Fire station and terminal building, VMA
The City is also supporting the Vicksburg- Tallulah Regional Airport (VTR) near Mound, Louisiana. It's one-fourth ownership is costing taxpayers approximately $3,000 per month in operating expenses, though millions, mostly federal funds, have been spent on constuction of the facility.
Terminal building and associated structures, VMA
Though the City has moved forward with plans and expenditures for VMA, several considerations have not been addressed. For example, though VMA is beneficial to some business interests, such as LeTourneau Technologies, Cappert Manufactured Housing, and the Army Corps of Engineers, of what benefit is VMA and its improvements to the people who are paying for it - the Average Joe taxpayers of Vicksburg and Warren County? What will become of the city's interests in VTR once VMA is actively supporting all of Vicksburg's airport needs? In this time of economic uncertainy, should a reduction in the financial load on the citizens, i.e., reduced taxes and budgetary constraints, take precedence over huge new expenditures?
Hangar, VMA
9 comments:
VMA operated profitably last year - as in there was no burden on the taxpayer - the taxpayer received a benefit from the airport. Your negative slant about the average Joe and his benefit is unwarranted.
VTR cost us a bunch of money. The real question, Malcolm, should be "What use is anyone other than a moneyed few getting from that airport in another state?" I hope the city cuts it's ties to that airport and there is a federal investigation into the origins of that airport. It was and is a boondoggle.
VMA has plans for a commercial runway and has attracted attention from ERDC for a 40-60 MILLION dollar private investment in new hangars and technology. Additionally the airport is ideally situated next to the river. That means Vicksburg can create a new port on the river. One of the main issues we have with the current port is location, the large loads don't make it up the canal because it is too narrow. Additionally the canal sits right on one of the toughest turns of the entire Mississippi. Location, location, location.
The addition of Mr. Fullmer to the airport is a big win for Vicksburg, we should be celebrating that, not questioning his pay.
Finally Malcolm to reduce the taxes and budgetary constraints the city has chartered just that course by beginning the process of getting away from supporting a questionable airport in another state. In the process the city has developed a plan to increase tax revenue from operations at the airport, improve our cities standing as a port city and add commercial activity at our local airport.
Get your facts straight. Malcolm, why do you always take a negative slant and cast dispersions on every good idea Vicksburg's current administration creates. Do you have a personal issue with the Mayor or Aldermen?
The post has several questions addressed to citizen readers concerning the city government and its support of two airports. There is no negative slant, unless it's in your own head, J. I know Curt Fullmer, and have a very high opinion of him - there was no negative implied - just a statement of the facts. None of your opinions answered any of the questions posed, so get the facts and publish a meaningful response.
As far as having a "personal issue" with the mayor and aldermen - yes I do. Restrictions on language used on this site prevent my publishing an adequate description of my "issues" with them.
I think that the improvements made to VMA are needed and wonderful. There is no reason why Vicksburg should not have a fully functional airport. There is also not a reason in the world to provide any money to VTR.
The idea of a new port near the airport has got to be attractive to industry and can only increase Vicksburg's chances of entertaining new indsutries.
This is a step in becoming a premier inland port city.
Malcolm, I addressed all the issues in your post. Which confuse you?
Let me be clear on the biggest issue, we don't need to have an association with VTR. It is a waste of money, poorly conceived and poorly run. It is a boondoggle.
Boondoggle = a waste of time and/or money; a pointless activity.
On your issues with the Mayor and Alderman perhaps a face to face with them in a civil fashion would improve things. If you want to just yell at them it probably won't improve anything other than your blood pressure.
"Anonymous?" - why don't you use your name when you comment? You certainly don't mind using mine.
I'm all for a new port and a better VMA - if it can be shown that they are of benefit to the citizens of Vicksburg. So far, nothing you or the mayor/aldermen have said comes close to justifying either. Let me repeat the questions raised above so that you can address them properly. 1)Of what benefit is VMA and its improvements, and a new port, to the taxpayers? Facts, not conjecture. Numbers, not vague statements. Prove that VMA made a profit last year, and that it was of benefit to the taxpayers. A commercial runway, a new port, new hangers, etc. - how are the taxpayers going to pay for them, and what is the return to them? How much are the businessmen who use the airport going to put up? What industries are interested in locating in the new port? Facts and numbers, not vague conjecture. 2) What will become of VTR? Are there legal issues? Will the three other entities take recourse in a lawsuit to prevent Vicksburg's withdrawal from the pact? Will the Feds likewise demand a return of the dollars they've put into it? Facts, not glossy conjecture. 3) In this time of economic uncertainy, should a reduction in the financial load on the citizens, i.e., reduced taxes and budgetary constraints, take precedence over huge new expenditures? There are many other needs that deserve attention -- and the expenditure of our tax dollars, or a reduction in the city budget. How about reasonable gas and water/sewer rates for the populace? How about reduced property taxes? Does the city have to spend every cent they receive from our taxes, the casinos, and their bond issues (above and beyond routine maintenance) on grandiose new projects? What about the people who can't afford higher utilities, taxes, etc., or have lost their jobs? If the economy worsens, do you think they, or anyone, will be suportive of these new expenditures? When people are about to lose their homes, do you think they'll be overjoyed to learn that VMA has a new runway? Your statement that "the city has developed a plan to increase tax revenue from operations at the airport" is probably a revelation of the intent of the city to increase taxes by any means at their disposal in order to support their need to spend. Leyens, after all, is on record as saying he would welcome a (property) tax increase.
Lastly, my relationship with the three "city fathers:"
After the buildings next door collapsed, I tried repeatedly to meet with the three to discuss the additional dangers to my building, and to listen to their plans. None of them had enough integrity to even return my calls. Finally, I was notified by Leyen's secretary that "the mayor and aldermen do not feel it is necessary to meet with you." Later, after a particularly nasty letter to the editor that I wrote, Mayfield called and asked to meet with me. During the meeting he promised to talk with the other two about a meeting to discuss plans for the removal of debris and a tall parapet that were further endangering my building. He promised to call me afterwards. I'm still waiting.
These three "officials" have razed many, many "unsound" or "hazardous" buildings over the course of the last three years, citing public safety or public nuisance, while allowing the eyesore next door - which was and is a danger to the public, and a source of ridicule by all who see it - to remain. Even now they have no involvement in the removal of debris. Their behavior in this instance is shameful. They don't deserve my respect, and would have to exhibit honorable behavior to earn it. I hardly think that will happen.
Malcolm, you can call me 'Suspicious'.
The benefits of VMA are:
1.) It is in Mississippi therefore all income and investment benefits Mississippi.
2.) It is profitable (records available from City Hall). By the way, this indicates that it is well managed. If I need to explain the difference between taxpayer expense and no taxpayer expense let me know.
3.) It is physically located near the river. That means expansion to the river and the addition of a port down the road, not this week.
4.) It is in the process of adding a commercial runway. That means more flights and income from those flights. Commerce also tends to develop in these areas.
5.) It is poised to receive a 40-60 million dollar investment (in Mississippi) that will create 50 to 150 high paying jobs.
6.) It is headed by Curt Fulmer.
On the question of benefits I am baffled. Are you saying you don't see the benefit of a port at the airport? Are you seriously questioning the value of commercial activity? The new hangar means more people will be able to use the airport. That means more income. Relating to new industry coming to the port I am aware of nothing signed. However the opportunity currently doesn't exist, it will in the future. VMA is ideally situated near I-20, rail and the river. If you build it, they will come.
On the question of cost to businessmen who use the airport...um, seriously? They pay for fuel, usage and storage. They also use that facility for maintenance of their craft. They are the reason to have an airport. In their wisdom the city fathers are now expanding that opportunity for income to include commercial activity, expansion to the river and development of commerce in that underdeveloped area. It is called vision.
Regarding VTR.
1.) It was a poorly conceived idea with questionable origins and slanted data from the onset. The info used to choose VTA over VMA included misinformation (a nice way to say lies) about the tower miles away and the approach. Now that we know that information was not accurate we should be looking into who specifically benefited from putting the airport in another state. We should also consider who is currently benefiting from that airport. Something is rotten in Denmark.
2.) On the legal issues I don't know, I'm not that close to the situation. From the report in the paper we have reduced our payouts to VTA and are positioning to remove ourselves entirely at lease end. Good riddance.
3.) My understanding of the agreement to receive Federal dollars included a time frame. Again my info source is the Vicksburg Post, if I understood correctly we have met our time obligation so there will be no need to return anything. Additionally I can't imagine Nancy Thomas allowing anything to happen that will ensure an avoidable lawsuit.
On reducing burden to taxpayers I am all for it. Our tax has continually increased in the county and the county portion of our tax is the issue. As an owner of property in the city and the county I see ZERO benefit from my county taxes. In the city I see constant activity and expenditure of my taxes in addition to excellent services and response. To wit we had an adjoining property that was not being maintained in one of our city properties. I called the city and someone was there withing 30 minutes to look at the property. The property has been maintained ever since that call. In the county I drive by abandoned trailers, burned out homes, abandoned vehicles and literal junk yards to arrive at my well maintained property. There are no standards in the county, there is no protection for my value and I pay more for insurance in the county. So yes, our tax burden should be reduced in the county, city and schools. I will start with the area where I see no benefit of my tax dollar, the county.
On expenditures you and I both know that investment in our infrastructure and commercial viability is a good thing. Is this the perfect time? I guess that's a matter of concern for both of us. On the other hand is there ever a good time when it relates to taxpayer monies?
On Gas and sewer rates all I can say is that we pay more in the county for gas than we do in the city. From looking at other areas of the country it appears our rates in the city are not that bad. With the recent reduction in gas rates we appear to be downright cheap. When I lived in the city I was not happy with the cost of these services, now that we are in the county I can feel the difference, in a negative way, to my wallet.
We have different perspectives on the function of local governments. I prefer a government that is forward thinking and willing to invest in it's future. A government that simply maintains will not be able to compete in today's world - like the county and the mass exodus of industry from Warren County.
Leyens and company will have objection from me if they move to raise taxes, especially during these times. How the county fathers expect to survive the next election after raising our taxes I will never understand.
Your relationship with the city on the collapsed buildings is horrific. I have always had a good response from the city and my calls are returned. It is a shame they have treated you so. The only possible out for them I see is the lawsuit may have prevented them from responding adequately. Not making excuses, at the very least they should have said that was the issue.
I would very much like to see a response from the city regarding those fallen buildings and why they took this approach to Malcolm.
Suspicious.
Malcolm, I can't figure out how to create a name in this format.
Suspicious.
For the record, Anonymous is not Jay Kilroy, because that's me. Though I do agree with most of what the poster had to say.
Post a Comment