http://www.speakupwny.com/article_4253.shtml
Comments, please.
I agree with the comment about why did the airport purchase the E & E land when they hadn't yet acquired the town land. Almost like they got the E & E land just to push the town into a reason to give up the town owned land.
So if I understand the article correctly, if the airport doesn't get the town land the expansion will be curtailed?
The airport creates their own problems and then cries for more taxpayer funds. Tom Geles stated this is a safety issue that must be addressed immediately. While he claims that purchase of town property is required to complete the taxiway, a safe and complete taxiway can be completed within current footprint of airport property. Reason he wants town property is for next phase of build out which would be 2300' of runway and approximately 3500' more of taxiway to the east. All claims are only meant to set airport up for another expansion to allow small jets and aircraft of 79' wing span and up to 45000 lbs. to land at BQR. You do the math: original runway (1995) was 2750' long X 45' wide. The airport decided to build a NEW runway moving such to the north and east of original location. Runway length to date is 3200' X 75' wide and is more than enough to handle current aircraft housed at airport. Parallel taxiway can be added to current runway and relieve airport of self imposed "safety issue". They are trying to cover up true goal that they actually want a 5500' runway with a rating of B2 aircraft. Example: Aircraft landing speed under 121 mph/under 79' wing span and a total 45000 lbs.
Currently, airport is set up for wing span's under 49' and weight of 12,500 lbs. max. Why do we need larger aircraft at BQR when BNIA can easily handle the few that may occassionaly come to this area? BNIA is already set up for these aircraft at no further tax payer expense. A private TAX PAYING enterprise, (Prior Aviation) is already capable of handling aircraft with no additional public monies.
What a shame, Tom may actually have to spend approximately $24,000.00 of his own money??? Considering this project is (approximately) 13 million in free money to airport, was this REALLY airport money or part of another grant used? If anyone is interested in seeing funds supplied to airport (State & Federal) let me know.
They admit there project has major safety issues. They admit our Town Boards historic support for their funding and expansion.
They were enabled by Supervisor Bob Giza/IDA Chairman to receive millions in tax breaks - Millions in Federal Tax dollars - state funding and now they need a letter of endorsement from our Town Board to enable them to get more tax dollars.
But our Town Board Members say, "We have and had little or nothing to do with this Airport Expansion."
The Town Board helped approve their plans - the Town Board bluffed through the SEQR process without public input - contrary to the FAA and Federal Governments own regulations.
Where's their accountability - is there any one of the with integrity - does the word "Ethics" mean anything to these elected clones?
#Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !
It is about time that the FAA and NYS stop dumping money into the Lancaster airport sink hole, and Lancaster stop granting IDA's to subsidize mainly hobby pilots that don't even live in Lancaster! If the pilots want to use this airport then THEY should pay for it, not the rest of us that never use it. Raise the fuel prices and hanger fee's for the hobby pilots Mr. Geles, and how about a landing and take off fee?---don't expect to run your losing business model on the backs of the public. If you business can't sustain itself then it shouldn't exist! The Lancaster airport is already too big for this town, it should never been allowed to expand in the first place----it does NOTHING of any real substance for Lancaster expect take potentially full valued commercial land off of the tax rolls (the trivial taxes they pay don't count for much).
The Town Board and the Lancaster IDA have an opportunity now to do something helpful for the residents/voters/taxpayers to start reversing their past mistakes in regard to the airport---DENY the airport requests so that no further expansion or tax breaks can occur. The residents are fed up with this and will not swallow any more airport self serving hype or distorted claims. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
Good post.Originally Posted by KevinL
The Town should tell them to go back to the drawing board. If my neighbor came to me, and told me that he wanted to buy a piece of my driveway, to expand his family room, I would say no.
If he said, "yeah, but I contribute a lot, because I pay taxes," I would tell him to get the **** off my property, and to never speak to me again.
Most companies wouldn't take a gamble and spend their own $938,000 on that land without knowing the status of acquiring the additional land from the town to complete their project.Originally posted by SAAR:
I agree with the comment about why did the airport purchase the E & E land when they hadn't yet acquired the town land. Almost like they got the E & E land just to push the town into a reason to give up the town owned land.
So if I understand the article correctly, if the airport doesn't get the town land the expansion will be curtailed?
The Buffalo-Lancaster Airport gambled our (taxpayer) money.
Georgia L Schlager
Did they all have town approval? I did find one instance where they went through the county on May 11, 2000.From the article-
* Mr. Bray stated, “. “It (town approval) is done on every state grant that matches an FAA grant and has been done for 15 years at the airport.” Really, then why is it I never seen such resolution before the Town Board. The Town keeps declaring that they have no jurisdiction in the airport expansion and/or did not help in any way that allowed the airport to get grant funding. What is the real story?
LEGISLATORS RESOLUTIONS
Item 17 – MR. LARSON presented the following resolution and moved for immediate
consideration. MS. PEOPLES seconded.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLUTION NO. 154 Re: Support for State Grant for
Lancaster Airport. (Intro. 9-1)
A RESOLUTION BY LEGISLATOR LARSON
WHEREAS, the County of Erie, has received a request from Lancaster Airport, Inc. applicant,
for the Lancaster Airport, concerning the applicant’s request for State grant funds under the
Airport Improvement and Revitalization Grant and Loan Program (AIR’99) for projects to repair
t-hangars and acquire grass cutting equipment, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation, under Section 14-1 of the State
Transportation Law requires that project applications made by privately-owned airports be
accompanied by a resolution from the governing body of the county in which the airport is
located, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the County of Erie endorsed the project identified above at the Lancaster
Airport for the purpose of making the project eligible for State funding, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation, County Executive Joel A. Giambra, Commissioner of
Environment and Planning, Laurence Rubin and Tom Geles, President, Lancaster Airport
Incorporated, 4343 Walden Avenue, Lancaster, New York 14086.
Fiscal Impact: None for the resolution
Page 3 http://www.erie.gov/legislature/pdf/...-5.11.2000.pdf
Last edited by gorja; January 22nd, 2010 at 06:30 AM. Reason: Add link
Georgia L Schlager
After reading Lee's article, which by the way was enlightening. Why? Because it is the most outragious and impactive project to be thrown into the laps of the taxpayers and the town proper.
A project that is based on false information, example Shawn Bray from Passero Associates who is the project engineer states 10,000 dollars when the math is done is actually 24,000 dollars! Just an example of a false statement that emulates many from that company and airport management.
This airport has done projections to meet their own needs, their own hobby, their own pockets all at the expense of the taxpayers money and quality of life.
How dare they speak of safety when clearly it is a game they play with our town.
The MOST important key factor in that article is the stance of the town board. All along, the board states no involvement or control over the decisions of Lancaster airport expansions. Clearly, they are the controlling factor right now. I believe they are beginning to see the error of their ways. Mr. Giza & Co. need to come forward and put the people first. They need to now make a wrong right by dening them the rest of the resolutions and the land needed to finalize this project. I implore the town to do the right thing.
The airport will do all it needs to do the way it sits. Please Mr. Giza and your team, listen to the people of Lancaster and deny their request.
In thinking more about this, the town has a lot at stake. If they were to concede to the airport, they should realize that this is "Political Suicide." If anyone is looking to run for re-election, which is nearing, supporting the airport right now would have a huge impact on their political career.
I feel also, economically our town cannot support this airport. We are drowning in taxes right now. Taking that land off of Ecologies hands and off the tax role has placed this town in a financial crisis. To then top it off with a fourth IDA is financial suicide.
The taxpayers will couple this financial crisis with the Colecraft white elephant and make this a disaster for the political parties.
With all those millions in taxpayer monies in federal and state grants that this airport receives. Along with their IDAs, which result in a reduction of about 66% of their 2010 county tax bills ($9377.84 they pay and without grants would pay $27,368.48), wouldn't all this be considered as airport "welfare"?
Does this town board want to continue to be an "enabler"? Do they they want to continue enabling this airport to survive on public assistance which has to be subsidized by all taxpayers?
This town board should make their decision based on the welfare of all Lancaster taxpayers who have to pay their full shot in taxes not on an entity whose survival depends on the rest of the town taxpayers' monetary assistance.
Georgia L Schlager
The great economic impact airport has made is nothing more than our tax dollars being sucked into engine of an air craft and being expelled through its exhaust.
TAX DOLLARS X ENGINE INTAKE = THIN AIR
As is abundantly clear from the posts here, and other resident responses to the airport situation, the Lancaster residents are totally fed up with tax dollars and tax breaks going to the Lancaster airport. To add salt to the residents wounds, what do they get in return---they get buzzed by planes that lower their quality of life and property values that they pay full taxes on! THIS IS A TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS SITUATION AND IT IS HIGH TIME OUR TOWN BOARD ACTED IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS! If they fail to do so the residents will work tirelessly to make sure that they have committed "Political suicide" as Shortstuff stated. "Politics 101" would tell them that they made a very serious mistake by supporting this airport while blindsiding the residents with something that is both harmful to them and results in lost, or wasted, tax revenue. Since that mistake has already been made their only chance at redemption is to block any further airport expansion and tax breaks, and reverse as much damage as possible. A good leader is one that is willing to recognize and acknowledge having made a mistake, and is willing to do as much as possible to prevent further damage that can result from it. Once can only hope that some on the Lancaster Town Board are able to rise to this level.
Your exactly right. NO ONE would be dumb enough to spend $900k on a property, only to later realize that they needed to buy additional property to make it work.
And, yes, I realize it wasn't their $, it was Federal $...but still....Point being, they're lying if they say the reason they need this land has anything to do with the E&E land.
Finally - they seem to be concerned about pilot safety. Meanwhile, an expansion of the airport jeopardizes safery of the residents. I don't want to see anyone get hurt or killed --- but I'm much less concerned about the safety of the pilots, than the safety of the residents.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
