Meigs Field gone without warning

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 1, 2003 | Bob Herguth and Dave McKinney

[Writer1]

In a stunning move decried by critics as "the epitome of arrogance," Mayor Daley closed down Meigs Field by tearing up its only runway--without warning pilots, air traffic controllers or many of his political allies.

A combative mayor said he was staving off possible terrorist attacks from the skies over the Loop, and that the quick action was necessary to avoid a protracted battle with Meigs supporters.

But to those supporters, Daley's motivation was clear: For years he has wanted the 80 or so acres for a park, and now he's shamelessly using these anxious times as an excuse to fulfill Daniel Burnham's vision for Chicago's lakefront.

"From our perspective, this is a pure and simple land grab,'' said Steve Whitney, founder of the Friends of Meigs Field. "It really has nothing to do with homeland security. It will make homeland security worse" because there no longer will be a manned control tower around.

"Creepy" was how the current president, Rachel Goodstein, described Daley's methods.

Around 11:30 p.m. Sunday--the airport is closed from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.--heavy equipment under police escort arrived at Meigs and began tearing into the 3,899-foot-long runway, carving huge "X's" and horizontal marks into the grooved asphalt to prevent aircraft from using the strip.

"If it was a fear of terrorists, he could have just closed us" without doing such damage, a Meigs controller said. "By doing this it makes it too expensive for the state or federal government to say, 'We'll buy it from you.' This guarantees him his park."

Even as critics prepared to sue the city to reopen Meigs, they conceded the city seems within its rights since it operates the airfield and it sits on Park District property. A Daley aide, while denying the motive behind closing Meigs was to build a park, said "it's safe to say it will eventually be a park."

The Federal Aviation Administration said it was "concerned" by the city's move. "Removing any centrally located airport such as Meigs from the national airspace system only diminishes capacity and puts added pressure on O'Hare and Midway airports," the agency said in a statement.

A top FAA official in Chicago was notified of Meigs' closing after being awakened by a 2 a.m. call from a city official, an FAA spokesman said.

[Writer1]

This is an example of domestic fascism, pure and simple. The mayor is out of control. This is an illegal taking. The owners need to be compenstation for the loss of the use of their aircraft. What's next?

[longshadow]

This is an example of domestic fascism, pure and simple.

Correction: attacking and destroying transportation infrastructure in a midnight raid is an act of terrorism.

Osama bin Daley should be arrested and prosecuted for commiting an act of terror during time of war.

[b fair]

I think if I had a plane stored here and they closed the airport like this, Chicago IS going to pay ALL costs to move the aircraft and restore it to airworthy condition.

But since I only fly rotor wings I don't need the runway!

[RonF]

First, you have violated one of the standards of this web site by changing the title of a posting. This is so that people can effectively search to prevent duplicate posts.

Second, the article itself never discussed the topic you used in the title, so the title is inaccurate.

Third, you have failed to establish your case. Daley II has already said that the City would pay the full costs of relocating those planes. Yes, he has inconvenienced those plane owners, but he seems as though he intends to find a way to compensate them for that. The "takings" clause only forbids the government to take private property if they don't compensate the owners for it. If it does, there's no violation. And it won't cost that much to compensate them for a few days inability to use those planes.

I'm not defending Daley II's actions, by the way. I'm just trying to defend the truth.

[merrin]

Even as critics prepared to sue the city to reopen Meigs, they conceded the city seems within its rights since it operates the airfield and it sits on Park District property.

I don't know enough about local Chicago issues to know whether Daley is right or wrong, but I do know that closing down a city-owned airort does not violate the takings clause.

[KansasCanadian]

Neil Bortz slipped up and called Daley a b*astard on his show this morning--Bortz flew into there on occasion

[lasereye]

It sounds like the owner is the city of Chicago.

[SENTINEL]

"The owners need to be compensated for the loss of the use of their aircraft."

They need to be compensated for the LOSS of their aircraft ! How are the the private aircraft owners going to get them out of there with no runway to take off from ?

All hail King Daley !!

[MinuteGal]

You read it here first. Richie Daley and his not-so-behind the scenes cronies want this land "for a park".....hah, hah....make that "for a lakefront CASINO"!

Leni

[Sloth]

I think the mayor flew into the Sears Tower one too many times in Flight Simulator.

[Falcon4.0]

Considering that airports fall under Federal Jurisdiction, I'd say he has committed several Federal Crimes.

[OldFriend]

You are too defending the sneaky middle of the night actions of your boy, Daley!

[fight_truth_decay]

Good will be a park to be enjoyed by all now. Great extension for biking, blading, jogging etc...maybe another Buckingham.

Beautiful!..dialog on this subject has been going on for years now ... way to long. Most want it as a park. Huraaaaah!

Plenty of small airports available in the western suburbs.
Plus we don't need any small planes targeting those civilians on the streets downtown rush-hour. It is a threat after 9/11.

Just my opinion. Sorry.

F_T_D

[fight_truth_decay]

Thank you for your input this was also posted yesterday.

[RonF]

The planes will be able to take off from the taxiway, which goes the full length of the runway. While a skillful pilot could take off from that taxiway, the crosswinds that prevail there would generally prevent someone from landing on the taxiway. Once all the planes are gone, they'll dig up that taxiway, too. Failing that, they can barge them over to the lakeshore, dismount the wings, and move them by truck.

[IncPen]

Daley closed the airport because he lives just across Lake Shore Drive, in Burnham Park, and disliked the noise of the planes.

That's it.

If he puts a casino there, he's an even bigger schmuck.

[RonF]

The airport is owned and operated by the City of Chicago. The FAA has the responsibility to regulate the airport's operations, but has no authority to regulate whether or not it will operate at all. The FAA has already said that Daley has violated no Federal statutes.

[fight_truth_decay]

your boy?

We just offer a different opinion. Should have been done years ago. But I can see the otherside addressed who are the actual owners of said planes. This is not new news..the future of the field was eventually going this way. Owners will be compensated

Is there room enough for another sports stadium? ;) Just kiddin'.

[RonF]

He ain't my boy, I live in the 'burbs. What has basically happened here is that Daley II has acted in what he is publicly stating is his best judgement for Chicago, and that he is willing to take the heat and the costs for it. I will bet any amount of money that Daley gets away with this. It was quite high-handed, and quite undemocratic for him to do this. He quite obviously sought to present the Friends of Meigs with a fait accompli, to forstall any lawsuits from stopping him. But not enough people care about Meigs Field. More people would be just as glad to have it as a park. Now, making it a casino is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. It would mean a high source of revenue that would a) enable Daley II to throw lots of contracts, etc., towards his buddies and allies, and b) provide a revenue stream that would disproportionately affect non-residents. I haven't seen this come up yet officially, but I bet it gets proposed. Soon.

[SENTINEL]

If the FAA will allow them to take off from the taxiway ( and I'm skeptical ), It seems like this might not be so unconstitutional afterall.