If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
mrtravel wrote in message igy.com...
me wrote: mrtravel wrote in message igy.com... TMOliver wrote: AJC vented spleen or mostly mumbled... There are a number of we philosophical egalitarians who feel that, while limiting snowmobiles or dune buggies from a"national park" may be justfied of the grounds of potential damage, to ban visitors or to limit them to specific groups/profiles is clearly unconstitutional, or as a traditionalist would put it, "clearly not the intent of the Framers". Can you point out this clause in the constitution? [snip] He's probably referring to the equal protection clause. There was also however the 10th amendment. (Is a "right to travel" clause too although that is really more of a restraint on states being able to prevent state to state travel). And the right to travel doesn't mean you have the right to have a government (taxpayer) funded airfield at the destination. However, in keeping with his assertion, if it is a government funded airfield, they cannot restrict its use based upon specific groups/profiles without "due process of law", of which a CAPPS-II "do not fly list" probably does not qualify. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
me wrote: However, in keeping with his assertion, if it is a government funded airfield, they cannot restrict its use based upon specific groups/profiles without "due process of law", of which a CAPPS-II "do not fly list" probably does not qualify. I thought they were closing the airfield (see subject line), so how is this restricting it to specific groups/profiles? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
mrtravel wrote in message om...
me wrote: However, in keeping with his assertion, if it is a government funded airfield, they cannot restrict its use based upon specific groups/profiles without "due process of law", of which a CAPPS-II "do not fly list" probably does not qualify. I thought they were closing the airfield (see subject line), so how is this restricting it to specific groups/profiles? Sorry, mixed assertions. He was originally talking about access to national parks and their ability to restrict access to them. You made an allusion to government run airports. With respect to government run (funded) airports or national parks, the government is restricted from preventing specific groups/profiles from traveling through them without due process of law. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=ne...action=article
If they're closing the air fields (and turning the islands into national parks) how will people be able to even get to those islands? Boat? I saw surprised to read about the closure of the Midway Island Air Field. A former colleague, now an environmental engineering consultant, was involved in the effort to restore the Island to fishing and tourism, and the last I heard from him the company managing Midway was doing exactly that. When I email him about the Midway Airfield closure - this was his response. " In the mid 1990s US Fish & Wildlife awarded the Midway contract to Midway Phoenix. Phoenix would be the first entity to run the Island since the military turned the operation of Midway over to the US government. Midway Phoenix had a contract with F&W to maintain the island infra- structure. The company ran the island essentially for free because they hoped to eventually recoup their costs by developing the island for fishing and ecotourism. To that end, they built a restaurant, converted an old barracks into a hotel, added deep sea fishing and diving concessions, brought out a full-time doctor, opened a store, built a hydroponics garden, etc. They ran the place for four years and lost millions of dollars -- because it costs to keep the runway open, the water system working, the power plant working, the buildings free of critters, etc. When I was there last, just prior to F&W taking the Island away from Midway Phoenix, the place was great. Everything worked fine and the Island was like paradise. Tourist and research traffic was on the rise. The commercial flights were full. But because these flights were limited, the Island was not over-run with people. And the ecological impact was minimal as indicated by flora and fauna reclaiming their place on an Island which had just come from sixty years of a major military presence. The old timers who worked at F&W were happy to have Midway Phoenix around -- because it ensured regular flights to the island, a constant stream of supplies, support and management of the Island's natural environment, and so on. But lots of rancor developed over who was in charge. It was a classic power struggle -- fueled by younger environmental types who work for F&W (the ones who want to turn back the clock and destroy all Midway "non- native" fauna, for example). Also there was a bunch of ecofeminists on the island doing dolphin research for the wildlife defense fund or some such group. They saw themselves as females protecting mother nature from the ravages of male dominance of the land. A mix like that was bound to get volatile. And it did. The end result was that Midway Phoenix was forced out -- though F&W claimed that Phoenix pulled out on their own. After that, an engineering company took over for a while. That company decided it was too much effort for such a small return (later profitability) and they beat a quick exit. The contract was again put up for bid and Phoenix rebid for it (which was also clear evidence that they didn't leave of their own free will in the first place). But the contract was awarded to Chugach because of minority preference, political pressure, and so on. By the way, Midway Phoenix rebid for the contract because they continued to believe that they could turn the island to profitability. And were willing to continue to operate at a loss in order for this transition to take place. Chugach took over and their incompetence was soon demonstrated when they failed to notice a JP-5 fuel leak until about 80,000 gallons were gone. And by that time Chugach reacted they had a major environmental problem on their hands. F&W had to then fund an expensive cleanup operation, which is still going on. The F&S Midway personnel tell me that the infrastructure has gone to hell and it would take millions to repair it all. And it is now so bad on the Island that birds are roosting in the hotel and in other buildings. My guess is that F&W will eventually give up and let the island go back to nature. Ignoring the associated ecological and environmental impact inherent in such non-planning. And at this time it would take a miracle to save the Island from this eventual decay. " |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
I didn't see anything about banning visitors, just
closing the airport. CO pretty much has a lock on the major islands in the Central Pacific particularly in the Marshall's and the Federated States of Micronesia. Closing the airports there would surely mean certain doom to the tourism industry on which many of these islands depend. I'm sure the islanders, if faced with a choice, would rather have the slight eco problems that scheduled air traffic may pose then the alternative which could include starvation and death. Jerry in LAS |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
Jaybee727 wrote:
I didn't see anything about banning visitors, just closing the airport. CO pretty much has a lock on the major islands in the Central Pacific particularly in the Marshall's and the Federated States of Micronesia. Closing the airports there would surely mean certain doom to the tourism industry on which many of these islands depend. I'm sure the islanders, if faced with a choice, would rather have the slight eco problems that scheduled air traffic may pose then the alternative which could include starvation and death. If they want to have an airport, then they will have to pay for it. They managed to survive for many years before we put an airport there. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
US closing another midpacific airfield
In , Paul Middlestat wrote
(quoting someone else): ...younger environmental types... ...ecofeminists... He forgot to mention the third group: cranky has-beens who blame everything on young-uns and uppity women. -- Herbie J. Famous Curator |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|