Bo writes again

EDITOR:

My friend, Bo the Builder, has a knack for amusing many while raising fierce hackles in others. Some blast me for hiding behind Bo. Recently I was berated for Bo's recent comments on the airport. I thought he should know so I asked him to again join my morning coffee at our favorite java joint.

"Bo, some on the Airport Advisory Board and Board of Commissioners expressed unhappiness with your recent comments about where county money went."

"What you mean 'My comments,' White Man?" Bo rejoined. "What about yours?"

"Maybe both," I conceded.

"Funny why someone takes umbrage with facts, isn't it?" Bo continued. "We try to be helpful and they express outrage when you uncover some hidden knowledge as if letting voters know some truth raises unnecessary dispute and dissension."

"That's politics and bureaucracy," I observed. "In the business world, if we goof up we take our lumps and learn from it. Hiding it is a good way to get fired. In government, hiding error invites promotion or re-election."

Bo went on, "I noticed you dug up some facts concerning property taxes the airport earned for the county general fund. That a board back in 1999 decided those taxes could pay interest and retire a couple of bonds issued for the airport. Tch tch, and here the Airport Advisory Committee has been telling public hearings those were nice profits generated for the county."

"To be honest, though," I said, "the bonds are finally retired so future property taxes might generate a surplus. At least to cover county administrative oversight and costs related to putting the weight ordinance on the 2010 ballot, public hearings, etc. Would be nice if they created an 'Airport Administration Fund' to keep track."

"Think we'll ever learn how the main runway rose from 50,000 to 75,000 pound capacity? If it was born that way in the 1940s they would have proved it long ago. They wouldn't have spent that $2 to $3 million on reconstruction in 2004-05 for that, would they? Didn't some retired stress expert do some sampling and state categorically the runway does not support 75,000 pounds? If he's right, won't ignoring that to land jets shorten runway life considerably?"

"There you go, common sense again," I interjected. "Because they get their noses out of joint at the idea of calmly and jointly comparing and analyzing methods and conclusions to learn the real capacity, instead of cussing each other out, it's unlikely 2010 voters will ever know for sure. Pity. It isn't exactly rocket science."

"Is it true," Bo asked, "that someone offered the novel idea to county commissioners that, instead of threatening voters with calamity if they don't approve runway capacity at 75,000 pounds, they should change course and enforce the existing ordinance by ensuring the weight limit is physically reduced to 50,000 pounds, and charging landing fees to anyone who exceeds it?"

"True," I replied. "Chances of that," said Bo, "are somewhere beyond the odds on quarter slots or any number at the roulette table."

Jack Van Dien

Minden