Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Trash

3 views
Skip to first unread message

swi...@sdgweb.com

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

The City is moving the trash dump because of the bird activity near
the new airport. The City will use the money to fund the necessary
changes or export the trash somewhere else.

Why is it that we have to live with the consequences of someone elses
actions?

Travis Wheatley

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

swi...@sdgweb.com wrote:
>The City is moving the trash dump because of the bird activity near
>the new airport. The City will use the money to fund the necessary
>changes or export the trash somewhere else.
>

So... let me get this straight...

We are now going to have to pay to move the trash dump
because there will be too many birds flying around the
airport that the citizens of Austin voted *TWICE* to
upgrade and leave in its current convenient downtown
location, and then subsequently voted (apparently because
the first two results weren't what the city councel wanted
to hear) to move to Manor?

Remember this sort of thing, as well as other shining
examples of the "leadership" of our local government
(such as bike helmet laws) the next time these bozos
come up for re-election.


>Why is it that we have to live with the consequences of someone elses
>actions?
>

Because we live in a representative democracy. If you don't
like your representation, vote them out. If you don't
choose to exercize your right to vote, then you shouldn't
bitch when we wind up with a bunch of morons in our
government.

Mike Green

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

Travis Wheatley wrote:
>
> swi...@sdgweb.com wrote:
> >The City is moving the trash dump because of the bird activity near
...
>
> We are now going to have to pay to move the trash dump
> because there will be too many birds flying around the
> airport that the citizens of Austin voted *TWICE* to
> upgrade and leave in its current convenient downtown
... blah, blah, blah.

I think the move was a great idea. Manor or Bergstrom, either way.

I fly commercially 1-2 times a week and bring clients to Austin at least
that often. The current facilities obviously need a serious upgrade and
spending a significant sum of money in a location with limited potential
for growth seems short-sighted.

The move to Bergstrom takes advantage of a long overdue move by the
federal goverment and reuses the some of the exisiting infrastructure.
It frees up high-value property for addition to the tax base, increases
the taxable value of a relatively depressed area in South Austin,
increases the value of residential property in areas around the airport
and generally increases the standard of living in central Austin.

Some people will no doubt whine about the extra 7 miles of driving, but
all in all it seems like a hell of a good decision.

...Mike Green

P.S. I'm also fly myself and think that although the alternatives to
Muller aren't great, they are definately acceptable. I'd like to see
what most pilots said if they had to absorb the real cost of keeping the
exisiting facilities open to private activity.

Travis Wheatley

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

Mike Green <Mike....@trilogy.com> wrote:
>Travis Wheatley wrote:
>>
>> swi...@sdgweb.com wrote:
>> >The City is moving the trash dump because of the bird activity near
>...
>>
>> We are now going to have to pay to move the trash dump
>> because there will be too many birds flying around the
>> airport that the citizens of Austin voted *TWICE* to
>> upgrade and leave in its current convenient downtown
>... blah, blah, blah.
>
>I think the move was a great idea. Manor or Bergstrom, either way.
>
>I fly commercially 1-2 times a week and bring clients to Austin at least
>that often. The current facilities obviously need a serious upgrade and
>spending a significant sum of money in a location with limited potential
>for growth seems short-sighted.
>

Yes, the current facilities need (needed?) an upgrade. I
would have much rather spent the money to provide that upgrade
than the money to build a new facility.

>The move to Bergstrom takes advantage of a long overdue move by the
>federal goverment and reuses the some of the exisiting infrastructure.

Long overdue? It seems to me that Austin jumped on reusing
the facility quicker than buzzards on dump sight as soon
as it was anounced that the base was being shutdown.



>It frees up high-value property for addition to the tax base, increases
>the taxable value of a relatively depressed area in South Austin,

Ahem, I happen to live in South Austin and do not consider
an increase in the taxable value of my area to be a strong
argument in favor if the new airport location.

>increases the value of residential property in areas around the airport

This is debatable. Do you really think that because the
airport is to be replaced by shopping centers that the
"bad part of town" near the airport will somehow transform
itself into the new trendy place to park your BMW?

>and generally increases the standard of living in central Austin.
>

And what about the standard of living in South Austin?

You stated eariler in this post that an Airport in a given
section of town increases the property value, yet here you
seem to be saying that removing an airport from a given
section increases the standard of living. So... which is
it?


>Some people will no doubt whine about the extra 7 miles of driving, but

And then there are those of us who would really rather the
air traffic be directed over the comercial sections of
centrial austin than over our South Austin homes.


>all in all it seems like a hell of a good decision.
>

Kind of depends on your point of view. That's the reason
that we put it to a vote. What I am still chapped about
is that we voted to leave it where it is, but in spite
of that we still are winding up paying for a new facility.

Unfortunately, it is pretty much pointless to debate the
pros and cons of the new airport. It is going in regardless
of who comes up with the most brilliant arguments.

I am/was simply trying to point out that our city government
has a somewhat long history of ignoring the will of the
citizenry and has an equally long history of making less
than optimal decisions. It is my hope that the people of
Austin will remember these sorts of things at election
time. Unfortunately, our last election seems to indicate
that our collective memory is not as good as it should
be.


swi...@sdgweb.com

unread,
Jan 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/10/97
to

Travis Wheatley <Travis....@amd.com> wrote:


>So... let me get this straight...

>We are now going to have to pay to move the trash dump


>because there will be too many birds flying around the
>airport that the citizens of Austin voted *TWICE* to
>upgrade and leave in its current convenient downtown

>location, and then subsequently voted (apparently because
>the first two results weren't what the city councel wanted
>to hear) to move to Manor?
>
>Remember this sort of thing, as well as other shining
>examples of the "leadership" of our local government
>(such as bike helmet laws) the next time these bozos
>come up for re-election.
>
>

>Because we live in a representative democracy. If you don't
>like your representation, vote them out. If you don't
>choose to exercize your right to vote, then you shouldn't
>bitch when we wind up with a bunch of morons in our
>government.
>

Are you calling our local government officials "a bunch of morons,"
sir?

This is what happens when we the people fail to petition on current
issues.
It is a representative democracy, and not a true democracy.
Nevertheless, as a stroke of the brush does not guarantee art from
the bristles, the election of an (official does not insure sane and
correct policy. In Austin it seems that voting is irrelevant. The
council giveth and the council taketh away.

How effective is signature collection and petitioning it this city?



Richard Aleksander

unread,
Jan 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/10/97
to


Mike Green <Mike....@trilogy.com> wrote in article
<32D53B...@trilogy.com>...


>
> I think the move was a great idea. Manor or Bergstrom, either way.
>
>

> Some people will no doubt whine about the extra 7 miles of driving, but

> all in all it seems like a hell of a good decision.
>

I personally don't care about my extra miles.

However, let's examine the impact on surface transportation if the six
million passengers using Mueller yearly drive themselves to the new
airport, and park their cars until they return. Eighty-four million
additional miles per year. If someone chauffeurs them there and back? One
hundred sixty-eight million additional miles per year. And we haven't even
discussed the increased truck traffic from freight operations.

Bottom line, this new facility will increase auto traffic generally in
Austin by about 5 percent. Probably more (see sprawl issues, discussed
below). Your forty minute (non airport) commute is going to become an hour
commute. Who even thought, "What if we can't make our flight on time
because of the traffic?"

That's why its essential to make it accessible to travelers choosing not to
drive there. Read: Light Rail.



> The current facilities obviously need a serious upgrade and
> spending a significant sum of money in a location with limited potential
> for growth seems short-sighted.
>

Better service for air passengers was not a motivating factor for those who
wanted to move it. Neither was thinking about the state officials who now
threaten to condemn Mueller for the Texas' Air Force.

How could an airport ever be more convenient than Mueller was? Moving the
airport was advanced entirely by people whose interests were in real estate
speculation and those hoping for involvement as contractors.

There was never any real discussion about upgrading Mueller. There always
was sufficient land around it to expand. Parking and surface
transportation upgrades (shuttles/people movers etc.; even a bus stop at
the terminal) were never actuated. The airport issue was never about
improving transportation services.

No, the main political driver was noise problems and the aircraft industry
was fixing that: The new aircraft are whisper quiet.

Talk about something that not only wasn't needed and will benefit only a
few, but will make things worse...

As for development around the new airport, it will suck tax money from
everyone who lives in Austin as the city builds infrastructure at the edge
of sprawl. Industries and residences will locate near the airport and
generate more pressure on our road system, which in turn will contribute to
more fouling of the air and water.

Which will attract less new businesses to the area. Our environment is the
main reason business has chosen to locate here.

Richard Aleksander, a member of ROUTE (Rethinking Our Urban Transportation
Environment)

r.alek...@worldnet.att.net

Lug

unread,
Jan 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/10/97
to

swi...@sdgweb.com wrote:

: How effective is signature collection and petitioning it this city?

More effective than in Texas (since there is no legal recognition of
statewide initiatives), but less effective than it should be.

I will say this: the council got its collective butt in gear
regarding the $10 stadium when they realized that we were gathering
so many signatures. That's effective.

-- L

Joseph Crowe

unread,
Jan 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/10/97
to

Richard Aleksander wrote:
>
> Mike Green <Mike....@trilogy.com> wrote in article
> <32D53B...@trilogy.com>...
> >
> > I think the move was a great idea. Manor or Bergstrom, either way.
> >
> >
> > Some people will no doubt whine about the extra 7 miles of driving, but
> > all in all it seems like a hell of a good decision.
> >
> I personally don't care about my extra miles.
>
> However, let's examine the impact on surface transportation if the six
> million passengers using Mueller yearly drive themselves to the new
> airport, and park their cars until they return. Eighty-four million
> additional miles per year. If someone chauffeurs them there and back? One
> hundred sixty-eight million additional miles per year. And we haven't even
> discussed the increased truck traffic from freight operations.
>
> Bottom line, this new facility will increase auto traffic generally in
> Austin by about 5 percent.

Interesting math, but probably extremely inaccurate. I'd love to
know exactly how you justify this 5% figure.


Probably more (see sprawl issues, discussed
> below). Your forty minute (non airport) commute is going to become an hour
> commute.

?? Can you explain how you reached this conclusion?

> Who even thought, "What if we can't make our flight on time
> because of the traffic?"

Well, there are lots of alternative routes to the Bergstrom site, and
people missing flights because they don't allow enough time to reach the
airport must take responsibility for their own actions. Besides, do you
know of any more congested access to a point of departure than I-35 in
the Austin area? I don't and I believe that relocating the airport will
alleviate I-35 congestion somewhat.


>
> That's why its essential to make it accessible to travelers choosing not to
> drive there. Read: Light Rail.

Well, this explains it all. If you think that the concept of more
traffic to Bergstrom is an expensive concept, wait until you measure the
economic and ecological impact of light rail. I suspect that you would
propose to burden Austin area taxpayers even more to pay for such a
system? Rail systems make a lot more sense where a large population
lives in a compact area. This is not true of Austin and it's definitely
not true of the state of Texas.

> How could an airport ever be more convenient than Mueller was? Moving the
> airport was advanced entirely by people whose interests were in real estate
> speculation and those hoping for involvement as contractors.

I think an airport that has more parking, is further outside the
center of population and has more potential for growth to handle more
throughput is a lot more convenient. This also makes life for people in
the flight path a lot more enjoyable.


>
> There was never any real discussion about upgrading Mueller. There always
> was sufficient land around it to expand.

Where would you expand Mueller without invoking eminent domain? Even
if you could, that still leaves a lot of folks in the flight path.

> No, the main political driver was noise problems and the aircraft industry
> was fixing that: The new aircraft are whisper quiet.

Yeah, right. Tell that to people living in the flightpath. I have
friends in the NW Hills who receive thundering noise levels from planes
landing at Mueller. Friends who live closer just turn up the TV I
guess. I can't imagine living truly close to Mueller. Your argument
holds no water in this case.

> Richard Aleksander, a member of ROUTE (Rethinking Our Urban Transportation
> Environment)

Hmmmm. Does your organization have any well documented positions
available?
>
> r.alek...@worldnet.att.net

--
Joseph Crowe
jcr...@austx.tandem.com
Nature forms us for ourselves, not for others; to be, not to seem.
-fortune cookie from 12/10/96

Terry Moore

unread,
Jan 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/11/97
to

In article <32D670...@mpd.tandem.com>, Joseph Crowe
<jcr...@mpd.tandem.com> says:
>
> Well, there are lots of alternative routes to the Bergstrom site, and
>people missing flights because they don't allow enough time to reach the
>airport must take responsibility for their own actions. Besides, do you
>know of any more congested access to a point of departure than I-35 in
>the Austin area? I don't and I believe that relocating the airport will
>alleviate I-35 congestion somewhat.

*******************************************************************

Do you also believe that when Bergstrom opens, that bottleneck across
the Montopolis bridge will be eliminated?

Terry at Lake Bastrop

*******************************************************************

Richard Aleksander

unread,
Jan 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/11/97
to


Joseph Crowe <jcr...@mpd.tandem.com> wrote in article
<01bbfee9$2f27e780$d86a93cf@default>...


> Richard Aleksander wrote:
> >
> > Mike Green <Mike....@trilogy.com> wrote in article
> > <32D53B...@trilogy.com>...
> > >
> > > I think the move was a great idea. Manor or Bergstrom, either way.
> > >
> > >
> > > Some people will no doubt whine about the extra 7 miles of driving,
but
> > > all in all it seems like a hell of a good decision.
> > >
> Richard Aleksander wrote:

> > I personally don't care about my extra miles.
> >
> > However, let's examine the impact on surface transportation if the six
> > million passengers using Mueller yearly drive themselves to the new
> > airport, and park their cars until they return. Eighty-four million
> > additional miles per year. If someone chauffeurs them there and back?
> One
> > hundred sixty-eight million additional miles per year. And we haven't
> even
> > discussed the increased truck traffic from freight operations.
> >
> > Bottom line, this new facility will increase auto traffic generally in
> > Austin by about 5 percent.
>

(quothe Joseph Crowe)

> Interesting math, but probably extremely inaccurate. I'd love to
> know exactly how you justify this 5% figure.

(from Bill Hoy of the Austin Transportation Study (ATS)):

The most recent figures (1994) of the ATS estimate 24 million vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) each day.

(from Holland Young, COA Airport Planning Project):

The airport will generate 36-thousand vehicle trips daily, increasing by 5
percent annually. Traffic from cargo operations is considered somewhere
between insignificant and negligible. Virtually all these trips are
related to passenger operations.

But, at 14 miles per trip (the distance Bergstrom is from Mueller), the
additional VMT expected by the city's trip projections are identical to
those I quoted.

I'm awaiting origin-destination study results to be contained in a report I
should receive next week.

But the 504-thousand additional vehicle miles is 2-point-1 percent or so of
the total VMT.

> > Bottom line, this new facility will increase auto traffic generally in
> > Austin by about 5 percent.

>> Probably more

This is so because the airport also encourages far flung or sprawl
development. Now, how much new traffic will be generated by a new plant or
several? How much from a residential development of 300 homes? How about
3000? How about 30,000?

Typical of the city of Austin, their planners haven't even asked these
questions. Yet, they'll be asked to build power stations and distributors,
water and sewer mains, roads, etc. to serve them. And you and I, Austin
taxpayers, will foot the bill.


Your forty minute (non airport) commute is going to become an
> hour
> > commute.
>
> ?? Can you explain how you reached this conclusion?

I got the info, made the assumptions I think are appropriate, and did the
calculations.

Actually, traffic officialdom tries diligently not to perform
origin-destination studies except as a last resort. They would give us
better ideas how to approach traffic congestion problems. OTOH the traffic
boys and girls like to tell us that widening roads will solve congestion
problems. This is because their money comes from managing roadbuilding
projects and more roads give them larger budgets. But they will also admit
that no place has ever widened itself out of congestion.

Joseph wrote:
>
> I believe that relocating the airport will
> alleviate I-35 congestion somewhat.
> >

How do you figure?

Richard wrote:
> > That's why its essential to make it accessible to travelers choosing
not
> to
> > drive there. Read: Light Rail.
>

> If you think that the concept of more
> traffic to Bergstrom is an expensive concept, wait until you measure the
> economic and ecological impact of light rail. I suspect that you would
> propose to burden Austin area taxpayers even more to pay for such a
> system?

yeah...because the alternatives are even more costly, in terms of air
quality, water quality, community quality and mobility.

> Rail systems make a lot more sense where a large population
> lives in a compact area. This is not true of Austin and it's definitely
> not true of the state of Texas.
>

Actually, 86 percent or more of Texans live in urban areas. The
(not-particularly-forward-thinking) planners of the ATS describe Austin as
a "compact corridor" compatible with rail operations. In fact, they say
that by 2020 with rail roads will still be congested. Without rail they
project gridlock.

> I think an airport that has more parking, is further outside the
> center of population and has more potential for growth to handle more
> throughput is a lot more convenient.

Parking could always have been done at Mueller. How does decentralizing an
important aspect of the community make it more convenient?

> >
> > There was never any real discussion about upgrading Mueller. There
> always
> > was sufficient land around it to expand.
>
> Where would you expand Mueller without invoking eminent domain? Even
> if you could, that still leaves a lot of folks in the flight path.

The adjacent Jimmy Clay Golf Course was always meant to provide land for
expansion and runway extensions.


>
> > No, the main political driver was noise problems and the aircraft
> industry
> > was fixing that: The new aircraft are whisper quiet.

I visited Boeing Field in Seattle a year and a half ago and witnessed
several flyovers of the new 777. It made no noise at about 200 feet.

>
> Yeah, right. Tell that to people living in the flightpath. I have
> friends in the NW Hills who receive thundering noise levels from planes
> landing at Mueller. Friends who live closer just turn up the TV I
> guess. I can't imagine living truly close to Mueller. Your argument
> holds no water in this case.

We are talking about the next thirty years, not the last twenty.


>
> > Richard Aleksander, a member of ROUTE (Rethinking Our Urban
> Transportation
> > Environment)
>
> Hmmmm. Does your organization have any well documented positions
> available?
> >

Individual members have put out many position papers and the group
publishes a newsletter. We also have formed an email network to distribute
transportation news. To subscribe, send an email to
aus...@spidersense.com and mention subscribe in the subject line.

There's lots of stuff on the net from other than us.

The NY Times published about 26-thousand words in six stories December 29
and 30, 1996 about sprawl in the western states that was right on point.
Read the stories at nytimes.com.

Mike Green

unread,
Jan 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/11/97
to

Richard Aleksander wrote:
>
> Joseph Crowe <jcr...@mpd.tandem.com> wrote in article
> <01bbfee9$2f27e780$d86a93cf@default>...
> > Richard Aleksander wrote:
> > >
...

>
> This is so because the airport also encourages far flung or sprawl
> development. Now, how much new traffic will be generated by a new plant or
> several? How much from a residential development of 300 homes? How about
> 3000? How about 30,000?
>
> Typical of the city of Austin, their planners haven't even asked these
> questions. Yet, they'll be asked to build power stations and distributors,
> water and sewer mains, roads, etc. to serve them. And you and I, Austin
> taxpayers, will foot the bill.

Of course this is true, its also true that these items tend to be
revenue-neutral.

> >
> > If you think that the concept of more
> > traffic to Bergstrom is an expensive concept, wait until you measure the
> > economic and ecological impact of light rail. I suspect that you would
> > propose to burden Austin area taxpayers even more to pay for such a
> > system?

...


> Actually, 86 percent or more of Texans live in urban areas. The
> (not-particularly-forward-thinking) planners of the ATS describe Austin as
> a "compact corridor" compatible with rail operations. In fact, they say
> that by 2020 with rail roads will still be congested. Without rail they
> project gridlock.
>
> > I think an airport that has more parking, is further outside the
> > center of population and has more potential for growth to handle more
> > throughput is a lot more convenient.

Its wierd, but I agree with you. Having lived in the North-East and
Europe, and used their systems extensively, I've always been
disappointed at our lack of similar facilities.

> I visited Boeing Field in Seattle a year and a half ago and witnessed
> several flyovers of the new 777. It made no noise at about 200 feet.
> >

Your either deaf of stupid and I know for a fact that you don't live
under an airport approach or departure route. I've listened to the same
777 and can tell you that no one in their right mind would want to live
under this kind of traffic. In addition private and corporate aviation
isn't subject to these regulations.

There is no way an airport can be considered an acceptable use of land
situated in densely populated residental areas. To prove me wrong maybe
you can point out an airport where the two co-exist successfully.

...msg

Larry Wolfe

unread,
Jan 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/12/97
to lwo...@ix.netcom.com

Mike Green wrote:
>
> Richard Aleksander wrote:
> >

[...]

> >
> > Typical of the city of Austin, their planners haven't even asked these
> > questions. Yet, they'll be asked to build power stations and distributors,
> > water and sewer mains, roads, etc. to serve them. And you and I, Austin
> > taxpayers, will foot the bill.
>

> Of course this is true, its also true that these items tend to be
> revenue-neutral.

Beg to differ. We are still paying, and will be for decades, on the interest
rate on bonds to fund the last "boom". The problem is that we spend during
the times when interest rates and costs are highest and pay continuously. Some
of those bonds were at rates >12%.

[...]

> Its wierd, but I agree with you. Having lived in the North-East and
> Europe, and used their systems extensively, I've always been
> disappointed at our lack of similar facilities.

Equally disappointing is the fact that there will be no way to get to
one short of one person/one automobile. That is the major reason that
the European airports work, public transportation.
> [ remarkable observations on the "stealth 777" snipped]

> There is no way an airport can be considered an acceptable use of land
> situated in densely populated residental areas. To prove me wrong maybe
> you can point out an airport where the two co-exist successfully.
>
> ...msg

Not to press the point too far but, Meigs Field, Chicago, LaGuardia, NYC,
and the San Diego Airport come to mind. Then there was Stapleton in Denver
and Sky Harbor in Phoenix...

--larry

Janet M. Swisher

unread,
Jan 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/12/97
to

In article <32D922...@ix.netcom.com>,
Larry Wolfe <lwo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Mike Green wrote:
>> There is no way an airport can be considered an acceptable use of land
>> situated in densely populated residental areas. To prove me wrong maybe
>> you can point out an airport where the two co-exist successfully.

> Not to press the point too far but, Meigs Field, Chicago, LaGuardia, NYC,


> and the San Diego Airport come to mind. Then there was Stapleton in Denver
> and Sky Harbor in Phoenix...

Miegs Field is private-aviation only, and has been for years. Maybe
you meant Midway Airport?

Audrey Montgomery

unread,
Jan 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/12/97
to

You seem to know a lot on this subject, so let me ask a question that
has been bothering me. I haven't really been following this closely, so
this topic might have already been discussed.
Is it just me, or do a lot of other people suspect that Mueller won't
really be completely be shut down? I probably wouldn't complaing _too_
much about smaller, little tiny planes, but my concern is with Southwest
and other such airlines that cater to short-trip flyers. I suspect that
the TX Legislature might put their nose in this one somehow. God forbid
they should have to fly in to Bergstrom and then drive into Austin. I
live at Koenig/Burnet and the noise here is PHENOMENAL. I am just
afraid we will have this shiney, new, expensive airport -- and SWA will
still be flying over my house. Does Love Field ring any bells here?

Aud

constance l crouch

unread,
Jan 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/13/97
to

>Joseph Crowe jcr...@mpd.tandem.com Re: Moving the airport
>1-1O-97

>Richard Aleksander wrote:

>> Mike Green Mike....@trilogy.com wrote:

>> That's why its essential to make it accessible to travelers

>> choosing not to drive there. Read: light rail.

>If you think the concept of more traffic to Bergstrom's an expensive
>concept, wait until you measure the economic & ecological impact of
>light rail. I suspect you'd propose to burden Austin area taxpayers
>even more to pay for such a system? Rail systems make a lot more sense
>where a large population lives in a compact area. This isn't true of
>Austin, & it's definitely not true of the state of Texas.

This makes sense.

>> ...noise problems & the aircraft industry was fixing that: the new
>> aircraft are whisper quiet.

>Yeah, right. Tell that to people living in the flightpath. I have


>friends in the NW Hills who receive thundering noise levels from planes
>landing at Mueller. Friends who live closer just turn up the TV I
>guess. I can't imagine living truly close to Mueller. Your argument
>holds no water in this case.

It might interest those reading this thread to know that before the
-jets- began flying in & out of Mueller, the surrounding residents
complained about the older, noiser planes. And people don't HAVE to
move next to an airport.

I predict this: a few years after the new airport's in, people will
move in around it as closely as possible (for various reasons), &
they'll complain just as much. People never really learn.

Same old, same old....

Mags

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/13/97
to

Audrey Montgomery wrote:
>
> You seem to know a lot on this subject, so let me ask a question that
> has been bothering me. I haven't really been following this closely, so
> this topic might have already been discussed.
> Is it just me, or do a lot of other people suspect that Mueller won't
> really be completely be shut down?

Yes, a lot of people do worry about this.

In fact, the FAA, in agreeing to allow the new airport
to open, mandated that Austin cease all commercial
flight activity at the current airport.

> I probably wouldn't complaing _too_
> much about smaller, little tiny planes, but my concern is with Southwest
> and other such airlines that cater to short-trip flyers. I suspect that
> the TX Legislature might put their nose in this one somehow. God forbid
> they should have to fly in to Bergstrom and then drive into Austin.

Here is where you should worry. The state has threatened to
take possession of our current airport (the technical term
is "condemn," which means "occupy by imminent domain"), and
to continue to fly state aircraft in and out of the
current airport.

I believe they can get around the FAA proviso if they
do this.

If this happens, you can thank the green-weenies
in Austin (both pseudo-government and government)
for pissing off the state with their extremist
behavior so much that the state folk now aggressively
look for ways to "screw over" Austin.

> I
> live at Koenig/Burnet and the noise here is PHENOMENAL. I am just
> afraid we will have this shiney, new, expensive airport -- and SWA will
> still be flying over my house. Does Love Field ring any bells here?

Love Field can not happen here, but a state variant can.

As for living in the current flight path, I'm assuming you
moved there after the current airport was built... in
which case, you made your bed, etc, etc.

--
mailto:cher...@concentric.net
I speak only for myself.
I reserve the right to copyright all my email and netnews posts.

Audrey Montgomery

unread,
Jan 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/13/97
to

Chuck Herrick wrote:
>
>
> As for living in the current flight path, I'm assuming you
> moved there after the current airport was built... in
> which case, you made your bed, etc, etc.
>


Thanks for your input Charles. Actually I rent (I am a student, and
work). When I buy a home, IT WILL NOT be under the flight path. My
rent here was just to good to pass up for a poor college student. $575
for a 2/1 with a huge yard, decent neighborhood, on a bus route that
goes to UT, CACH.

But, like everyone else, I have suspicions of what the old airport will
become, whether I continue to live in this location or not. I will
still live in Austin.

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/13/97
to

Audrey Montgomery wrote:
>
> Chuck Herrick wrote:
> >
> >
> > As for living in the current flight path, I'm assuming you
> > moved there after the current airport was built... in
> > which case, you made your bed, etc, etc.
> >
>
> Thanks for your input Charles. Actually I rent (I am a student, and
> work). When I buy a home, IT WILL NOT be under the flight path. My
> rent here was just to good to pass up for a poor college student.

Actually, if I were in a position to do a bit of
real estate speculating (buying), I'd buy
right under the flight path.

Even if the state grabs the current airport and
keeps it open for their planes, most of which
are tiny in comparison to today's commercial
planes, all commercial flights are going to
the new airport... and those who own in today's
flight path are going to reap an awesome jump
in property values.

Larry Wolfe

unread,
Jan 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/13/97
to lwo...@ix.netcom.com

I stand corrected. Didn't bother to get out the charters. Always a mistake.

--larry

Larry Wolfe

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to lwo...@ix.netcom.com

Chuck Herrick wrote:
> [...]

>
> In fact, the FAA, in agreeing to allow the new airport
> to open, mandated that Austin cease all commercial
> flight activity at the current airport.
> [...]

> Here is where you should worry. The state has threatened to
> take possession of our current airport
[...]

>
> I believe they can get around the FAA proviso if they
> do this.

No doubt they can do so. They might not be able to operate
the types of approaches that they have available at Muller.
This would probably have enough impact on operations to
help bring some sence to the deliberations.


>
> If this happens, you can thank the green-weenies
> in Austin (both pseudo-government and government)
> for pissing off the state with their extremist
> behavior so much that the state folk now aggressively
> look for ways to "screw over" Austin.

Pure, unadulterated, bullshit. Although some might like to
think so, the environmentaly concerned did not invent legislative
egos. Austin has been a target for at least the 35 years I have
lived here, boom, bust, and in between. Billy Clayton did not
suddenly become arrogant when he came to Austin. Perhaps Chuck
would be much more content if this were the District of Austin
and under the direct, an oh so competent, jurisdiction of the
Legislature or its stooges, but I still like to vote. And strange as
it may seem, the pecular notions of the representative from
West Sludge or Dallas do not play a very large part in my idea of
how I would like my city and neighborhood to function.

By the by, does anyone else recall that there was a bill introducted
a few years back, sponsored by our own beloved Wilhimina Delco, that
specified that Austin must either move the airport or pay to sound
proof pretty much everything east of IH35? For the life of me, I
cannot remember if it actually passed, though it was one of the many
sorry excuses given for the rush to assist the local development
community speculate on Manor land. If I am not completely crazy, and
it did pass, wonder how much the State of TX is planning to chip in for
_their_ airport?

--larry

Richard Aleksander

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to

According to the Web Pages of the City of Chicago, Merrill Meigs Field is
closed. There is now a commercial heliport at ground level in the central
downtown.

Meigs was a cool airport, located on a peninsula in Lake Michigan, with a
harbor between it and Chicago. It was downtown, slightly south and a
stone's throw away from Shedd Aquarium, Adler Planetarium and the Field
Museum of Natural History. It was used by private and scheduled small
commercial aircraft and helicopters.

As for Midway; Chicago's first airport is within the Southern city limits.
It is said to be the busiest square mile on earth.

I flew there this summer (SW Airlines) and took mass transit (elevated and
subway trains and a bus) from it some 50 miles to the northern suburbs on a
Saturday afternoon. It took less than 2 hours and cost one dollar 50,
carrying me through the loop, and delivering me to the front door of my
hotel.

On the train I saw bunches of Chicago neighborhoods, Comiskey Park, where
the White Sox play, the huge (8-floors) new Harold Washington Public
Library downtown and a Cubs game at Wrigley Field.

Larry Wolfe <lwo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<32DB1D...@ix.netcom.com>...

Richard Aleksander

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to


Larry Wolfe <lwo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

<32DB21...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Chuck Herrick says

> > Here is where you should worry. The state has threatened to
> > take possession of our current airport

Then Larry said,


>
> No doubt they can do so. They might not be able to operate
> the types of approaches that they have available at Muller.
> This would probably have enough impact on operations to
> help bring some sence to the deliberations.

Let's hope so, because it would be profitable to reuse the airport land in
a master planned, compact fashion. But it is still not, Jake Pickle and
the American Statesman to the contrary, simply a matter of mere personal
inconvenience to a small handful of people. The new airport adds 170
million miles per year + 5% per year of driving to the total vehicle miles
traveled. (figures from the Austin Transportation study and the Austin
Airport Planning Group.)

If Mueller continues, it will subvert everything that was promised to east
Austinites, who were USED by the real estate speculators and contractors
anxious for another project to demand their labor and products.

Charles said,


> >
> > If this happens, you can thank the green-weenies
> > in Austin (both pseudo-government and government)
> > for pissing off the state with their extremist
> > behavior so much that the state folk now aggressively
> > look for ways to "screw over" Austin.

Not so. The green sentiment was to keep the airport exactly where it is.
The new airport is very anti-green.

Favoring the airport:
A group of land developers.
Auto/beer dealership owners who expect to profit directly and indirectly.
A consortium of highly placed local businessmen who received the franchise
to the cargo operations.

These exerted influence ($) on the City Council to move the airport. They
got support from within the Austin Chamber. Editorials cheerleading for
them were published at the American Statesman. The city ignored negative
results of a handful of local referenda, and repeatedly called the question
as if it were new. All along the airport management (Charles Gates et.
al.) gave and are giving short shrift to the users of the airport, the
passengers, and lastly, the state, in their rush to expedite the private
profit from the new airport. That's the crux of the mismanagement of the
situation.

More eloquence from Larry, IMHO, worth repeating.



> I still like to vote. And strange as
> it may seem, the pecular notions of the representative from
> West Sludge or Dallas do not play a very large part in my idea of
> how I would like my city and neighborhood to function.
>
> By the by, does anyone else recall that there was a bill introducted
> a few years back, sponsored by our own beloved Wilhimina Delco, that
> specified that Austin must either move the airport or pay to sound
> proof pretty much everything east of IH35? For the life of me, I
> cannot remember if it actually passed, though it was one of the many
> sorry excuses given for the rush to assist the local development
> community speculate on Manor land.

It did pass...and it was probably unconstitutional (meaning contrary to the
Texas Constitution, like many of last session's Austin Bashing Bills,
several of which have recently been overturned on the same grounds) since
it dealt solely with matters concerning the city of Austin.

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to

Larry Wolfe wrote:
>
> Chuck Herrick wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > In fact, the FAA, in agreeing to allow the new airport
> > to open, mandated that Austin cease all commercial
> > flight activity at the current airport.
> > [...]
> > Here is where you should worry. The state has threatened to
> > take possession of our current airport
> [...]
> >
> > I believe they can get around the FAA proviso if they
> > do this.
>
> No doubt they can do so. They might not be able to operate
> the types of approaches that they have available at Muller.
> This would probably have enough impact on operations to
> help bring some sence to the deliberations.
> >
> > If this happens, you can thank the green-weenies
> > in Austin (both pseudo-government and government)
> > for pissing off the state with their extremist
> > behavior so much that the state folk now aggressively
> > look for ways to "screw over" Austin.
>
> Pure, unadulterated, bullshit. Although some might like to
> think so, the environmentaly concerned did not invent legislative
> egos. Austin has been a target for at least the 35 years I have
> lived here, boom, bust, and in between.

Let's see... 1997 - 35 = 1962. Yep, just about when
the hippie movement hit its stride, and green-weenies
infected America, including Austin.

I rest my case.

> Billy Clayton did not
> suddenly become arrogant when he came to Austin. Perhaps Chuck
> would be much more content if this were the District of Austin
> and under the direct, an oh so competent, jurisdiction of the

> Legislature or its stooges, but I still like to vote.

So do lots of the tofu-eaters who work part time
packing groceries in health food stores so they
can float around Barton Springs counting salamanders....
and with all that free time on their hands, since
the mid-60's they've done a great job of organizing
"little Moscow on the Colorado" and running it
into the ground. The only thing that stands in the
way of their ultimate destruction of Austin
has been the state legislature, bless 'em.

> And strange as
> it may seem, the pecular notions of the representative from
> West Sludge or Dallas do not play a very large part in my idea of
> how I would like my city and neighborhood to function.

The legislature has been a balancing force in the excesses
and extremism demonstrated by Austin government.

> By the by, does anyone else recall that there was a bill introducted
> a few years back, sponsored by our own beloved Wilhimina Delco,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
speak for yourself... Delco was a political disaster for
Austin and for Texas.

> that
> specified that Austin must either move the airport or pay to sound
> proof pretty much everything east of IH35? For the life of me, I
> cannot remember if it actually passed, though it was one of the many
> sorry excuses given for the rush to assist the local development

> community speculate on Manor land. If I am not completely crazy, and
> it did pass, wonder how much the State of TX is planning to chip in for
> _their_ airport?

I think you can bet on "as little as possible." Hey, that's what
you get for shoving an extremist agenda down the throats
of Texans. I suggest a move to Berkeley if you want that
kind of lifestyle to flourish with government support.

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to

Richard Aleksander wrote:
>
> Larry Wolfe <lwo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <32DB21...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > Chuck Herrick says
>
> > > Here is where you should worry. The state has threatened to
> > > take possession of our current airport
>
> Then Larry said,

> >
> > No doubt they can do so. They might not be able to operate
> > the types of approaches that they have available at Muller.
> > This would probably have enough impact on operations to
> > help bring some sence to the deliberations.
>
> Let's hope so, because it would be profitable to reuse the airport land in
> a master planned, compact fashion. But it is still not, Jake Pickle and
> the American Statesman to the contrary, simply a matter of mere personal
> inconvenience to a small handful of people. The new airport adds 170
> million miles per year + 5% per year of driving to the total vehicle miles
> traveled. (figures from the Austin Transportation study and the Austin
> Airport Planning Group.)
>
> If Mueller continues, it will subvert everything that was promised to east
> Austinites, who were USED by the real estate speculators and contractors
> anxious for another project to demand their labor and products.
>
> Charles said,
> > >
> > > If this happens, you can thank the green-weenies
> > > in Austin (both pseudo-government and government)
> > > for pissing off the state with their extremist
> > > behavior so much that the state folk now aggressively
> > > look for ways to "screw over" Austin.
>
> Not so. The green sentiment was to keep the airport exactly where it is.

You missed the point.... the point is that the state
government, in its disdain for Austin government,
takes advantage of _every_ opportunity to punish Austin,
whether the actual punishment makes sense or not.

> The new airport is very anti-green.

Oh, hog wash.

> Favoring the airport:
> A group of land developers.
> Auto/beer dealership owners who expect to profit directly and indirectly.
> A consortium of highly placed local businessmen who received the franchise
> to the cargo operations.
> These exerted influence ($) on the City Council to move the airport. They
> got support from within the Austin Chamber. Editorials cheerleading for
> them were published at the American Statesman. The city ignored negative
> results of a handful of local referenda, and repeatedly called the question
> as if it were new. All along the airport management (Charles Gates et.
> al.) gave and are giving short shrift to the users of the airport, the
> passengers, and lastly, the state, in their rush to expedite the private
> profit from the new airport. That's the crux of the mismanagement of the
> situation.

Look at the demographics of the vote.
Quit trying to spin more urban conspiracy-theory
mythology.

> More eloquence from Larry, IMHO, worth repeating.
>

> > I still like to vote. And strange as


> > it may seem, the pecular notions of the representative from
> > West Sludge or Dallas do not play a very large part in my idea of
> > how I would like my city and neighborhood to function.
> >

> > By the by, does anyone else recall that there was a bill introducted

> > a few years back, sponsored by our own beloved Wilhimina Delco, that


> > specified that Austin must either move the airport or pay to sound
> > proof pretty much everything east of IH35? For the life of me, I
> > cannot remember if it actually passed, though it was one of the many
> > sorry excuses given for the rush to assist the local development
> > community speculate on Manor land.
>

> It did pass...and it was probably unconstitutional (meaning contrary to the
> Texas Constitution, like many of last session's Austin Bashing Bills,

more like Austin Spanking Bills...

> several of which have recently been overturned on the same grounds) since
> it dealt solely with matters concerning the city of Austin.

Even if so, at least someone is out there trying
to do the right thing.

H. Adam Stevens

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to

In article <01bc01b4$a0845760$1edb92cf@default>, "Richard Aleksander"
<r.alek...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>According to the Web Pages of the City of Chicago, Merrill Meigs Field is
>closed.

-snip-


>Meigs was a cool airport, located on a peninsula in Lake Michigan, with a
>harbor between it and Chicago. It was downtown, slightly south and a
>stone's throw away from Shedd Aquarium, Adler Planetarium and the Field
>Museum of Natural History. It was used by private and scheduled small
>commercial aircraft and helicopters.
>


Meigs lives! Illinois overruled Chicago.
from Avflash: 12/30/96
MEIGS:
After Illinois Governor Jim Edgar signed into law legislation to reopen
Chicago's embattled Meigs Field under state control, the Springfield
press corps gave the Governor a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator for
Windows 95 (which still defaults to Meigs) as a gag gift. As for
Chicago's Mayor Daley -- whose refusal to entertain any compromise on
reopening Meigs left Edgar with little choice but to sign the bill into
law -- AVweb has been unable to confirm rumors that hizzonor similarly
received a copy of SimCity.

--
H. Adam Stevens
hste...@bga.com
I'm a pilot. I own airplanes. I vote.

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to

Well, there you have it....
the very model of what the
State of Texas is threatening
to do to Austin and its airport(s).

Thanks to all the Liberal extremists
and green-weenies
in Austin government for pissing
off the state over the last 30+ years
so much, that we can probably count
on Mueller not closing now.

Conan The Librarian

unread,
Jan 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/15/97
to

In article <32DBAE...@concentric.net>, Chuck Herrick
<cher...@concentric.net> writes:

> Larry Wolfe wrote:
>>
>> Chuck Herrick wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > In fact, the FAA, in agreeing to allow the new airport
>> > to open, mandated that Austin cease all commercial
>> > flight activity at the current airport.
>> > [...]

>> > Here is where you should worry. The state has threatened to
>> > take possession of our current airport

>> [...]
>> >
>> > I believe they can get around the FAA proviso if they
>> > do this.
>>

>> No doubt they can do so. They might not be able to operate
>> the types of approaches that they have available at Muller.
>> This would probably have enough impact on operations to
>> help bring some sence to the deliberations.
>> >

>> > If this happens, you can thank the green-weenies
>> > in Austin (both pseudo-government and government)
>> > for pissing off the state with their extremist
>> > behavior so much that the state folk now aggressively
>> > look for ways to "screw over" Austin.
>>

>> Pure, unadulterated, bullshit. Although some might like to
>> think so, the environmentaly concerned did not invent legislative
>> egos. Austin has been a target for at least the 35 years I have
>> lived here, boom, bust, and in between.
>
> Let's see... 1997 - 35 = 1962. Yep, just about when
> the hippie movement hit its stride, and green-weenies
> infected America, including Austin.

Please provide some evidence that there was any sort of "green-weenie"
movement in Austin in 1962.

Furthermore, please show how they had any effect on policy making in
Austin at that time.

> [snippety snip]


Chuck Vance


Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/16/97
to

Ask some of the old-time Travis County
Republicans sometime why Austin is
called "little Moscow on the Colorado"
elsewhere in Texas...

Conan The Librarian

unread,
Jan 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/17/97
to

In article <32DEB8...@concentric.net>, Chuck Herrick
<cher...@concentric.net> writes:

>Conan The Librarian wrote:
>>
>> In article <32DBAE...@concentric.net>, Chuck Herrick
>> <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
>

> [snippety snip]


>
>> >> > If this happens, you can thank the green-weenies
>> >> > in Austin (both pseudo-government and government)
>> >> > for pissing off the state with their extremist
>> >> > behavior so much that the state folk now aggressively
>> >> > look for ways to "screw over" Austin.
>> >>
>> >> Pure, unadulterated, bullshit. Although some might like to
>> >> think so, the environmentaly concerned did not invent legislative
>> >> egos. Austin has been a target for at least the 35 years I have
>> >> lived here, boom, bust, and in between.
>> >
>> > Let's see... 1997 - 35 = 1962. Yep, just about when
>> > the hippie movement hit its stride, and green-weenies
>> > infected America, including Austin.
>>
>> Please provide some evidence that there was any sort of "green-weenie"
>> movement in Austin in 1962.
>>
>> Furthermore, please show how they had any effect on policy making in
>> Austin at that time.
>>
>
>Ask some of the old-time Travis County
>Republicans sometime why Austin is
>called "little Moscow on the Colorado"
>elsewhere in Texas...

Hmmmm ... do you usually talk to liberals to get an idea of what
conservatives are like?

Anyhow, I don't have to. I know Austin is more liberal than the rest
of the state, and I am well aware of how conservatives feel about Austin.

Now back to the point at hand: I'm still waiting for you to provide
some evidence that there was a "green-weenie" movement in Austin in 1962.
In particular, I am interested in seeing specific examples of policy that
they were responsible for.

(And some freaks driving a VW van with a "Mother Earth ... our only
home" bumper-sticker doesn't count as a "green-weenie movement". :-)


Chuck Vance


Larry Wolfe

unread,
Jan 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/17/97
to

Chuck Herrick wrote:
>

> You missed the point.... the point is that the state
> government, in its disdain for Austin government,
> takes advantage of _every_ opportunity to punish Austin,
> whether the actual punishment makes sense or not.
>
> > The new airport is very anti-green.
>
> Oh, hog wash.

You will have to forgive me, but the notion of Chuck's descriminatory
powers with repect to "green" issues is amusing at best.

[... list of politicians, developers, and toadies snipped]


>
> Look at the demographics of the vote.
> Quit trying to spin more urban conspiracy-theory mythology

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(This from the "Moscow on the Colorado" man....)

Er, which demographics would that be? For that matter, which vote?
As I recall we got to keep voting until we came up with the answer
that the speculators, politicians, and banks wanted/needed. (sort of
like the STNP which was, no doubt, another hippie plot...)
By and large, I think that you will find heavy support for the move
in the same places that you find heavy support for most developers
subsidies, Tarrytown, west Austin, and the NW suburbs. No doubt there
was some additional support from precincts immediately adjacent to the
airport.

[...]

> Even if so, at least someone is out there trying
> to do the right thing.

I assume you are referring to the Court that overturned the verdict
against Austin?

H. Adam Stevens

unread,
Jan 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/18/97
to

>Conan The Librarian wrote:
>> In article <32DBAE...@concentric.net>, Chuck Herrick
>> <cher...@concentric.net> writes:

>> > Larry Wolfe wrote:
>> >> Chuck Herrick wrote:

>> > Let's see... 1997 - 35 = 1962. Yep, just about when
>> > the hippie movement hit its stride, and green-weenies
>> > infected America, including Austin.
>> Please provide some evidence that there was any sort of "green-weenie"
>> movement in Austin in 1962.

I believe '62 is a bit early. The only radio here then was KVET and KNOW. The
only TV was KLBJ. The only jobs were UT and the State. Students didn't vote in
Austin (and had no Vietnam war to protest). Nobody knew who Charles Whitman was.
I think '68 or '69 was more like it; Frank Erwin shot me the bird at Waller
Creek during a protest of the stadium expansion.
But back to the thread:
I bought a house near 47th and Red River in '71 and the Boeing 737's were MUCH
LOUDER than the current crop of birds. The light stuff was never a bother. I
lived there for years and never felt the airport should be moved to cater to me.
Do y'all remember the American Spaceman front page just before the last airport
vote? An outrageous graphic depicting a large chunk of East Austin swallowed up
by airport expansion if we didn't MOVE IT. What TICKED ME OFF was the city's
original plan for the new airport. There was no recognition that general
aviation exists. The FAA made 'em put in facilities to get funding. As soon as
the money was allocated the crosswind runway and access tunnel vanished.
Billy Clatyon's letter to pilots claimed that, by the city's own numbers, GA
accounted for about half of airport revenues. Then I read in the Spaceman that
it's three percent. Now I read in the Chronicle that my "hobby" is subsidized by
the airlines. Somebody's lying here. It's not an "expensive hobby". My
airplanes go
places, fast. Want to see an expensive hobby? Go to the lake.
Check this:
€Port A: 1 hour, 15 minutes
€Angel Fire: 3 hours, 45 minutes
€Sherman: 1 hour, 20 minutes
€Leave a hotel in Houston at 6:15 AM and be at work in Austin at 7:45 AM.
(try that with Southwest)
€Commute to work from a grass strip in the country 100 miles away
(2 hour drive, 30 minute flight)
The twin gets 10 MPG at 200 MPH. I have about $50,000 in it.
A used Cessna can be had for half that.
There are plenty of cars in town that cost more,
let alone the useless (for travel) boats in Lake Travis.
In high school, I washed planes to pay for flying lessons.
I have a commercial pilot certificate with multi-engine and instrument ratings.
That's a LOT OF WORK folks.

There, I feel better now.
Y'all have a great weekend.
H. (Still proud to have been flipped off by Frank Erwin) Stevens

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/18/97
to

Larry Wolfe wrote:
>
> Chuck Herrick wrote:
> >
>

Hey, legislative actions overturned by Liberal extremist
judiciary proves exactly diddly-squat... look at
what that Jimmie-Carter-judge did to the Affirmative-Racism
initiative in California.

Again, I laud the Texas Legislature for being
willing to backhand Austin government when
Austin government careens to the left
out of control.

Larry Wolfe

unread,
Jan 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/19/97
to

Chuck Herrick wrote:
>
> Larry Wolfe wrote:
> >
> > Chuck Herrick wrote:
> > >
> >
[...]

> >
> > Er, which demographics would that be? For that matter, which vote?

...somehow, the answer to this question did not appear in your
reply.
Oversight, no doubt.

> >
> > > Even if so, at least someone is out there trying
> > > to do the right thing.
> >
> > I assume you are referring to the Court that overturned the verdict
> > against Austin?
>
> Hey, legislative actions overturned by Liberal extremist
> judiciary proves exactly diddly-squat... look at
> what that Jimmie-Carter-judge did to the Affirmative-Racism
> initiative in California.

Well, I was really curious how anyone could support an assertion that
the City of Austin was run by "hippies" in 1962. Seemed a stretch,
if not verging on delusions. Now I understand. To my recollection,
the City of Austin has seen three favorable outcomes based on tests of
the
whims of our enlightened legislature. The Texas Court of Civil
Appeals,
an _elected_ body that Charles apparently believes to be rife with
Liberalextremists (no need to keep it two words since he never uses it
that way) said that a Hays Co. court was in error in its verdict
against
Austin regarding the SOS ordinance. The Texas Supreme Court, another
bastion
of the Liberalextremist's, reminded the Texas Legislature that our
(Texas) Constitution
does not permit the Legislature to enact laws that apply to only a
single
jurisdiction. (Even Godless Austin, it appears...) You are, perhaps,
aware that
the Texas Supreme Court is also an elected body and that it presently
has a
majority of Republican justices? (Those stealth hippies are the WORST
kind)

Finally, the Federal (Oh dear!) 5th Circuit Court threw out a
judgement
against Austin re: FM Properties. Don't know (and decline to
research) the
specific makeup of the court, but am pretty certain that it is the
same one
that found against UT in the lawschool affirmative action case. Does
that make
them more liberalextremist or less?

As to the "Jimmy-Carter-judge...", so far as I know, the judge's
horrible deed
was the issuance of an enjunction to prevent the enforcement of the
act until
appeals have proceded. This is really pretty common and inevitably
brings howls
of protest from the enjoined party. If you think that it is terrible,
please
hold onto that thought the next time that one of your development
passions uses
it to prevent the application of a law (remember SOS) pending appeal.

By the by, I would bet that a pretty hefty number of the members of
the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals are Reagan/Bush appointees. Like to
count'em?

>
> Again, I laud the Texas Legislature for being
> willing to backhand Austin government when
> Austin government careens to the left
> out of control.
>

Laud as you like. So far as I know, the Texas Legislature has no
mandate to
intervene in the government of chartered cities, even if the chartered
cities
are a continuing affront to all that the legistlature holds dear
(lobbiests,
graft, money, ego, and free lunches, for example). It appears that,
at least
in the cases tried so far, the courts agree. Perhaps your unique
notion that
the courts are obligated to endorse the legislative rather than the
constitutional
position will eventually prevail. I hope not.

Amazed,

--larry

Audrey

unread,
Jan 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/19/97
to

Larry Wolfe wrote:

>
> > Charles Herrick wrote:
> > Again, I laud the Texas Legislature for being
> > willing to backhand Austin government when
> > Austin government careens to the left
> > out of control.
> >
>
> Laud as you like. So far as I know, the Texas Legislature has no
> mandate to intervene in the government of chartered cities, even if > the chartered cities are a continuing affront to all that the > legistlature holds dear (lobbiests, graft, money, ego, and free > lunches, for example). It appears that, at least in the cases tried > so far, the courts agree.

Thank god they do. Whether the Texas legislature likes it or not, we as
a city have the right to vote and make decisions about our city -- for
better or worse. I have to wonder why the DEFENDERS of the
legislature's actions can't seem to realize how 'targeted' we are.
Their thinking of, "well, if we weren't leaning so far to the left the
would leave us be", is B.S. We should be allowed to do what we want --
provided it doesn't contradict any higher law (and so far, the courts
have been backing us, so I suppose that answers the question).


> Perhaps your unique notion that
> the courts are obligated to endorse the legislative rather than the
> constitutional position will eventually prevail. I hope not.
>
> Amazed,
>
> --larry


Amen larry,
Audrey

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/19/97
to

Audrey wrote:
>
> Larry Wolfe wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Herrick wrote:
> > > Again, I laud the Texas Legislature for being
> > > willing to backhand Austin government when
> > > Austin government careens to the left
> > > out of control.
> > >
> >
> > Laud as you like. So far as I know, the Texas Legislature has no
> > mandate to intervene in the government of chartered cities, even if > > the chartered cities are a continuing affront to all that the
> > legistlature holds dear (lobbiests, graft, money, ego, and free
> > lunches, for example). It appears that, at least in the cases tried > > so far, the courts agree.
>
> Thank god they do. Whether the Texas legislature likes it or not, we as
> a city have the right to vote and make decisions about our city -- for
> better or worse.

Why is it that it's the folk who have the most extreme
of agendas who always whine the loudest about how
they have absolute rights to get away with anything
that trips their collective trigger?

Given the governmental history of the Peoples' Republic
of Austin, I find the legislature's evenhanded willingness
to provide balancing energy refreshing. I also have no
sympathy for those whose "gimme what I want, on demand"
agenda is completely unreflective of the majority of
Austinites, most of whom are busy trying to make
a living so they can pay Austin's onerous taxes.

> I have to wonder why the DEFENDERS of the
> legislature's actions can't seem to realize how 'targeted' we are.

Targeted YOU are. Not me. Speaking for myself, I welcome the
Legislature's actions in most cases. Personally, I'll be
pissed if they invoke imminent domain and "take" Mueller
Airport. If I had to pick a case where the state should
keep their fingers out of Austin's destiny, the closing
of Mueller Airport would be at the top of the list.

However, given the penchant for the political and social
extremes capable of the Liberals in "Little Moscow on
the Colorado," I'll learn to live with a few flights
of state planes out of Mueller.

> Their thinking of, "well, if we weren't leaning so far to the left the
> would leave us be", is B.S. We should be allowed to do what we want

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ummm, maybe you were successful at convincing your mom and dad
about that, but I'm not buying.

> provided it doesn't contradict any higher law (and so far, the courts
> have been backing us, so I suppose that answers the question).

Lucky for the Silent Conservative Majority in Austin,
State law is _HIGHER_ than local law... to wit,
the state can in some cases correct Austin excess.

> > Perhaps your unique notion that
> > the courts are obligated to endorse the legislative rather than the
> > constitutional position will eventually prevail. I hope not.
> >
> > Amazed,
> >
> > --larry
>
> Amen larry,

Geez, can you guys get it straight? On one hand (local level)
you want the voice of the people to prevail, while
on the other, you'd like Liberal Extremist judges,
appointed by brainless Democrats, to be able to
stifle the voice of the people.

I'm getting the idea that the driving force in your
position has little to do with the voice of the
people, and everything with what your whim happens
to be at any given moment.... which doesn't
speak very highly of the level of your maturity
(can you say "spoiled child").

Conan The Librarian

unread,
Jan 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/20/97
to

In article <32E26A...@concentric.net>, Chuck Herrick
<cher...@concentric.net> writes:

> [much ado about "Little Moscow on the Colorado" deleted]

So, Chuck ... why have you ignored the following?

> Read the following and tell us again how the previous poster was
> incorrect in using the word "omnivore" to describe humans:
>
> _Larousse Dictionary of Science and Technology_, 1995, p. 769.
> "Omnivore -- An animal which eats both plants and animals."
>
> _McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms_, 5th ed.,
> 1994, p. 1388. "Omnivore -- An organism which eats both plants and
> animals."
>
> _Cambridge Dictionary of Science and Technology_, 1990, p. 626.
> "Omnivore -- Animal which eats both plants and animals."
>
> _Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology_, 1992, p. 323. "Omnivore
> (diversivore) -- A heterotroph that feeds on both plants and animals".

And this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> > Let's see... 1997 - 35 = 1962. Yep, just about when
>>> > the hippie movement hit its stride, and green-weenies
>>> > infected America, including Austin.
>>>
>>> Please provide some evidence that there was any sort of "green-weenie"
>>> movement in Austin in 1962.
>>>

Jim Korioth

unread,
Jan 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/20/97
to cher...@concentric.net

Chuck Herrick wrote:
> [snip]

Speaking for myself, I welcome the
> Legislature's actions in most cases. Personally, I'll be
> pissed if they invoke imminent domain and "take" Mueller
> Airport. If I had to pick a case where the state should
> keep their fingers out of Austin's destiny, the closing
> of Mueller Airport would be at the top of the list.
>
>
> Lucky for the Silent Conservative Majority in Austin,
> State law is _HIGHER_ than local law... to wit,
> the state can in some cases correct Austin excess.
>[snip]

> Geez, can you guys get it straight? On one hand (local level)
> you want the voice of the people to prevail, while
> on the other, you'd like Liberal Extremist judges,
> appointed by brainless Democrats, to be able to
> stifle the voice of the people.
>
> I'm getting the idea that the driving force in your
> position has little to do with the voice of the
> people, and everything with what your whim happens
> to be at any given moment.... which doesn't
> speak very highly of the level of your maturity
> (can you say "spoiled child").
>

Okay, let me get this straight:

Austin VOTES to close the airport and move it to Manor

Then its back to the drawing board and Austin VOTeS AGAIN to CLOSE
Mueller and move it to Bergstrom.

Then in a perverse display of what can only be explained by petty
personality clashes and power struggles, suddenly the State doesn't want
to leave Mueller. The decision is based upon illusory savings supported
by a flawed appraisal which itself is based upon assumptions which
cannot possibly be defended. The charge is led by an APPOINTED
official.

Some folks in this thread have stated that they don't feel that the
airport should be closed just to cater to the wants of the surrounding
neighborhoods.

I bought my house in the neighborhood shortly after the SECOND
referendum to close Mueller. I think the City and State owe it to me
and to every other voter in Austin to close the damn airport, already.

As far as the will of the people/liberalextremist judges, its easy: the
will of the voters should be respected. When it's ignored due to
influence-peddling in obvious violation of the Constitution, the
judiciary's duty is to overturn the action which ignores the will of the
people. When it is ignored in a way that does not contradict the
constitution the judiciary must stay out, but the rest of us should put
on our gloves and get to work to make our voices heard more clearly. In
neither case is it appropriate for special interests to override the
will of a clear majority.

As for the silent conservative majority, if they want their concerns to
have primacy over everyone else's, let 'em vote.

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/20/97
to

Conan The Librarian wrote:
>
> In article <32E26A...@concentric.net>, Chuck Herrick
> <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
>
> > [much ado about "Little Moscow on the Colorado" deleted]
>
> So, Chuck ... why have you ignored the following?

absolutely... you're boring AND wrong...
which, in my book, adds up to unworthy
of response.

--

Chuck Herrick

unread,
Jan 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/20/97
to

However, in order for the state to proceed further,
the legislature must "take" Mueller from Austin.
At that point, it will be out of an appointed
official's hands, and in the hands of a lot
of elected officials from everywhere else in Texas.

> Some folks in this thread have stated that they don't feel that the
> airport should be closed just to cater to the wants of the surrounding
> neighborhoods.
>
> I bought my house in the neighborhood shortly after the SECOND
> referendum to close Mueller. I think the City and State owe it to me
> and to every other voter in Austin to close the damn airport, already.

I bought my house in the neighborhood shortly before the
Bergstrom referendum, and like you, I support doing something
creative and positive with Mueller... and having the
state "take" it and use it as an airport is not on
my list, either.

My point was that I can well understand the motivations
of state legislators who arrive in the Peoples' Republic
of Austin every two years, and have to roll up their
sleeves and "fix" (read: undo) the extremist actions
taken by Austin government (and Austin pseudo-government)...
and now we're all going to get screwed over the
airport because of it. My sarcastic thanks go
not to the state legislature, but to the green-weenies
who bring this on all of us.

> As far as the will of the people/liberalextremist judges, its easy: the
> will of the voters should be respected. When it's ignored due to
> influence-peddling in obvious violation of the Constitution, the
> judiciary's duty is to overturn the action which ignores the will of the
> people. When it is ignored in a way that does not contradict the
> constitution the judiciary must stay out, but the rest of us should put
> on our gloves and get to work to make our voices heard more clearly. In
> neither case is it appropriate for special interests to override the
> will of a clear majority.
>
> As for the silent conservative majority, if they want their concerns to
> have primacy over everyone else's, let 'em vote.

--

Conan The Librarian

unread,
Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97
to

In article <32E423...@concentric.net>, Chuck Herrick
<cher...@concentric.net> writes:

>Conan The Librarian wrote:
>>
>> In article <32E26A...@concentric.net>, Chuck Herrick
>> <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
>>
>> > [much ado about "Little Moscow on the Colorado" deleted]
>>
>> So, Chuck ... why have you ignored the following?
>
>absolutely... you're boring AND wrong...
>which, in my book, adds up to unworthy
>of response.

If you consider me to be boring ... fine, that's your perogative.
(Though I think it's a case of pot/kettle/black, as I can't imagine
anything more boring than someone who does little more than holler
"liberalextremists" at anyone who dares disagree with them.) However, if
you think I'm wrong, you might want to provide a bit of evidence to back up
your claim.

You said that humans are not omnivores, and I (and several others)
called you on it. I even provided you with multiple definitions from
scientific sources (included below) to show how wrong you were. You have
not offered anything substantive in response.

You then claimed that "green-weenie movement" was active and deciding
policy issues in Austin in 1962. I asked for some specific cases to
bolster that claim, and you provided nothing.

So, contrary to your claims, you have done *nothing* to show that I am
wrong about either matter. And no amount of handwaving on your part will
change that fact.


Chuck Vance

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Aleksander

unread,
Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97
to


Chuck Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<32E424...@concentric.net>...

> and now we're all going to get screwed over the
> airport because of it. My sarcastic thanks go
> not to the state legislature, but to the green-weenies
> who bring this on all of us.

I don't read where green weenies even have a horse in this race.

Nope, it's a few private pilots.

BTW, what date was the Mueller moving election held?


Travis Wheatley

unread,
Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97
to

Jim Korioth <jkor...@flash.net> wrote:

>
>Okay, let me get this straight:
>
>Austin VOTES to close the airport and move it to Manor
>

You seem to have forgoten that Austin voted *TWICE* to leave
the airport where it is. There were subsequent votes held
(presumably because the outcome of the vote was not what the
city councel wanted to hear) in one of which the people of
Austin, in effect, said "OK, fine, move the damned airport,
just quit making us vote on the same issue over and over
again...".

>Then its back to the drawing board and Austin VOTeS AGAIN to CLOSE
>Mueller and move it to Bergstrom.
>

Once again, I think that the result of that vote was yet
another "We know that ya'll are going to damned well
do what you want to do one way or another, so put it where
you have decided it needs to go and shut the heck up about
it" vote from the Austin citizens.

>Then in a perverse display of what can only be explained by petty
>personality clashes and power struggles, suddenly the State doesn't want
>to leave Mueller. The decision is based upon illusory savings supported
>by a flawed appraisal which itself is based upon assumptions which
>cannot possibly be defended. The charge is led by an APPOINTED
>official.
>

>Some folks in this thread have stated that they don't feel that the
>airport should be closed just to cater to the wants of the surrounding
>neighborhoods.
>
>I bought my house in the neighborhood shortly after the SECOND
>referendum to close Mueller. I think the City and State owe it to me
>and to every other voter in Austin to close the damn airport, already.
>

Hey, I bought my house in South Austin before the first
referendum to leave the airport where it is. I believe that
the City and State owe it to me to stick with the original
will of the people rather than with the results of the
"But that's not what we wanted to hear" votes.

>As far as the will of the people/liberalextremist judges, its easy: the
>will of the voters should be respected. When it's ignored due to
>influence-peddling in obvious violation of the Constitution, the
>judiciary's duty is to overturn the action which ignores the will of the
>people. When it is ignored in a way that does not contradict the
>constitution the judiciary must stay out, but the rest of us should put
>on our gloves and get to work to make our voices heard more clearly. In
>neither case is it appropriate for special interests to override the
>will of a clear majority.
>

I couldn't agree more. So... given that the will of the
voters should b