Panama City Airport on hold

I told ya JOE had a pile of swampland. It might be theor name on the title, but they can't do a thing with it.

http://www.wmbb.com/gulfcoastwest/mbb/news.apx.-content-articles-MBB-2007-12-22-0004.html


Airport Construction

Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 - 07:40 PM

By Tuquyen Mach
E-mail | Biography
Panama City, FL -- Officials are giving the green light to re-start construction on the new Panama City airport.

The current airport off Highway 390 is set to be relocated to West Bay by 2010, but construction was temporarily halted thanks to a lawsuit.

Environmental groups filed the suit hoping to preserve the land the new airport will be built on.

Earlier this week, a federal court ruled that limited work could be done on the site as long as no wetlands were affected.

The Airport Authority announced it has issued a notice to Phoenix Construction for that work to proceed.

A hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for January 23 in New York.

Minimum FAA requirements to handle something the size of an A-380...weight not withstanding...

200 foot wide runways and 100 foot wide taxiways. The new airport is not being built to handle them in any manner. My belief is that it is a rumor run wild...

What about flights to Selma?

Isn't the whole state of Florida a wet land, what difference does this 2 thousand acres mean, other than there is always someone against everything?

Isn't the whole state of Florida a wet land, what difference does this 2 thousand acres mean, other than there is always someone against everything?

The main difference is that St. Joe is getting preferential treatment in obtaining blanket approval for multiple areas of wetlands.

Fair's fair, why shouldn't they have to get individual permitting just like everyone else?

If 56% of the citizens voted against the new airport why can't their wishes be followed? Whether it's a good or bad thing for development, in a democracy the majority should be heard.

If 56% of the citizens voted against the new airport why can't their wishes be followed? Whether it's a good or bad thing for development, in a democracy the majority should be heard.

You mean the votes we cast in Florida are supposed to count for something???


.

If 56% of the citizens voted against the new airport why can't their wishes be followed? Whether it's a good or bad thing for development, in a democracy the majority should be heard.

This country is not a democracy.

56 percent of those who voted don't know who the Lt. Governor is, or who represents them in D.C.

Isn't the whole state of Florida a wet land, what difference does this 2 thousand acres mean, other than there is always someone against everything?

Not all wetlands are the same, and there are species in the Panhandle that exist nowhere else in the world (some types of fish and beach mice) and others that are on the endangered species list because they don't have much habitat left elsewhere.

It's one of those cases where due dilligence is a good thing, as it would be a shame to get conclusive DNA evidence that the ivory-billed woodpecker didn't go extinct in the 1940s because it turned up as a bird strike on a landing regional jet at the new airport.

What about flights to Selma?

As in Alabama? I wouldn't bet on it with Montgomery being only 40 miles away.

Isn't the whole state of Florida a wet land, what difference does this 2 thousand acres mean, other than there is always someone against everything?

No, the whole state is not a wetland. There are plenty of uplands. Wetlands provide a whole lot of valuable functions. They protect the uplands from flooding, they clean the water that eventually ends up in the aquifer that we then drink, they clean the water that flows into the bays and rivers, they provide places for small fish to hang out until they become big fish that we then catch and eat, and so on. You ought to take a basic biology course somewhere, really. Your question is astonishingly uninformed.

Isn't the whole state of Florida a wet land, what difference does this 2 thousand acres mean, other than there is always someone against everything?

Merry Christmas to all !!!! Yes we destroy millions of acres of wetlands to build roads across this great Country of ours and it?s done every day. This is done to serve the people and allows for commerce to take place. This Airport has been in planning for 10 years, nothing is perfect and to stop this Airport because of 2000 acres of wetland would be a disservice to our Country. One of the reasons Oil is at $100 a barrel is because of the same type of unnecessary delay of new refineries in our country and new inshore drilling areas. This whole State was under water at one time and when Hurricanes hit shore 100?s of thousands of acres of wetlands are, disruptive, redirected and destroyed. Yes we have no control over this but should we take satellite images of the damage area and return it back to the way they were? Do we take a sample of every living creature found in every swamp, waterway, or wetland, and spend Billions of taxpayers dollars protecting them, stop commerce, damage our economy for a snail, bug, fish, or bird, especially one that may not be there. There has to be a balance. I lean to the side of what?s better for our Country.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year
00seer00

From what the impact reports have said about the Airport there are NO endanged species located on that micro spot of land that will become an airport other than the "close the door behind me" folks who now live in the area and want to make in harder for others to enjoy what they have found.

Hey, did you guys know that today is Christmas? Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas, SJ

One of the reasons Oil is at $100 a barrel is because of the same type of unnecessary delay of new refineries in our country and new inshore drilling areas. This whole State was under water at one time and when Hurricanes hit shore 100’s of thousands of acres of wetlands are, disruptive, redirected and destroyed. Yes we have no control over this but should we take satellite images of the damage area and return it back to the way they were? Do we take a sample of every living creature found in every swamp, waterway, or wetland, and spend Billions of taxpayers dollars protecting them, stop commerce, damage our economy for a snail, bug, fish, or bird, especially one that may not be there. There has to be a balance. I lean to the side of what’s better for our Country.

00seer00

Gee, another reason oil is $100 a barrel is that we drive huge gas guzzlers, often with one passenger. We could decrease our demand by 25% or more tomorrow if we changed our driving habits. Wouldn't it be great if we could tell some of the Middle East and Hugo Chavez to go to hell?

After a hurricane, much of the landscape is changed. If left to itself, it will recover. It may take decades, but it will recover.

I think by protecting what we have left, it is for the benefit of the country in the long term. People think only of 5, 10 or 20 years in the future or of short term profits.

Gee, another reason oil is $100 a barrel is that we drive huge gas guzzlers, often with one passenger. We could decrease our demand by 25% or more tomorrow if we changed our driving habits. Wouldn't it be great if we could tell some of the Middle East and Hugo Chavez to go to hell?

After a hurricane, much of the landscape is changed. If left to itself, it will recover. It may take decades, but it will recover.

I think by protecting what we have left, it is for the benefit of the country in the long term. People think only of 5, 10 or 20 years in the future or of short term profits.

Yes, driving habits will help tremendously but with China and India just getting started with their economic expansion, the consumption rate is growing faster than ever. We will be at the mercy of other Countries for are oil needs. I am thinking 10, 20 years out. We consume more oil than China and India combined, do you think that will be so in 20 years? The USA has not built a refinery in over 20 years and have no plan to do so. Alaska and many other States have more Oil than we could use in 200 years. As far as Protect what we have left, it is for the benefit of the country in the long term. Gee, no more road construction, Airports. buildings, ect on wetlands in the USA is good for the Country??? I like Solar my self.
00seer00

As long as other countries can produce and process oil cheaply, it's actually not a bad thing to avoid exploiting domestic oil reserves. Oil's a finite resource, and even with advanced technqiues for production, there's going to be a point where current major oil producers run dry. It's why places like Qatar and the UAE are pushing so hard to diversify their economies.

Going long run, it's not a bad idea for the USA to be sitting on large amounts of reserves in Alaska and the eastern Gulf when Saudi Arabia/Venezuela/Norway/former Soviet producers start to run dry in 50-100 years.

The main difference is that St. Joe is getting preferential treatment in obtaining blanket approval for multiple areas of wetlands.

Fair's fair, why shouldn't they have to get individual permitting just like everyone else?

If 56% of the citizens voted against the new airport why can't their wishes be followed? Whether it's a good or bad thing for development, in a democracy the majority should be heard.

Perhaps, because once again someone is quoting statistics without all the facts, it was a NON BINDING STRAW BALLOT. This means it is literally put on the ballot for opinion purposes only. For all intensive purposes you could put a red/blue which is better question on the ballot, but if it is the above mentioned type it won't do anything other than give a general opinion. Once that airport is up and running I'd love hear some peoples opinions who didn't want it and constantly pointed out that a small majority didn't want something.

Perhaps, because once again someone is quoting statistics without all the facts, it was a NON BINDING STRAW BALLOT. This means it is literally put on the ballot for opinion purposes only. something.

Do you think the results would have been different had it been a referendum?

No one I know in Panama City, the majority of whom are conservative and/or Republican, supports the new airport. It's not just the environmentalists and anti-growth populace.

Perhaps, because once again someone is quoting statistics without all the facts, it was a NON BINDING STRAW BALLOT. This means it is literally put on the ballot for opinion purposes only. For all intensive purposes you could put a red/blue which is better question on the ballot, but if it is the above mentioned type it won't do anything other than give a general opinion. Once that airport is up and running I'd love hear some peoples opinions who didn't want it and constantly pointed out that a small majority didn't want something.

intents and purposes?

Randy Curtis, the Executive Director of the Panama City - Bay County Airport and Industrial District was gracious enough to provide the details:

The question on the ballot was as follows:

TITLE: Non-binding referendum question on the Bay County citizenry?s desire to relocate the existing Airport. Do you favor future relocation of the Panama City Bay County International Airport at no cost to the Bay County taxpayer?

The statement that I hear quoted most often regarding this vote is that ?an overwhelming majority of Bay County voters voted against airport relocation?. The results of the vote taking into consideration the total number of registered voters in Bay County was as follows:

Yes 9,500 10.556%
No 11,051 12.280%
Over Vote 2 0.002 %
Under Vote 79 0.088%
Did not vote 69,360 77.074%
Total registered voters 89,992 100.000%

Randy Curtis, the Executive Director of the Panama City - Bay County Airport and Industrial District was gracious enough to provide the details:

The question on the ballot was as follows:

TITLE: Non-binding referendum question on the Bay County citizenry?s desire to relocate the existing Airport. Do you favor future relocation of the Panama City Bay County International Airport at no cost to the Bay County taxpayer?

The statement that I hear quoted most often regarding this vote is that ?an overwhelming majority of Bay County voters voted against airport relocation?. The results of the vote taking into consideration the total number of registered voters in Bay County was as follows:

Yes 9,500 10.556%
No 11,051 12.280%
Over Vote 2 0.002 %
Under Vote 79 0.088%
Did not vote 69,360 77.074%
Total registered voters 89,992 100.000%

So the real statement is that 54% of those who cared were not in favor of the airport, of course over 3/4's of those that voted didn't care one way or another.

So the real statement is that 54% of those who cared were not in favor of the airport, of course over 3/4's of those that voted didn't care one way or another.

Non-binding? So I guess this means I want your opinion, before I do what I want. No one votes for issues that are binding. Why take the time over something like this? While I know very little about this airport, I have always been curious as to just what flight path these planes will be taking as they come and go.