Fly Gwinnett Forward Seeks Referendum for Briscoe Field
Expressing sadness for all of Gwinnett County In the wake of scandals surrounding Shirley Lasseter's resignation, FGF wants to take the proposal to the ballot box.
Gwinnett's County Commission is expected to vote Tuesday on a proposal from Propeller Investments regarding the privatization of Briscoe Field.
In a press release issued late on Friday afternoon, Fly Gwinnett Forward proposed that the "most appropriate way to resolve the issue surrounding Briscoe Field is for the County to release the proposal it received and for a referendum to be placed on the November Ballot by the Board of Commissioners."
Members of Fly Gwinnett Forward believe that this action would allow citizens the time needed to properly analyze the proposal on its own merits. This referendum would enable "all of the voting citizens of Gwinnett to make an informed decision."
Opponents have been vocal about the possibilities of failure and decreased property values in areas near the airport. Proponents believe the airport is a grossly underutilized asset that should be improved upon to affect a better economic climate in Gwinnett County.
Dacula Patch has released a summary of the findings that recommended rejection contained in a memo, by Gwinnett County Director of Transportation Martin Conroy.
What do you think? Should the citizens be allowed to vote based on information within the proposal? Should this be put on a referendum in November for voters to decide? Let us know in the comments.
You might also be interested in reading:
Patrick T. Malone
9:49 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
The experts within County Financial services and their outside consultants have deemed Propellers bid inadequate both operationally and financially. Requesting it be placed on the November ballot is just as dumb now as it was when the opposition was whining for a vote of the people. This is a constitutional republic and the BOC did their job and exercised due diligence before coming to their vote this Tuesday. I recommend Charlotte for her leadership and especially Mike Beaudreau who did the absolute right thing for Gwinnett in spite of all the emotion on both sides of the issue
Tim Sullivan
10:48 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Amen, in the end this is the best thing that could be done for the opposition. The BOC went through the process got their results and will most likely vote unanimously to reject the proposal. At the end of the day you have to realize that with only 1 group of 19 were interested in perusing the privatization is very telling. Let’s stick a fork in it Mother, we’re done. No need for any more discussion, or issue on the November ballot.
R++ - One of the famous "Dacula Crew"
10:28 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Additional potential issues with the Proposal:
The County would not see any direct revenue based on the Proposal for 4 years
(paid in arrears beginning after 3 years).
The “minimum gross revenue sharing guarantee” of $500,000 is approximately one half of the current Airport revenue, excluding ad valorem taxes from based aircraft many of which may be displaced due to improvements.
In addition, this minimum guarantee remains at $500,000 per year throughout the remaining 46 years of the proposed lease and is not adjusted to account for inflation.
The forecasted Sales Tax revenue to the County calculates to 2%. The direct
revenue benefit to Gwinnett County Government would only be 1%.
Further it appears to make the assumption that SPLOST Programs would be in place for the entire 50 year lease term.
The County would be expected to waive ad valorem taxes on any buildings, grounds or airport work vehicles and equipment owned or acquired by Propeller.
http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/plan-for-second-metro-1450912.html
“I think it would give us the ability to attract even more high-level professionals and companies to the area,” said Raymond Cobb, a former board member of the Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce and Gwinnett County Planning Commission. “If [the proposal] falls apart, we’ll have to think about another way to do the same thing.”
All this for a proposal that ranks 51 out of 100...
Tim Sullivan
10:49 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
It would have needed a 90+ out of 100 for me to support it.
Tim Sullivan
10:50 am on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Hopefully now the Airport authority can address the complaints I heard about the Airport in 2010; late night engine testing, landings and take offs at 2 AM. Just because the privatization question will be settled doesn’t mean there are no more issues with the Airport. I would hope the anti-privatization group will stay engaged in the process and work to make the airport better for all of us.
Jimmy Orr
12:29 pm on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Should I hear a jet aircraft exiting Gwinnett County Airport Briscoe Field Tuesday afternoon, June 5, 2012, I trust the Propeller Investments and FGF folks will be on it.
Dave M
3:31 pm on Saturday, June 2, 2012
If the measure is put on the ballot it should read "Should the County Close Briscoe Field"; it doesn't make the county money (why they considered privatizing); according to the reports the privatizing will cost the county money with little return; the resident communities most affected by the plan are vocally against it; the issue keeps coming up every few years and there is so much money involved (mostly taxpayer) it creates opportunities for corruption!!! If the folks at Fly Gwinnett want it on the ballot then I think the anti-privatization folks need to get the airport shutdown referendum also on ballot.
Tim Sullivan
3:33 pm on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Actually Dave M, the airport makes the county around 1,000,000 per year. Not a large income but well above the cost to run it.
Dave M
3:42 pm on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Tim- my point is that it makes little sense to create a referendum since there is an equally vocal opposition to the project. There will continue to be development around the airport and along 316; in Dacula and so the opposition will continue to grow in numbers. If they were to get their 10 gates then they would want to expand and there would be opposition to that.... I guess then they would want another referendum--- its crazy. These folks have done little in the PR department to get local support... how uncaring as managers would they be??????
M.K. Osborne
9:19 pm on Saturday, June 2, 2012
Since it was No to vote by taxpayers i think it should stay No ! No hail marys !
AgtOrange
9:16 am on Sunday, June 3, 2012
I don't trust the BOC any further than I can throw them. With all the scandal, accusations, resignations and conflicts of interest, why not put it to the people to put this to bed permanently?
Tim Sullivan
3:19 pm on Sunday, June 3, 2012
I think if it were put to a vote it would pass. The vast majority of the Anti-Airport folks live withing 2 or 2 miles of the airport prpoer and or up 316 in Dacula. There are a lot of voters who live no where near the airport and would vote for it.
Bev Lougher
10:53 am on Sunday, June 3, 2012
If you study the proposal by the only bidder for the airport, you will understand why the county staff advises denial of the bid. This "deal" would have been very bad economically for the county. This issue should be stopped here and now. The taint of the Commissioner involved in the lastest scandal and with all that has gone on for two years, this issue should be dead.
M.K. Osborne
6:25 pm on Sunday, June 3, 2012
You might as well get ready for round 3 because it will be here very shortly , my prediction .
Tim Sullivan
6:48 pm on Sunday, June 3, 2012
Round 3 of what?
M.K. Osborne
10:50 pm on Sunday, June 3, 2012
Tim , I think we will see another attempt at this in a shorter span than the previous ,say 2-5 years . I find it hard to believe that this is Game over . This is only what i feel and round 3 would be the third attempt in the commercialization of the airport.
R++ - One of the famous "Dacula Crew"
11:14 pm on Sunday, June 3, 2012
@ Tim I believe this may further define the round 3 statement
http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/plan-for-second-metro-1450912.html
Plan for second metro commercial airport likely grounded
Local airport advocacy group Fly Gwinnett Forward said it will push commissioners to consider an airport referendum in November.
"Commissioner Lasseter's troubles have greatly affected the credibility of the commission to vote on this issue, pro or con," said Mike Royal of Fly Gwinnett Forward. "That’s why the best way to resolve it is to put it on the ballot."
And Now
“I think it would give us the ability to attract even more high-level professionals and companies to the area,” said Raymond Cobb, a former board member of the Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce and Gwinnett County Planning Commission. “If [the proposal] falls apart, we’ll have to think about another way to do the same thing.”
M.K. Osborne
11:44 pm on Sunday, June 3, 2012
Marta will be voted in one day , Liquor tried many times then was in , the airport can and will follow this pattern . Adult stores and strip clubs will be plentiful in time also. all in the name of commerce and convenience .
GregRodgers
9:31 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
Tim...of couse there would be people who would vote for the Airport. These would be the Johnny come lately's that have only just heard of this issue because of ignorance. I say ignorance because they would have ignored 2 years of facts for ease of travel. They would also be the first to complain when their taxes go through the roof when the airport failed and we end up on the hook to pay for this nonsense.
In otherwords....typical Gwinnett County non voters!!
dacula_dude
11:21 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
The idea of a referendum vote on commercialization reminds me of this quote:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Benjamin Franklin