|
|
| Post Number: 31
|
Liberal 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted 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. 
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 32
|
|
|
| Post Number: 33
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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?
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 34
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 35
|
|
|
| Post Number: 36
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 37
|
|
|
| Post Number: 38
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 39
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 40
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
