Topic: Green Lea Golf Course/ Airport.
started by: Whistle Blower 2010
Posted by Whistle Blower 2010 on Mar. 05 2010,10:48 pm
I was driving by Hammer Road and noticed that there was alot of trees being cut down on the golf course.My guess would be that they had to do this because of the new runway at the airport ?
It's sad to see the nice trees go.
Posted by ICU812 on Mar. 06 2010,7:43 am
New trees can b planted. It is a known fact that newer young trees eat more CO2 than older ones. It will be alright.You should have been around when we were clearing trees for the crops back in the day. We really took em down back then.
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 06 2010,8:48 am
QUOTE
You should have been around when we were clearing trees for the crops back in the day. We really took em down back then.
Yes, then you had all that "sod" too.
QUOTE
The very dense soil plagued the first settlers who were using wooden plows, which were more suitable for loose forest soil. On the prairie the plows bounced around and the soil stuck to them. This problem was solved in 1837 by an Illinois blacksmith named John Deere who developed a steel moldboard plough that was stronger and cut the roots, making the fertile soils ready for farming.
The tallgrass prairie has been converted into one of the most intensive crop producing areas in North America. Less than one tenth of one percent (<0.09%) of the original landcover of the tallgrass prairie biome remains.[6] States formerly with landcover in native tallgrass prairie such as Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Missouri have became valued for their highly productive soils and are included in the Corn Belt. As an example of this land use intensity, Illinois and Iowa for the United States, rank 49th and 50th out of 50 states in total uncultivated land remaining.
The tallgrass prairie has been converted into one of the most intensive crop producing areas in North America. Less than one tenth of one percent (<0.09%) of the original landcover of the tallgrass prairie biome remains.[6] States formerly with landcover in native tallgrass prairie such as Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Missouri have became valued for their highly productive soils and are included in the Corn Belt. As an example of this land use intensity, Illinois and Iowa for the United States, rank 49th and 50th out of 50 states in total uncultivated land remaining.
Posted by Alfy Packer on Mar. 06 2010,8:52 am
Thank you Jim Hanson!
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 06 2010,8:53 am
Or in some cases swamp draining:< http://www.turtlecreekwd.org/documen...rt1.pdf >
Posted by canvasback on Mar. 06 2010,10:49 am
(Alfy Packer @ Mar. 06 2010,8:52 am)
QUOTE
Thank you Jim Hanson!
The corporate jets are already circling over Albert Lea in a holding pattern. They are bringing thousands of high paying jobs, and, we are now officially "on the map".
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 06 2010,11:52 am
^^^ 
Posted by Whistle Blower 2010 on Mar. 07 2010,4:23 am
I have noticed in the past years the golf course has had to cut the tops of the larger trees because of the airport issues.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 07 2010,1:28 pm
Someone brought this to my attention. I'll be glad to respond.Nobody likes to see trees cut down, but consider this:
The City--through MN/DOT Aeronautics, has paid the golf course TWICE for the rights to keep the obstructions down to Federally mandated levels.
The new runway--planned in 1953--is 400 feet west of the old one. Only 90 trees need be cut or trimmed for the new runway.
Had the runway been reconstructed in the present place--16 properties would have been affected, a number of houses would have to be purchased, and nearly 500 trees taken out or topped.
The golf course has been kept in the loop for the entire project in the last 10 years. The landscaping at the golf course is at no cost to them. MN/DOT spent an additional $10,000 in landscaping to make sure that the trees never have to be topped again. Nearly 4 times as many trees will be planted as those cut down or trimmed.
The previous consultant had a runway 400' longer than what is being built. That would have required shortening up two holes at the golf course. We made do with the shorter runway.
MN/DOT and the FAA wanted to zone for an ILS approach to land over the golf course to the north--something that would have required either shutting down the golf course or swapping airport land north of Hammer Road to maintain the course. We pressed MN/DOT and FAA to make the approach from the NORTH so the golf course wouldn't be affected.
FAA and MN/DOT wanted to put in an ILS approach, like Owatonna, Austin, and Mason City have. That would have required a large clear zone on the golf course for the missed approach zone. Instead, I pointed out that we already have a GPS approach that gets us down to very nearly the same minimums and does NOT require the large approach zone--saving the golf course.
I would point out to all of the big-government fans that these are GOVERNMENT mandates--not local. We have been in the unusual position of telling government that we DON'T WANT the full system they propose.
The result?
This project will come in at half of Owatonna's project, and 40% of Austins.
Trees--nearly 4 times as many will be planted as taken down or trimmed.
The golf course will not have to be disrupted for trimming again. It will be re-landscaped at no cost to them--not because we HAD to--but because it was the right thing to do.
Major disruption or elimination of the golf course was avoided by shortening the runway, changing the instrument approach, and settling for slightly higher approach minumums.
The project was done much cheaper than originally proposed.
No houses had to be purchased. No homeowner large trees had to be cut. Only 8 acres of unbuildable swampland had to be purchased. The safety zone next to Edgewater park can be incorporated for park trails (but no structures).
The facts are well-documented in the Airport Commission minutes, correspondence with MN/DOT and FAA--and the design consultants.
No other airport project that I have ever seen has taken such care to have a minimal (or even beneficial) impact on the surrounding communty. Literally thousands of hours and thousands of dollars have been expended.
With people running off at the mouth without the facts, is it any wonder that this site has been called a bunch of whiners and complainers? Complain all you want to--but get the facts first.
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 07 2010,2:16 pm
Jim, Good report. Thanks.
Posted by grassman on Mar. 07 2010,4:07 pm
I would like to have the firewood. You cannot get firewood without cutting down trees. The cycle of life. Tiger won't be playing there anyhow.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 07 2010,5:09 pm
A couple of people have already asked about the firewood. 
We don't have anything to do with it out here, and if the City disposes of anything, they have to put it out for bid. The contractor trimming the trees is responsible for disposal--you would have to contact them.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 08 2010,1:03 am
QUOTE
No other airport project that I have ever seen has taken such care to have a minimal (or even beneficial) impact on the surrounding communty. Literally thousands of hours and thousands of dollars have been expended.
jimhanson has an issue with tax dollars being spent unless they're used to build Albert Lea a new airport for all those corporate jets just waiting to land.
"Wow, I'm somebody! Things are gonna start happening now!"
It's hard to play the part of the fiscal conservative when you're feeding at the same trough as the rest of them.
QUOTE
With people running off at the mouth without the facts, is it any wonder that this site has been called a bunch of whiners and complainers?
You sound like you've been working with the Chamber? I'd heard you were looking for a new club to hang with and it sounds like you found it.
Actually most people I talk to think the whining and complaining was cut down considerably when you and lapdog started posting your GOP garbage on the Tribune's site instead of boring us here with your whiney 1000 word talk radio posts about the evils of the Obama administration.
And save the "I don't listen to talk radio", or "I don't donate to the GOP" lines, they've been debunked so any times that it's become a bit of a joke.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 08 2010,1:57 pm
Well--I see Libbie is still in his rant mode. 
We've been through all of these items before.
The proposal is the same as it was in 1953 (with the exception that the new runway is 400' west instead of 300')--a time when I was SIX YEARS OLD--yet you think this is MY idea?
You imply that this somehow benefits me--but never quite get around to mentioning HOW I would benefit.
Never mind that every OTHER airport in the area built at the same time has completed their renovation years ago--and at a higher cost than Albert Lea.
QUOTE
And save the "I don't listen to talk radio", or "I don't donate to the GOP" lines, they've been debunked so any times that it's become a bit of a joke.
I didn't say I don't listen to talk radio or TV--in fact, I watch both Fox and CNN (but I refuse to stoop to MSNBC) 
Talk radio? I don't like radio--I don't even own a portable radio, and rarely have it on in my vehicle (I only drive 8500 miles a year, mainly 8 minutes at a time, to and from work). There is no radio in the office--but the guys in the shop have it on. Do you want me to prohibit that? 
That's RIGHT--nobody ELSE wanted to listen to that drivel, either! I know that you become angry when people increasingly reject your ideas, policies, and candidates--but instead of lashing out at others as the source of your troubles, LOOK INWARD, YOUNG LIBBIE!
If I wanted bile and personal attacks, I would have listened to Air Amerika or visited the crazies over at Democrat Underground.
No, I quit posting here for the same reason that about 2000 others did. Look inward, libbie. You have only a few months before November, and even DEEPER depression and mental illness setting in. Check with Hoosier and see what medication worked for HIM.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 08 2010,2:20 pm
QUOTE
You imply that this somehow benefits me--but never quite get around to mentioning HOW I would benefit.
With a bigger runway you can buy bigger planes and store them in your/our hangars. Obviously without the longer runway when you buy a big plane you would have to keep it somewhere else and pay for the storage until you can sell it.
QUOTE
No, I quit posting here for the same reason that about 2000 others did. Look inward, libbie. You have only a few months before November, and even DEEPER depression and mental illness setting in.
You quit posting here because people called you out on the talk radio garbage. We ignored your lies for years thinking that everybody was in agreement that you were just a crazy old republican spewing garbage, and when we finally started posting the truth you couldn't stand it and went to post where people wouldn't question your talk radio garbage.
November? What are you teabaggers going to do in November?
How many of you teabagging kooks have been elected so far? last I heard the closest one of you baggers got was a 30 point blowout. You teabaggers should just stick to your hatefests, and leave the governing to the sane folk.
Posted by Whistle Blower 2010 on Mar. 09 2010,1:14 am
Jim Hanson ,Do you have MADDOG locked up in them hangers out there to???
Posted by Wolfie on Mar. 09 2010,11:26 am
"With a bigger runway you can buy bigger planes and store them in your/our hangars. Obviously without the longer runway when you buy a big plane you would have to keep it somewhere else and pay for the storage until you can sell it."Wow what a stretch. Jealous much over the fact that he has bought and sold a few planes in his lifetime. I am going out on a limb here but I am guessing that buying and selling used airplanes is not a huge money making operation. After all there would have to be the purchase of the old plane and the refurb of it as well and then finding someone to buy it. I am also guessing that it probably nets about enough money to start the whole process over again. I am sure participating in that enterprise is much more for the enjoyment of it instead of the money.
On a side note. Why is it that people in this town are hugely jealous of anyone making a few bucks following their passions. You here it all the time one mechanic badmouthing another because he has more cars in his shop, musicians badmouthing others because they got a better paying gig, business owners wondering how the other guy makes it when they cant see it. As a business owner it gets annoying when people make outrageous offers for something, they can clearly see the 12.00 price tag on an item and then offer 5.00, then when you show them the invoice that clearly show that you paid 9.50 plus shipping to get it into the shop they dont believe you. Must be something in the water that feeds the green eyed monster. Thats the only conclusion I can reach, but then again maybe thats my short sightedness.
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 09 2010,11:45 am
(Wolfie @ Mar. 09 2010,11:26 am)
QUOTE
Jealous much [?]
Da Man is keepin' da libbies down!
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 09 2010,2:29 pm
QUOTE
Wow what a stretch. Jealous much over the fact that he has bought and sold a few planes in his lifetime.
That could be the dumbest thing you've ever posted, and that's saying a lot considering the stupid crap you've posted in the past. I personally couldn't care less if Hanson sells a hundred planes a year, he asked me how the longer runway would benefit him and I told him how it would benefit him. If you have an issue with my answer then tell me how I'm wrong, don't just say stupid crap like I'm jealous of his planes. I realize that it would take a little thinking on your part but you should try it once in awhile.
Hanson has actively opposed every project in this city/school district/county and he should expect some blowback when he advocates a multimillion dollar airport that will serve a tiny fraction of this community, even though he wants to pretend he isn't in that group, and has nothing to gain.
Posted by Wolfie on Mar. 09 2010,4:06 pm
Jim asked how the airport expansion would benefit him and you come up with this lame a$$ reasoning that the longer runway would allow him to buy bigger airplanes and store them before he sells them. That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone utter. You make it out like he helped push through the airport expansion (something that was done when he himself said he was 6), and then you use the buying and selling of aircraft as justification. Again who is the stupid one?
Posted by Alfy Packer on Mar. 09 2010,6:21 pm
Any more golf courses we can cut the trees down on?O' that's right, sun stroke courses are the latest thing in Albert Lea. I guess there will be some shade at Green Lea when those 747 come in for landing.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 09 2010,6:29 pm
Who's the stupid one? I think most people that read this can answer that one for you. You can't come up with anything to debunk my claim that a longer runway means he can bring bigger planes here to store while he resells it, so you use sophomoric insults instead?
I'm all for sophomoric insults when you have some substance to them, but you just more or less posted the equivalence of "I know you are, but what am I".
Posted by grassman on Mar. 10 2010,6:38 am
(canvasback @ Mar. 06 2010,10:49 am)
QUOTE
(Alfy Packer @ Mar. 06 2010,8:52 am)
QUOTE
Thank you Jim Hanson!
The corporate jets are already circling over Albert Lea in a holding pattern. They are bringing thousands of high paying jobs, and, we are now officially "on the map".
I think those might be, ahem, buzzards.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2010,2:32 pm
Libby opines on a subject about which he knows nothing. He equates "bigger" planes with the need for longer runways. The reality is--an airline jet like a 737 and a corporate jet need about the same amount of runway.I COULD buy a jet and re-sell it. I've sold several in the past--but that was a different time. Jets are the WORST-performing aircraft to try to sell--the older jets are not fuel-efficient--Congress gave them a drubbing about their image (all the while buying over $500 MILLION dollars worth of jets for themselves).
Companies still fly jets--but they are EXPENSIVE jets--far beyond what I could finance.Older jets have fallen to rock-bottom prices.
Libbie ignores the obvious--again. The existing runway is long enough to handle nearly any corporate jet--you just can't GO anywhere with it!
I COULD buy an old jet--but who would want to inventory it?
So--if I HAVE sold jets before, and I HAVE flown jets in and out of Albert Lea, what good would a longer runway do me?
TELL us, Libbie--how can I "make money" financing a multi-million dollar jet?
I can take the money that it would take to finance ONE old jet, and buy any number of smaller planes to sell. That's called THE MARKETPLACE, Libbie. Unlike the government, the marketplace is flexible. I don't need any longer runways to do that--so try a different tack on how this "benefits me."
It has apparently escaped your short attention span--we've had any number of discussions on why the runway is being built--it's a 50 year-old plan, it adds a taxiway (something MOST airports have, but Albert Lea hasn't), it means that we don't have to buy houses and trim hundreds of trees, it replaces a 55-year-old facility and lighting, it is cheaper to replace than repair, we got 10-15 more years out of this facility than other communities, most of the cost comes either from the Federal Airport & Airways Trust Fund, or the "Stimulus"--not from local dollars, it allows for lower landing minimums, and perhaps most important--NOBODY BUILDS AIRPORTS OF LESS THAN 5000 FEET ANY MORE.
In trying to take it personal, Libbie, you've revealed yourself as someone that has some real personal issues yourself. You need to get away from the computer, and get outside in the real world more.
I hope you get better!
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Mar. 10 2010,3:28 pm
So if you guys are feudin' again, can we hear the details about the gag order now? And how something similar can be prevented in the future? Back on topic- that a few trees got cut down, is not so much for an expansion. I am with Mr Dangerfield on that, two biggest waste of real estate are golf courses and cemetaries.
The hard left on plaza seemed not so well placed. I think it won't be to long before someone goes zinging off of it. That herd thinning thing.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 10 2010,3:53 pm
Where is the airport currently with the new runway and everything? Is it completed now, or still in progress? I haven't been out on plaza or seen the airport for a while, so hadn't really thought much about it until this thread came up.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 10 2010,4:26 pm
QUOTE
Libby opines on a subject about which he knows nothing.
He equates "bigger" planes with the need for longer runways. Okay, so instead of a bigger plane, then change those words to "a plane requiring a longer runway.
Actually I know quite a bit about your business, but my information came from you, so it comes from a less than reliable source.
QUOTE
So if you guys are feudin' again, can we hear the details about the gag order now?
We're not feudin, I'm just pointing out his hypocrisy, and he's whining about getting called a hypocrite. He's apparently much more thin skinned then the people he's constantly critical of.
I had no part in that anti-courthouse group, but it's a good question and I've it asked myself from different people in that group and nobody can produce a "gag order" signed by any judge. The only thing close to a gag order was the judge telling them they would have to be willing to pay for any cost increases caused by their legal action.
Posted by Alfy Packer on Mar. 10 2010,4:34 pm
I keep hearing about the new runway being such a good deal because the Federal Government is paying for so much of it. This out of the mouth of our own Rush Limbaugh quoting flyboy Jim. Doesn't sound too conservative to me, getting something we really didn't need just because the Federal Government was willing to foot a large portion of the tab.
Posted by nedkelly on Mar. 10 2010,4:53 pm
(Alfy Packer @ Mar. 10 2010,4:34 pm)
QUOTE
I keep hearing about the new runway being such a good deal because the Federal Government is paying for so much of it. This out of the mouth of our own Rush Limbaugh quoting flyboy Jim. Doesn't sound too conservative to me, getting something we really didn't need just because the Federal Government was willing to foot a large portion of the tab.
Only when it benefits Jim H...He is the first in line like any good conservative for govt. freebees...
... ...ned
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2010,5:34 pm
QUOTE
so instead of a bigger plane, then change those words to "a plane requiring a longer runway
Could anybody that speak "Liberal" take Chad aside and translate this? He must have missed it.
QUOTE
The reality is--an airline jet like a 737 and a corporate jet need about the same amount of runway.
Also this one QUOTE
Libbie ignores the obvious--again. The existing runway is long enough to handle nearly any corporate jet--you just can't GO anywhere with it!
While you're at it--get the answer to the question of how I'm supposed to make any money off old airplanes that nobody wants any more--or how I'm supposed to finance NEW jets--why I couldn't just keep selling jet that have been operating here for years off the SAME runway (after all, unlike actual business airplanes, airplanes for sale don't have to GO anywhere from here!)or why I wouldn't take the same amount of money and inventory smaller planes that are easier to sell and DON'T require a longer runway.Try to get the answers from him one at a time--any more than that, and he tends to ignore them. Translate the answers from Lib-speak into English, and get back to us.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 10 2010,5:54 pm
Well if you could already land whatever you want here, why did we need to spend 10 million dollars?Did anyone notice this photo in the Tribune last year? < http://www.albertleatribune.com/news...project >
That's a rare photo, not only do you have Jimhanson standing next to a democratic Congressman announcing the spending of millions of tax dollars, you also get to see several politicians and local government employees with their hand in their own pockets for once.
It's funny how thin skinned he is, you start asking questions about a multimillion dollar airport expansion and all of the sudden he starts to whine that it's something personal, and the only reason you would even think of asking those questions is because of your blind personal hatred of him, that or you're just a raving lunatic.
Posted by busybee on Mar. 10 2010,6:03 pm
What's done is done...right guys? It's not like anyone's going to change things back to the way it was. QUOTE
The hard left on plaza seemed not so well placed. I think it won't be to long before someone goes zinging off of it. That herd thinning thing.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2010,6:09 pm
(Alfy Packer @ Mar. 10 2010,4:34 pm)
QUOTE
I keep hearing about the new runway being such a good deal because the Federal Government is paying for so much of it. This out of the mouth of our own Rush Limbaugh quoting flyboy Jim. Doesn't sound too conservative to me, getting something we really didn't need just because the Federal Government was willing to foot a large portion of the tab.
Let's see--OWATONNA gets 37 years out of its airport (compared to 55 years out of ours)--and when it IS rebuilt--the City has to pay 1/3 of the $12.2 million dollar cost.
AUSTIN got 40 years out of their airport, and the City had to pay about $2.5 million out of the $15.5 million dollar cost.
FARIBAULT got 40 years out of its airport, and had to pay 1/3 out of the cost of 2 reworks costing about $1.5 million.
DODGE CENTER builds an airport nearly as large, and the City pays 1/3 of the cost of it.
This project comes in cheaper than any other local airport project in total cost, and FAR cheaper in the local share--AND YOU COMPLAIN?
ALBERT LEA has 95% of the project funded by the FAA Airport and Airways Trust Fund and MN/DOT Aeronautics trust fund--PLUS a little over a Million dollars from the "Stimulus" bill--AND YOU COMPLAIN?
Having a NEW facility will cost the City less than the cost of PATCHING THE OLD ONE EVERY YEAR--and YOU COMPLAIN?
The project comes in at HALF what Owatonna's cost, and 40% of what Austin's cost--for LESS local cost--AND YOU COMPLAIN?
QUOTE
He is the first in line like any good conservative for govt. freebees...
Yep--I got right in line. The problem with your "THINKING" is that I can't sign anything for the City. The Colorado Cannibal weighs in
QUOTE
getting something we really didn't need just because the Federal Government was willing to foot a large portion of the tab.
Would you prefer that the City forego the State Aid it receives every year? Without making the mandated changes, that wouldn't happen. Where's that old-fashioned liberal whine about State Aid?
Would you rather keep patching the old facility? That doesn't work on highways, and most people find that there comes a time when it is no longer economical to patch their old car. Liberal hypocrisy again.
The whiners and complainers here are always envious when business goes to another city--but don't want to make the improvements THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED SINCE 1953.
QUOTE
just because the Federal Government was willing to foot a large portion of the tab.
Yep--the City Manager, the Council, the City Engineers, the airport consultants, and I ALL KNEW 11 years ago when the engineering on this project started that Obama was going to be elected and run wild spending money. And 9/11 was an inside job, and man never landed on the moon, and Detroit automakers paid millions of dollars for the secret to a carburetor that will let cars run on water.And you wonder why we laugh at you?
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 10 2010,6:21 pm
Yesterday the plans were unchanged since 1953, today the engineering began 11 years ago? QUOTE
The proposal is the same as it was in 1953 (with the exception that the new runway is 400' west instead of 300')--a time when I was SIX YEARS OLD--yet you think this is MY idea? :
QUOTE
The City Manager, the Council, the City Engineers, the airport consultants, and I ALL KNEW 11 years ago when the engineering on this project started
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 10 2010,6:24 pm
QUOTE
Would you rather keep patching the old facility? That doesn't work on highways, and most people find that there comes a time when it is no longer economical to patch their old car. Liberal hypocrisy again.
But patching the facility works on 50 year old courthouse buildings and 100 year old schools? Talk about hypocrisy...
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2010,6:24 pm
QUOTE
Well if you could already land whatever you want here, why did we need to spend 10 million dollars?
Libbie--see the post above--or have someone read it to you.See the part where it says "You can't GO anywhere" with the airplanes after you land here.
See previous posts that says NOBODY BUILDS AIRPORTS LESS THAN 5000 FEET ANY MORE because insurance companies won't let their insureds use them.
See the posts that say that NO CITY IN MINNESOTA with a population of 17000 or more has a runway shorter than Albert Lea--that Albert Lea has the shortest runway for a city of its size in the state. Every OTHER city has faced the same issues, and come up with the same conclusions--but you opine that perhaps Albert Lea is UNIQUE.
You don't like the photo with Walz?
1. I was requested to be there.
2. How would it look to the City if he had been snubbed--by me--by the Mayor--by "the local politicians?" Would that have been good for the city?
QUOTE
"Asking questions"
Libbie? This has been played out in innumerable public hearings, council meetings, airport commission hearings, zoning meetings, airport consultants, newspaper articles, and on this site for 11 years. It has been part of the planning since 1953. Given the public airing on the issue, and your bitterness, it is NOT about "asking questions"--it is PERSONAL. Reminds me of Gabe--and one of the zoning meetings. GABE had the excuse of drinking hard--you don't.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2010,6:28 pm
Libbie QUOTE
But patching the facility works on 50 year old courthouse buildings and 100 year old schools?
Can somebody explain to Libbie that there is a big difference between BUILDINGS and PAVEMENT?
Pavement goes bad--especially in Minnesota. Buildings last a lot longer. There are no BUILDINGS in this project.
Using "Libbie Logic"--most of the buildings in Europe (including the Vatican, Cathedrals, Versailles, castles, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle should have been torn down hundreds of years ago.
And you wonder why we laugh at you.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2010,6:39 pm
QUOTE
Yesterday the plans were unchanged since 1953, today the engineering began 11 years ago?
The AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN in 1953 called for the runway to be moved west 300 feet, and the current runway to be used as a taxiway. That has never changed.In 1967, the consultant revalidated the plan. The artist's rendition of what the airport would look like has hung in the airport office ever since--you can see it today.
In 1999, the State threatened to cut off state aid because the City had not followed through on the construction. Mead & Hunt was selected by the City as airport consultants. The runway was moved an additional 100' west to comply with changed FAA rules. Mead & Hunt did the actual engineering for the runway. I intentionally hung the current plan right underneath the 1967 plan--there is virtually no difference, as anyone that has actually been out here could confirm. YOU'VE seen them both, when you borrowed my boat.
QUOTE
The proposal is the same as it was in 1953 (with the exception that the new runway is 400' west instead of 300')--a time when I was SIX YEARS OLD--yet you think this is MY idea? :
QUOTE
The City Manager, the Council, the City Engineers, the airport consultants, and I ALL KNEW 11 years ago when the engineering on this project started
Look up the difference between PROPOSAL and ENGINEERING, Libbie. If you are STILL confused, go down to the City Engineer's office and have THEM try to explain it to you.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2010,6:59 pm
Irisheyes-- QUOTE
Where is the airport currently with the new runway and everything? Is it completed now, or still in progress?
The grading and dirt work are 90% complete. Finish work and paving are to be done this year--pending FAA release of the encumbered funds. The runway and taxiway lights, 3-phase power, modern approach slope light replacement (they don't use the current system any more) and the approach lights are also scheduled. If there is a shortfall, the conversion of the present runway into a taxiway (and the use of the recycled bituminous into turnaround pads at the end of the runway) will have to be delayed another year. There is also the question of timing of the instrument approach--something I have long feared would not happen in the right sequence--moving the instrument approach to the new runway cannot start until the FAA has a runway surface to work from. They may not get it designed until next year--so we would have a runway that we could use for takeoff and landing under visual conditions, but the existing runway would have to be used for instrument landings. It all depends on how fast the FAA moves.
Pretzel Logic brings up the Plaza Street curve. Yes, I drive that every day--it's not to my liking, and I see that the guard rail has already been hit. The engineers drew it this way--we objected, and they straigtened th curve. When the decision was made to build a bridge instead of the box culverts that are used on the freeway and the OLD Plaza street, costs had to be cut--and the decision was made to go back to the sharper curve to save money.
The Plaza street reconstruction and moving of the water mains was done with money from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund. The City got a new street out of it.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 10 2010,8:11 pm
QUOTE
See the part where it says "You can't GO anywhere" with the airplanes after you land here.
So you claim the runway can "handle" these jets, but they just can't take off once they've landed? Do you just not understand what the word "handle" means?
QUOTE
Given the public airing on the issue, and your bitterness, it is NOT about "asking questions"--it is PERSONAL. Reminds me of Gabe--and one of the zoning meetings. GABE had the excuse of drinking hard--you don't.
What bitterness? You claim this is personal but I'm at a loss as to what you supposedly did to make me bitter? You can't just make an accusation like that without anything to back it up, that's as ridiculous as Wolfie saying that I'm jealous of you owning planes.
The reason I bring this stuff up is because I'm having a blast making fun of you being a big spending closet liberal, and I think it's hilarious when you whine about getting picked on.
QUOTE
You don't like the photo with Walz?
You didn't like the joke? You are such a whiner, instead of thinking I was joking you have to defend standing next to a Democrat.
Posted by Alfy Packer on Mar. 11 2010,6:43 am
Jimmy, I pick up people at the airport regularly. This past year I have been questioned as to what is going on out there. After I tell them we are expanding the runway, the next question I am always asked is, "WHY?"All I can say is, "I don't fly, but some people around here who do thought it was needed."
So for all the WHYS I have heard last year, I'm asking you why?
Posted by grassman on Mar. 11 2010,7:05 am
So insurance companies can dictate where one can land their plane? Wow they have more power than I thought.
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 11 2010,9:10 pm
You see a few pretty good sized airborne vehicles making the approach to the runaway in Albert Lea from time to time, it seems.Although it's been kind of quiet lately it seems.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 11 2010,9:49 pm
(grassman @ Mar. 11 2010,7:05 am)
QUOTE
So insurance companies can dictate where one can land their plane? Wow they have more power than I thought.
Is your statement serious?
Did you know that if you commit suicide within two years of taking out a life policy that they won't pay?
So yes, insurance companies have certain stipulations.
I know. It's crazy...
Posted by busybee on Mar. 12 2010,12:10 am
This has been a fun thread to read...Liberal and Jim Hanson at it again! Ahhh yes...these are two people who I know for a FACT put their political party convictions aside for the "common good" of ALL U.S. Citizen RIGHTS!
There certainly NEEDS to be MORE of this in the U.S., especially NOW...
Posted by Robert Hoffman on Mar. 12 2010,9:58 am
Do we have clearance Clarence?Roger, Roger.
What’s the vector Victor?
-Airplane
"'This is a hybrid ... of bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, featherbed bent and northern California sensemilia.' 'The amazing stuff about this, is that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on the stuff.'"
-Carl (Bill Murray) in Caddyshack
...only on AL.com can ya use two such quotes and have it all make sense, well...
Posted by canvasback on Mar. 12 2010,11:03 am
"Surley you jest"....
Posted by canvasback on Mar. 12 2010,11:05 am
"Surely you jest"...
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 12 2010,12:44 pm
I don't understand post #46?
Posted by Glad I Left on Mar. 12 2010,2:52 pm
Stop calling me Shirley.
Posted by Robert Hoffman on Mar. 12 2010,4:36 pm
(canvasback @ Mar. 12 2010,11:05 am)
QUOTE
"Surely you jest"...
...thats funny!
Posted by Robert Hoffman on Mar. 12 2010,4:37 pm
(Glad I Left @ Mar. 12 2010,2:52 pm)
QUOTE
Stop calling me Shirley.
...#46 is funny (these guys got it)
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 13 2010,10:32 am
Alfy QUOTE
All I can say is, "I don't fly, but some people around here who do thought it was needed."
So for all the WHYS I have heard last year, I'm asking you why?
We've been through this before, but here goes--again.So for all the WHYS I have heard last year, I'm asking you why?
Albert Lea's runway has no taxiway. When the original pavement was laid down in 1955, the plan was to put down another strip later, and use the old one as the taxiway.
In the 1960s, the City allowed houses to be built off the end of the existing runway, in opposition to state and federal laws. Their rationale was that they were going to put down the new strip, and the houses weren't going to affect that strip. See photo of original pavement, 1955.
In the early 1970s, the State--acting as the agent for the Federal government--found the City to be non-compliant. They cut off state aid to the airport--not just for new projects, but for things like lighting and utilities as well.
The City and the State worked out a plan to construct the planned-for new runway. The State restored aid to the City. The runway plan was engineered by HNTB.
The State ran short of money in the Carter-era recession, and the project didn't qualify for Federal aid. Plans were put on hold.
During this interim, the airport was patched and overlaid with State funding 2/3 and local funding 1/3.
About 20 years ago, we applied for and were granted Basic Transport Status by the FAA, and included in the National Improvements for Airports plan--making us eligible for aviation trust fund money.
About 15 years ago, in the mid-nineties, the State looked at the houses and obstructions again, and again threatened to with hold money, curtail night operations, and shorten the runway to give the required obstruction clearance. The City selected Mead & Hunt as their airport engineers and consultants.
Mead & Hunt considered all options, including the "do nothing" option. Leaving the runway in place would require buying 16 properties or easements--relocating homes.
The runway was now deteriorated--asphalt rots from the bottom up as the binding material dissolves. It had been overlaid at least 4 times in the 48 years I've been flying from here. There is a limit to how many times it can be overlaid--you develop "reflection cracking"--overlaying a crack soon has a new crack in the new surface. The runway would have to be excavated to a depth of 4.5 feet and reconstructed--just as Owatonna and Austin runways were.
The runway lights were obsolete--they are not even in conduit. The strobe lights and visual approach lights are obsolete--When new units were installed at Owatonna and Faribault, I brought down the old units to keep our own lights running here when I operated those airports.
The Fire Marshal wanted the heavy-duty electrical equipment moved out of the office and into an electrical vault as it is a fire hazard.
The insurance companies do not let many of their insureds operate on airports of less than 5000 feet as a matter of policy--even though it may be legal. This has become the default standard for airports--enough so that the people that produce approach plates have an edition that simply omits any airport with a runway of less than 5000'. The FAA Basic Transport default is now 5000' (there are some exceptions)--and having 5000' gets access to Federal Aviation Trust Fund money. Albert Lea currently has the shortest runway for a city of its size in the state of Minnesota.
The FAA changed the regulations. Every jet takeoff requires calculation of the accelerate/stop distance--an engine failure at the worst possible time, and either stopping on the runway or accelerating and flying off with an engine out. Though piston airplanes and turboprops weighing under 12,500 pounds do not have to comply with this, jets do. If operated under the same rules as piston airplanes, jets can operate out of smaller fields. The FAA also instituted a 60% safety requirement for any jet operated for hire--like charter flights and fractional ownerships--a big part of corporate travel. That means that a jet must have at least 60% more runway for landing than the book says it needs. The Cessna Citation has perhaps the least runway required--about 3000' for most models at typical landing weights. Adding 60% makes it 4800'--and that's on a dry runway. If the runway is wet, or snow or ice covered, the runway required goes up again. Another reason for the 5000' minimum nullrequirement.
Given the need to relocate homes, excavate the runway in place, replace lighting and approach aids, and update zoning, it made no sense to rework the present runway--and we STILL wouldn't have a taxiway. Mead & Hunt recommended going along with the 1953 plan and the plan by HNTB, and construct the new runway.
The plans were all in place--the engineering done, and the first Federal dollars done (to rework Plaza Street on the north end of the airport--also from the FAA funding). The FAA would pay 95%. Because airports take so many years to plan, develop, and jump through the regulatory hoops, when the Stimulus money became available, the administration seized on airports as "shovel-ready"--something that could be done right away. Albert Lea got one of the first STimulus projects in the country--and stimulus money funds at 100%. It will pay for about 1/4 of the project--the FAA funds will fund the rest.
We got 10 to 15 years more out of our runway than any other city--but it's time to replace rather than patch.
Posted by gljoefan on Mar. 13 2010,10:14 pm
Jim,I don't know as much as you about the airport, but I am ok with the new runway. But you leave yourself open for critisism because you are always on the the other side of government spending. People here are doing to you what, in my view, you did during the debate over the new high school. The old buildings, and don't forget it was not just one, was a piece of crap and needed to be replaced. I was never too moved by the build it and they will come pitch, it just needed to be replaced.
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 14 2010,7:36 am
Good explanation, Jim.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 14 2010,1:42 pm
QUOTE
But you leave yourself open for critisism because you are always on the the other side of government spending.
I AM for less government spending--I'm always consistent on that--but there ARE big differences:
This isn't my decision. I have no budget authority. Whether the airport is expanded or not is not up to me. Along with the consultant hired by the City, I make recommendations and answer questions.
Unlike the school building, this is funded by FAA and MN/DOT Aviation Trust Funds--paid for by the users--no money from the General Treasury UNTIL the Stimulus money was doled out. A check on this site will show that I said "The conservative in me doesn't want the stimulus money because it comes from the general treasury--but it allows the project to be completed in fewer years at less cost to the city."
Unlike the school building, pavement wears out much faster.
Unlike the school building, there is no "remodeling". Buildings can last for centuries with remodeling--pavement rots and de-bonds. Proof: Austin and Owatonna built new airports, but both remodeled their school buildings.
As previously mentioned, the "do nothing" option WAS given to the Council. It was hardly an option given the age of the asphalt surfaces, the threatened cutoff of funds, the competition from other cities, and the need to buy homes and displace people if the airport remained open. "Close the airport" was also an option. The consultant and the council chose to go ahead with the 1953 plan--updated to fit current state and federal requirements.
Rebuilding on the present runway site never was an option due to the houses being built off the end. That was done in the early 1960s--I was not part of the permitting process then as I was attending Southwest jr. high--(ANOTHER 50-year-old building)on the other side of town.
The City got a lot out of the runway for minimal expenditure over the years--be glad of that--but it's time that we update to something more modern--after all, the present runway was laid down in the day of the Hudson Hornet, and you don't see many of THOSE in everyday service!
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 14 2010,2:33 pm
How does one explain all the centuries-old buildings in Europe and Asia still standing? The oldest part of the old high school would have been less than 90 years old, and the WPA core much less, never mind the 1968 additions.Those that argue that the building was maintained poorly while it was still being used as a school better take a look at the maintenance overhead at the new school, to see if everything that can be done to prevent this again is being done, as I doubt the new facility can boast the engineering and craftsmanship of the old one.
A small adjustment to maintenance budgets now will avoid a big adjustment in building construction costs later.
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 14 2010,3:37 pm
You talking about the wall separating in the new high school's auditorium?
Posted by gljoefan on Mar. 14 2010,5:05 pm
(Botto 82 @ Mar. 14 2010,2:33 pm)
QUOTE
How does one explain all the centuries-old buildings in Europe and Asia still standing? The oldest part of the old high school would have been less than 90 years old, and the WPA core much less, never mind the 1968 additions.
Those that argue that the building was maintained poorly while it was still being used as a school better take a look at the maintenance overhead at the new school, to see if everything that can be done to prevent this again is being done, as I doubt the new facility can boast the engineering and craftsmanship of the old one.
A small adjustment to maintenance budgets now will avoid a big adjustment in building construction costs later.
Those that argue that the building was maintained poorly while it was still being used as a school better take a look at the maintenance overhead at the new school, to see if everything that can be done to prevent this again is being done, as I doubt the new facility can boast the engineering and craftsmanship of the old one.
A small adjustment to maintenance budgets now will avoid a big adjustment in building construction costs later.
The worst part of the old high school buildings was the library addition, not old elementary building. But using your logic. Why has anyone ever tore down a building?
It did not have anything to do with maintenance. I think the district has always done a great job with buildings. Hawthorne is a great example of that, but the same can be said of the other elementary schools.
I don't know about what happened with Owatonna, but the Austin school was a great candidate for remodeling.
But I am beginning to wonder about the airport expansion. I guess we should have just resurfaced the runway and called it good.
Jim can claim "user fees" all he wants. They are tax dollars.
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 14 2010,7:27 pm
It appears to be similar to high way funding. If you want the federal $$$ you need to meet federal guidelines for airport runways. Seems simple to me.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 14 2010,9:07 pm
(Botto 82 @ Mar. 14 2010,2:33 pm)
QUOTE
How does one explain all the centuries-old buildings in Europe and Asia still standing? The oldest part of the old high school would have been less than 90 years old, and the WPA core much less, never mind the 1968 additions.
Those that argue that the building was maintained poorly while it was still being used as a school better take a look at the maintenance overhead at the new school, to see if everything that can be done to prevent this again is being done, as I doubt the new facility can boast the engineering and craftsmanship of the old one.
A small adjustment to maintenance budgets now will avoid a big adjustment in building construction costs later.
Those that argue that the building was maintained poorly while it was still being used as a school better take a look at the maintenance overhead at the new school, to see if everything that can be done to prevent this again is being done, as I doubt the new facility can boast the engineering and craftsmanship of the old one.
A small adjustment to maintenance budgets now will avoid a big adjustment in building construction costs later.
The "centuries-old buildings" in Europe have dedicated maintenance crews.
When I lived there, scaffolding was a "natural" part of the skyline in most cities...
Because of their less than 40 hour work week, it was a common site and it seemed like it took forever for them to finish a building.
That's why I have a lot patience for our road crews here. They are pretty fast when you consider their European counterparts.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 14 2010,9:43 pm
(Common Citizen @ Mar. 14 2010,9:07 pm)
QUOTE
The "centuries-old buildings" in Europe have dedicated maintenance crews.
What's the difference? It isn't like our schools and courthouse don't have maintenance crews either way. It seemed like we actually had to hire MORE people after they got a new building and tore down the old.
You hear about how we spent tens of millions on this new courthouse and jail only to find out later that the roof leaks and Gabe was hiding it the whole time to avoid a complaint to one of the companies he later got a job with? We pour a fortune into maintenance whether it's a new or old building, and oddly enough we seem to see a huge increase in maintenance and jailers after our new state of the art facilities are built.
Posted by gljoefan on Mar. 14 2010,11:07 pm
Someone needs BMW they don't need to build any new buildings. I toured the campus in Munich and it is a blend of old and new buildings. They must not have gotten the memo.
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 15 2010,8:18 am
(irisheyes @ Mar. 14 2010,9:43 pm)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Mar. 14 2010,9:07 pm)
QUOTE
The "centuries-old buildings" in Europe have dedicated maintenance crews.
What's the difference? It isn't like our schools and courthouse don't have maintenance crews either way. It seemed like we actually had to hire MORE people after they got a new building and tore down the old.
You hear about how we spent tens of millions on this new courthouse and jail only to find out later that the roof leaks and Gabe was hiding it the whole time to avoid a complaint to one of the companies he later got a job with? We pour a fortune into maintenance whether it's a new or old building, and oddly enough we seem to see a huge increase in maintenance and jailers after our new state of the art facilities are built.
There isn't. I'm just pointing out that just because Europe has a lot of older buildings, it doesn't mean that they are without maintenance issues.
I was against the new court house being built. One would hope that the construction company, that was hired, warranties their work for a certain number of years.
Did the County have one in place?
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 15 2010,1:53 pm
QUOTE
Jim can claim "user fees" all he wants. They are tax dollars.
Yes, they are. They are taxes on the people that use airports.
Don't worry--none of your Federal or State tax dollars are going for airports.
Here's a link to the original Federal bill. null< My Webpage >
Here's another quote
QUOTE
Airport and Airway Trust Fund
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) provides funding for the federal commitment to the aviation system of the United States of America through several aviation-related excise taxes.[1] It was established on the books of the United States Department of the Treasury in 1971. The existence of an accumulated surplus in the fund has led some to question whether users of the aviation system are receiving their fair share of government spending given the aviation excise taxes they pay.
The tax is on aviation fuel, oil, parts, passenger emplanements, charter flights, aircraft registration, and cargo.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) provides funding for the federal commitment to the aviation system of the United States of America through several aviation-related excise taxes.[1] It was established on the books of the United States Department of the Treasury in 1971. The existence of an accumulated surplus in the fund has led some to question whether users of the aviation system are receiving their fair share of government spending given the aviation excise taxes they pay.
As mentioned, the Trust Fund runs a SURPLUS--and any politician wants to get their hands on "extra" money.
MN/DOT Aeronautics is also self supporting for airport development. They have a similar system of fees for users--here's the link < My Webpage >
Like the Federal program, the MN/DOT Trust Fund runs a surplus--the State "borrowed" $15 million a couple of years ago to balance the budget--and paid it back. Last year, it did it again, but HASN'T paid it back. I guess the politicians at the state level can't resist a pot full of money unspent, either.
Can you cite any example of the State or Federal spending on airports from the General Revenue funds?
User fees, properly administered, are the most fair way to fund government projects. People should be more insistent that HIGHWAYS were funded from the money collected by car registrations and fuel tax instead of disappearing into the general fund. Libbies like to complain about lack of road and bridge maintenance--demand that the State use the money it collects for the purpose it was collected.
Posted by gljoefan on Mar. 15 2010,7:00 pm
(jimhanson @ Mar. 15 2010,1:53 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Jim can claim "user fees" all he wants. They are tax dollars.
Yes, they are. They are taxes on the people that use airports.
Don't worry--none of your Federal or State tax dollars are going for airports.
Here's a link to the original Federal bill. null< My Webpage >
Here's another quote
QUOTE
Airport and Airway Trust Fund
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) provides funding for the federal commitment to the aviation system of the United States of America through several aviation-related excise taxes.[1] It was established on the books of the United States Department of the Treasury in 1971. The existence of an accumulated surplus in the fund has led some to question whether users of the aviation system are receiving their fair share of government spending given the aviation excise taxes they pay.
The tax is on aviation fuel, oil, parts, passenger emplanements, charter flights, aircraft registration, and cargo.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) provides funding for the federal commitment to the aviation system of the United States of America through several aviation-related excise taxes.[1] It was established on the books of the United States Department of the Treasury in 1971. The existence of an accumulated surplus in the fund has led some to question whether users of the aviation system are receiving their fair share of government spending given the aviation excise taxes they pay.
As mentioned, the Trust Fund runs a SURPLUS--and any politician wants to get their hands on "extra" money.
MN/DOT Aeronautics is also self supporting for airport development. They have a similar system of fees for users--here's the link < My Webpage >
Like the Federal program, the MN/DOT Trust Fund runs a surplus--the State "borrowed" $15 million a couple of years ago to balance the budget--and paid it back. Last year, it did it again, but HASN'T paid it back. I guess the politicians at the state level can't resist a pot full of money unspent, either.
Can you cite any example of the State or Federal spending on airports from the General Revenue funds?
User fees, properly administered, are the most fair way to fund government projects. People should be more insistent that HIGHWAYS were funded from the money collected by car registrations and fuel tax instead of disappearing into the general fund. Libbies like to complain about lack of road and bridge maintenance--demand that the State use the money it collects for the purpose it was collected.
Wrong, those costs are passed on as higher costs. Unless the airport is just for leisure travelers.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 15 2010,8:06 pm
Do y'all really care? Good grief the airport is a wreck. It needs work...and upkeep. Jim doesn't own the damn thing, he just is the manager. Why kill the messenger? Let's us all get back to whining about the KFC or some other business we may be able to kill. 
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 15 2010,8:07 pm
Do y'all really care? Good grief the airport is a wreck. It needs work...and upkeep. Jim doesn't own the damn thing, he just is the manager. Why kill the messenger? Let's all get back to whining about the KFC or some other business we may be able to kill.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 15 2010,8:10 pm
See!! now you have me repeating myself!!!!
Posted by Common Citizen on Mar. 15 2010,9:21 pm
^ No zhit...
Posted by Glad I Left on Mar. 15 2010,10:58 pm
you are awesome mama.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 16 2010,12:03 am
QUOTE
The tax is on aviation fuel, oil, parts, passenger emplanements, charter flights, aircraft registration, and cargo.
What he's saying Joe is that unlike the highways and bridge money that is collected and dropped into the general fund to be used however the politicians feel the Aviation fund is collected and mainly used for airport upkeep and renovations. Jim did mention how the state has "borrowed" some of that money and repaid it the first time but has yet to repay it from the last time.
Unless you are using an airline for travel, own an airplane, or have cargo transported on an airline you are not paying this tax on a daily basis. At least this money is being spent, for the most part, on it's intended target. The same cannot be said for a majority of the taxes that are collected.
Mama you get a big
well said.
Posted by hymiebravo on Mar. 16 2010,1:23 am
(gljoefan @ Mar. 14 2010,5:05 pm)
QUOTE
(Botto 82 @ Mar. 14 2010,2:33 pm)
QUOTE
How does one explain all the centuries-old buildings in Europe and Asia still standing? The oldest part of the old high school would have been less than 90 years old, and the WPA core much less, never mind the 1968 additions.
Those that argue that the building was maintained poorly while it was still being used as a school better take a look at the maintenance overhead at the new school, to see if everything that can be done to prevent this again is being done, as I doubt the new facility can boast the engineering and craftsmanship of the old one.
A small adjustment to maintenance budgets now will avoid a big adjustment in building construction costs later.
Those that argue that the building was maintained poorly while it was still being used as a school better take a look at the maintenance overhead at the new school, to see if everything that can be done to prevent this again is being done, as I doubt the new facility can boast the engineering and craftsmanship of the old one.
A small adjustment to maintenance budgets now will avoid a big adjustment in building construction costs later.
The worst part of the old high school buildings was the library addition, not old elementary building. But using your logic. Why has anyone ever tore down a building?
It did not have anything to do with maintenance. I think the district has always done a great job with buildings. Hawthorne is a great example of that, but the same can be said of the other elementary schools.
I don't know about what happened with Owatonna, but the Austin school was a great candidate for remodeling.
But I am beginning to wonder about the airport expansion. I guess we should have just resurfaced the runway and called it good.
Jim can claim "user fees" all he wants. They are tax dollars.
QUOTE
The worst part of the old high school buildings was the library addition, not old elementary building. But using your logic. Why has anyone ever tore down a building?
The reasons that buildings get torn down are as varied as the amount of buildings that get destroyed. In the case of the old high school you had people that wanted something new and shiny. They had a predetermined fix in their minds.
Just like anything else when you decide that you don't like something then you look at it differently than you would if you liked it.
It wouldn't and didn't take much to convince all the people that wanted the shiny new thing that the existing structure was terrible and beyond repair.
I remember walking into the innards of the school there at the west end that went into like a smokestack area or something. This was when it was just prior to it's demise.
And I can remember standing there and the palpable feeling that I was standing next a very strong, sturdy, impressive structure. But according to all the negativity surrounding the place and how bad it was. You would have thought that it would have just fell over on it's own, by then.
Far from it. I wonder how long that place would have stood, had it been left there unattended even, vandals notwithstanding.
QUOTE
It did not have anything to do with maintenance. I think the district has always done a great job with buildings. Hawthorne is a great example of that, but the same can be said of the other elementary schools.
That is probably a testament to the structure itself more than the way it is being maintained.
Look at photos of some of the structures that have been torn down in Albert Lea over the years. There were some pretty impressively constructed buildings among them. The likes of which nobody will probably every see duplicated.
QUOTE
I don't know about what happened with Owatonna, but the Austin school was a great candidate for remodeling.
I'm sure if they would have really wanted to they could have adopted a shiny new attitude with those two as well.
I'm sure the buildings were probably plagued by a lot of old building issues. And it wasn't an easy task to complete the renovation.
Albert lea could have been considered a great candidate too if you had a different mindset. And things like controlling the spread of blight were taken into consideration.
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 16 2010,1:51 am
The old CHS facility was, for the most part, a sound series of structures. The 1961 math/science/library addition was a possible exception, and even it was built to a higher standard than either Freeborn or Mower counties' jails were and are, respectively.Perhaps a High School closer to our current economic center is in order. Ahem!
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 16 2010,1:55 am
That was Central High's real demise - its unfortunate distance from all things North Bridge Avenue.
Posted by grassman on Mar. 16 2010,6:30 am
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUj_qqVxVrE >
Posted by Robert Hoffman on Mar. 16 2010,11:49 am
Grass! THATS GREAT!
My aunt and uncle own Green Lea and despite that I suuuck at golf; I can relate to the video!
Posted by gljoefan on Mar. 16 2010,4:40 pm
I voted no the first time they tried to pass it, and was planning on doing the same until I took it upon my self to do a little research. There is no question that would could have remodeled the building. But the costs would have been over $10 million. Austin High School is one building as I believe is the Owatonna Building. Making them much better candidates for a remodel.
Hymie, you are hitting the nail on the head when you say that Hawthorne has more to with the building than maintenance. I would say it takes both. But that is the point I was trying to make about the old High School.
The best part, and I think that is to what you refer, was the old Lincoln Elementary Building or the shop on the far east side. Those two sections, and Cap Emmons, could have been saved. There are would have been some heating issues, but those could have been worked out. The rest needed to come down and would have had to be replaced.
Posted by Whistle Blower 2010 on Mar. 17 2010,2:37 am
Green Lea had to do alot of changes due to the airport issues. Many years ago the owners wanted to build a snack shack between holes # 6 and # 16. They started the footings and then had to stop because the roof would violate the runway air space.This is why you see that the course has to trim and top the old trees that run along side the # 16 fairway.
Posted by ICU812 on Mar. 17 2010,2:50 pm
QUOTE
Green Lea had to do alot of changes due to the airport issues.
QUOTE
Established in 1949, Green Lea Golf Course boasts an 18 hole, par 72 course that will keep you coming back time after time.
QUOTE
Albert Lea Airport: Activation date: 03/1942
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
Posted by Whistle Blower 2010 on Mar. 20 2010,5:06 am
I drove by the course again today and they are still cutting more and more trees down.This is really starting to change the looks of the course and a few holes.
Some guys at work were joking and said that maybe Scott Lafavre is buying that course like he did the old Counrty Club.
Also , some were talking about how the owners of Green Lea had rasied the prices when the other course was closed. They scalped the members for them few years and now that the WedgeWood Cove course is open , Green Lea has finally lowered there prices.
