Casey Cagle appoints committee of senators to consider state takeover of Atlanta's airport (Jackson: subdivisions, cabinet)

[JPD]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Airport revenue does not include sales tax revenue generated in on-site shops and restaurants.

Thus proving me right. There's a lot of money for the state (and/or its officers in their personal capacities) to get its/their hands on via revenue generated at the airport.

If you think the state government doesn't spend all day thinking up ways to find new cookie jars to get their hands into you're fooling yourself.

[autolycus25]

Originally Posted by JPD

This is definitely not true, otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits like this one, in which Clayton County and the City of College Park are fighting over who gets the tax revenue from alcohol sales in the airport. If the money had to go back into the airport, there'd be nothing to litigate: https://www.law.com/dailyreportonlin...layton-county/

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.

[JPD]

So, if nothing changes in terms of revenue collection, what is the reason why Cagle and/or the state wants to take control of the airport?

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by JPD

So, if nothing changes in terms of revenue collection, what is the reason why Cagle and/or the state wants to take control of the airport?

Politics/control over airport contracts/red meat to voters that want to stick it to the City of Atlanta.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Politics/control over airport contracts/red meat to voters that want to stick it to the City of Atlanta.

Almost half the words in that sentence are thinly-veiled synonyms of money, which is my whole point.

[autolycus25]

Originally Posted by JPD

Almost half the words in that sentence are thinly-veiled synonyms of money, which is my whole point.

It feels like you've moved the goalposts here. Nothing would change wrt money the state or city has to spend outside the airport. The people who have opportunities to commit graft and/or fraud might change. You initially seemed to be talking about the former. Now you seem to be talking about the latter and are portraying what we're saying about the former as a comment about the latter.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by autolycus25

It feels like you've moved the goalposts here. Nothing would change wrt money the state or city has to spend outside the airport. The people who have opportunities to commit graft and/or fraud might change. You initially seemed to be talking about the former. Now you seem to be talking about the latter and are portraying what we're saying about the former as a comment about the latter.

Like you, I probably stated my initial post inaccurately to the real point I was making. There are lots of ways the state and its officers will profit, as a government entity and as individuals, by taking over the airport. And with this comes a commensurate reduction in the amount of money staying within the city/county. Whether the source of the revenue is taxes or not isn't really all that important. The state is hoping to use a city amenity to enrich itself at the expense of the city, and then use that enrichment to increase its influence over the city.

[demonta4]

This can’t be legal. Maybe they can create an agency that looks over the airport, but they can’t take over city owned property.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

I found this language in the resolution introducing the Senate Bill to create the committee very interesting:

"WHEREAS, in the interest of pubic welfare, national security, and economic stability, the transfer of operations of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to an authority might best serve and protect the citizens of the State of Georgia"

"Public welfare," "national security," and "economic stability"??? Huh????

Also, no Atlanta congress member is on the committee:

Chairman: Burt Jones;
Brandon Beach (R-Alpharetta);
Gloria Butler (D-Stone Mountain);
Mike Dugan (R-Carrollton);
Ed Harbison (D-Columbus);
Tyler Harper (R-Ocilla);
Steve Gooch (R-Dahlonega);
John Kennedy (R-Macon);
David Lucas (D-Macon);
Butch Miller (R-Gainesville);
Jeff Mullis (R-Chicamauga);
Valencia Seay (D-Riversdale);
Freddie Powell-Sims (D-Dawson).

5 Democrats on the committee. No Democrats should be on this committee.

There should be unity among Democrats on the issue of Atlanta controlling the airport just on GP.

Just more proof that the Democrats are out of step with their constituency. And just like in 2016 the Dems will likely sandbag themselves AGAIN in 2018 and 2020.

What a loser party.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by autolycus25

I don’t think the state should take over the airport, but someone from the state should probably look at the contract processes more closely. Perhaps GBI?

As if the contracting process at GDOT, the Georgia Ports Authority, or any of the other major state offices are any better?

The only problem I see is that the Democrats are simply wimps...who collectively don't have the intelligence and/or the political guile to take back the narrative.

And the local corporate media for whatever reason...never takes a strong look at how the state operates their contracts processes.