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.

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?

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.

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. "

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

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.

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