Should have gone to the airport meeting today

[lotstodo]

I'm not anti airport either and I want industry in this county but this underhanded deal is not the kind of politics an ethical voter could possibly side with.

Therein lies the rub. I have this creepy feeling that there is even still more to it than we currently know. Three and a half million dollars later, we still aren't sure how the revenue side of this thing will shake out. The only thing we know is that we the taxpayer are on the hook for a whole bunch of the expense side if things don't go Propeller's way.

 

[LisaC]

I'm not anti airport either and I want industry in this county but this underhanded deal is not the kind of politics an ethical voter could possibly side with.

Therein lies the rub. I have this creepy feeling that there is even still more to it than we currently know. Three and a half million dollars later, we still aren't sure how the revenue side of this thing will shake out. The only thing we know is that we the taxpayer are on the hook for a whole bunch of the expense side if things don't go Propeller's way.

I'm just not convinced that it was an "underhanded deal." Maybe not advertised or marketed as well as it could have been, but not "underhanded." Again, I may be wrong, but from what I have read and hear so far, I'm not convinced.

 

[lotstodo]

I'm not anti airport either and I want industry in this county but this underhanded deal is not the kind of politics an ethical voter could possibly side with.

Therein lies the rub. I have this creepy feeling that there is even still more to it than we currently know. Three and a half million dollars later, we still aren't sure how the revenue side of this thing will shake out. The only thing we know is that we the taxpayer are on the hook for a whole bunch of the expense side if things don't go Propeller's way.

I'm just not convinced that it was an "underhanded deal." Maybe not advertised or marketed as well as it could have been, but not "underhanded." Again, I may be wrong, but from what I have read and hear so far, I'm not convinced.

Our Counth Commission has a long and storied history of working out the details behind closed doors and then holding one public meeting where they basically say "here it is, suck it". There is no reason to believe that this deal is any different.

How is the revenue being divided? How are the expenses accounted for? Why is there a separate company created just for this deal, and what is PI's stake in that company? How is PI going to be paid? How is the county going to be paid? Who gets paid first if revenue doesn't meet expectation? Are there revenue guarantees to the taxpayers? If we are a landlord why are we not receiving lease payments? Is our payback totally dependent on PI turning the expected profit? If we don't like the deal after 5 years we are still on the hook for the three mil.?

Maybe some of you know the answers to these questions, but I don't and that very important information is not exactly public knowledge. That makes the entire thing stink in my book.

 

[LisaC]

I'm not anti airport either and I want industry in this county but this underhanded deal is not the kind of politics an ethical voter could possibly side with.

Therein lies the rub. I have this creepy feeling that there is even still more to it than we currently know. Three and a half million dollars later, we still aren't sure how the revenue side of this thing will shake out. The only thing we know is that we the taxpayer are on the hook for a whole bunch of the expense side if things don't go Propeller's way.

I'm just not convinced that it was an "underhanded deal." Maybe not advertised or marketed as well as it could have been, but not "underhanded." Again, I may be wrong, but from what I have read and hear so far, I'm not convinced.

Our Counth Commission has a long and storied history of working out the details behind closed doors and then holding one public meeting where they basically say "here it is, suck it". There is no reason to believe that this deal is any different.

How is the revenue being divided? How are the expenses accounted for? Why is there a separate company created just for this deal, and what is PI's stake in that company? How is PI going to be paid? How is the county going to be paid? Who gets paid first if revenue doesn't meet expectation? Are there revenue guarantees to the taxpayers? If we are a landlord why are we not receiving lease payments? Is our payback totally dependent on PI turning the expected profit? If we don't like the deal after 5 years we are still on the hook for the three mil.?

Maybe some of you know the answers to these questions, but I don't and that very important information is not exactly public knowledge. That makes the entire thing stink in my book.

Maybe you should have gone to the meetings.... :taunt


Or, I wonder if this information is available through a Freedom of Information Act request.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

I'm not anti airport either and I want industry in this county but this underhanded deal is not the kind of politics an ethical voter could possibly side with.

Therein lies the rub. I have this creepy feeling that there is even still more to it than we currently know. Three and a half million dollars later, we still aren't sure how the revenue side of this thing will shake out. The only thing we know is that we the taxpayer are on the hook for a whole bunch of the expense side if things don't go Propeller's way.

I'm just not convinced that it was an "underhanded deal." Maybe not advertised or marketed as well as it could have been, but not "underhanded." Again, I may be wrong, but from what I have read and hear so far, I'm not convinced.

Our Counth Commission has a long and storied history of working out the details behind closed doors and then holding one public meeting where they basically say "here it is, suck it". There is no reason to believe that this deal is any different.

How is the revenue being divided? How are the expenses accounted for? Why is there a separate company created just for this deal, and what is PI's stake in that company? How is PI going to be paid? How is the county going to be paid? Who gets paid first if revenue doesn't meet expectation? Are there revenue guarantees to the taxpayers? If we are a landlord why are we not receiving lease payments? Is our payback totally dependent on PI turning the expected profit? If we don't like the deal after 5 years we are still on the hook for the three mil.?

Maybe some of you know the answers to these questions, but I don't and that very important information is not exactly public knowledge. That makes the entire thing stink in my book.

Oh my word.....now you're making tooooooo much sense. All these well thought out questions were very much a concern when we were discussing it . And everything "may" be great but when you PURPOSELY keep one commissioner (who represents that area) in the dark (and yes, IT IS ALREADY PROVEN TRUE) then red flags should automatically go up. Should it be referred to as "under-handed" ? It's just a description and other words can be used, but there was definitely a deal done that didn't include everyone which means all the people weren't represented. I have a problem with that. Yes, ethics and morals in the political rhelm mean something to me and by the responses previously posted, it appears others are more willing to look the other way. I'm not anti Austin, I'm not anti airport, I'm not anti Airport commission, I'm not anti growth.....but I am against deals that seem like other non published agreements were a driving force in getting this done. Just a concerned citizen because my huge tax dollars I pay each year in this county are important to me. I'm not one who just throws up their hands and say "Oh well, it's done and over".

 

[Winchester]

Everybody keeps saying that tax money is being spent. WHAT is it being spent on?

And like I've said before, I see nothing wrong in how any of this was conducted. It is normal business practice.

Having attended dozens, if not more then 100 of these meetings over the last 10 years (not just airport authority), I have never seen a potential business announcing they were "Thinking" of coming to Paulding, or County/City officials announcing that a company was "Thinking" of coming to the County. These are not public discussions, ever, in ANY County. And I've never seen more then a dozen County residents at any meeting, usually just people in the industry.

 

[LisaC]

I'm not anti airport either and I want industry in this county but this underhanded deal is not the kind of politics an ethical voter could possibly side with.

Therein lies the rub. I have this creepy feeling that there is even still more to it than we currently know. Three and a half million dollars later, we still aren't sure how the revenue side of this thing will shake out. The only thing we know is that we the taxpayer are on the hook for a whole bunch of the expense side if things don't go Propeller's way.

I'm just not convinced that it was an "underhanded deal." Maybe not advertised or marketed as well as it could have been, but not "underhanded." Again, I may be wrong, but from what I have read and hear so far, I'm not convinced.

Our Counth Commission has a long and storied history of working out the details behind closed doors and then holding one public meeting where they basically say "here it is, suck it". There is no reason to believe that this deal is any different.

How is the revenue being divided? How are the expenses accounted for? Why is there a separate company created just for this deal, and what is PI's stake in that company? How is PI going to be paid? How is the county going to be paid? Who gets paid first if revenue doesn't meet expectation? Are there revenue guarantees to the taxpayers? If we are a landlord why are we not receiving lease payments? Is our payback totally dependent on PI turning the expected profit? If we don't like the deal after 5 years we are still on the hook for the three mil.?

Maybe some of you know the answers to these questions, but I don't and that very important information is not exactly public knowledge. That makes the entire thing stink in my book.

Oh my word.....now you're making tooooooo much sense. All these well thought out questions were very much a concern when we were discussing it . And everything "may" be great but when you PURPOSELY keep one commissioner (who represents that area) in the dark (and yes, IT IS ALREADY PROVEN TRUE) then red flags should automatically go up. Should it be referred to as "under-handed" ? It's just a description and other words can be used, but there was definitely a deal done that didn't include everyone which means all the people weren't represented. I have a problem with that. Yes, ethics and morals in the political rhelm mean something to me and by the responses previously posted, it appears others are more willing to look the other way. I'm not anti Austin, I'm not anti airport, I'm not anti Airport commission, I'm not anti growth.....but I am against deals that seem like other non published agreements were a driving force in getting this done. Just a concerned citizen because my huge tax dollars I pay each year in this county are important to me. I'm not one who just throws up their hands and say "Oh well, it's done and over".

Wait, I need more facts. I'm not dismissing it at all. Some questions:

Was there a reporting responsibility to Todd Pownell? Or is this just a lack of courtesy?
What ethics were violated?
At what point does personal responsibility of Pownell and other "concerned" citizens come into play? (assuming the airport authority was acting within the given abilities).

 

[Winchester]

I'm not anti airport either and I want industry in this county but this underhanded deal is not the kind of politics an ethical voter could possibly side with.

Therein lies the rub. I have this creepy feeling that there is even still more to it than we currently know. Three and a half million dollars later, we still aren't sure how the revenue side of this thing will shake out. The only thing we know is that we the taxpayer are on the hook for a whole bunch of the expense side if things don't go Propeller's way.

I'm just not convinced that it was an "underhanded deal." Maybe not advertised or marketed as well as it could have been, but not "underhanded." Again, I may be wrong, but from what I have read and hear so far, I'm not convinced.

Our Counth Commission has a long and storied history of working out the details behind closed doors and then holding one public meeting where they basically say "here it is, suck it". There is no reason to believe that this deal is any different.

How is the revenue being divided? How are the expenses accounted for? Why is there a separate company created just for this deal, and what is PI's stake in that company? How is PI going to be paid? How is the county going to be paid? Who gets paid first if revenue doesn't meet expectation? Are there revenue guarantees to the taxpayers? If we are a landlord why are we not receiving lease payments? Is our payback totally dependent on PI turning the expected profit? If we don't like the deal after 5 years we are still on the hook for the three mil.?

Maybe some of you know the answers to these questions, but I don't and that very important information is not exactly public knowledge. That makes the entire thing stink in my book.

Oh my word.....now you're making tooooooo much sense. All these well thought out questions were very much a concern when we were discussing it . And everything "may" be great but when you PURPOSELY keep one commissioner (who represents that area) in the dark (and yes, IT IS ALREADY PROVEN TRUE) then red flags should automatically go up. Should it be referred to as "under-handed" ? It's just a description and other words can be used, but there was definitely a deal done that didn't include everyone which means all the people weren't represented. I have a problem with that. Yes, ethics and morals in the political rhelm mean something to me and by the responses previously posted, it appears others are more willing to look the other way. I'm not anti Austin, I'm not anti airport, I'm not anti Airport commission, I'm not anti growth.....but I am against deals that seem like other non published agreements were a driving force in getting this done. Just a concerned citizen because my huge tax dollars I pay each year in this county are important to me. I'm not one who just throws up their hands and say "Oh well, it's done and over".

Wait, I need more facts. I'm not dismissing it at all. Some questions:

Was there a reporting responsibility to Todd Pownell? Or is this just a lack of courtesy?
What ethics were violated?
At what point does personal responsibility of Pownell and other "concerned" citizens come into play? (assuming the airport authority was acting within the given abilities).

If Todd was not on the "Board" (and he's not), he's just a concerned citizen....if he was even at the meetings.

 

[ShoeDiva]

I think most all questions posted here are good questions. Questions we should be given answers to. The only issue I really am having with this whole thing is people that are crying dirty. (I am not saying anyone, just in general.) They had the authority to do it, they were given that, we knew that the airport would eventually have more flights, it is in records and I have numerous times been advised, by people that do these types of deals, that generally they are done "behind closed doors" with a general mention in the open. I am sure there is a possibility they are wrong, but I have not been shown that..yet. So I guess what I am saying is I do not feel "wronged", or feel the deal unethical, but I am curious if this is a deal that will work and to the answers of some of the good questions posted. :dunno

 

[honeybunny]

Our County Commission has a long and storied history of working out the details behind closed doors and then holding one public meeting where they basically say "here it is, suck it". There is no reason to believe that this deal is any different.

How is the revenue being divided? How are the expenses accounted for? Why is there a separate company created just for this deal, and what is PI's stake in that company? How is PI going to be paid? How is the county going to be paid? Who gets paid first if revenue doesn't meet expectation? Are there revenue guarantees to the taxpayers? If we are a landlord why are we not receiving lease payments? Is our payback totally dependent on PI turning the expected profit? If we don't like the deal after 5 years we are still on the hook for the three mil.?

Maybe some of you know the answers to these questions, but I don't and that very important information is not exactly public knowledge. That makes the entire thing stink in my book.

^^^ This.

 

[mei lan]

Our County Commission has a long and storied history of working out the details behind closed doors and then holding one public meeting where they basically say "here it is, suck it". There is no reason to believe that this deal is any different.

How is the revenue being divided? How are the expenses accounted for? Why is there a separate company created just for this deal, and what is PI's stake in that company? How is PI going to be paid? How is the county going to be paid? Who gets paid first if revenue doesn't meet expectation? Are there revenue guarantees to the taxpayers? If we are a landlord why are we not receiving lease payments? Is our payback totally dependent on PI turning the expected profit? If we don't like the deal after 5 years we are still on the hook for the three mil.?

Maybe some of you know the answers to these questions, but I don't and that very important information is not exactly public knowledge. That makes the entire thing stink in my book.

^^^ This.

Megadittos. This thing reeks to high heaven, on every level and in every way.