0
stratostar

Citizens for quiet skies

Recommended Posts

This handful of folks in Colorado have won one of two fights they took on trying to shut down skydiving centers in Colorado. Last week Independent Skydiving in Boulder Colorado had a hearing for land use and zoning at the county commissioners. The county sided with this small, yet vocal group of nutcases and decided to force Independent Skydiving to close until another landing area could be found.

http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_25031973/boulder-county-commissioners-deny-skydiving-landing-zone-application

A number of skydivers from all over voiced their concerns that a legal operating business taking part in air commerce, that complied with all the FAA regulations was getting harassed by this group, who had started this agenda trying to get mile hi skydiving shut down or limited in it's flights, they lost more then once. Why? It was on a federal funded airport and there is little they could force the city to do about legal aircraft flights.

So after they lost that fight, yet are still suing mile hi, according to the head nutcase Kim Gibbs. They went after Independent skydiving's landing area and noise complaints of it's aircraft.... I don't know what legal course the DZO has to fight this action of the county, if any.

However it is interesting to see what Mrs Kimberly Gibbs posted last night on her Citizens For Quiet Skies facebook page. I would think a lawyer could use this to take to the county commissioners to fight this.

Quote

Citizens For Quiet Skies Just to be clear, in response to this statement "skydiving company owner Jeremy Divan plans to start looking for another landing zone in the near future.", next time we will be at the commissioners hearing with 100 or more supporters.
January 31 at 9:31pm



Quote

Ryan Thompson Based on you first comment, it sounds like you don't want any skydiving operations, even if it does not hinder your quality of life. Why would you pledge to show up at the next commissioners hearing with 100 supporters before you even know where the skydiving operation will seek to use as their drop zone?
February 6 at 9:43am



Quote

Citizens For Quiet Skies Ryan: You ask a fair question. We want to be fair-minded, and if Independent could find a location that does not affect residential areas then I think there would be no problem. But, when you look at a map of Boulder County, with the Boulder airport as the base, it is difficult to imagine a suitable location. We want to be clear that we will not allow this activity in our community, over residential areas. We will not. Now, to switch subjects just a bit, I want to emphasize that, even though we are on opposite ends of this issue, I do not think Jeremy is a bad person. It was very clear to me at the hearing, listening to Jeremy and Independent's supporters, that they believe in what they're doing and they have a true passion for their sport. I think that's awesome. But somehow, they will have to find a way to do it in a way that is considerate to the rest of us.
Yesterday at 7:18pm



So you all still think this industry is not under attack? There are a number of on going issues in the US in regards to dz being banned or out right denied access to federal funded airports.... Independent Skydiving was operating from an airport and landing a number of miles away, they were trying to be good members of the aviation community by not operating on the Boulder Municipal Airport that is heavy in ultralight & sailplane traffic.

This is where some one I'm sure will pipe up and say some stupid shit about USPA and AAD fund saving the day.... WRONG! I would like to know what USPA is going to do if anything regarding this case. If it is not challenged in a court of law and let to stand, then you can kiss 105.25 good bye!

Quote

10.
JUMPS OVER AND INTO CONGESTED AREAS AND OPEN-AIR ASSEMBLIES OF PERSONS.
a.
Off-Airport Jumps. A skydiver may make parachute jumps away from the usual on-airport parachute school, club, or center location, as long as landowner permission is obtained for the off-airport location.



Then we have the latest DOT ruling that skydiving is air commerce, there for I would think the county would out of the legal scope of their authority... but I'm not a lawyer.

This is where true advocacy would come in handy. USPA has been wasting thousands of members due monies on a damn PR firm that is why you see some many feel goodie fluffy stories if you Google "skydiving". What good is that? Well we need more members and dues and we need more skydivers and TDMS to pay for those fancy turbines everyone loves, but Kim Gibbs.

Well a lot of good all these new skydivers and customers will do the sport if there are no more dropzones to jump at. I hope the DZO of Independent Skydiving will now press the issue and request to use the Boulder Municipal Airport, it is federal funded and obligated to the grant funding contracts. I also hope there is action taken in a court of law and backed by USPA, if not taken on by USPA on their own... however that may not an avenue open to take IDK. I know who to ask and they are busy so I have not called to ask, got enough of my own FAA access fight to deal with.

It may very well come down the future of this sport being on private airports, the federal funded airports are a joke if they don't want you there and it will cost a lot of $$$ to win, just ask those who have won a case.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats an interesting read. It appears that everyone but the town manager and a group of pissed off home owner(?) agreed but the town manager is going to stop the entire thing.

The next meeting the dz better have a LOT of calm, well speaking folks turn out.
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The next meeting the dz better have a LOT of calm, well speaking folks turn out.



Well this is one of the problems we have as an industry, too few give enough of shit to write, go to meetings etc. It's not their fight, don't effect them none.... that is until they show up to shut down their local dz, then it becomes a "hot potato" issue all of a sudden and they start wanting the same kind of support they failed to give to others.

How many front range skydivers do you think took off a day of work to attend the Boulder county hearing? I bet very little did, but some may have wrote letters or emails. Then add in the politics of the industry, a lot of times the other area DZO's could care less and would like to see other DZ shut down so they can have the market.

The turn out of industry support is lame on these issues and it will keep on being that way till enough of you get pissed on to start taking action to put a stop this crap. The more everyone sits back and says nothing the more we will see this across the country.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted this thought in the other similar thread.

Someone should inform the FAA that a city feels they have the right to regulate skydiving. According to the FAA, they are the sole authority in the location of skydiving activities. As long as landowner permission has been granted and the airspace is cleared with them, then the activity can take place. The city can deny a business license, but cannot regulate the area in which skydiving can take place. If the area is zoned for commercial/agricultural (and there surely there are plenty of businesses being run on parcels near by), then landing by skydivers on the property falls within the existing use permit.

I think a call from the local FSDO or ATC might be made to the city manager to let him know they are running afoul of Federal law, something the city attorney would be very unhappy to hear.

Also, what would be the penalty for the jumpers landing on the property without the city permission? Or for the business?

Lastly, at the next meeting, have the Regional Director come in and inform the city of the laws and that USPA has a fund and a history of helping out local DZ's in these cases. Having a National Organization show up also tends to let people know that they are in for more of a fight (and not some made up group like CFQS).

Good luck!
top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
topdocker

I posted this thought in the other similar thread.

Someone should inform the FAA that a city feels they have the right to regulate skydiving. According to the FAA, they are the sole authority in the location of skydiving activities. As long as landowner permission has been granted and the airspace is cleared with them, then the activity can take place. The city can deny a business license, but cannot regulate the area in which skydiving can take place. If the area is zoned for commercial/agricultural (and there surely there are plenty of businesses being run on parcels near by), then landing by skydivers on the property falls within the existing use permit. A city or county may regulate the ground portion of skydiving however they wish. They could require a DZ to go through a CUP process, environmental study, Planning Commission hearings or other trumped up beaurocratic nonsense to deny permission to land off of obligated airport leasehold property.

I think a call from the local FSDO or ATC might be made to the city manager to let him know they are running afoul of Federal law, something the city attorney would be very unhappy to hear. You know they won't do that.

Also, what would be the penalty for the jumpers landing on the property without the city permission? Or for the business? An arrest for trespassing, a loss of business license, a monetary fine maybe.

Lastly, at the next meeting, have the Regional Director come in and inform the city of the laws and that USPA has a fund and a history of helping out local DZ's in these cases. Having a National Organization show up also tends to let people know that they are in for more of a fight (and not some made up group like CFQS). Good luck with that, unless the RD is a lawyer

Good luck!
top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's time to stop playing so nice. I tried to find cqs on several Colorado non profit databases, and could not find it. She has posted before that she has and is collecting money so without a license it would be fraud and I'm sure the irs would like to check it out as well. I wrote a letter to the Colorado state secretary, her reply is below. If any of you want to send an email stating that you believe that cqs is a fraudulent charity and any proof that cqs is collecting money for both campaigns and her lawsuit, it would help the Secretary investigate the "charity".
I also believe that money talks, I think it only works if people lose money and know its because of a boycott. I think we need to put together a list of companies that are being boycotted by dzs and skydivers. I was in the market for two canopies and was looking at different canopy companies. While looking at some of the supporters of cqs I saw one of them works for a canopy company. I crossed them off my list right away and than notified the canopy company that I did and why. They responded and said they do a lot of business with Dzs and think a boycott was unfair. Who thinks it would be a good idea?

Letter from Colorado SOS
ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT


Thank you for contacting our office about Citizens For Quiet Skies. Your concerns are important to us, so we will be forwarding a summary of your complaint (omitting your identity) to Citizens For Quiet Skies for their response. The information obtained from your complaint will be retained in our files at the Secretary of State’s Office as part of our ongoing efforts to identify those charitable organizations that may engage in a pattern of charity fraud in Colorado.

Given the limited resources made available to this office, we cannot litigate every complaint received. However, in cases where numerous complaints have been received regarding a particular charitable organization indicating a pattern of charity fraud by that entity, this office can target the investigative and prosecution resources available to it in pursuing legal action against that organization on behalf of citizens and donors. Individual complaints such as yours play an important role in assisting this office in determining which organizations and for what kinds of charity fraud we need to focus those resources.


Sincerely Yours,

Abbas Montoya


Abbas Montoya
Colorado Secretary of State
Investigator – Licensing & Enforcement Division
Phone: (303) 894-2200 ext # 6417
Fax: (303) 869-4871
Abbas.montoya@sos.state.co.us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
topdocker

I posted this thought in the other similar thread.

Someone should inform the FAA that a city feels they have the right to regulate skydiving. According to the FAA, they are the sole authority in the location of skydiving activities. As long as landowner permission has been granted and the airspace is cleared with them, then the activity can take place. The city can deny a business license, but cannot regulate the area in which skydiving can take place. If the area is zoned for commercial/agricultural (and there surely there are plenty of businesses being run on parcels near by), then landing by skydivers on the property falls within the existing use permit.

I think a call from the local FSDO or ATC might be made to the city manager to let him know they are running afoul of Federal law, something the city attorney would be very unhappy to hear.

Also, what would be the penalty for the jumpers landing on the property without the city permission? Or for the business?

Lastly, at the next meeting, have the Regional Director come in and inform the city of the laws and that USPA has a fund and a history of helping out local DZ's in these cases. Having a National Organization show up also tends to let people know that they are in for more of a fight (and not some made up group like CFQS).

Good luck!
top



Top, this is about a landing zone away from the airport. That has nothing to do with our protection in using federally funded airports under Congressional classification as an aeronautical activity. I didn't read too closely, but I got the impression that the landing area in question is city owned. If so, use of the land would be controlled by the municipality but would not fall under those federal discrimination restrictions.

Am I getting that right?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are three important questions that need to be asked.

1. Who is legally in jurisdiction of air commerce?
2. Who is legally in jurisdiction of the national airspace?
3. Who issued 105.25 and would charged with it's enforcement?

The answer is the FAA. It has always been my understanding that, for example, I wanted to jump into the Bronco's football game, I would have to 1. get permission from the land owner & 2. I would be required to file a 7711 and get a COA because it over a populated area in a city. 3. Give proper notice to ATC. But if wanted to jump into a farm in an unpopulated area, I'm only required to comply with items 1 & 3.

I don't recall anywhere that is says I need the City of Denver's permission to do it, nor the County that Denver is in. Also if for some reason I'm forced to land out, I don't believe I can or would be charged with trespassing.

The issue in this Boulder County case is one where they told the DZO that because he could not make sure of a 100% on target landings that would now be a trespass on property and that is why they denied this conditional use or special use permit... The landing out deal should be of great concern to all dz if this is allowed to stand.

Again under FAA regulations, if I own a farm, like in this case, and I want to allow this activity to take place on my private property, it's legal to do so under FAR 105.25 and I can't see how legally the county can't stop it or require a SUP or CDU.... Sure they can say I have too, but that is where a good lawyer come in IMHO and of course big $$$.

I believe that we will see another airport access case come out of this issue in the near future when a request is made to land on an airport under 105.23B. That all takes time and $$$ and until then or another LZ is found that he is allowed by the D-bags to use, he is out of business! That is BS.

What is the name of the tent company?

10.
JUMPS OVER AND INTO CONGESTED AREAS AND OPEN-AIR ASSEMBLIES OF PERSONS.
a.
Off-Airport Jumps. A skydiver may make parachute jumps away from the usual on-airport parachute school, club, or center location, as long as landowner permission is obtained for the off-airport location.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edjglass920

It's time to stop playing so nice. I tried to find cqs on several Colorado non profit databases, and could not find it. She has posted before that she has and is collecting money so without a license it would be fraud...



Here's the Secretary of State's database where charities should be registered:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/ccsa/SimpleCoInquiryResultSet.do

I can't find their listing either...

This needs to be pursued to cause her as much trouble as possible, both to discredit her, and to make her efforts as difficult as possible to discourage further pursuit. She won't like being the target of government rules and bureaucrats herself, in the same way she tries to use government rules and bureacrats against skydivers.

I don't see no Citizens for Quiet Skies here!:

[inline CFQS.JPG]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grimmie

***I posted this thought in the other similar thread.

Someone should inform the FAA that a city feels they have the right to regulate skydiving. According to the FAA, they are the sole authority in the location of skydiving activities. As long as landowner permission has been granted and the airspace is cleared with them, then the activity can take place. The city can deny a business license, but cannot regulate the area in which skydiving can take place. If the area is zoned for commercial/agricultural (and there surely there are plenty of businesses being run on parcels near by), then landing by skydivers on the property falls within the existing use permit. A city or county may regulate the ground portion of skydiving however they wish. They could require a DZ to go through a CUP process, environmental study, Planning Commission hearings or other trumped up beaurocratic nonsense to deny permission to land off of obligated airport leasehold property.

I think a call from the local FSDO or ATC might be made to the city manager to let him know they are running afoul of Federal law, something the city attorney would be very unhappy to hear. You know they won't do that.

Also, what would be the penalty for the jumpers landing on the property without the city permission? Or for the business? An arrest for trespassing, a loss of business license, a monetary fine maybe.

Lastly, at the next meeting, have the Regional Director come in and inform the city of the laws and that USPA has a fund and a history of helping out local DZ's in these cases. Having a National Organization show up also tends to let people know that they are in for more of a fight (and not some made up group like CFQS). Good luck with that, unless the RD is a lawyer

Good luck!
top



The Pacific NW (or Norcal, don't remember the region name) RD is...Jason Putnam Gordon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stratostar, she was responding to my question and she said in her answer that CQS is a Colorado non profit. I sent the secretary a picture of that along with pictures of her thanking donors for specific amounts of money. The more people who write to the SOS the better the chances are that they are investigated. The email address is up in my really long post earlier. Her supporters have pledged to boycott any business that is partnered with Mile-Hi and Independent. Which is why I think a boycott by a bigger more powerful group such as ours would have a greater affect. The Canopy company is KD Kanopy company they employ one of the supporters of CQS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stratostar

She has just made the claim again not all that long ago that it was a NFP group on her FB page.
Attachments: Citizens FB page shot.docx (558 KB)



I'm no lawyer, but there apparently is a difference between a charity and a NFP. You can collect money as an NFP, you just can't use it for your personal benefit. Here's her NFP info on the SOS web site:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityDetail.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&fileId=20121575009&masterFileId=20121575009&srchTyp=ENTITY&entityId2=20121575009&org.apache.struts.taglib.html.TOKEN=7e68606c0ed371b046f7771154d5dc14&nameTyp=ENT

[inline CFQS-NFP.JPG]

Articles of Incorporation:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/ViewImage.do?fileId=20121575009&masterFileId=20121575009&org.apache.struts.taglib.html.TOKEN=7e68606c0ed371b046f7771154d5dc14

Here's a good quote from that: "No substantial part of the activities of the organization shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation..."

Periodic Report:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/ViewImage.do?fileId=20131706033&masterFileId=20121575009&org.apache.struts.taglib.html.TOKEN=7e68606c0ed371b046f7771154d5dc14

This is blank except for the name and address info - where's the stinkin' report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Edjglass920 was not looking in the right place on the SOS site. According to the A.M. @ SOS, they are making her move to the charity side of things.

And to Elisha, thx I you had me confused on that RD post, good to know he is a skydiving lawyer.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edjglass920

My bad on that one, sorry for the mix up. As part of my complaint I did include evidence that she has always been using the nfp as a way to raise monies for personal gain and campaigning. Her lawsuit is asking for damages which would be personal gain.



If the plaintiff is the organization and any paid damages stay within the organization it would not be personal gain.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

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.

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