressed!

Pictured below is yours truly (Bob Miller wearing OTA hat) with his daughter, Erica on the left and Mustang pilot, Brandy Hearting, on the right. Steve Kent, Cessna's Northeast Regional Sales Manager is seen walking in the background.

SEE attached link:
http://overtheairwaves.com/Vol6-7final.html

Nurturing our "Friends of Lancaster Airport" list

The next step in our campaign has been to cultivate our rapidly growing list of friends and supporters. We did this through a series of personalized e-mails to each member on the list.

Then, we scheduled a "Friends" meeting at our airport to both feed and brief our supports. Nearly 100 people showed up for this first-ever "Friends" gathering.

Our final step, to be completed after the posting of this OTA issue, is to pack the town hall with all of our "friends" at their next meeting on July 6th.

Each of our "friends" will be supplied with a three inch wide brightly colored button saying, "I Luv the Lancaster Airport" that they'll proudly display on their lapel while attending this meeting.

In summary, our little airport will reign victorious over our detractors primarily because we have right and reason on our side (plus about $10 million in recent federal and state grants).

We also won the hearts of our local elected officials. That's a big plus! In the end, however, we're all learning to co-exist with all of our neighbors. We do practice neighbor-friendly behaviors with our airplanes.

Most importantly, we'll continue to court and build our "Friends of Lancaster Airport," because an airport's ultimate strength comes from the people it serves!

[gorja]

Ichingtheory,

Great, great, great find.

It's unbelievable that he would write some of those sentences knowing that it is a public domain.

And the elected officials again show they have absolutely no integrity.

[KevinL]

If construction of parallel taxiway is considered a major safety concern, why did FAA allow airport to re-open with such a serious flaw in the first place?
Gee, I guess FAA should ground all flights until corrected.

[4248]

This is so telling of our Town Hall!

The arrogance of this man to write this on the INTERNET for the world to see.

Can anyone have any doubt he feels the "Political Fix" is in?

Can anyone doubt after reading this statement: "We also won the hearts of our local elected officials. That's a big plus!" - He's talking about the Town of Lancaster's "Elected Officials"

Then he openly brags about getting: "$10 million in recent federal and state grants." thats tax dollars he's bragging about!

Lancaster supporter claims: "In summary, our little airport will reign victorious over our detractors primarily because we have right and reason on our side (plus about $10 million in recent federal and state grants).

Can there be any doubt this man believes he owns
Lancaster's elected officials?????

[shortstuff]

Pretty amazing isn't it? That they have the elected officials in their back pocket.

Amazing isn't that Giza & Co. had nothing to do when infact they right at this very moment hold all the cards.

Amazing isn't that they have so much of TAX dollars to do whatever they deem "necessary". Gotta love that famous word NECESSARY. I mean how often have we heard that word over and over.

Amazing isn't it the reflection now that we are viewing in regards to all that has happened since day one. Still we are at that one important fact, The town is the Lead Agency and do hold all the cards.

This issue is now a town wide issue and guess what? SAC has engaged the entire town. We have more supporters that join daily. Our activist coalition encompasses the entire town. As we strengthen our cause we become more and more empowered, we carry the burden of the town. Not only do we support our position with the airport, but other positions that taxpayers need support on. YOU are NOT alone.

[TTDeathInLan]

This is the BIGGEST scam in Lancaster's history. Even bigger than the Colecraft building.

However, I think there may be a silver linning to both the Walden Ave. problems, (Colecraft and the airport).

The town should apply for a FAA grant to build a new Police Headquarter building at the airport. Justification would be the police presence for enhanced security at our "reliver" airport. The town would also state in the grant application, that it would also create and hire 4 new police officers to man the newly created position of AIRPORT RESORCE OFFICER, (ARO).

A grant for about 10 million dollars should be an approiate amount. This would cover the cost of a state of the art police headquarters.

The only issue remaining is, what to do with the Colecraft building? I think a solution is available. The airport would apply for another FAA grant to purchase the building. The airports justification for this grant would be a remote long term hangar storage and a maintenance facility. The airport would also request that the State, County and Town, approve Walden Ave. as a TAXI-WAY for planes to travel from the airport to the Colecraft building.

With airplanes traveling down Walden Ave, the airport could also request a grant from the Lancaster Econonic Development Agency. Justification in the application would be the increased "TOURISM" created by motor vehicles traveling on Walden Ave. observing airplanes next to cars. Just think, you could actually see the pilot.

[KevinL]

This is the BIGGEST scam in Lancaster's history. Even bigger than the Colecraft building.

However, I think there may be a silver linning to both the Walden Ave. problems, (Colecraft and the airport).

The town should apply for a FAA grant to build a new Police Headquarter building at the airport. Justification would be the police presence for enhanced security at our "reliver" airport. The town would also state in the grant application, that it would also create and hire 4 new police officers to man the newly created position of AIRPORT RESORCE OFFICER, (ARO).

A grant for about 10 million dollars should be an approiate amount. This would cover the cost of a state of the art police headquarters.

The only issue remaining is, what to do with the Colecraft building? I think a solution is available. The airport would apply for another FAA grant to purchase the building. The airports justification for this grant would be a remote long term hangar storage and a maintenance facility. The airport would also request that the State, County and Town, approve Walden Ave. as a TAXI-WAY for planes to travel from the airport to the Colecraft building.

With airplanes traveling down Walden Ave, the airport could also request a grant from the Lancaster Econonic Development Agency. Justification in the application would be the increased "TOURISM" created by motor vehicles traveling on Walden Ave. observing airplanes next to cars. Just think, you could actually see the pilot.

Great post!! Please do not give this town any more bad ideas.

[KevinL]

You can change attorney name but town mindset is the same...

Government Waste
Who Does Lancaster’s Town Attorney Work For?
By Gary S. Howell
Sep 6, 2006, 19:19



On August 31, 2006, Lancaster Town Attorney Richard J. Sherwood wrote a letter to the Town Board. The purpose of the letter was to inform the board of the Notice of Appeal filed by taxpayers in Howell, et al. vs. Giza, and Town Board Members.

The lawsuit was filed under General Municipal Law ss 51, against Supervisor Giza, and Board Members Montour, Ruffino, and Stempniak. The plaintiffs, Dan Beutler, Jeff Davis, Hank Gull, Don Symer, and I, contend that the defendants wasted taxpayer funds on a study of options for a new police headquarters. The study was commissioned after the town purchased 3949 Walden Avenue with the clear intent to use it for a new police department.

If the suit is successful, the town officials will be held personally liable for the waste of taxpayer dollars. They will have to refund the cost of the study to government coffers.

The town’s insurance company refused to pay for the Board member’s defense. However, the defendants are legally using taxpayer dollars to defend themselves.

Despite rumors to the contrary, the plaintiffs are not backed by anyone and pay for their legal expenses.



=====


Mr. Sherwood’s letter is more of a political document than an informational one. Some of the comments made in the letter raise questions as to who he works for.

In the third paragraph, Sherwood writes:

”Obviously this action on the part of the plaintiffs will result in even more taxpayer money being spent in defending the appeal.”

The Town Attorney doesn’t mention that if the defendants acted openly, no taxpayer money would have been spent at all.

Sherwood goes on to say that the Town did the study at the request of the Village. That statement is true. But he fails to mention that the town did not tell the village that they had already entered into a binding contract to purchase 3949 Walden for a police headquarters.

Rather than waste taxpayer dollars on a study the town clearly had no intention of heeding, the Town should have told the Village they’d already bought a building and there was no need to do the study.

Mr. Sherwood also said:

”The determination reached in the comparative study was that it was least expensive to purchase and renovate the Walden Avenue building.”

Based on flaws in the study, it’s questionable whether the Walden Avenue site is the least expensive solution. Information pointing out the flaws in the study is included in court documents.

Mr. Sherwood further states:

”There was notice (public notice of the binding contract & bond issue) in two forms. First, there was a discussion at a Town board meeting on April 7, 2003. In fact, Gary Howell, one of the plaintiffs, asked Supervisor Giza about the purchase. This dialogue is contained on a tape of the Board meeting made by Henry Gull”

The abovementioned conversation is not on the April 7, 2003 tape.

The conversation Sherwood refers to took place on May 19th, 2003, after the town signed the contract, performed the environmental review, and approved the bond; meeting all contingencies in the contract.

In his sworn affidavit, Mr. Montour, the only lawyer on the Town Board, said: “Once the contingencies are satisfied it is a binding contract. People may interpret contingencies as being an option until those contingencies are satisfied.

On May 19th, when he was asked if the contract was binding, Sherwood said, “No”.

Based on Mr. Montour’s testimony, as of May 19th, the contract was binding.

In the same paragraph, Sherwood writes:

“Curiously, during the discovery portion process of the lawsuit, when the plaintiffs had to turn over copies of tapes Mr. Gull made of all Board meetings, the tape of this April 7, 2003 meeting was not included. An order was thereafter obtained from Justice Burns directing the plaintiffs to surrender the original tape of this meeting to the Town for review. Plaintiffs complied.”

According to Hank Gull, the April 7, 2003 tape was one of the first tapes he handed over. Mr. Gull produced a copy of the April 7 tape before Justice Burn’s order was issued.

What’s curious is; the town tape-records all its meetings. Yet, when asked, they said they didn’t have a tape of that meeting.

Sherwood further stated:

“This resolution (the bond resolution) was subject to the statutory permissive referendum period of 30 days. Anyone who felt aggrieved was free to gather signatures of Town residents to cause a referendum on the borrowing. No petition was submitted to the town clerk.”

According to the sworn testimony of Henry Gull, Sherwood told a different story when asked about a referendum in 2003:

” THE WITNESS (Hank Gull): It was -- it was before, as far as I know, because I -- at that point I wasn't certain whether they actually had purchased the building. But the talk was in those previous meetings, the 7th and the 28th and the 12th, that I was pretty certain that they were, that they had already bought the building. So I asked them why not a -- a public referendum as to proceed? And the answer I got from the town attorney was, It's not -- it can't be done. Not that it was too late or too early, it just was not in the law to do. You don't have to have a public referendum for a bond issue, is what he said. He actually added too that, you’ll have to change the legislation.”

It’s interesting that when taxpayers asked if a referendum was allowed, Sherwood said no, but in his letter to the board he said the bond resolution was subject to a referendum.

After the joint Town and Village Boards meeting, I discussed a petition drive with several members of the community. The general consensus was to hold off because, based on comments made by the Town board, we were all under the impression that they were not going to take any further action until the study was done and the results were discussed with the village.

The Town never held a joint meeting with the Village to discuss the results of the study.

Sherwood further states:

”The action has no merit.”

That is not a statement of fact, it is simply his opinion. The taxpayers disagree.

Sherwood also states:

”The lawsuit was reported in the Buffalo News prior to Election Day.”

An extensive search of the Buffalo News archives disproves this statement. The first article reporting the suit appeared in the News on November 11, 2003, seven days after the election.

The final sentence in Sherwood’s letter is leads on to wonder. It states:

”One has to question whose interest the plaintiffs really represent because it certainly doesn’t appear to be the taxpayers”

As taxpayers, the plaintiffs are dismayed at the innuendos and rumors perpetrated by Supervisor Giza and reinforced by comments like this.

Lancaster town officials have repeatedly twisted the facts and spread false rumors about this case. They refuse to respond to the hard facts surrounding the issue.

Elected and appointed officials are supposed to work for the taxpayers. After all, taxpayers pay their salaries. Mr. Sherwood’s letter raises the question; “Who does he really work for?”

NEED I SAY MORE????

[shortstuff]

This is the BIGGEST scam in Lancaster's history. Even bigger than the Colecraft building.

However, I think there may be a silver linning to both the Walden Ave. problems, (Colecraft and the airport).

The town should apply for a FAA grant to build a new Police Headquarter building at the airport. Justification would be the police presence for enhanced security at our "reliver" airport. The town would also state in the grant application, that it would also create and hire 4 new police officers to man the newly created position of AIRPORT RESORCE OFFICER, (ARO).

A grant for about 10 million dollars should be an approiate amount. This would cover the cost of a state of the art police headquarters.

The only issue remaining is, what to do with the Colecraft building? I think a solution is available. The airport would apply for another FAA grant to purchase the building. The airports justification for this grant would be a remote long term hangar storage and a maintenance facility. The airport would also request that the State, County and Town, approve Walden Ave. as a TAXI-WAY for planes to travel from the airport to the Colecraft building.

With airplanes traveling down Walden Ave, the airport could also request a grant from the Lancaster Econonic Development Agency. Justification in the application would be the increased "TOURISM" created by motor vehicles traveling on Walden Ave. observing airplanes next to cars. Just think, you could actually see the pilot.

Good post, but we don't need to give them more ideas. You are right though, this is the biggest scam.

And politics as usual in Lancaster.

[4248]

If you send them facts - they can't pretend not to know:

[quote=4248;598086]The SAC group and anyone who cares should once again push Senator Dale Volker, Senator Schumer and the FAA to end funding this tax fed money pit.

Send them the list of grants - tell them about the tax breaks/exemptions - give them the same information you post here.
If the have facts in hand - when someone lies to them - they may not print it but at least they can finally see what's been happening in Lancaster.

tmeaser@BeeNews.com mmeaser@BeeNews.com
mkrueger@BeeNews.com ljohnson@BeeNews.com
bhutchinson@BeeNews.com carolineh@BeeNews.com

volker@senate.state.ny.us
NYS Assembly:
Home Page: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us

click here to email Brian Higgins

Click here to email Charles Schumer

gwarner@buffnews

info@citizenactionny.org

mpasciak@buffnews.com

bandriatch@buffnews.com

Don't just post here, make your self heard. Its not to late to help our Town Board do the right thing for taxpayers and residents with safety concerns.

Simply email and ask them to stop funding the Lancaster/Buffalo Airport Expansion.

Every issue/concern make your self heard!

[shortstuff]

Everyone has brought great material to the table here on Speakup. It has been brought to my attention that our SAC group is getting larger in Lancaster.

We are getting much feedback from people all over the town and outside of the town. It is even been mentioned that neighboring towns would like to create their own chapter to SAC.

SAC isn't just for safe aviation, we are a group that is about the taxpayers as a whole. We will support the causes that benefit the town as a whole. We will be connecting with the other coalitions in Lancaster as well.

The town board needs to realize that things are changing and voices are getting louder and louder. We cannot handle the tax increases that are happening and we need to make smart decisions and start figuring out what tax incursion will or will not benefit the town.

Giza & Co. when deciding on projects for Lancaster ask youself, I know if we do this the taxes will go up, so we need to decide what is BEST for the town. Is the airport getting so much from the taxpayers going to benefit the town? I think this is one project the town board needs to re-evaluate and decide that we need to not give them anymore tax abatements or relief. WE THE TAXPAYERS cannot do it anymore!!!