- Outright sale
- 99 year lease
Although I feel MassPort it the best option, it can be any airport mgmt company. Saw this letter today in the Telegram and thought it was worth a post.
City must hold on to airport property
Beware the assumptions in the recent Berger report recommending continuing investment in Worcester’s airport. The report blames our airport’s troubles on the Sept. 11 attacks and a recession. Its rosy forecast apparently assumes no further attacks or recessions. Yet attempted attacks continue and we have more enemies than before.
Many investors are battening down the hatches for what Frank Gaffney, a Reagan administration assistant secretary of defense, calls a “perfect storm, from a national security point of view, an economic point of view, and an environmental point of view.” He and others say we are approaching the inevitable, final downward trend in world oil production even as world demand rises, almost certainly leading to wars, inflation and economic stagnation. Consider the risks for our marginal airport. Don’t let Massport expand at our expense. Don’t let them take title to the airport. If peace and prosperity return, Worcester will own a viable airport. If an energy famine comes, we can quickly build a wind farm that will generate electricity and much more net revenue and acclaim than our airport generates now. It’s a sure bet in uncertain times.
LANCE McKEE
6 comments:
haha windfarm...thats a good one. Sometimes people just dont think...
Windfarm--I am not sure about that one eithe?? At the same time I takes alot of guts to write down your opinion for everyone to see and not do anonysmously.
Although I wish also that we did not have to give up the title to ORH, I simply do not see 1) how we can afford to keep and 2)the current mgmt has proven that they can not get the job done. Time to move on, however, not a windfarm just yet.
If you say current management can not get the job done, why do you advocate for Massport to have a 99 year lease or take it outright? They manage it now and City Hall seems to want them to manage it as well.
Anonymous:
MassPort helps us subsidize our operating deficit and nothing else. Why should MassPort go out of their way to help ORH get on track during these 3 year operating agreements? It makes no sense--think about it.. Why would you want to help your competitor down the street to help him take your customers???
Another analogy that I use all the time, but if you rented an apartment would you spend your money to make it better?? On the other hand if you had a 99 year lease, you would.
The current short-term operating agreements gives MassPort no chance to realize any returns so they do not waste their time. Again it just makes no sense to help a competitor.
Latly City Hall just wants someone to help cover the deficit and you can not blame them when it is $2,000,000 per year.
Bill, why do you answer someone who won't identify him/herself? If they had been AWAKE the past 3 years and had the merest interest, they would know the answers to their own questions. And this is someone who doesn't even have the decency to sign their own name or even MAKE ONE UP?? I think anonymous people don't think.
Tom:
Not so much to answer the questions of "anonymous", I answers these questions because we have alot of new people checking out the blog. Out of courtesy to them, I try to answer all questions even "anonymous".
Although I do not agree with Lance McKee's wind farm idea, I have alot of respect for him to write a letter to the editor and sign his name for all to see.
Lastly I have a pretty good idea who some of these anonymous bloggers, that constantly stand up for the airport and the job they are doing, are.
Thanks Tom.
Post a Comment