0
stratostar

Longmont City Council will take up skydiving noise

Recommended Posts

jonstark

Seems to me that the plain language reporting clause would be satisfied with a mere phone call... "we had a jumper land out today"." Period. I saw no requirement to keep any kind of record. MHS may well be in total compliance. Just because the airport doesn't record it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Fleashit in the pepper Kim.

Jon



Exactly. And not to mention that the items say 'unauthorized' off-site landings. The airport could simply say, "we authorized them all".

But that is a silly minimum standard. If I was Mile High, I would be asking for removal of that clause. It's kind of like demanding that the flight school report every mistake that a student makes during training. The maintenance shop has to report every time they drop a tool or forget to hook up a wire.

When i took over Z-Hills, parts of the Airport Authority were pressuring me to agree to 'never let people land off'. I simply refused since that promise can never be made.

I asked them "Can you promise me that no airplanes will ever crash at the airport?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Surely if she hasn't paid up she is in contempt of court. Isn't it up to the court to enforce their order? Or do the DZ have to initiate that action?



eventually yes, but civil courts are weird in this country and vary widely from place to place. It could take years for contempt to happen, if at all. The more likely scenario is the seizure of property and foreclosure on her house, and even that could take years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tkhayes

Quote

Surely if she hasn't paid up she is in contempt of court. Isn't it up to the court to enforce their order? Or do the DZ have to initiate that action?



eventually yes, but civil courts are weird in this country and vary widely from place to place. It could take years for contempt to happen, if at all. The more likely scenario is the seizure of property and foreclosure on her house, and even that could take years.



Justice delayed is an injustice in itself.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tkhayes

Quote

Surely if she hasn't paid up she is in contempt of court. Isn't it up to the court to enforce their order? Or do the DZ have to initiate that action?



eventually yes, but civil courts are weird in this country and vary widely from place to place. It could take years for contempt to happen, if at all. The more likely scenario is the seizure of property and foreclosure on her house, and even that could take years.



Don't forget that she is appealing the verdict. That will take a while to percolate through the system.

IIRC, she had to put the money up (actually 125% of it) as a bond for the appeal to go forward. But it won't be paid to Mile-Hi until the appeal is denied.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***

Quote

Surely if she hasn't paid up she is in contempt of court. Isn't it up to the court to enforce their order? Or do the DZ have to initiate that action?



eventually yes, but civil courts are weird in this country and vary widely from place to place. It could take years for contempt to happen, if at all. The more likely scenario is the seizure of property and foreclosure on her house, and even that could take years.



Don't forget that she is appealing the verdict. That will take a while to percolate through the system.

IIRC, she had to put the money up (actually 125% of it) as a bond for the appeal to go forward. But it won't be paid to Mile-Hi until the appeal is denied.

Yes, see post 1402 about the 125%: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4748810#4748810

Also a reminder there are two different rulings regarding CQS owing money to MHS.
There were 7 claims in the lawsuit:

- The 4 claims that were so bogus that were tossed out before it ever went to trial. MHS was awarded cost (including attorney fees) for dealing with these.

- The 3 claims that went to trial. MHS was awarded costs (excluding attorney fees) for dealing with these.

Now at one point I was told that only the latter award was put on hold by the appeal, and the deadline for the former award still stood. But the article in the link in post 1402 seems to disagree.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Contempt is not an available remedy for a failure to pay civil judgments. Child support, etc, yes. (OK, maybe there could be if there is some conduct of concealment or other unusual avoidance conduct or something), but not for just money judgments. Since jail is a possible penalty for contempt, and we don't have imprisonment for debt, it isn't available for a simple failure to pay. The judgment creditor is on his own to go thru civil collection means. On the bright side for the judgment creditor the costs of collection are added to the amount owed. Also keep in mind, most civil debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy

The judge's order is first reduced("converted") to a judgment. Then the civil collection remedies are pursued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's her email that was titled "Updates on the Appeal", and it was accompanied with the attached map.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

I have always held a deep respect and appreciation for the American judicial system – even with all its imperfections. Growing up, conversations about law and the legal system were part of our dinnertime conversation, and at one time I even considered studying law.
So, you can imagine how surprised I was to sit through a week-long trial in May, listening to the defendant witnesses tell outrageous lies, watching their planes avoid the judge during the site visit and then to realize that the judge had no apparent interest in discerning fact from fiction. I knew from the beginning that winning the lawsuit against Mile-Hi Skydiving would be difficult. But never in my wildest dreams did I foresee getting broadsided with outrageous, punitive monetary awards by Judge Judith LaBuda. Without a doubt, 2015 was one of the most challenging and difficult years of my life, and all of the plaintiffs shared in this unexpected burden.

The simple fact is that we should not have to work so hard to achieve sensible, reasonable regulations to protect our community from environmental degradation. And now, after years of experience, I can see clearly that the well-being and quality of life for ordinary citizens is being jeopardized by moneyed interests on several fronts. We can’t quit now – our efforts are worthwhile, we are right, and I believe we will start to see positive results in 2016.

I want to thank all of the committed volunteers who held the torch and kept going when I was reeling. Your kind words and encouragement were very much appreciated.

***********************************************************
THE LAWSUIT AND APPEAL STATUS
***********************************************************
The appeal is moving forward and we will meet with the legal team next week to review status. The legal team is conducting research and preparing the appeal brief, which is due in February. We expect a final decision from the appeal court by late summer. I will keep you posted when oral arguments are scheduled in front of the appellate court.

In late November, the plaintiffs paid off all of the judgments and incidentals, which totaled about $130,000 (see attached satisfaction of judgments). We decided to pay off the judgments because Mile-Hi Skydiving had placed real estate liens on our properties, even though we had an appeal bond, which barred collection efforts. When we asked the judge to force Mile-Hi to remove the liens, she refused. Unbelievable.

***********************************************************
FUNDING FOR THE APPEAL
***********************************************************
During the holidays we are all bombarded with mail and pleas for funding of many worthwhile organizations. This year, I hope you can help us move forward with the appeal by making a generous donation to the legal fund. We made the initial payment to the legal team a few months ago, and we must deliver the final $10,000 payment on February 1, 2016.

After paying off the hefty judgments, the plaintiffs must rely on Quiet Skies supporters in Boulder County to finance the appeal – it is essential to moving forward.

If you would like to donate, please send a check by January 15th.

Please make your check payable to Citizens For Quiet Skies:
7468 Mt. Sherman Road
Longmont, CO 80503

Citizens For Quiet Skies is a Colorado non-profit organization. However, it is not tax-exempt.

*******************************************************************
THE FAA – UPDATE ON RECKLESS PILOT ACTIVITY
REPORTED TO THE FAA
*******************************************************************
Back on Oct. 24th I wrote about a joy-riding pilot flying around our neighborhood for about an hour, up and down and around and around. I reported the incident to the FAA Denver FSDO. I provided the webtrak image below along with the exact take-off and landing times at JeffCo to investigator Lang. He assured me that they would be able to identify the aircraft and follow-up with the pilot. He emphasized that if I had any problems with the noise from the activity, that I would need to report that to the local government – because they (Denver FSDO) don’t handle noise complaints. Yesterday I received the letter below regarding the “investigation.” Just one more example of our tax dollars hard at work protecting aviation interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, if 2015 was such a rough year for her, she might consider a hobby other than filing frivolous lawsuits.:S

Jumpdude

We decided to pay off the judgments because Mile-Hi Skydiving had placed real estate liens on our properties, even though we had an appeal bond, which barred collection efforts. When we asked the judge to force Mile-Hi to remove the liens, she refused. Unbelievable.


:)
Jumpdude


Back on Oct. 24th I wrote about a joy-riding pilot flying around our neighborhood for about an hour, up and down and around and around. I reported the incident to the FAA Denver FSDO. I provided the webtrak image below along with the exact take-off and landing times at JeffCo to investigator Lang. He assured me that they would be able to identify the aircraft and follow-up with the pilot. He emphasized that if I had any problems with the noise from the activity, that I would need to report that to the local government – because they (Denver FSDO) don’t handle noise complaints. Yesterday I received the letter below regarding the “investigation.” Just one more example of our tax dollars hard at work protecting aviation interests.



Omigosh! I'm glad you included the map! That reckless lawbreaker came within 1.2 miles of my home! I hope Kim can identify him so I can sue!:D:D:D:D
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check out the section of their web site (http://citizensforquietskies.org/the-lawsuit/) dealing with the appeal: it is Mile-Hi's fault that CQS are proceeding with the appeal, because Mile-Hi refused their offer to drop the appeal if Mile-Hi would waive the costs and fees they were awarded at trial. What mean people Mile Hi is, and what unfair victims CQS are!

They initiated a lawsuit, lost on the merits and had costs and fees charged to them as the losers. It's the defendants fault for dragging the case out by not accepting your offer to just walk away as if the suit was never filed (of course, except for all that money you had to spend defending against baseless charges.) Transpose the logic over to the criminal area, it would look something like this: you get arrested for some crime, you go to trial (refusing plea deals), and the jury finds you guilty and sentences you to 5 years in jail. Afterwards, you just tell the DA you won't appeal your conviction if they will waive imposing the sentence!

It's freakin' brilliant logic, if you think about it. Why don't all losers of criminal and civil cases do this? (And how could Mile Hi be so stupid as to refuse their generous offer?)

I mean, if CQS had won the law suit, I'm sure CQS would have gladly given up all they had won in exchange for Mile HI not proceeding with an appeal.

Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nolhtairt

***So.... if they don't raise the remaining 10g's, does the appeal not go forward? B|

Edited to add... This whole case just reminds me of this......
http://www.hulu.com/watch/2306



That's a hysterical skit from Saturday Night Live. Love it.

How many people today realize they are doing a parody of the segment at the end of "60 Minutes" that pre-dated Andy Rooney?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cESACuuh6kM
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_29508442/longmont-airport-board-oks-mile-hi-skydiving-lease

Quote


The Longmont Airport Advisory Board, after detailed questions on the whole situation, recommended Thursday night that the City Council approve a lease replacing a faulty 2007 agreement with Mile-Hi Skydiving.

The City Council will next consider whether to approve the lease at its Feb. 23 meeting.

Mile-Hi owner Frank Casares signed a 20-year lease with the city in 2007 for 180,723 square feet of land. Per the original lease, Casares was to pay $41,566 per year starting when he applied for a grading permit for the land. But Casares never requested that permit and so never paid any of the seven years' lease rates in full, constructing instead a temporary quonset hut structure still in use for parachute packing.

In roughly 2013 or 2014, city management discovered the faulty lease and realized that it may violate rules the Vance Brand Municipal Airport must follow in order to receive Federal Aviation Administration grants.

"The reason this is a problem with the FAA grant assurances is because they don't allow people to use property without paying for it," Airport Manager David Slayter said at Thursday's meeting. Slayter was hired in 2015.

City Manager Harold Dominguez said the City Council directed staff to resolve the lease issue with Mile-Hi so that the city wouldn't be involved in litigation.

Casares paid $36,634 over four installments as part of an interim lease put in place while negotiations were ongoing last year.

When the negotiations were over, the city and Casares had agreed on a replacement lease that, if approved by City Council, would start retroactively in October 2015 and last for 12 years. The lease is only for the 12,780 square feet under the quonset hut, at a rate of $4,507.51 per year.

Responding to a statement from a board member about the lower amount of money in the new lease, Slayter said he prefers to be positive.

A Mile Hi Skydiving plane taxis after coming in for a landing at Vance Brand Municipal Airport in April 2015.
A Mile Hi Skydiving plane taxis after coming in for a landing at Vance Brand Municipal Airport in April 2015. (Matthew Jonas / Staff Photographer)
"Before, they were not required to pay so we were getting zero," Slayter said. "We're getting 4,507 versus zero and not having to go to litigation."

This specific Mile-Hi lease revealed a flaw with the Airport Advisory Board agendas for the past 19 years — the board was supposed to be reviewing these types of leases before they went to council, but city staff can't find any evidence those reviews occurred.

Dominguez said that as far as he could tell, the last specific airport lease (not the master leases that serve as templates) the board reviewed was in 1997, even though the ordinance creating the board directs it to review airport leases.

Board member Kurt Hansen, calling the Mile-Hi lease issue a "hot potato," said it was curious that after not reviewing specific land leases, this one was the one kicked back to the board.

Dominguez said from now on, specific leases will be reviewed by the board before being sent to council. The board members, at the end of the meeting Thursday, reached a consensus that they need to talk about whether they should review every lease before council sees them, or just ones with major variations from the master lease.

Board member Daniel Peters queried Dominguez and Slayter about a section of the new lease that said Mile-Hi "shall comply" with airport rules and regulations "including, but not limited to, the Airport's noise abatement procedures."

Peters asked why the word "shall" is used if the noise abatement procedures are voluntary and said he feared requiring Mile-Hi to follow the procedures might violate an FAA rule prohibiting the city from discriminating against certain businesses.

Mile-Hi's noise and the FAA rules about discrimination were major factors in the lawsuit some Longmont and Boulder County residents filed against Mile-Hi owner Frank Casares in 2013, alleging that his planes were too loud and it constituted a nuisance. A Boulder County district judge decided the case in Mile-Hi's favor last year.

Slayter and Dominguez said the various attorneys, including the attorneys specializing in airport law the city contracted as special counsel, did not see any red flags in the wording.

"The airport's noise abatement procedures specify that they're voluntary, and this is an agreement to comply with the voluntary noise abatement procedures," Slayter said.


Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had not looked at the CQS website in months, but today I took a glance, and it looks like they put the actual trial transcript online!

http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/201501413-CQS-trial-transcript.pdf

ETA Someone pointed out this is only the first half of the trail, i.e. the portion where the plaintiff witnesses are called, and a quick skim through it seems to confirm that.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0