|
|
| Post Number: 61
|
|
|
| Post Number: 62
|
|
|
| Post Number: 63
|
gljoefan 
Group: Members
Posts: 275
Joined: Jun. 2008
|
 |
Posted 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.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 64
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted 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?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 65
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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. nullMy 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.
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.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 66
|
gljoefan
Group: Members
Posts: 275
Joined: Jun. 2008
|
|
Posted 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. nullMy WebpageHere'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. 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 WebpageLike 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.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 67
|
Mamma
Group: Members
Posts: 1474
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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. 
--------------
A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 68
|
Mamma
Group: Members
Posts: 1474
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 69
|
Mamma
Group: Members
Posts: 1474
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 15 2010,8:10 pm |
|
|
See!! now you have me repeating myself!!!!
--------------
A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 70
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 15 2010,9:21 pm |
|
|
^  No zhit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
