new kc dz not opening?

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I bet that power plant crap will be in court after you and me both are dead and gone.And as for being required to have insurance that everyone knows does not exist I bet that one could be in court for a while also.I bet the FAA might get involved in that one.I love it when the Good Old Boys get in over their head.

.

[flynabeech 0]

I'm assuming you're the good old boy....many thanks for your reply. You're right it could very well end up in court......... in the meantime the powerplant is shut down and Aquila is paying a large bill for loss of operations and attorney fee's. Anyone disputing zoningand permit requirements will have to take such measures. The county has attorneys on retainer...... so they have plenty of time. The local land owners adjacent to the airport have already taken such measures..........thats a fact. Anyone opposing their position should spend the money and do the same. The local owners also have a website: www.stoptheparachuters.com

They're obviously willing to spend the money to oppose the proposition.................

Common sense says its not a good environment to start a new business with such opposition but it's not my business to run.

[marks 0]

well, just buy a tarp and use the airport without renting anything then.

our tax dollers are paying for it. shit, I might come up in april to make a jump on MY airport.!!!

[mattjw916 2]

...and when they open, I'll make sure I stop in so I can squeeze in some jumps while I am, "trampling crops, spooking livestock or scaling fences."

Because after jumping all over the country in everything from dense urban areas to remote aggie regions my reputation as a crop-killing-cow-swooping-fence-scaler has yet to be cemented, so I better get started.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[Hue-janus 0]

I bet that power plant crap will be in court after you and me both are dead and gone.

I checked the news publications for the area, seems that the inital court proceedings have come and gone and the the judge told the power company to tear it down! Doesn't say that they can't and won't appeal, but they are losing their ass as the process continues.

And as for being required to have insurance that everyone knows does not exist I bet that one could be in court for a while also.I bet the FAA might get involved in that one.I love it when the Good Old Boys get in over their head.

The word is that the insurance was required from day one of talks about this new DZ, The new owners assured the city they could get the insurance "No Problem" They were not able to get this insurance and the city found that they had spent a lot of time and money to pursue a contract that could not be honored by the persons who requested it. The FAA won't touch it because the city has required the same insurance from the helicopter operation and they provided it! actually even higher than the new DZ was asked to provide. The FAA can only get involved if the insurance requirement is unfair, the DZ was asked less coverage, no recourse. Call the Airport manager like I did, he will get you the real story not this second hand info on these threads I would say that the "Good Old Boys" are setting high N dry and everyone else is treading the cold deep water.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Common sense says its not a good environment to start a new business with such opposition but it's not my business to run

Yeah but sometimes you just have to stir the pot.Oh and I am a good old boy.I'm just smart enough to want to see growth in my community.Sounds like your good old boys want to keep everything the same till all of the subsidies run out.


.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

You don't think it is unfair to be asked to provide something that does not exist.Give me a break.


.

[marks 0]

Quote

Quote

Common sense says its not a good environment to start a new business with such opposition but it's not my business to run

Yeah but sometimes you just have to stir the pot.Oh and I am a good old boy.I'm just smart enough to want to see growth in my community.Sounds like your good old boys want to keep everything the same till all of the subsidies run out.


.

for gods sake. if the skydivers come, someone might want to build a hotel next! WE CAN'T LET THAT HAPPEN!!!!...

[CSpenceFLY 1]

No one would build a hotel where they don't want power.Lets all follow this to see whos brother in law gets the contract for the new power plant or who ends up developing that property into a new subdivision.Come on guys whats on the schedule for the power plant property??


.

[marks 0]

Quote

No one would build a hotel where they don't want power.Lets all follow this to see whos brother in law gets the contract for the new power plant or who ends up developing that property into a new subdivision.Come on guys whats on the schedule for the power plant property??


.

thats true, you dont need power in a city that nobody's kid has a job. because the city wouldn't allow skydivers. which cost them a hotel, and housing/building jobs. ohh, a home depot even.. I bet walmart might want a piece of the action also..

maybe if you guys had mountains, you could live in caves...


this is a democracy!!!! why oppose buisness?/tax dollers.
one simple reason...... corruption.

who said I can't cypher?

[isaac.newton 0]

Contact Debra if you don't agree with the content of her site:

Registrant:
Debra Brewer
27505 S State Rt 7
Harrisonville, Missouri 64701
United States

Registered through: www.dynonames.com
Domain Name: STOPTHEPARACHUTERS.COM
Created on: 28-Feb-06
Expires on: 28-Feb-07
Last Updated on: 02-Mar-06

Administrative Contact:
Brewer, Debra debrabrewer@starband.net
27505 S State Rt 7
Harrisonville, Missouri 64701
United States
(816) 380-2343

Technical Contact:
Brewer, Debra debrabrewer@starband.net
27505 S State Rt 7
Harrisonville, Missouri 64701
United States
(816) 380-2343

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.IBIZDNS.COM
NS2.IBIZDNS.COM

[Hue-janus 0]

You don't think it is unfair to be asked to provide something that does not exist.Give me a break.

Sure! I think it is unfair to request something that cannot be provided, But! answer me this, what the hell was the new DZO thinking when "HE" agreed to the contarct, and said that "HE" would provide the insurance? You can"t scream rape! when you get naked and roll over on your back with your legs in the air!!! He should have addressed this insurance requirement early on and not allowed it to piss the city off.

[isaac.newton 0]

Of course she might be busy with her position at the Iowa Donkey and Mule Society and not able to get back to you right away.

http://www.idms.ws/Officers.asp

[flynabeech 0]

In the infinite wisdom of all that have replied......... your answers are correct. No, I don't think it's wrong to comply with local rules and engage in a contract arrangement with full intentions of complying with the local laws and regulations. Basic requirements of business law IS insurance......... as a manager of a general contractor I deal with it on a daily basis. The city of Harrisonville would be foolish to not uphold their requirements as set forth on every other business in the community. It just so happens this situation impacts a group of passionate skydivers. McDonalds complies with the same requirements and fair is fair. It's simple, prove the business has the insurance and you all have a chance. I think it's wrong to commit to a large group of people such as the city of Harrisonville and yourselves that such requirements have been obtained.

As for the FAA and getting involved with the situation......they're not in the insurance business and after a little research you'll find they don't want to be. I pay 2,000 dollars a year on a simple personally owned aircraft....... we're discussing a commercial operation with liability limits of great magnitude...... so as part of general avaiation how much do you spend to insure your "parachute" aircraft? You're speaking apples and oranges to an aircraft owner brother..... However your position is appreciated.

Otherwise, the idea that you function as general aviation under non powered flight with no ability to communicate with the local traffic is a problem. Thus any encursion with local traffic.....including the emergency helicopter will fault the powered operator and this is where the problem lies in Harrisonville. The traffic pattern and target landing area are not condusive to safe operations unless the helicopter disregards the FAA mandated traffic pattern over the airspace.......I'm sure more than you wanted to know

However, your not a licensed pilot or trained in proper traffic communications.........

[Hue-janus 0]

Quote

Of course she might be busy with her position at the Iowa Donkey and Mule Society and not able to get back to you right away.

http://www.idms.ws/Officers.asp

In her E-mail reply she said she was very busy, dealing with a bunch of Donkeys next door who were attempting to act like skydivers, and she didn't have time to answer any questions from another group of asses on-line!

[marks 0]

Quote

how much do you spend to insure your "parachute" aircraft?

all my skydiving equipment is insured for $500 a year.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

How ever I am a licenced pilot,a commercial one at that.Thats why I know all of this screeming about it being unsafe for the canopies to be in the same airspace as the helicopter is crap.We operate all over the country every weekend in the same airspace with aircraft.I also know of DZs that have Lifeflight on the same airports and it is not a problem.I know it and you know it.


.

[marks 0]

Quote

how much do you spend to insure your "parachute" aircraft?

USPA, provides 3rd party insurance to all USPA members.

so, in other words, if your not a skydiver, and a skydiver harms your property. it is insured.

[marks 0]

Quote

How ever I am a licenced pilot,a commercial one at that.Thats why I know all of this screeming about it being unsafe for the canopies to be in the same airspace as the helicopter is crap.We operate all over the country every weekend in the same airspace with aircraft.I also know of DZs that have Lifeflight on the same airports and it is not a problem.I know it and you know it.


.

I have sat and drank beer with lifelight employees after there shift at a DZ before. they are less than 200 feet from where we were landing... it has been there for years, no problems im aware of.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sure! I think it is unfair to request something that cannot be provided, But! answer me this, what the hell was the new DZO thinking when "HE" agreed to the contarct, and said that "HE" would provide the insurance? You can"t scream rape! when you get naked and roll over on your back with your legs in the air!!! He should have addressed this insurance requirement early on and not allowed it to piss the city off.

I have a hard time believing that they agreed to something that we've long known doesn't exist.

[KCSkydivingCtr 0]

Quote

The word is that the insurance was required from day one of talks about this new DZ, The new owners assured the city they could get the insurance "No Problem" They were not able to get this insurance and the city found that they had spent a lot of time and money to pursue a contract that could not be honored by the persons who requested it. The FAA won't touch it because the city has required the same insurance from the helicopter operation and they provided it! actually even higher than the new DZ was asked to provide. The FAA can only get involved if the insurance requirement is unfair, the DZ was asked less coverage, no recourse.

We have tried to avoid posting on here, as we do not want to get involved with all of the negative politics that this area is known for, but we feel that this bit of mis-information should be addressed. From day 1, our lease agreement had nothing in it that we could not comply by. In the lease that was put before the board two weeks ago, the insurance requirements were that we would maintain general liability insurance on our leased premises, 3rd party liability insurance of $50,000, and workers' compensation insurance. It was only after the strong urging of another drop-zone owner that the city considered adding other insurance requirements.

We met with the city administrator last Tuesday and were given a new draft of the lease that had changed the 3rd party liability insurance to $1,000,000 and added to our general liability section was the line, "including, but not limited to all parties and participants of the Tenant's business operations."

We told the city administrator that we would research to see if this insurance was available, but that we were quite certain that it was not. After calling numerous insurance experts, we verified that neither of these insurances were available.

When this was brought before the board, the issue was raised as to how the wording would have to be in order for us to comply with the lease. The city attorney stated that the 3rd party liability insurance would have to be reduced back to $50,000 and that the line, which he added to our general liability section, that now included all of our business activities would have to be removed, and then our general liability insurance would be back to basic slip and fall.

The board voted 5-4 to deny the lease, based on the fact that we could not obtain the insurance that they had only recently asked for. Also, this insurance is not required of any other tenant on the airport, including LifeFlight. Feel free to contact the city, as LifeFlight's lease is available under the Freedom of Information Act. If anyone is interested, I can provide copies of our lease, as it was two weeks ago, and our lease as the city changed it to several days ago.

Whether or not it is unreasonable to require an insurance that is not available and whether or not it is unjustly discriminatory to require an insurance that is not required of any other user on the airport is ultimately up to the FAA, and we look forward to hearing their determination.

Nonetheless, we look forward to seeing everyone April 1st. We have received an overwhelming response and are looking at bringing in a Super Otter to help keep up.

Blue Skies,

Paul Eriksmoen
The Kansas City Skydiving Center
http://www.kcskydiving.com

The Kansas City Skydiving Center

[CSpenceFLY 1]

So it looks like the FAA may very well get involved.Well color me redneck.Good luck guys.I lived in a town like that while I was growing up.It may take a while but you can get rid of the good old boys.People will get sick of their property taxes going up because there is no industry to help with the bills and they will vote Bubba and Leroy out.Listen up boys you time is a coming.


.

[flynabeech 0]

The comments and feedback are appreciated and well recognized however missing the insight of the local community. The adjacent properties surrounding the proposed drop zone have no interest in hosting skydiving entertainment. In addition, it does not reflect the complications associated with interacting with the Harrisonville traffic pattern and unicom is yet to be explained...... unpowered flight versus the helicopter

On a greater scale.... where's the insurance that the DZO commited would be retained?

On another level....... permitting and zoning for commercial use is yet to be obtained. These are commercial requirements that exist in this community, neighbors, policitians, and the public are well aware of the requirements. The proposed operation is not legal, accepted or verified until these issues are resolved and issued by Cass County and the State of Missouri. Again just the facts.......... business licenses and zoning permits must be obtained. No need for explanations...... and no I'm not associated with the local DZ's. I'm a local pilot who's grown up in aviation in this community........ I have every right to ask these questions.

[marks 0]

Quote

The comments and feedback are appreciated and well recognized however missing the insight of the local community. The adjacent properties surrounding the proposed drop zone have no interest in hosting skydiving entertainment. In addition, it does not reflect the complications associated with interacting with the Harrisonville traffic pattern and unicom is yet to be explained...... unpowered flight versus the helicopter

On a greater scale.... where's the insurance that the DZO commited would be retained?

On another level....... permitting and zoning for commercial use is yet to be obtained. These are commercial requirements that exist in this community, neighbors, policitians, and the public are well aware of the requirements. The proposed operation is not legal, accepted or verified until these issues are resolved and issued by Cass County and the State of Missouri. Again just the facts.......... business licenses and zoning permits must be obtained. No need for explanations...... and no I'm not associated with the local DZ's. I'm a local pilot who's grown up in aviation in this community........ I have every right to ask these questions.

I guess I will write a letter, or even start a campaign to make sure MY FUCKING MONEY!!!!! TAX MONEY... doesn't go to that airport anymore.....

I foresee, alot of bullshit and corruption going on in your town soon.

have fun with that.

If I were you, I would be trying to vote the ones out that are against this. your only hurting yourself...

and to the DZO... I admire your drive and focus on making this happen.
remember, if they dont want our money, there are others that do.

when I travel there, I will make sure I get a rental car, hotel, flight,food,beer,cigs,gatorade,water,and electricity, in the neighboring county. why would I want to give people that are against skydiving and aviation, my money?

[flynabeech 0]

Actually it's very simple...... if the DZO can provide an insurance certificate for the required coverage of 1,000,000 per occurance for the city of Harrisonville life would be much easier. The cert must specically include the skydiving activity. The certificate requires that any injury is covered regardless of location or altitude within the city limits of Harrisonville......this is why the previous DZ was shut down. As a local aviator I'm anxiously awaiting their ability to provide this insurance certificate.