U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2018, 09:30 AM
 
50 posts, read 48,185 times
Reputation: 40

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by autolycus25 View Post
Hmm... Looks like I overstated the limitations. There are a lot of particularities to the FAA rule, but my general point is still true: the state taking over the airport would not take a revenue source away from the city.

My principle mistake was in suggesting all taxes generated at the airport must used at the airport. That is not correct. Revenue generated by the airport itself--I'm pretty sure that means user fees, rent, etc.--must be used at the airport. Revenue from any state or local taxes on jet fuel must be used at the airport unless they meet certain exemptions (most common one is that the tax was in place on 12/31/89).

Sales taxes on things like food and beverages sold at the airport, I'm not sure about. I'm reasonably confident though that the state taking control of the airport would not actually change that situation anyway. Local or state sales taxes would still go to the relevant entity.
I think Cagle is more interested in giving Airport Contracts to his donors...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2018, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Johns Creek area
9,854 posts, read 9,022,653 times
Reputation: 5385
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmuth View Post
I think Cagle is more interested in giving Airport Contracts to his donors...
Just like the prior mayoral administrations. Simply moving the bad acts from one political entity to another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2018, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Lake Spivey, Georgia
1,872 posts, read 1,357,333 times
Reputation: 2020
Really strange except that Senator Seay is AT LEAST from Clayton County where the bulk of the airport is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2018, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Just outside of McDonough, Georgia
1,051 posts, read 829,308 times
Reputation: 1281
Frankly, the fact that this is still being considered is beyond ludicrous.

Hartsfield-Jackson is owned by the City of Atlanta. Atlanta owns the land, the buildings, the runways, the parking decks, and so on. If the state so much as attempts to seize the airport without paying Atlanta fair market value for the property (a few dozen billion dollars the state obviously doesn't have,) the city would absolutely have the legal grounds to fight this in federal court on the grounds that the state would be violating eminent domain laws. Can you imagine elected politicians having to justify just giving billions of dollars to Atlanta just so they could take over an airport? Opposition candidates in primaries and general elections would have a field day.

The only way I could see something like this succeeding is with the abolition of Atlanta's city charter. After all, you can't be sued for compensation by an entity that doesn't exist, right?

Also, the justification is ridiculous to say the least. "National security"? Really? I don't think the federally-mandated security procedures would be any different because the owner of the airport is different; you'd still have to go through TSA screening, there'd be numerous marshals and local police officers present, and so on.

As for contracts, I'm not convinced the airport contract bidding process would be any different if the state was in charge. Local issues aside, the state government isn't a paragon of cleanliness and efficiency in governance. All that would happen is that the greased wheels would shift from Atlanta City Hall to the Gold Dome and the Governor's Mansion.

This would be an endless legal battle that would result in thousands of wasted taxpayer dollars in legal fees. And don't forget, the FAA changed policy on transferring airport ownership in 2016:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federal Aviation Administration
Any state or local legislative body or public agency considering whether to take an action, such as drafting legislation, that would impact airport ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations should (1) consult with and obtain the consent of the current sponsor/operator (absent extraordinary circumstances, such as substantial evidence of mismanagement on the part of the current sponsor/operator); [2] and (2) request technical assistance from the FAA about the interrelationship between Federal and state or local requirements, and seek the FAA's review and comment as early in the deliberative process as is practicable. A failure to consult may cause FAA to deny a proposed change to airport sponsorship and/or operating authority.
So unless the state can prove in court (or to the FAA) that there is "substantial evidence of mismanagement" of Hartsfield-Jackson by the City of Atlanta, the CoA can just withhold consent for a transfer and the FAA would reject a transfer of ownership, leaving the city in control. Also, the wording suggests that even the act of drafting legislation transferring control of Hartsfield-Jackson to the state would require consent of the city for the FAA to sign off on a transfer of control.

Next, the city could just tie up any transfer in court indefinitely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federal Aviation Administration
The FAA will accept an application for a change in airport sponsorship/operation only upon a legally definitive resolution of a dispute. At that time, the FAA will evaluate whether an application is complete and whether the proposed airport sponsor/operator is capable of assuming all grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal obligations, and has the expertise to operate the airport as required by law.
Finally, the state might not be able to avoid reimbursing Atlanta for some costs even if everything goes swimmingly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federal Aviation Administration
In circumstances in which a change in sponsorship or operation of an airport is approved and effectuated, the new airport sponsor and/or operator should reimburse the prior sponsor for investments that have been made by the prior sponsor of the airport but have not been fully recouped at the time of the change in airport sponsorship.
Wait, wasn't there some big master plan for the airport, some parts of which are already being paid for and/or are already under construction? Hmmm...

- skbl17
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2018, 10:39 PM
 
Location: NW Atlanta
5,189 posts, read 3,666,405 times
Reputation: 2781
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD View Post
Almost half the words in that sentence are thinly-veiled synonyms of money, which is my whole point.
Yep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2018, 08:20 AM
 
5,061 posts, read 5,882,076 times
Reputation: 3061
It shouldn't be part of the city or the state. This is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2018, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Lindbergh, Atlanta
806 posts, read 383,662 times
Reputation: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
It shouldn't be part of the city or the state. This is ridiculous.
Atlanta built the airport. Why shouldn't it own something it built?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2018, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Johns Creek area
9,854 posts, read 9,022,653 times
Reputation: 5385
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
It shouldn't be part of the city or the state. This is ridiculous.
What should it be part of?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2018, 08:40 AM
 
1,776 posts, read 722,711 times
Reputation: 1553
Why does Cagle and his Republican buddies hate Delta?

Are they still butthurt over the NRA thing?

Georgia Senate study committee to consider 'secondary airport hub'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2018, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Lindbergh, Atlanta
806 posts, read 383,662 times
Reputation: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Why does Cagle and his Republican buddies hate Delta?

Are they still butthurt over the NRA thing?

Georgia Senate study committee to consider 'secondary airport hub'
We are residents in one of the most do nothing states. Are there no actual problems left in Georgia?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top