Ron Blum stated that the city was trying to follow the law as best we can here.
In past determinations, the Director has consistently applied a general standard of compliance to the airport specific circumstances in all compliance cases. This standard is found in the Order:
The judgment to be made in all cases is whether the airport owner is reasonably meeting the Federal commitments. It is the FAA’s position that the airport owner meets commitments when: (a) the obligations are fully understood, (b) a program (preventive maintenance, leasing policies, operating regulations, etc.) is in place which in the FAA’s judgment is adequate to reasonably carry out these commitments, and (c) the owner satisfactorily demonstrates that such a program is being carried out.
What is not included in the article is that the city attorney offered to present the tenant’s revisions to the city.
This article shows that the city is making a point to prove that it is a benefit to aviation to have fewer tenants on the field that pay a higher hangar rate than more tenants on the field that pay a lower rate. It sounds more like an attempt to justify higher rates in order to get tenants to move off of the airport.
Have prospective tenants in the past been turned away at all? Or has the city just jacked the price to eliminate demand?
ReplyDeleteYes rosemary Ficken was told last year that the city was not renting hangars because the city is going to close the airport. It has been filed under part 16.
ReplyDeleteThe city says it is following the law and is doing everything the FAA is telling them to do, but everything the FAA is telling them to do now is in the compliance manual. If they would've read that they would not be having the problems they are having with the FAA now. They did not follow what is in the complialnce manual and that is the law so how can they be claiming they are following everything the FAA is telling them?
ReplyDeleteThe city just doesn't get it,they think it's their right to do whatever they feel like with property they have used federal grant money to purchase and make improvements to. If one of the people in city hall would READ the rules that they agreed to they would realize they are wasting their time and money they don't have trying to close the airport. They also don't realize that the taxpayers have a right to see our tax dollers that we spent on K39 protected from destruction despite what city thinks. They are ignorant to why the airport is there in the first place and that is their loss.
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous! So, perhaps $122,000 has already been spent in an attempt to close the airport. Does the city track other expenses associated with this matter? Like the costs to send the mayor to Washington DC and Jefferson City? Do the taxpayers not understand that these costs deprive the city of funds for more urgent needs? And how much time has the mayor given to this issue for which the taxpayers of St. Clair are charged? And how much money will the city stand to lose to the attorney representing the mayor in this action if he is successful?
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous! Don't the residents/taxpayers of St. Clair realize that their mayor is spending hundreds of thousands of their hard earned tax dollars to fund this absurd venture? Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be better spent on the schools, fire department, law enforcement and local businesses. Hundreds of thousands of dollars leaving St. Clair (except for what the mayor gets to keep).
The sad thing is, with very little effort and expenditure the airport could be cash flow positive and on it's way to being a true community asset.
ReplyDeleteThe really sad part about this is that in 2006 when we got the runway overlaid, the plans were in place to build the new terminal fuel etc. There were 30 planes based there and everything would have been done by now.
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate on what the plans were and what a successful airport here would look like.
DeleteThere needs to be an FBO. Initially of course it may not be a fist-class, full service FBO but the basics of someone on site to sell fuel and take care of day to day operations is completely mandatory. A person to promote, and take some personal pride and ownership in the operation could turn the place around in short order. I'm not just talking about mowing grass and fixing lights, you need someone to "sell the place" so-to-speak. AOPA could be a huge help, reasonable hanger rates would great.
DeleteThink proximity to west St. Louis county. Priced a decent hanger or tie down at Spirit lately? First get on the list and hope someone does not bump you further down with a large cash outlay. It happens often. There is no reason the place could not be something to be proud of. Hell, if Carl could pull off bi-plane rides at Washington profitably...before Washington was even on the map, this airport could be something to be proud of.
Would an airport restaurant &/or gift shop that would attract both pilots and community as a destination be allowed if someone were interested in such an investment?
DeleteIn my experience an airport restaurant has to still be a stellar restaurant to survive. Location at an airport really won't help it much. Pilot shop/gift shop is a lost cause, the one at Spirit is barely hanging on. Pilots love the hundred dollar hamburger but part of the charm is buying a little avgas or jet-a, hopping into a crew car and exploring the town (and spending a little money there as well usually).
Deletethe Tenants have offered to operate the airport at no cost to the city, to fix the lights, to do the daily inspections, to mow the grass and the Mayor refuses the help and instead passes on the cost to use the revenue made by the airport to a contractor not even using the city employees. Who would ever turn down volunteer help???
ReplyDeleteJim will respond tomorrow with pictures and a layout of the alp plan.
ReplyDeleteIs it a matter of Ron Blum withholding information to present a biased case? Or is it the newspaper printing only that information that supports one side of the story?
ReplyDeleteBoth, The editor of the paper is also the chamber of commerce guy.
DeleteI believe the paper accurately prints what transpires at the meetings. I've seen a lot of minutes from meetings and what is said is what is reported. If information is withheld by the city, don't blame the paper.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem,the paper only prints what the city tells them not the entire story. So yes the paper is bias because they know the rest of the story and will not print it because it will make the city look bad and show how BIG of a mess they are in right now. Their reporting is not worth the paper it is wrote on.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not the paper's problem. If the pilots don't talk, and I don't mean on here, and don't have factual information and offer just opinion of what they believe will happen ... Again, I think the paper reports the facts from the aldermen and other meetings. As I said, I've questioned minutes, received them and the paper is always right on according to the minutes — the official transcript from the meetings. For example, in the story that was just in the paper, the paper quoted the letter from Mr. Sutcliffe about the tenant rate he proposed, right? ... I mean they used his words. They quoted his letter. ... I'm sure they have so much to do that they can't spend every waking minute worrying about the airport. They have a small staff to cover an entire county and as I understand it, the Union and St. Clair guys are alone with no help. Yet they have other meetings and events to cover. So, they attend the meetings and report what was said ... and do it well.
ReplyDeleteThe pilots have been trying to talk to the city for over a year. The problem is that the city does not know what is going on, there are six occupied hangars, and that number could drop even farther if the city does not follow the law. What Mr. Sutcliffe stated was correct; the statement in the newspaper appears to be an attempt to show that Mr. Sutcliffe is incorrect.
DeleteRead the documents I have listed and see if you come to the same conclusion
DeleteLike he or she said the paper only prints the citys side of the story, Mr Sutcliffes story is only a very tiny tiny tiny part. The paper dosen't print the fact that the FAA and MoDOT has sent them several letters asking them to fix the problems that they have caused and to do what they agreed to when they took grant money.
ReplyDeleteThe paper has never printed that the city charges the airport 7 times the amount that others charge for insurance. They never printed the city tore down hangers that brought in money just to make tenants leave and then claim they don't make enough money to support the airport.They didn't print that the city stored junk in a hanger so nobody could rent it. They didn't print that they told some people that they could not rent a hanger because the airport was closing.They didn't print that the pilots offered to fix the hangers,lights and help cut the grass to help save the city money.The problem is I could go on for hours with what they did not print or what the city didn't do. Now the city is in a BIG mess and the papers reporting looks bias. And some say it's the pilots just wanting to win and that's just FALSE it's about whats right or wrong.The facts will show the city is wrong and they will have to pay for their total disregard of the law.And when all said and done people will say why didn't we know of all this. ANSWER nobody told them. WHY they don't want people to know what they have done.
ReplyDeleteOORAH
DeleteAnswere, nobody told them? Boy are you wrong there. I gave them a copy of the compliance manual in 2006. in 2008 I stood up in a board meeting and ask the board if anyone has read the compliance manual the mayor answered the manual was too complicated it needed a lawyer to read it. I answered that I had no trouble reading it and I only have a tenth grade education. So, they had the info but refused to comply with it because it interfered with their development plans.
ReplyDeleteAgain, all of the above comments you pilots have written relate to everything potentially being the city's fault and not the paper's. The paper has printed stories — tons of them — about the compliance letters from MoDOT and the FAA. I've read them. The city has printed stories about the insurance situation. I've read them. All of these are pieces of the overall airport pie, some big and some small, but the paper has printed it all. Quit blaming the paper. The paper printed that Sutcliffe said there were six tenants but the city said there were eight. ... When you guys started posting all these comments on here blasting the paper and saying it was one-sided against you all, I was not sure what to believe. So, I started requesting some minutes to compare, maybe to give you guys the benefit of the doubt. But what I have found in my research is that the paper very accurately reports what happens during the meetings and that you pilots are making false accusations and lying — LYING — about the paper. I know you guys don't like the paper, and that's your right. But, the paper is reporting the truth while you guys are blasting it by making false accusations. You guys are the liars.
ReplyDeleteThere are only six occupied hangars
DeleteAgain read the articles and letters I have have listed if you disagree prove it in writing as I have posted.
DeleteThe paper is reporting what the city meetings minutes accurately but are only reporting parts of the facts leaving out some pertinent facts from the opposite side. They keep repeating that Jim is an individule that is the most vocal. Have you read in the paper that he is the local AOPA representive? I have not. I read repeatedly that he is a single pilot, not a rep of a group. There are other examples, but I don't have time now.
ReplyDeleteHere is another one. The report in the paper reports the rent is raised to make the airport self sustaining as posible as required by the regulations, but they left out the part that says they should not raise it to the point that causes vacancies.
ReplyDeleteI have never made a false accusation,and your right the paper does print what the city says in the meetings but that is not the complete story. We never said the papers lies,but that they only tell part of the story and they no more than they are printing.I don't like the paper because they use it as a way to sway the truth and facts. They are in favor of closing the airport, we know that but that shows in their reporting and that is wrong.I would like to know what their position is on what the city has done wrong.You will never see that in print from that paper.Yes they are bias and people are starting to see that.
ReplyDeleteThe paper has sided with the city through its editorials, true ... but NOT in its reporting. It is the job of a quality newspaper to give opinions on key issues. All good papers do that — the New York Times, USA Today, the St. Louis paper and the Missourian. Doing so creates conversation and gets people to become more informed, which has happened here. But, in true reporting, the paper is not biased and it is a plain and outright lie to accuse them of that. ... If what the paper is reporting is not the complete story, I suggest that one of you guys make an appointment to talk to the St. Clair editor. You're still misdirecting your complaints. The paper is NOT to blame. If you guys truly care, be a solution and not the problem. ... And, people are not starting to see any bias in the paper because there isn't any. Another lie you're telling. Because of who creates and manages this blog, you will get one-sided comments against the city and the paper here because that's what you want and what you write. But in the real world, there is none of that ... NONE. ... Funny how our local paper is surviving and thriving when other papers are folding when according to you pilots is telling lies and being biased.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Mr Miller should read what I have posted and then read Mr Domke's articles won't be a good match
DeleteI don't lie.You have your opinion and I have mine. Have a nice day.
ReplyDeleteWe're very lucky to have the newspaper we do. It is the one trusted source of information we St. Clair citizens get!
ReplyDeleteIf that is your trusted news source I feel sorry for you and you act like a child with the name calling.Grow up.
ReplyDeleteNo need to feel sorry for me. But Mr. Concerned Citizen ... the truth about you hurts sometimes, doesn't it? You pilots are nothing but court jesters for our great city. Oh, and liars too.
ReplyDeleteMy, my, name calling will get you nowhere.
DeleteIt's funny how the pilots are critical of anyone on here who makes any negative reference to them. When someone disagrees with them, these pilots show their true arrogant and selfish sides. It is so obvious you pilots think you're better than St. Clair residents, and heaven forbid, when someone tells the truth and it's not what you want to hear, you blast us for being the name callers when you say much more unpleasant things. I also find it funny that you have put our good newspaper in the middle of this and are using it as a crutch because you have nothing better to do. Quit grasping at straws. You pilots are the ones who need to grow up. Or better yet, just leave the great people of St. Clair alone. We are so thrilled you don't live among us. What a blessing that is!
ReplyDeleteRead the articles and letters I have posted and then tell me the city and the paper are telling the citizens the truth
DeleteTim those people don't care about the truth.
DeleteGentlemen ... I have gone back and read articles as well as letters posted here. The newspaper has referenced every one of them and written about every one of them. There have been dozens, probably close to 100 articles written by the paper about the airport in recent years. Every letter you have posted on here from MoDOT or the FAA has been the subject of at least one story in the paper, probably several. In fact, the newspaper probably spends too much time reporting on the airport. There are more important things than this little insignificant hobby strip. Everyone is sick of what you guys are trying to do, trying to make headlines when there are really not any. The paper actually is giving you too much ink. ... Chris and Tim, just lay off. I'm sure whatever you guys do for a living, you do it pretty well. So do the rest of us, including the paper. No reason to be so critical. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate the same words if they were coming back at you.
ReplyDeleteNo Airport Needed It is just my opinion,and at least I put my name on what I say.
ReplyDeleteWhen you read all of the articles, they seem to be accurate, and lead the reader to believe all is being done properly and legally. If you don't know what has been left out, for whatever reason, it appears like a very well written article,s. When you know what has been left out, the articles take on a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteAt least I put my name too, nothing to be ashamed of. we would all be happy to sit down and discuss this with you or anyone. You say everyone but you seem to be the only one. Thats the problem when it is at city hall it only one way, theirs. If you read all of the things I posted then you would see the great potential the airport can bring. The administration who asked for the ALP obviously had some kind of vision, it was attempted to be crushed by one who doesn't. You can see the options in the various scenarios and business plans, the Mayor can't even give a name of a potential tenant except maybe a Big Box store, WHO? All he gives is lets tax the hell out of someone so the city can reap the benefits. The paper always quotes none of the pilots live in st clair. What kind of statement is that, if thats not a finger in your face what is? Are the owner and all of the employees of the big box store going to live in st clair? Call any of us, the city will freely give out any of our phone numbers without our permission, they gave them to the paper, and they called us.
ReplyDeleteWell said Mr Dempsey
ReplyDelete