Previous poll Next poll

Should the city of Lawrence spend $1.9 million to extend sewer service to the Lawrence Municipal Airport to make the area more attractive to developers?

Response Percent Votes
58% 603
35% 366
Not sure
6% 66
Total 1035


pace 8 years, 4 months ago

Call it like it is, should Lawrence pay for the sewer cost for Mr. Pines development, saving him money at tax payer expense and favoring flood plain, top soil paving over better suited properties. I bet Mr. Pine is clicking yes on this one.

alm77 8 years, 4 months ago

Will we make our money back in sewage/water fees? Will the businesses out there pay taxes? If yes, then, yes. If no, then maybe.

megiddo 8 years, 4 months ago

Christ, isn't there enough FAIL out in North Lawrence business development, already? The DMV is located in a ghost-mall for frak's sake! It's bad enough the school district is being used as a Western outlier for developers. NO. WAY.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

It's been talked about for awhile. Check the CC agendas,read the LJW city hall section and go to CC meetings then raise hell. Pay attention everyday.

City commissioners are not necessarily fiscally responsible spenders. They are politicians with friends who love free lunches.

Lawrence Taxpaying Voters should weed out the city hall “Free Lunch” program:

West_Sider 8 years, 4 months ago

We are required to provide ROI (return on investment) numbers with a business case for major capital initiatives at my work. Why should the city be any different?

Jersey_Girl 8 years, 4 months ago

Have developers expressed an interest in building in that direction? Because I think a grocery store would be a better start.

gccs14r 8 years, 4 months ago

Air travel is going to go away, anyway. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but soon. Electric airplanes are just not going to happen.

KsTwister 8 years, 4 months ago

These commissioners really won't be in office much longer, clearly clueless. Next election NOW.

leedavid 8 years, 4 months ago

So Lawrence will be more attractive if we add a sewer system....wait....what are we saying? LOL!

Anyone aware of a developer that is saying they won't come to Lawrence because we don't have a sewer system that goes to the airport?

I did not think so.

David Albertson 8 years, 4 months ago

Sounds great! After that's done we should build an addition to the Riverfront Mall! What a bunch of idiots. Those of you in Lawrence need to elect someone with a brain.

phenommenom 8 years, 4 months ago

I don't know but for sure North Lawrence could use at least a Dollar General! LOL really tho..... if that works out then think about bigger and better!

Chris Ogle 8 years, 4 months ago

When my septic tank was pumped out, the service person explained all the sludge: " We all have floaters and sinkers, you know"

Welcome to the city of sinkers.

whatupdown 8 years, 4 months ago

And then they will need more classrooms for learning to keep the city from cutting back on building permits again.

William McCauley 8 years, 4 months ago

The lack of sewer and a so called lack of additional room for more septic systems or ability add on to septic in place on the property, is one of the reasons why the City of Lawrence said I could not use the airport for my aviation business needs. This was part of the many reasons told to me as part of the "there is no room here for you" on or above airport property.

While there is a lot more to it in my case as to all the reasons why we're not welcome, there is also another interested party wanting to come to the Lawrence Municipal Airport, it's called LWC inc. That LWC inc would be a joint effort between hawkeye helicopter & Mr. Compton, so Mr. Compton can have a place to park his king air 350 next to the helicopters.

Regardless of how you feel about some local well to do developers, as long as the lack crappers are an issue for the City/County, they won't allow anyone to build hangers for businesses open to the public. All the talk about these boards and around town about the City being unfriendly to business, I hate to say it, but it's very true on many levels of City Hall and the Planning dept.

I'm in favor of the sewer line, it should have been done a long time ago, long before the City took 11.5 million dollars in Airport Improvement Program funding for all the upgrades designed to "bring more people here" without having a system large enough to handle the "flows". But by way City Hall thinks, they think it has been an advantage all these years, that way they have a good excuse to keep out businesses they didn't want building here.

Now the double sword is coming to play, on one hand the City want to keep happy certain (as Ned says) fat cats in town and those who would fly their lear jets into or for NASCAR or to watch football and B-ball games, but by doing so it could open up building areas for those the City would not like to come here.

All of you people bitching about spending this money, why are you not bitching about paying for the airport as a whole??? YOU OWN IT< not the the City of Lawrence> You paid for it 100 % as locals only 5% came from your local tax moneys, the rest of the 95% came out of your federal tax dollars, that makes all of us the owners. As it is now you own a 11.5 million dollar sports car and haven't been able to afford to buy fuel for it to drive it.

Maybe it's best to leave it as is, that way no local citizens can open a business there, no aviation companies can move here if they can deal with all the City Hall road blocks and red tape. That way it can just sit there looking cute for game and race days for our out of town lear jet guests.

alm77 8 years, 4 months ago

Very insightful, W. I always assumed the airport was making money for the community.

Woodstein 8 years, 4 months ago

Welcome back BigW. I was wondering how long it would take to see a response from you.

At least we agree on one issue - sewer/water services are needed at Lawrence Municipal Airport. The Airport is located on city-owned property, and as with all other city-owned property should have the required infrastructure as do our neighborhoods, parks, etc. As Lawrence grows slowly to the North, the price tag has been reduced to connect sewer/water to the Airport.

I'm sure users of the Airport Terminal restrooms would much rather flush successfully than see a septic tank back up.

JLMFlies offered some interesting insight into your axe to grind with the city on another recent string of posts so I won't dwell on your issues with the city, but once again your desire to fan a flame with the locals burns from incorrect information.

If you bother to check your facts, you'll learn that the Federal-Aid Airport Program through the Federal Airport Act of 1946 started the funding of improvements to general aviation airports. Yes, this money was paid by the U.S. Treasury.

However, over time the program has been amended several times until we've reached today's Airport Improvement Program.

It's true that the city's match on qualifying projects is 5 percent but the FAA's matching 95 percent comes from aviation-related user fees and not the general treasury. So you, me and every citizen in Lawrence do not own the Airport 100 percent. You have a share in 5 percent if you truly live, work and pay property taxes in Lawrence.

Please get your facts straight before popping off again. And of the $11.5 million in airport improvements, the City has paid 5 percent of that investment - which is a heck of a deal and prudent use of money. With stiff competition for a limited pool of AIP funds, according to the FAA Web site, Lawrence residents should feel very lucky to have earned the confidence of the FAA to continue investment in our Airport.

On Dec. 21, the City conducted an open meeting at the terminal to discuss the sewer/water plans. Don't know if it was well attended or not - were you there - but in reading online documents at the City's Web site, if the sewer gets built the capacity will only be for the Airport and not development of property surrounding the Airport. This eliminates the Pine Family Farms, or other developers, from tapping into the flow.

BigW - perhaps it's time for you to go back to City Hall and mend some fences so you're in a position to take advantage of a growing Airport community and contribute to it rather than working hard to bring it down.

JohnBrown 8 years, 4 months ago

What ever happened to the City's application for an Eco-machine sewage treatment plant for the airport?

parrothead8 8 years, 4 months ago

There aren't enough people to fill the business and residential space that Lawrence already has, so creating more business and residential space seems foolish.

That being said, a sewer line to the airport seems like a no-brainer. It IS something that will have to be done eventually, and I can assure you that the longer it is put off, the more expensive it will get.

Look at the city of Atlanta, GA. They have a failing municipal sewer system. Every mayor since the early 80s (when it would have cost around $100M to fix) has tried to push through a tax increase to fix the sewers, and the voters revolted every time. At this point, fixing the sewers is not an option...Atlanta needs to REPLACE much of its sewer system. Conservative cost estimates are closing in on $2 billion.

I'd also like to add that it seems like very poor planning to build a friggin' airport and not extend the sewer line out there when it was first built, because it would have been a lot cheaper to do at the time.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 4 months ago

I'm for it. We have to do more to bring decent jobs to town. We criticize "doing nothing to bring jobs" and then in the same breath we criticize "spending money to bring jobs". Which of those positions do we believe in? What local developer has $2M to spend on sewage on top of all the other expenses and risks associated with developing a property? I think this is very common sense: what thriving community doesn't use its airport to create economic opportunities?

CLARKKENT 8 years, 4 months ago


William McCauley 8 years, 4 months ago

Woodstein: Your are correct about where the funding comes from. The contract for the funding is where "ownership" becomes, of the people, by the people, for the people. That was the point, everyone in the country is a part owner in the whole system.

Funny how your quick to point to others posts about "square pegs", yet you were offered the chance to hear my side and chose not to. But yea square pegs eh.... Like:

  1. Two months before any talk of my business ideas to anyone, being told by AAB chairman Mr. Bryant "we can't have that type activity here, it's not safe"

  2. A month before that being told the same thing by the FBO.

  3. City economic development coordinator Roger Zalneraitis asked me in April if I had talked to KU to get their permission to use the airport.

  4. Planning Director Scott McCullough stating I would need a "special use permit" to use the airport for a legit FAA approved aeronautical activity, that no other users are required to get.

  5. Current chairman Richard Haig making claims he talked to "airspace & operations and there is no useable airspace in Lawrence" yet it's class E airspace and the fact airspace & operations has noting to do with saying who can & can not use airspace. All of these types of facts I would expect a person who advises the City on such matters to know the facts and laws regarding such issues they are going to be required to advise on, not go around making up some bogus BS and touting it as factual information.

There is a short list for you on "square pegs" there is a lot more on the list, so you can keep on saying "I'm poping off at the mouth" and all that good stuff about fence mending. You may need to get many of your facts right, along with LRMflys about who did what and what was said or written or video taped.

However I doubt you will, it's clear by both of you users wording, what side of the fence your on, and thats ok, have a good day.

Outsidelookingin 8 years, 4 months ago

I say yes, right after the south bypass is completed.

Stuart Evans 8 years, 4 months ago

I think that having an accessible airport facility with available industrial infrastructure is important to the growth of a city economy. You can't offer up your city to employers if they don't feel that your infrastructure is sufficient. North Lawrence needs a massive overhaul, and perhaps this type of project would be the spur to help it.

gccs14r 8 years, 4 months ago

There shouldn't be any permanent structures in the Kaw valley. It's not a question of if, but when, the river changes course and destroys everything man has built out there.

Danimal 8 years, 4 months ago

Doesn't Lawrence need a new water treatment plant in the near future? Shouldn't we be more concerned with that than expanding an already over-burdened waste water infrastructure?

bondmen 8 years, 4 months ago

Are you kidding? Collectivists and government dependents may talk about jobs but they certainly can't stand business employers!

gccs14r 8 years, 4 months ago

No, the new wastewater plant is for the extra 50,000 people the city thinks are going to move in south of town.

pace 8 years, 4 months ago

Whoa, I never said I thought the airport was worth the money we have poured into it. Not like it been worth it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.