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.
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. something.
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.
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%