National Park Service takes over Pearson Air Museum

alaskaflyer said:
My apologies. I thought you were really asking.
Click to expand...

I'm open to whatever facts can be verified, but when you used the word "presume," it sounded like guesswork. :dunno:

I would never make the presumption that a retired local judge knows more about the nuances of First Amendment assembly/speech issues that the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Supreme Court knows whether a particular Vancouver city street is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service?

I'm not saying a retired judge can't be wrong, but I see no reason for making assumptions one way or the other, especially since he's not here to explain his reasoning.

We presume around this joint all the time. For example we're being asked to presume that the organization's press releases frame the issue in entirety instead of the more likely scenario that they present an effort to shape opinion. We presume that one Congresswoman in some letters can override the stated intent of the entire Congress in the pieces of legislation affecting the historic site. We presume that the city manager hasn't forgotten the promises the city made then cynically ignored over the years, about using certain monies received from the federal taxpayer to develop a new GA airport elsewhere.
Click to expand...

And making presumptions favoring the other side is a solution to this?

But beyond presumption I'll stand by my assertions in this thread.
Click to expand...

I don't have any way of knowing who's right about the underlying issues, and countering presumptions with presumptions doesn't help. I understand from the above that the city is alleged to have broken some promises, but I haven't seen anything that explains why NPS personnel expected the contents of the museum to be turned over to them.

As for the history of who did what to whom going back to the mid 1940s, I just hope that the public interest is not lost sight of in all this. In general, I think that allowing community events on public land is a good thing, especially when it helps maintain public support for an airport's continued existence.
 
OK, folks, let's knock off the bashing - if you want to go into rants about government, thugs, and all of that stuff, take it to Spin Zone. Rational discussions here in HT are encouraged, but inflammatory comments have no place in this section of the forum.

Thanks.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't have any way of knowing who's right about the underlying issues, and countering presumptions with presumptions doesn't help. I understand from the above that the city is alleged to have broken some promises, but I haven't seen anything that explains why NPS personnel expected the contents of the museum to be turned over to them.
Click to expand...

Two different points.
1 the city did not break any agreements, the NPS local administrator made the decision to take over the airfield about 6 months earlier than agreement stated.

Point 2 The NPS official is so ill informed she didn't realize the displays were not the property of the airfield or the museum.

It is my humble opinion that she wanted to grab the assets of the museum sell them and use the money to further her agenda at the Fort.

The ruckus is all about the timing of the take over, and getting the museum assets back to their owners before the NPS thinks they can confiscate them.
 
Tom-D said:
Two different points.
1 the city did not break any agreements, the NPS local administrator made the decision to take over the airfield about 6 months earlier than agreement stated.

Point 2 The NPS official is so ill informed she didn't realize the displays were not the property of the airfield or the museum.

It is my humble opinion that she wanted to grab the assets of the museum sell them and use the money to further her agenda at the Fort.

The ruckus is all about the timing of the take over, and getting the museum assets back to their owners before the NPS thinks they can confiscate them.
Click to expand...

Tom, though the greater airfield is part of a controversy which will come to head soon enough, this is about the museum facility and a couple of other nearby buildings operated by the Trust. Regardless of which side of the story you believe I don't think anyone has alleged the Superintendent is operating with a lack of knowledge of who owns what. If anything, it very well could be the opposite (there, I'm editorializing :rolleyes: )
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
More information:

http://www.nps.gov/fova/parkmgmt/pamops2013.htm
Click to expand...


Good positive spin on the NPS's part... Of course they have generations of practice to polish it like they do.....

The trust has a different view and has been somewhat ineffective in expressing that to the general public.........

With that said, my gut feeling is some of the events the trust allowed to take place on NPS land was religious in nature and conflicted with the neutral stance the NPS is supposed to uphold... I have personally seen religious organizations "push the envelope" to try and leverage themselves into the population and that is not in scope of the NPS's mission.. I am also sure there are STRONG personalities and motives on BOTH sides and that lead to this outcome.

I still say there is a ton more to this that is NOT coming out.... IMHO.
 
NPS' press release is long on platitudes, short on specifics. If NPS were to candidly list the alleged "sins" of the Trust that led to this decision, the community's reaction would be a resounding "So what?!" We've seen the actual restrictions and conditions NPS sought to impose on the Museum, and they are simply unworkable, and would make self-sustaining operation of the Museum impossible.

NPS is constrained by its own regulations, and that's fine. Those regulations may work in other contexts, but are inappropriate and unnecessary here. The answer is to either change the rules, or remove the Museum from the jurisdiction of the entity beholden to those rules.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/feb/14/jamie-herrera-beutler-introduces-bill-transfer-pea/
 
Pilawt said:
NPS' press release is long on platitudes, short on specifics. If NPS were to candidly list the alleged "sins" of the Trust that led to this decision, the community's reaction would be a resounding "So what?!" We've seen the actual restrictions and conditions NPS sought to impose on the Museum, and they are simply unworkable, and would make self-sustaining operation of the Museum impossible.

NPS is constrained by its own regulations, and that's fine. Those regulations may work in other contexts, but are inappropriate and unnecessary here. The answer is to either change the rules, or remove the Museum from the jurisdiction of the entity beholden to those rules.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/feb/14/jamie-herrera-beutler-introduces-bill-transfer-pea/
Click to expand...

Meh. Does the CBO score almost $500k in 1972 dollars as "not significant?" Though I think there was additional acreage then.
 
It sounds like she had unrealistic expectations.
 
Palmpilot said:
It sounds like she had unrealistic expectations.
Click to expand...

Surely you jest! Of course she should expect to be given custody of property that doesn't belong to the Federal Government. How dare you think otherwise!


(that was sarcasm for the sarcasm recognition impaired)

How on Earth could it be regrettable that the caretakers ensured proper custody of items in the museum?
 
This is really frustrating for me because I am too far away right now to stand with those who object to this ridiculous snatch attempt by the NPS. My read on this situation is this:

1.) A petty bureaucrat had a half-baked idea and tried a power move.
2.) Citizens exerted their rights and stood up for a precious community resource and the items entrusted in their care.
3.) The petty bureaucrat reacted to this by escalating rather than backing off.
4.) Face saving by the NPS is now underway.
5.) When this finally gets resolved and the museum is back in the custody of those who have kept it running a certain petty bureaucrat gets a new post counting gooney birds on Midway.

One of the lessons I learned in the government snakepits is you can assert your authority up to the point where it causes hassles for the next person up the ladder. If you somehow win the superior gets the credit for bailing you out, if you lose you wonder why in the heck you thought it was a good idea to begin with.
 
Wow. Step on up ranger rick and spin this one. Methinks if those folks left their planes there they would not own them anymore.
 
Spin what? That plan was pretty clear from the time the first post was made in this thread. At least to those who read all the info available.

The owners of the airplanes can do as they wish. Perhaps the community will end up with two museums.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Spin what? That plan was pretty clear from the time the first post was made in this thread. At least to those who read all the info available.

The owners of the airplanes can do as they wish. Perhaps the community will end up with two museums.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. This is a case of the NPS administrator being really misinformed, she once asked how much the aircraft owners were paying for hangar rent. and then wanted to know how much the displays were worth.

she was after the money and the aircraft owners do not trust her to keep any agreement, because she broke her word twice already.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Perhaps the community will end up with two museums.
Click to expand...

The NPS museum would be great. Humans would not be able to see, hear, touch, smell or taste any part of an airplane. The very first thing the NPS should do is return Jack Murdock's 3 Million dollars.
 
kgruber said:
The NPS museum would be great. Humans would not be able to see, hear, touch, smell or taste any part of an airplane. The very first thing the NPS should do is return Jack Murdock's 3 Million dollars.
Click to expand...

And maybe the city should return the federal taxpayer's $500k, after it's adjusted for inflation of course.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
I doubt it. This is a case of the NPS administrator being really misinformed, she once asked how much the aircraft owners were paying for hangar rent. and then wanted to know how much the displays were worth.

she was after the money and the aircraft owners do not trust her to keep any agreement, because she broke her word twice already.
Click to expand...

Tom if you can find evidence that anyone was exemplary in keeping their explicit promises in this situation going back decades you'd be a magician. The one thing that everyone has in common - the city, the Trust and yes the NPS is that no one seemed to be too worried about living up to every detail in every instrument. You think the Trust didn't understand NPS regulations or don't you think there was some incrementalism going on here? You think the newish Superintendent isn't having to clean up someone's previous mess? You think the city isn't being a bit cynical in pretending that history started in the mid 1990s and don't you wonder where the new airport is that they were paid to develop?

A cooperative agreement is not a contract or a lease, if it contains dates at all there are always escape clauses that negate them.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Tom if you can find evidence that anyone was exemplary in keeping their explicit promises in this situation going back decades you'd be a magician. The one thing that everyone has in common - the city, the Trust and yes the NPS is that no one seemed to be too worried about living up to every detail in every instrument. You think the Trust didn't understand NPS regulations or don't you think there was some incrementalism going on here? You think the newish Superintendent isn't having to clean up someone's previous mess? You think the city isn't being a bit cynical in pretending that history started in the mid 1990s and don't you wonder where the new airport is that they were paid to develop?

A cooperative agreement is not a contract or a lease, if it contains dates at all there are always escape clauses that negate them.
Click to expand...

It's really beyond all that now, the people who had displays are Pizzed -----and I'm sure it isn't over
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top