• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

pmd8

Beach Lover
Jul 27, 2005
138
20
One of the reasons Oil is at $100 a barrel is because of the same type of unnecessary delay of new refineries in our country and new inshore drilling areas. This whole State was under water at one time and when Hurricanes hit shore 100’s of thousands of acres of wetlands are, disruptive, redirected and destroyed. Yes we have no control over this but should we take satellite images of the damage area and return it back to the way they were? Do we take a sample of every living creature found in every swamp, waterway, or wetland, and spend Billions of taxpayers dollars protecting them, stop commerce, damage our economy for a snail, bug, fish, or bird, especially one that may not be there. There has to be a balance. I lean to the side of what’s better for our Country.

00seer00

Gee, another reason oil is $100 a barrel is that we drive huge gas guzzlers, often with one passenger. We could decrease our demand by 25% or more tomorrow if we changed our driving habits. Wouldn't it be great if we could tell some of the Middle East and Hugo Chavez to go to hell?

After a hurricane, much of the landscape is changed. If left to itself, it will recover. It may take decades, but it will recover.

I think by protecting what we have left, it is for the benefit of the country in the long term. People think only of 5, 10 or 20 years in the future or of short term profits.
 
Last edited:

00seer00

Beach Lover
Oct 12, 2006
112
3
PCB
Gee, another reason oil is $100 a barrel is that we drive huge gas guzzlers, often with one passenger. We could decrease our demand by 25% or more tomorrow if we changed our driving habits. Wouldn't it be great if we could tell some of the Middle East and Hugo Chavez to go to hell?

After a hurricane, much of the landscape is changed. If left to itself, it will recover. It may take decades, but it will recover.

I think by protecting what we have left, it is for the benefit of the country in the long term. People think only of 5, 10 or 20 years in the future or of short term profits.

Yes, driving habits will help tremendously but with China and India just getting started with their economic expansion, the consumption rate is growing faster than ever. We will be at the mercy of other Countries for are oil needs. I am thinking 10, 20 years out. We consume more oil than China and India combined, do you think that will be so in 20 years? The USA has not built a refinery in over 20 years and have no plan to do so. Alaska and many other States have more Oil than we could use in 200 years. As far as Protect what we have left, it is for the benefit of the country in the long term. Gee, no more road construction, Airports. buildings, ect on wetlands in the USA is good for the Country??? I like Solar my self.
00seer00
 

beachmouse

Beach Fanatic
Dec 5, 2004
3,504
741
Bluewater Bay, FL
As long as other countries can produce and process oil cheaply, it's actually not a bad thing to avoid exploiting domestic oil reserves. Oil's a finite resource, and even with advanced technqiues for production, there's going to be a point where current major oil producers run dry. It's why places like Qatar and the UAE are pushing so hard to diversify their economies.

Going long run, it's not a bad idea for the USA to be sitting on large amounts of reserves in Alaska and the eastern Gulf when Saudi Arabia/Venezuela/Norway/former Soviet producers start to run dry in 50-100 years.
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,643
9,496
The main difference is that St. Joe is getting preferential treatment in obtaining blanket approval for multiple areas of wetlands.

Fair's fair, why shouldn't they have to get individual permitting just like everyone else?

If 56% of the citizens voted against the new airport why can't their wishes be followed? Whether it's a good or bad thing for development, in a democracy the majority should be heard.

Perhaps, because once again someone is quoting statistics without all the facts, it was a NON BINDING STRAW BALLOT. This means it is literally put on the ballot for opinion purposes only. For all intensive purposes you could put a red/blue which is better question on the ballot, but if it is the above mentioned type it won't do anything other than give a general opinion. Once that airport is up and running I'd love hear some peoples opinions who didn't want it and constantly pointed out that a small majority didn't want something.
 

pmd8

Beach Lover
Jul 27, 2005
138
20
Perhaps, because once again someone is quoting statistics without all the facts, it was a NON BINDING STRAW BALLOT. This means it is literally put on the ballot for opinion purposes only. something.

Do you think the results would have been different had it been a referendum?

No one I know in Panama City, the majority of whom are conservative and/or Republican, supports the new airport. It's not just the environmentalists and anti-growth populace.
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,777
819
Conflictinator
Perhaps, because once again someone is quoting statistics without all the facts, it was a NON BINDING STRAW BALLOT. This means it is literally put on the ballot for opinion purposes only. For all intensive purposes you could put a red/blue which is better question on the ballot, but if it is the above mentioned type it won't do anything other than give a general opinion. Once that airport is up and running I'd love hear some peoples opinions who didn't want it and constantly pointed out that a small majority didn't want something.

intents and purposes?
 

Beachbummette

SoWal Insider
Jul 16, 2005
5,748
207
Birmingham and Watersound
Randy Curtis, the Executive Director of the Panama City - Bay County Airport and Industrial District was gracious enough to provide the details:

The question on the ballot was as follows:

TITLE: Non-binding referendum question on the Bay County citizenry?s desire to relocate the existing Airport. Do you favor future relocation of the Panama City Bay County International Airport at no cost to the Bay County taxpayer?

The statement that I hear quoted most often regarding this vote is that ?an overwhelming majority of Bay County voters voted against airport relocation?. The results of the vote taking into consideration the total number of registered voters in Bay County was as follows:

Yes 9,500 10.556%
No 11,051 12.280%
Over Vote 2 0.002 %
Under Vote 79 0.088%
Did not vote 69,360 77.074%
Total registered voters 89,992 100.000%
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,643
9,496
Randy Curtis, the Executive Director of the Panama City - Bay County Airport and Industrial District was gracious enough to provide the details:

The question on the ballot was as follows:

TITLE: Non-binding referendum question on the Bay County citizenry?s desire to relocate the existing Airport. Do you favor future relocation of the Panama City Bay County International Airport at no cost to the Bay County taxpayer?

The statement that I hear quoted most often regarding this vote is that ?an overwhelming majority of Bay County voters voted against airport relocation?. The results of the vote taking into consideration the total number of registered voters in Bay County was as follows:

Yes 9,500 10.556%
No 11,051 12.280%
Over Vote 2 0.002 %
Under Vote 79 0.088%
Did not vote 69,360 77.074%
Total registered voters 89,992 100.000%

So the real statement is that 54% of those who cared were not in favor of the airport, of course over 3/4's of those that voted didn't care one way or another.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter