carpetman, hamptons, flooring

427 Comments by localEH

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  >>  

East Hampton Airport Opponents' Lawsuit Dismissed By Appellate Court

If you mean Ocean Reef Airport, that's a PRIVATE airport. You cannot even land unless you are a member or registered guest with advance registration. As a private airport they can restrict it any way they want. HTO never has been and never could be a private airport. Orange City Municipal (ORC) is a tiny little airport in Iowa that doesn't have any restrictions whatsoever because it's in the middle of nowhere. The cars, trucks, buses, and trains on the east end cause significantly more pollution than all of the aircraft at HTO. And you have an exponentially greater chance of being hit by lightning or eaten by a shark then being injured due to aircraft operations at or near HTO. " Mar 12, 15 12:01 AM

So much for your earlier hollow claims of wanting to find a compromise. It's all about winning at any cost to you - regardless of the damage you will cause this community, local residents, and local businesses. No, you will not "win". You will continue to cause division in the community. You will continue to lie, manipulate, threaten, and bully everyone to get your way and financially line your own pockets. You will cost the town and this community millions of dollars in unnecessary and spurious litigation to pursue a course of action you have been repeatedly cautioned is in violation of the FAA rules and you will lose, just like in the above article. Our airport has been here since 1936 and has had commercial and commuter operations since the 1940s. You will not take our airport from us. " Mar 12, 15 12:22 AM

Community Largely Split on East Hampton Town's Proposed Airport Regulations

Close. The vast majority supports an economically viable airport that services our community, local residents, local businesses, and encourages summer visitors who bring in so much income to the area. The vast majority supports reasonable restrictions on heavy aircraft and helicopters (ex: Sikorsky S92) to certain times of the day. Unfortunately, the people driving the restrictions train are hell bent on defunding and closing the airport, so achieving a mutually reasonable result is impossible." Mar 13, 15 4:09 PM

That's why the economic impact statement is not available - they know it is not viable. The town's best proposal for making up the revenue was to increase landing fees by 75% (imagine if the ferry tried to increase its fee by 75%), tear down the brand new tower (the one that the same people demanded be installed 3 years ago and cost the town >$1M), charge for parking (despite the fact that the parking system would cost as much as it earned in revenue), and hope businesses suddenly want to rent commercial property at the airport." Mar 13, 15 4:19 PM

Southampton Bracing For Increased Helicopter Traffic If New East Hampton Rules Are Adopted

Ironically the leader of the anti-airport movement and professional committee member, Kathleen Cunningham, previously went after the LIRR but couldn't get anyone to join her campaign. So she switched to the airport as her complaint du jour. " Mar 14, 15 6:37 PM

UPDATE: Small Aircraft Makes Hard Landing At East Hampton Airport, Runway Reopened

So glad to hear everyone was safe and unhurt! There was a strong gusty NW crosswind today making landing on Rwy 10-28 difficult and ripe for unexpected excessive side load on a landing gear. Too bad Rwy 16-34 is in such disrepair it couldn't be used. If the town board would have simply performed the repairs they have been promising since 2010 (and local pilots have been begging for), this accident may have been avoided. Fortunately just the plane was injured. This time." Mar 19, 15 12:07 AM

Friends of East Hampton Airport Ask For FAA Intervention For Safety And Access

You are finally admitting you call the hotline every time you hear the slightest sound from any aircraft of any kind - regardless of whether it is actually noisy or objectively disturbing. You call repeatedly to rack up the hotline statistics without any basis, other than to manipulate the system. You don't care if the aircraft is merely flying past HTO without landing, or perhaps is a military/coast guard aircraft on a training mission, or is a life flight aircraft providing urgent medical help - all that matters is your racking up those complaint numbers. " Apr 14, 15 10:15 PM

East Hampton Pilot Pens Petition For Safety At East Hampton Airport

How DARE you challenge our desire to have a safe airport! You and your Quiet Skies group have hit a new and pathetic low with that insult. We have been desperately fighting for years to have the most basic repairs and maintenance done to keep someone from being killed. Those of us fighting to keep our airport are LOCALS. We are not nameless lobbyists from out of state - we live next door to you and shop at Waldbaums just like you (oh wait, that's too low brow for you). Come spend any nice weekend at HTO and you will meet dozens of your local neighbors. By the way, HTO has had commercial air taxi services since the 1940s - well before you arrived. We don't fly low to conserve fuel (that's hilarious). To conserve fuel you need to fly higher where the air is less dense. Do you think commercial planes fly at 38k feet because they like the view? Stop spreading blatant falsehoods in a desperate attempt to give Quiet Skies a semblance of credibility. " Apr 30, 15 3:24 PM

Trish you are not making sense again. You concede that no maintenance has been done but explode with indignation accuse me of spewing misinformation when I say that no maintenance has been done. Us local pilots have no control over the town board (any year's version) or how they spend money. We are just once again begging for the board to perform much needed maintenance before someone is hurt. Why are you so against this? Why does the death of a pilot or passengers make you so happy? Do you hate us so much you want to see us killed? That's deeply disturbing. " May 1, 15 6:11 PM

East Hampton Town To Set Airport Fines, Responds To Request For TRO

Local pilots are equally sick and tired of the whining of the small anti-airport cadre. None of us local pilots know, talk to, or have any association with the commuter helicopters. We are not ignorant lemmings, we evaluate everything and make our own choices based on facts. You and your group have loudly and proudly said your goal is to close the airport - why on earth would we "join forces" with you?? You claim that because we choose to align with those who want to keep the airport open we must somehow be engaged in illegal flights that put our licenses at risk? That's insane! Stop slandering local pilots who have been responsible neighbors. It's not like we have been practicing turns around a point at 800ft over your house at all hours of the day (which we could and there's not a single thing the board could do about it). " May 14, 15 12:27 AM

Ms. Currie, even your own QSC vice-chair, Charles Ehren, and co-QSC member Pat Trunzo, said the idea of a waiver program for landing local pilots was a very reasonable proposal. So how about you give us a break. Since your knowledge about flight planning and weather variations is absolute naught, you should probably avoid commenting about it. You know the saying about the fool who opens his mouth and removes all doubt. The only one looking for special treatment is you. If the small 8 second buzz of a Cessna single engine prop is so nerve wrackingly loud to you that you can't sleep I can't imagine how a truck driving by, a dog barking, or (horror) an owl hooting must effect you. Perhaps you should move into a sound proof bubble. " May 14, 15 10:12 PM

East Hampton Town Will Hold Off On Airport Restrictions For Three Weeks

You are right that greed is the enemy of the airport - your greed. You and the rest of your real estate agents and developer friends who have dressed up as "noise affected" are the greedy ones who want to close the airport to develop the land. You've always wanted that, you have repeatedly said it loudly and publically. This is nothing new. We told you we would fight back and we will continue to fight to save our little airport. In case you missed the recent polls or haven't spoken to anyone outside your cadre, the significant majority of east end locals SUPPORT the airport. " May 18, 15 1:02 PM

While I agree with most of your statement, you are wrong about who is pushing to close the airport. Nearly every member of the town board's own appointed subcommittee on the airport have publicly stated on many occasions that they want to close it. So have most of the executive committee of the Quiet Skies Coalition and its founders. These are who the town board is receiving its guidance from. The tail is wagging this dog. Ask how many in the anti-airport group are attorneys who are making money pushing the noise issue. Ask how many are in real estate. This whole issue is about money, not noise." May 18, 15 9:07 PM

For clarity, the 600+ acres of land the airport is on is right in the middle of the Hamptons centrally placed between East, Bridge, Sag, and Sagaponack is valued in it's undeveloped state at over $1Billion. It is exempt from all those partition restrictions. So an ambitious developer could easily make 20x his investment and the RE agent would make one heck of a commission. Most people think making a couple billion is worth their time. " May 19, 15 8:58 AM

Do you not see the hypocritical irony in your relying on the "noise complaint hotline" data as incontrovertible proof that the community wants to restrict/close the airport? Isn't that hotline equally set up with "no controls to prevent tendentious finessing by vested interests"? In fact, hasn't it now been shown that the hotline complaint numbers were intentionally overinflated by the anti-airport group, with more than half the complaints coming from only 30 people and even one person making more than 2800 complaints (calling 33 times per day, every day). But somehow it is legitimate to enact restrictions based upon that manipulated data? Please explain why those against the airport are excluded from your objective polling requirements." May 19, 15 3:16 PM

Common middle ground and reasonable solutions have been the plea made by the pilot community for many years - but our plea has fallen on deaf ears. Please understand that the lawsuit is the last ditch hail mary to try to get the town board to work with the airport and pilots, to force them to be more reasonable. The conversation you describe should take place before the restrictions were enacted, not after. Yet we have been shut out of every discussion and ignored by the board. Even when presented with reasonable modifications (local pilot exception) the town board continued to dig its heels in deeper and refused to compromise in any way. The airport advisory committee, made up of the strongest anti-airport leaders, will not allow their board (yes they control this board) to proceed in any manner other than scorched and salted earth. What you call vitriol is our frustration at being shut out of the conversation and the complete refusal of anyone from the other side to consider common ground. " May 19, 15 3:39 PM

More than 900 signed the petition to keep the airport open. That is tree times the number of people who showed up at that meeting, which was highly advertised and organized by the anti-airport group. So you are right, there is lots of other evidence that the community wants to keep the airport open, safe, and operational. But a truly independent and objective poll would be nice to clearly establish that this whole issue is being created by a very very very small group of people with questionable motives." May 20, 15 4:48 PM

Remember there are two lawsuits. The second is to force the town (through the FAA) to perform the much needed maintenance at the airport. The town has refused to do the maintenance for years, despite making promise after broken promise to do so. There comes a point when empty promises mean nothing. When local pilots asked the town board to show how all of the needed current maintenance could be paid for, future maintenance could be paid for, and annual operations could be paid for they came up with a "plan" that was utterly unrealistic and impossible. It was so bad that no one could take it seriously. It was one step away from saying "Alien overlords will come to EH and agree to fund any shortfalls in funding". If the town (or anyone) could propose a financially sound and legitimate plan to ensure airport funding then that would make restrictions much more reasonable. I am not sure the town can have its cake (no FAA funds) and eat it too (financially support a restricted airport)." May 20, 15 4:59 PM

I guess when you don't like the actual facts you prefer to just make up a bunch of stuff and then pretend those are the facts? The people who signed the petition are RESIDENTS who have listed their locations from all over the East End. While a few might be pilots who are also RESIDENTS, the majority are not. I don't know how you can claim that all 950 are pilots with a straight face. Moreover, the petition was started by a RESIDENT local pilot who was merely asking that the neglected maintenance be performed - how did you equate that to being "an expression of the wishes of an external vested interest group"? And how is it improper bias for local pilots to express their opinion about the restrictions but completely legitimate for the 30 households that racked up those 10k complaints, who happen to be the attorneys, PR managers, plaintiffs, and executive members of the anti-airport cadre, to voice their opinion? Must be an affliction of the hypocrisy blind. Your assertion that most residents support the restrictions and are against the airport is wholly unsubstantiated (but you already know this). " May 21, 15 2:56 PM

Zeldin Blasts FAA For Supporting Airport TRO

Local pilots have thought about it and siding with those who will fight to keep the airport open and safe is the only option. PBR you are typically smart enough to see the end game. In this case the end game of the town board is to close the airport to sell it to the same developers who happen to be the ones pushing the town board for the restrictions. Harbor is the perfect example of those who are advising the town. Why would we side with them when they want to close the airport? Why would we sit by quietly and watch our airport be closed and plowed under? If you were in our shoes I doubt you would sit by and do nothing. The town board had the opportunity to create the waivers for local pilots. They had the opportunity to perform the desperately needed maintenance. They ignored all of these requests and pushed forward with the anti-airport agenda while giving local pilots the middle finger. " May 26, 15 11:18 AM

I still hope that once the TRO goes into effect that will be the wake up call to the intransigent town board to finally come to the table to work WITH local aviation interests and the majority of this community that supports the presence of the airport to come up with reasonable regulation that will ease the noise concerns of the small handful of people who are legitimately affected by aircraft noise. Unfortunately it appears that only the TRO will be strong enough to get the town board to see reason and work on a compromise. " May 26, 15 11:22 AM

Actually no. The anti-airport advisory committee proposed a set of restrictions to the town board, which included a ban on flight training, a ban of all helicopters, a ban on aircraft they subjectively wanted gone but didn't qualify as noisy (seaplanes), a three tiered noise rating system that was based on incorrect (made up) data, and two of the remaining restrictions. The board's attorney advised that only two would pass the FAA's non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory, reasonable relationship test which still is in effect, and the third had to be modified to just "noisy" defined at 91DbA because that's all the FAA uses. These weren't negotiations or compromises based on discussions with the pilot community - these were only done because they were guaranteed to lose any litigation on the others. The problem with "try for a summer" is we can't regain lost ground, we can only lose more. Once the unreasonable restrictions start they will just keep coming until we have nothing left. " May 26, 15 7:27 PM

Judge Puts Off Airport Ruling Three More Weeks, Restrictions Will Remain On Hold

You missed his point. The repairs of 04-22 and 16-34 would not increase helicopter or jet traffic by a single solitary flight. They could only be used by small light prop planes because they are too short for anything else. The trees, deer fence, and AWOS are for improved safety only, not performance or volume of aircraft. Helicopters and jets won't increase because a pilot can get accurate wind speed/direction information - that info is most critical to small light planes. So no, I don't agree that my small single prop plane with a motor the size of a lawn mover has made your life or anyone else's life miserable. I can't say the same is true in the reverse. " Jun 4, 15 1:58 PM

Let me ask the anti airport people this: if it's really about noise and your goal is to reduce the amount of aircraft noise, then why were you all so publicly upset when you heard that Blade and other charter groups were investing in quieter helicopters and airplanes that were all BELOW the "noisy" restriction limit? You were furious that they were changing their equipment to be quieter. I would think you'd be happy that your goal of reducing the noise was working and changes were being made to comply with your goal. Plus you've now taken to mocking and attacking small local pilots who, according to you, don't make noise. Seems like maybe "noise reduction" is not really your goal after all. " Jun 4, 15 2:13 PM

We were talking about noise, not commercial operations. The anti airport crowd has claimed this is about noise. Now you're moving the goalposts and admitting it's not really noise, it's about getting rid of all commercial operations. HTO has had commercial operations and commuter service since 1945, long before any of you were here. You moved in next to or near it - it was here first. What gives you the right to move here and demand everything and everyone change to make you happy? If you stopped all commercial operations the airport would not be able to sustain itself. That's the whole point of the FAA funding. Decades ago the FAA realized it was too expensive for most towns to afford the cost to run and maintain an airport so they made federal funds available to assist. By rejecting the FAA funds the town must now pay for it. Without commercial operations there will not be enough money to operate and maintain it and it would be shut down. But then again, that is your master plan isn't it. So no, local pilots would not agree the the closure of our airport. " Jun 4, 15 6:12 PM

Here's a proposed compromise for the anti airport group to weigh in on. You say the airport doesn't need FAA funds and doesn't need commercial operations to stay safe and operational. If we agree to the restrictions and even a status quo limit on the number of commercial operations (no increase permitted) would the town agree to fully fund all current and future maintenance and all current and future operations (ie: manpower, facilities, equipment, etc.) to keep HTO operating with all 3 runways open based upon an annual financial report. And the first year the town fails to fully fund the airport based on that financial report, the restrictions will be automatically removed and voided, commercial operations will be unlimited, and FAA funds will be accepted for 20 years. Deal?" Jun 4, 15 6:28 PM

There are no "established flight patterns" for fixed wing aircraft (other than IFR approaches). Those are only for helicopters because of their unique flight capabilities (hover, rotate, etc). Fixed wing can approach from any direction into the airport space because they can't maneuver like a helicopter and need to approach to land in a different stabilized manner. Small aircraft enter a pattern (rectangle shape directly around the airport at 1000') to land, while jets usually come straight in from 1500'. If you live on Sagg Main you are right at the end of the runway and are seeing them land. Buy a house next to an airport and that's what happens. By the way, modern light jets don't have rivets, they use clean sheet technology. " Jun 5, 15 9:24 AM

Uber Halts Service In East Hampton, Montauk

East Hampton Town Board: Defying common sense since 2014. " Jun 5, 15 1:50 PM

If taxis had to go through the same level of licensure as pilots there would be no taxis. But some increased level of stricter testing for commercial carriers like taxis is warranted. " Jun 6, 15 2:55 PM

East Hampton Airport Curfews Will Take Effect July 2 After Judge Denies Injunction

Cantrell had a chance to show local pilots that he wanted to protect their interests and gain their support. He has had several opportunities to exclude local pilots from the curfew penalties if they have to land after hours. He has had a multitude of opportunities to perform the most basic of safety maintenance at the airport. Instead he has profoundly given us his middle finger. Might as well return the favor. " Jun 27, 15 6:24 PM

Why don't you first list the compromises proposed by the Town Board? List the ways the Town Board has worked to protect local pilots? List the ways the Town Board has responded to local pilots' concerns that they were being punished by the proposed regulations and concerns about the dangerous conditions of the airport? Where is the "spirit of compromise" from your side PBR - oh, nevermind there is none and never has been." Jun 29, 15 1:59 PM

East Hampton Uber Charges Reduced; Drivers Pay $400 Fines

The ironic part is a well known EH cab company driver told me last week that the owner of the cab company wanted Uber to stay. The cab driver said they did not like dealing with the drunken summer kids in Montauk and preferred to serve the local residents of EH/Montauk instead. They were happy to have Uber take the party kids. Once again Cantwell ignores the desire of the community as a whole and makes overreaching draconian rules to please a few vocal opponents." Jun 29, 15 6:09 PM

East Hampton Airport Gets Through First Weekend With Curfews

So you kick, scream, holler, fight, threaten, and demand that the curfews be put in place, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on having the curfew ordinance enacted, then the very first weekend they are in place you immediately COMPLAIN about them?!? " Jul 9, 15 10:00 PM

East Hampton Airport Curfew Violations Climb In Second Week

It's substantial. $1000 for first violation, $4000 for second, $10,000 for third. Plus a whole slew of add on fines and fees amounting to thousands of dollars. It's enough to ground a small single engine prop plane for a year or two (or more). And there is ABSOLUTELY NO NOTICE being provided by the town board to small private pilots. The commercial operators have learned through the lawsuit and locals know, but the town has not made any effort to warn or notify incoming private pilots of small airplanes. " Jul 15, 15 10:53 AM

I completely agree with you. That is exactly the reasonable manner it should be handled. Unfortunately I do not believe the TB has any intention of being that reasonable. Mr. Charlton does not have any discretion in reporting violations to the town and the town is the one that will issue the fines (not Mr. Charlton). When asked about the lack of notice, the TB didn't seem to care. We will have to wait and see. " Jul 15, 15 2:41 PM

There have already been planes who have had to unexpectedly conduct missed approach/go around procedures on landing when they were told over the com by fellow pilots waiting on the ground about the curfew. It's ridiculous the TB is putting people' safety at risk in refusing to provide notice of the curfew. " Jul 15, 15 2:56 PM

I appreciate that as a non-pilot you may not be familiar with these tools.
1. A/FDs are only updated every 60 days, so the new curfews and the criminal penalties and fines are not included in it. Next one is in August.
2. The noise abatement note you reference is only about voluntary noise abatement, not the closure of the airport or the curfew that includes criminal penalties and fines. It is very old and relates to the voluntary procedures of not flying lower than 1000 ft over the beaches, climb at best rate, ramp operations, and the helicopter routes. Nowhere do you see any statement like: Airport closed to all traffic from 11pm-7am due curfew; Aircraft landing after curfew will be subject to criminal penalties and fines.
3. Only the town, as the owner of the airport, can request that additional information be included in the next A/FD publication. We will see if they do that or if it remains silent.
4. The FAA does not allow noise related actions to be included in NOTAMS.
5. There are many ways the TB could at least TRY to notify pilots: Special advisory on ATIS, comment on Flight Aware, publication through AOPA, request for notice to be conveyed through FSS, create a website like most other airports have, etc. None have been done. " Jul 15, 15 10:00 PM

I think you missed my point. A notation of noise abatement in an A/FD means there may be some modifications as to HOW you fly (altitudes, headings, procedures). It does not pertain to WHEN you can fly or use the airport and does not provide any notice that the whole airport will be closed down and violators subject to prosecution and fines. Only a very small handful of airports in the U.S. close entirely at night - this is a very rare thing and would not be expected by inbound pilots. Plus the number provided is not manned 24 hours (or even 12) so you may not reach anyone if you did call. Look at the A/FD for KASE (Aspen), which is one of the few airports that does close, and see the difference in the level of information they provide and warnings about landing outside of authorized hours. Let's see what EH TB does. " Jul 16, 15 1:17 PM

New East Hampton Airport Fees Expected By Weekend

Once again the Town Board has acted without thinking. In their rush to institute the increased fees they eliminated the standard exemptions for locally based aircraft, emergency and medical helicopters, military and Coast Guard aircraft, and non-profit/charity aircraft (ex: AngelFlight, PawsNPilots). So now local pilots will have to pay to land at their OWN airport. Plus if you are an EH resident who needs an emergency medical helicopter to get you to the hospital you either will need to drive yourself to Montauk airport or the SH heliport to get help or you will get a several hundred dollar landing fee bill from the town for the medical helicopter at HTO. How exactly is the elimination of these standard exemptions going to "reduce noise"?" Aug 5, 15 9:30 AM

Summer Season Sees Lots Of Planes, Lots Of Complaints At East Hampton Airport

The data clearly shows that it's just the same small group of people calling more than 30 times per day, instead of the 20 times per day they called last year, in an effort to falsely inflate the complaint numbers. Basing anything on those complaint numbers is absurd since they are patently being manipulated by a small group of anti-airport malcontents who are dead set on getting their way no matter how much cheating and fabrication it takes. " Aug 5, 15 9:38 AM

New East Hampton Airport Fees Expected By Weekend

Only a very small number of aircraft are under 2600lbs, and most of those are considered LSAs and LUAs (light sport/utility aircraft - typically fabric covered wings and no doors). Most small single engine prop modern planes like Cessna 182, Cirrus, Piper, Beechcraft, etc. will now be required to pay landing fees. That's no olive branch - that's a kick in the pants. Have you ever seen that gorgeous fully refurbished T-28 Navy trainer that is hangered on the south side? It will now have to pay $100 to land and park at its own hanger every time it flies. " Aug 5, 15 2:51 PM

In five months the town board won't care anymore. Cantwell had his buddy Zeldin tack an 11th hour amendment on next year's FAA budget that excludes EH from the federal law that prohibits them from illegally diverting the airport revenues away from the airport. It made HTO the only airport in the country exempt from that federal statute, and will allow the town board to completely defund the airport by January." Aug 5, 15 2:57 PM

I am not aware of any other GA airport of similar size that charges a landing fee of any amount to their locally based aircraft. PBR since you're good at research, see if you can find any GA airport out there that charges landing fees to aircraft hangered at the field. Or any GA airports that charge landing fees to medical and military aircraft. I'm curious if this is a first. Let me know what you find. " Aug 6, 15 12:02 AM

I can't think of any other reason why the town board would have Zeldin add a specific exclusion to the FAA funding act that the sole purpose is to prohibit the FAA from instituting a civil or administrative action against the town of EH for "Illegal Diversion of Airport Revenue". Normally the town is required under Federal law to use the airport's own revenue to pay to operate/maintain the airport, and is subject to significant penalties for illegally diverting those funds away from the airport and using them elsewhere. You tell me - why would the town have Zeldin exclude them (and just them) from this law? Why would the town want to illegally divert airport revenues and why would they need carte blanche freedom from any sanctions or penalties? " Aug 6, 15 12:29 AM

Summer Season Sees Lots Of Planes, Lots Of Complaints At East Hampton Airport

At the risk of getting muddy in the wallow, I'll respond. In this I will not speak for anyone but me, but the general sentiment from the entire aviation side including the ERHC is reasonable limits are acceptable. SOME helicopters and jets (not ALL, just the loudest) could have reasonable limitations placed on them, such as higher approach paths, night time restrictions (12-6am), and increased fees. But instead of working with us to craft reasonable middle ground restrictions, the TB decided to go with the scorched earth method and did exactly what I always said was unreasonable - closing the whole airport at night, banning ALL helicopters and most jets, and defunding the airport. They are STILL refusing to perform desperately needed maintenance and repairs, putting our very lives at risk. They've made sure local small pilots were punished at every opportunity with fines, penalties, and fees. They've made it clear they intend on defunding the whole airport until closure is inevitable. Only a crazy person would align themselves with the very people who wanted to wholesale eliminate them. While I agree that noise mitigation can be improved and a very tiny group of helis are overbearing (Rennart), as a whole they are not our "adversary". However, the TB has made it clear to us that us small local pilots are most certainly theirs. So it's an enemy of my enemy situation. I had hoped that after their TRO defeat the TB would choose to come back to the table to work on mutually crafting reasonable restrictions. Instead they took the bit in their teeth and doubled down on their efforts to defund the airport. Do you really condone the abuse of power by the TB to have themselves excluded from a federal law which would prevent them from illegally diverting airport funds? If a chemical company used their political influence to be solely excluded from federal pollution laws that applied to everyone else you'd blow a gasket - but it's ok for the TB to do this? Instead of blindly supporting the TB perhaps you should be demanding they stop acting like little Napoleons and start working with the aviation groups to craft a reasonable solution that works for both sides. Until then we will fight against the despotic actions of this TB until they can be curtailed at the next election. A small group of 300 people, most who do not live in EH and who have a financial interest in developing the airport land, is playing puppet master to this TB and will end up irreversibly harming our economy and our community if we don't take a stand against them. What side are you on PBR?" Aug 7, 15 11:54 AM

New East Hampton Airport Fees Expected By Weekend

If change is to be expected, the world pace is increasing, and the mantra is GUTI - why are you and your anti-airport brethren fighting so hard to place extreme restrictions on the airport and revert it to pre-1940s use? How about applying that philosophy to yourselves first. " Aug 7, 15 12:05 PM

You research everything, cite obscure sources, and play armchair lawyer every chance you get, but you want us to believe you haven't reviewed the details of this legislation?? Take a few minutes and read it. Pay attention to the statute cited, the terms referenced as being defined by the statute, the heading of the section where those terms are defined ("Recovery of Illegally Diverted Funds"), and what the legislation actually says and creates. Note that it absolutely does NOT do any of the following: 1) does not create local autonomy and control for the town to enact use restrictions, 2) does not distance the town from any FAA involvement in the litigation relating to the restrictions, and 3) does not assist the town in reducing noise (actually sec. (b)(3) specifically authorizes the town to use the revenue for noise mitigation). The ONLY thing it does is preclude the FAA from going after the town to recover the airport's revenues in the event the town decides to illegally divert all of those revenues away from the airport. It allows the town the unfettered ability to make the airport budget $0, and take all airport revenue and use it elsewhere - thereby defunding the whole airport. So, PBR go ahead and read it and then tell us exactly what "reasonable and logical" way the TB would use this legislation other than to close the airport. " Aug 7, 15 12:30 PM

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  >>