stratostar 5 #26 February 15, 2012 This is going to get interesting to watch, the airport is already broke and costing the city. http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/27617454-41/airport-reimer-creswell-problem-moore.html.cspyou can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #27 February 15, 2012 sell it to the dz.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #28 February 15, 2012 They've got some hard-headed folks over there. At least 4 of them anyway. Unfortunately, it's the voting four.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brucet7 0 #29 February 16, 2012 I have a pilot friend in the area who has proposed the city try to acquire some land adjacent to the airport on which skydivers could land. I don't live near there (though I did jump there three years ago) so I don't really know if it is possible. I think the idea is just too practical to really be pursued. When people decide something is unsafe, there is little you can do to convince them otherwise. And if they have the idea that it is their job to protect skydivers from themselves, then we have real trouble.POPS #10623; SOS #1672 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SStewart 13 #30 February 16, 2012 QuoteThis is going to get interesting to watch, the airport is already broke and costing the city. http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/27617454-41/airport-reimer-creswell-problem-moore.html.csp Absolutely unbelievable! They had a strong skydiving business that brought money to the airport and the local community and they shut it down and now they are trying to figure out a way to bring business back to the airport? Hello! simple solution; Let the jumpers back on the airport, sell them gas and whatever other revenue they bring and continue to get federal funding (free money) I fucking hate whuffosOnward and Upward! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #31 February 16, 2012 Seems like it's nothing more than a pissing match. BTW for you people that have jumped there....was the landing area tight or is the idea that skydiving isn't safe?? If they have lost 300K over the years I would assumn that was while the dz was operating.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SStewart 13 #32 February 16, 2012 You would be assuming wrong. The money they have been losing has been since they began their war on skydivers. Mostly from legal fees but also from lost revenue. It has been going on for years now. At one point there were two dropzones on the same airport. To answer your other point Hobby field is plenty big enough to accommodate skydivers and the other GA use the airport supports. This is a small DZ, not a multi-turbine large operation. I honestly can't remember what sparked the battle but as I remember someone complained about skydiving and it escalated from there.Onward and Upward! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #33 February 17, 2012 Quote You would be assuming wrong. The money they have been losing has been since they began their war on skydivers. Mostly from legal fees but also from lost revenue. It has been going on for years now. At one point there were two dropzones on the same airport. To answer your other point Hobby field is plenty big enough to accommodate skydivers and the other GA use the airport supports. This is a small DZ, not a multi-turbine large operation. Lawyers love this BS. They can't afford to work for free.I honestly can't remember what sparked the battle but as I remember someone complained about skydiving and it escalated from there. One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #34 February 17, 2012 My prediction for who is going to win this battle: Lawyers!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brucet7 0 #35 February 17, 2012 When I jumped there we landed in a farmer's field about 7 miles from the airport.POPS #10623; SOS #1672 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #36 February 17, 2012 QuoteMy prediction for who is going to win this battle: Lawyers! Well, every cloud has a silver lining, thank god. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #37 February 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteMy prediction for who is going to win this battle: Lawyers! Well, every cloud has a silver lining, thank god. Every lawyer has a silver cloud.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #38 February 18, 2012 A couple interesting radio interviews for those who would like to follow this case. One call in to the DZO and one call into the mayor. http://www.kxl.com/02/15/12/Skydivers-Arent-Falling-For-This/landing_lars.html?blockID=587404&feedID=10628you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SStewart 13 #39 February 18, 2012 A little trivia here; Lars Larson was a Portland news anchor back in the 80's in Portland and he made a tandem jump that was aired on his news show. I was on the load. So over the years he has been sympathetic to the cause of skydivers and airport access in Oregon. Since he made his jump 5 dropzones have been closed in the state.Onward and Upward! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skydive2 1 #40 February 19, 2012 wow that mayor is a huge douche! QuoteA couple interesting radio interviews for those who would like to follow this case. One call in to the DZO and one call into the mayor. http://www.kxl.com/...404&feedID=10628 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #41 February 20, 2012 The funny thing is that same mayor has done a jump there and landed in the field he is trying so hard to refuse the dz to now use because they (city) say there is no room on airport property to use... Check out Google earth of that airport and see if there is not room. Also in that interview, he goes on to talk about the DZ not getting insurance for the city in case of a skydiving accident... I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpsalot-2 2 #42 February 20, 2012 QuoteThe funny thing is that same mayor has done a jump there and landed in the field he is trying so hard to refuse the dz to now use because they (city) say there is no room on airport property to use... Check out Google earth of that airport and see if there is not room. Also in that interview, he goes on to talk about the DZ not getting insurance for the city in case of a skydiving accident... I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance.QuoteDid they charge the Mayor for the Tandem jump, or was it a gift ? Gotta keep the Mayor happy ya know.....Life is short ... jump often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #43 February 20, 2012 QuoteThe funny thing is that same mayor has done a jump there and landed in the field he is trying so hard to refuse the dz to now use because they (city) say there is no room on airport property to use... Check out Google earth of that airport and see if there is not room. Also in that interview, he goes on to talk about the DZ not getting insurance for the city in case of a skydiving accident... I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance. Ain't it fun dealing with the biggest control freaks in the tiny little pools Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #44 February 20, 2012 no Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 622 #45 February 20, 2012 unless it's illegal for a politician to accept gifts..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #46 February 20, 2012 My impression from the interview was, he made the jump before becoming mayor, so I assume he paid for his jump.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #47 February 20, 2012 Quote I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance. Hey could you share some details or where I might look at these details? I have always been interested in this twist and if there has been a ruling about this angle I'd really like to read about it.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #48 February 20, 2012 QuoteThis is going to get interesting to watch, the airport is already broke and costing the city Without really looking into this beyond this thread, I can't see why the city is trying to run the DZ off the airport. Sometimes you see complaints from the neighbors, but more times than not, there's expansion plans for the airport, and the city is eyeballling it as a cash-cow, and can't see a DZ co-existing with a 'flood' of biz-jet traffic and high-dollar avaition businesses. The solution, in their eyes, is to run off the DZ and then it's onwards and upwards for the airport and the city. In this case, however, I can't see the angle. If sounds like the guy was doing a brisk business, and we all know what that brings to a city - money. Taxes on all the money spent at the DZ, taxes on the money spent by the DZ (fuel), and taxes on the money spent around the DZ by jumpers/customers (food, beer, gas etc). With that in mind, and the almost certainty of a legal battle stemming from trying to give the DZ the boot, why would they even try? Without knowing how far this was going to go, the city could have easliy required that they (or the state DOT) be included into the DZ waiver as the land owner of the LZ. If they had a hint of how far it was going to go, they could have left the DZ alone, and banked the $300k in an investent account and had it as a legal defense fund in the case they were sued. None of it explains why the city is tyring to put the squeeze on a succesful, tax paying business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #49 February 20, 2012 A shopping mall doesn't make noise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #50 February 20, 2012 QuoteA shopping mall doesn't make noise Not like an airplane, that's for sure. I did see it mentioned that a motive could be land developers, but it seems like there's a lot of pieces that would have to fall into place for that to be the reality. For example, this fight has been going on since 2006 (I think), and six years is a long time for a developer to be 'standing by' with a confirmed deal. I can't see any city shutting down an airport (or any other property) because a developer 'might' want to build something, there would have to be plans written up and financing deals in place before a city would go to that length. Truth is, the city itself would have to be involved in the planning, as the developer would be looking to them for tax breaks and infrastructure support, so the whole business would have been on the public record before either party was willing to commit to anything. Let's also keep in mind the turnover of city government. If it's been six years on-going with the DZ, and then the time it takes to close the airport, build the mall, and for the city to see a return, it's going to be several administrations down the road, so you can pretty much shit-can the idea of a 'behind the scenes' deal with payoffs and the like. None of this is mentioning the FAA, and the problems they're going to have with them. Again, the scope and time-line of getting a federally funded airport closed just doesn't match up with the idea that a land developer is behind this situation. If this was simpler matter, like a vote at a city coucil meeting, where a couple of yays or nays in one direction or the other could seal the deal, I would buy the land developer angle. It that's all it took, and the DZ and airport were closed within 90 or 180 days, then you might have something, but a 6+ year battle with the DZ, all before getting into the ring with the FAA just seems like a long shot for developer (especailly in this economy). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Amazon 7 #43 February 20, 2012 QuoteThe funny thing is that same mayor has done a jump there and landed in the field he is trying so hard to refuse the dz to now use because they (city) say there is no room on airport property to use... Check out Google earth of that airport and see if there is not room. Also in that interview, he goes on to talk about the DZ not getting insurance for the city in case of a skydiving accident... I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance. Ain't it fun dealing with the biggest control freaks in the tiny little pools Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #45 February 20, 2012 unless it's illegal for a politician to accept gifts..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #46 February 20, 2012 My impression from the interview was, he made the jump before becoming mayor, so I assume he paid for his jump.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #47 February 20, 2012 Quote I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance. Hey could you share some details or where I might look at these details? I have always been interested in this twist and if there has been a ruling about this angle I'd really like to read about it.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #48 February 20, 2012 QuoteThis is going to get interesting to watch, the airport is already broke and costing the city Without really looking into this beyond this thread, I can't see why the city is trying to run the DZ off the airport. Sometimes you see complaints from the neighbors, but more times than not, there's expansion plans for the airport, and the city is eyeballling it as a cash-cow, and can't see a DZ co-existing with a 'flood' of biz-jet traffic and high-dollar avaition businesses. The solution, in their eyes, is to run off the DZ and then it's onwards and upwards for the airport and the city. In this case, however, I can't see the angle. If sounds like the guy was doing a brisk business, and we all know what that brings to a city - money. Taxes on all the money spent at the DZ, taxes on the money spent by the DZ (fuel), and taxes on the money spent around the DZ by jumpers/customers (food, beer, gas etc). With that in mind, and the almost certainty of a legal battle stemming from trying to give the DZ the boot, why would they even try? Without knowing how far this was going to go, the city could have easliy required that they (or the state DOT) be included into the DZ waiver as the land owner of the LZ. If they had a hint of how far it was going to go, they could have left the DZ alone, and banked the $300k in an investent account and had it as a legal defense fund in the case they were sued. None of it explains why the city is tyring to put the squeeze on a succesful, tax paying business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #49 February 20, 2012 A shopping mall doesn't make noise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #50 February 20, 2012 QuoteA shopping mall doesn't make noise Not like an airplane, that's for sure. I did see it mentioned that a motive could be land developers, but it seems like there's a lot of pieces that would have to fall into place for that to be the reality. For example, this fight has been going on since 2006 (I think), and six years is a long time for a developer to be 'standing by' with a confirmed deal. I can't see any city shutting down an airport (or any other property) because a developer 'might' want to build something, there would have to be plans written up and financing deals in place before a city would go to that length. Truth is, the city itself would have to be involved in the planning, as the developer would be looking to them for tax breaks and infrastructure support, so the whole business would have been on the public record before either party was willing to commit to anything. Let's also keep in mind the turnover of city government. If it's been six years on-going with the DZ, and then the time it takes to close the airport, build the mall, and for the city to see a return, it's going to be several administrations down the road, so you can pretty much shit-can the idea of a 'behind the scenes' deal with payoffs and the like. None of this is mentioning the FAA, and the problems they're going to have with them. Again, the scope and time-line of getting a federally funded airport closed just doesn't match up with the idea that a land developer is behind this situation. If this was simpler matter, like a vote at a city coucil meeting, where a couple of yays or nays in one direction or the other could seal the deal, I would buy the land developer angle. It that's all it took, and the DZ and airport were closed within 90 or 180 days, then you might have something, but a 6+ year battle with the DZ, all before getting into the ring with the FAA just seems like a long shot for developer (especailly in this economy). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
