http://www.painefield.com/PF_history.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Kurtzke" <kurtzke@xxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:34 PM Subject: Re: Airports: Was: Those clowns near LGB > Al has a reasonable point, but who built the airport at Everett? How long > should the feds be able to call the tune? I've been to Burbank, and it > seems like stepping into the 1950's. My suspicion/guess was that Burbank > was built by/for Lockheed. If you accept federal money for a general > aviation airport, does that give the feds the right to turn it into an > airport for Southwest, etc. without the locals' assent? Yes, there is > emminent domain, but then the affected folks have the right to just > compensation. > > This is a complicated issue: while the framers of the Constitution wanted > a central government strong enough to carry out the tasks needed, they, > including Hamilton, wanted to limit the powers of the central government. > > john > > On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Allan9 wrote: > > > I'm going to throw two cents worth here. > > If you're going to accept 90% Federal funding for an airport/terminal then > > you shouldn't restrict the airports usage. If you want to provide 100% > > funding then it's your ballpark. Play the game you want by your rules. > > Landing fees are designed to pay (in most instances) the airport sponsors > > 10% and daily operating costs. > > > > Al > -- > John F. Kurtzke, C.S.C. > Department of Mathematics > 278 Buckley Center > University of Portland > Portland, OR 97203 > 503-943-7377 > kurtzke@xxxxxx >