One Less Courtesy Car at KRAS

Jay Honeck

Jay Honeck

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
11,571
Location
Ingleside, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Jay Honeck
Until now, our local island airport has charged $40/year to park a car at the airport -- and it was poorly enforced. There are probably 20 cars parked in the grass just off the edge of our ramp, used by pilots who regularly fly to Port Aransas. (We have no perimeter fence at our airport -- a rarity nowadays.)

Well, I just got the parking permit bill for 2013 -- it's now a cool $100/year, an increase of 150%. I have told them that this vehicle isn't parked there for our personal use, but rather that it's there for visitors to Port Aransas to use, free of charge, when they stay at our hotel.

This didn't sway the argument. :mad:

So, effective immediately we will only have one courtesy car at Mustang Beach Airport for our reserved guests to use. We will keep another car in reserve at the hotel, and use it if needed. This may mean some transportation delays when we have more than one set of pilots at the hotel. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause.

Seeing this sort of thing always amazes me, but I've seen it happen over and over again. A local government czar will see something going well -- like lots of people parking cars at the airport, where they aren't doing anyone any harm -- and suddenly seize upon it as a revenue-producing opportunity.

Then, when the activity is destroyed, they act surprised and blame "the economy" or "the decline in aviation" for its loss. :mad2:
 
It used to be you paid your taxes and you got all your city services. Now every office is trying to find a way to keep their budget at current levels so generating money seems the easiest way to do so. Then they get to argue that they actually made money for the city.
Then we see them turning out the street lights, cutting back on snowplowing, CHARGING for trash collection, charging to file a request for a hearing.... On and on and on.
What they don't see are the people and businesses who leave because it has become just too nickel and dime.
Just more USER FEES.
PS: My water bill doubled. They managed to do this by adding a "base fee" then charging $.035 per cubic foot. The new rates just announced adds $10 to the base and $.0375.
The little guy doing something for his community. Too bad he is the only one that sees it that way.
 
Legal cases here used to have flat filing rate of around $30 for each case....a onetime fee no matter how big the case. Now its $300 and every little addition filing like a motion require another $100 fee. It's insane.
 
Okay, I get the rage against the gov't and all that, but...

From $40 to $100 a year?

You mean, like, from $0.10 to $0.25 per day?

Sorry. Millions of people pay for parking around the world. I've _never_ heard of a parking fee so low. Can't bring myself to get outraged over that.

You're literally getting nickled and dimed. That's gotta be pretty much the smallest line item on your annual budget. How much do you spend on soaps and shampoo? From a customer perspective, the car would be a lot more valuable to me than shampoo. I can pack a bottle in my bag, but ground transportation is gold.

Seems to me you have been offering a great benefit for your target clientele, and this is a petty reason to drop it.
 
Last edited:
Jim_R said:
Okay, I get the rage against the gov't and all that, but...

From $40 to $100 a year?

You mean, like, from $0.10 to $0.25 per day?

Sorry. Millions of people pay for parking around the world. I've _never_ heard of a parking fee so low. Can't bring myself to get outraged over that.

You're literally getting nickled and dimed. That's gotta be pretty much the smallest line item on your annual budget. How much do you spend on soaps and shampoo? From a customer perspective, the car would be a lot more valuable to me than shampoo. I can pack a bottle in my bag, but ground transportation is gold.

Seems to me you have been offering a great benefit for your target clientele, and this is a petty reason to drop it.
Click to expand...

Good point, and if it becomes too much of a hassle to drive the second car out to the airport each time it's needed, I may just stash a car behind my hangar, or suck it up and pay another $100 bucks.

It's not the money so much as the principle that ticks me off. Where these cars are parked is just an unmowed grass field. The city has prepared nothing, improved nothing, but jacked the fee 150%, just because they can.
 
What a nuisance fee, that sucks.

I wonder if the argument could be made on a square-footage basis, for all of you with cars at the airport to split a tiedown space and cleverly arrange 10 or 12 cars in it. :D
 
Jay Honeck said:
Well, I just got the parking permit bill for 2013 -- it's now a cool $100/year, an increase of 150%. I have told them that this vehicle isn't parked there for our personal use, but rather that it's there for visitors to Port Aransas to use, free of charge, when they stay at our hotel.
Click to expand...

You should print out their website showing $40/year ( http://www.cityofportaransas.org/airport.cfm ) and mail a check for $40 for the second spot.

WOW! The just changed it. I've got that site opened in two tabs.
One shows $40/year, no tie down fee and gas for $5.90
The other shows $100/year, $5 or $10 overnight parking, and gas for $5.40
 
Last edited:
Get together with other people rent a hangar and fill it with all the airport cars. And maybe some extras.:lol:
 
Instead of screwing over everybody, they should have towed the cars of people who didn't pay to park. The city could have gotten more money out of tow/impound fees than making those who played by the rules pay more.
 
I'd like to think that if they'd been collecting the $40 they would have stayed at $40 and those not wanting to pay would have left; however, if they'd been collecting it then it probably would have gone up anyhow.
 
I feel for Jay, and he points out a common problem with ANY government agency..... They CANNOT downsize, to offset the insane salaries and bennies they simply raise fees to the taxpayers, knowing the VAST majority will just pay it without questioning the increase.....

I REALLY hate shepples...:yes::mad::mad2:
 
JB1842 said:
Instead of screwing over everybody, they should have towed the cars of people who didn't pay to park. The city could have gotten more money out of tow/impound fees than making those who played by the rules pay more.
Click to expand...

jhausch said:
I'd like to think that if they'd been collecting the $40 they would have stayed at $40 and those not wanting to pay would have left; however, if they'd been collecting it then it probably would have gone up anyhow.
Click to expand...

Yea that was my thinking.
 
Jim_R said:
Okay, I get the rage against the gov't and all that, but...

From $40 to $100 a year?

You mean, like, from $0.10 to $0.25 per day?

Sorry. Millions of people pay for parking around the world. I've _never_ heard of a parking fee so low. Can't bring myself to get outraged over that.

You're literally getting nickled and dimed. That's gotta be pretty much the smallest line item on your annual budget. How much do you spend on soaps and shampoo? From a customer perspective, the car would be a lot more valuable to me than shampoo. I can pack a bottle in my bag, but ground transportation is gold.

Seems to me you have been offering a great benefit for your target clientele, and this is a petty reason to drop it.
Click to expand...

Kind of what I was thinking. Like cutting off your nose to spite your face. How much revenue does that courtesy car provide you, in terms of increased customers?

As a conservative, I'm all for user fees vs. taxes. However, in this case, one wonders how many people will boycott, so that instead of getting $40/car, they get $0/car. THEN one wonders if the city would even notice.
 
$100 a year! Hah! They were charging me $750/year to park a car in in my one-horse town in Podunk Ohio (one of the many reason for my primarily ambulant mode of transportation)! Sorry, no sympathy from the Buckeye corner.
 
No kidding $100 a year, sign me up.

I understand the point though, every local government budget meeting starts like this...

We all got the maximum raises this year and revenue is down, what do we do?

Can't raise tax rates any more, they're already at the legal maximum...hummm

I know, we'll increase the charges for parking meters, parking fees, fines, traffic tickets, etc.

OK good plan, approved.

Next year..... rinse and repeat.
 
It sort of sounds like a rinky dink set up to start with. No fence at all and cars parked on the grass. I don't think that I would park a car out there and leave it at even $40. However I see why Jay does it and how it is a benefit to his business. So perhaps you need to step back and decide if the benefit outweighs the cost and go from there. I've seen a lot of people screw themselves over principle and there is not profit in that.
 
nddons said:
Kind of what I was thinking. Like cutting off your nose to spite your face. How much revenue does that courtesy car provide you, in terms of increased customers?

......
Click to expand...

The point is Jay has bought the car and he provides it to customers so they can

1- Stay at his hotel ,which the city gets taxes from in the form of property taxes, resort taxes, sales taxes...etc..

2- Those same guests will eat at restaurants ,which the city gets taxes from

3- Those same guests will drink at a bar, which the city will get taxes from....

This can go on and on.......

Next year, when all the city workers get their "its owed to me" annual raises and revenue are down, what will they do, come put parking meters in Jay's hotel parking lot ?:dunno::dunno:..
 
Probably costs 'em more than $40 to collect the fees & enforce it.
 
N801BH said:
The point is Jay has bought the car and he provides it to customers so they can

1- Stay at his hotel ,which the city gets taxes from in the form of property taxes, resort taxes, sales taxes...etc..

2- Those same guests will eat at restaurants ,which the city gets taxes from

3- Those same guests will drink at a bar, which the city will get taxes from....

This can go on and on.......

Next year, when all the city workers get their "its owed to me" annual raises and revenue are down, what will they do, come put parking meters in Jay's hotel parking lot ?:dunno::dunno:..
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Gotta pick your battles. One screw-up or inconvenience with a guest over an airport car (that you know will always happen at night in the rain) or a dead battery or whatever isn't worth worrying about when the downside is $5 mo.

And Jay has said on numerous occasions that he's not in business for the money anyway, just does it so he can hang with pilots. Why would he want to do anything to cut down on the number of potential companions?

N801BH said:
The point is Jay has bought the car and he provides it to customers so they can

1- Stay at his hotel ,which the city gets taxes from in the form of property taxes, resort taxes, sales taxes...etc..

2- Those same guests will eat at restaurants ,which the city gets taxes from

3- Those same guests will drink at a bar, which the city will get taxes from....

This can go on and on.......

Next year, when all the city workers get their "its owed to me" annual raises and revenue are down, what will they do, come put parking meters in Jay's hotel parking lot ?:dunno::dunno:..
Click to expand...
 
well at least they didn't raise taxes to pay for that beaurocrat.
 
You can always add a 'Port Aransas Courtesy Car Parking Fee" of 5 cents a day to every single room daily charge.

When people ask what it is you tell them . . . a fee increase charged by the city for the privilege of parking . . .

Then print up some post cards - no postage - and see if they'll complain . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
You can always add a 'Port Aransas Courtesy Car Parking Fee" of 5 cents a day to every single room daily charge.

When people ask what it is you tell them . . . a fee increase charged by the city for the privilege of parking . . .

Then print up some post cards - no postage - and see if they'll complain . . .
Click to expand...

Naw, we'll just suck it up.

It's good to be made aware of all the dumb little things that government does to make life difficult for airport business. This fee increase is right up there with trying to charge our skydiving operator $50/day, and not allowing tie-down ropes at the parking Ts because they're "dangerous". Just another unnecessary aggravation that contributes to the slow decline of GA.
 
Jay Honeck said:
not allowing tie-down ropes at the parking Ts because they're "dangerous".
Click to expand...

I sent you a PM about this a few days ago -- Is that really their reason? Who was even bored enough to notice and think about it?
 
Looking at a $750,000 plane...

Q: What's the cheapest part?
A: The owner
 
roddie said:
I sent you a PM about this a few days ago -- Is that really their reason? Who was even bored enough to notice and think about it?
Click to expand...

Yup. When we moved here, and noticed no tie down ropes, we offered to spend an afternoon cutting, tying, melting the tips, etc., so that each tie down spot would have ropes. We even offered to buy the rope.

Nope. "Someone could get hurt." My arguments that their liability for damaged planes due to NO tie downs fell on deaf ears.

Same with a weather computer in the FBO. The FBO has WiFi, but no computer for transient pilots to use to check weather.

When I noticed this, I offered to provide a FREE computer for pilots to use, at my expense.

Their response? "It could get stolen.". When I told the airport manager that I would provide another computer if it were to be stolen, he responded "This has to be approved by the city council."

That was over two years ago. :banghead:
 
Jay Honeck said:
Their response? "It could get stolen.". When I told the airport manager that I would provide another computer if it were to be stolen, he responded "This has to be approved by the city council."

That was over two years ago. :banghead:
Click to expand...

Your tax dollars at work.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Yup. When we moved here, and noticed no tie down ropes, we offered to spend an afternoon cutting, tying, melting the tips, etc., so that each tie down spot would have ropes. We even offered to buy the rope.

Nope. "Someone could get hurt." My arguments that their liability for damaged planes due to NO tie downs fell on deaf ears.

Same with a weather computer in the FBO. The FBO has WiFi, but no computer for transient pilots to use to check weather.

When I noticed this, I offered to provide a FREE computer for pilots to use, at my expense.

Their response? "It could get stolen.". When I told the airport manager that I would provide another computer if it were to be stolen, he responded "This has to be approved by the city council."

That was over two years ago. :banghead:
Click to expand...

I thought Texans were brighter than that....! Sounds like we exported your airport manager from Kalifornia.
 
Jay, do you attend city council meetings? Often times these issues can be resolved at city council meetings, particularly if they are covered by the local press. Ask the questions and state your case. You might be surprised that you can actually change policy sometimes.
 
Dav8or said:
Jay, do you attend city council meetings? Often times these issues can be resolved at city council meetings, particularly if they are covered by the local press. Ask the questions and state your case. You might be surprised that you can actually change policy sometimes.
Click to expand...

Having been hip-deep in the politics of my last home field in Iowa, I have learned that this approach nets you very little, but carries a high risk of failure. The odds of ****ing off the airport manager are better than your odds of success.

No, it's far more therapeutic for me to ***** about it here. :D
 
Jay, if it makes you feel any better, that increase in parking fees is considered airport revenue, and cannot be taken off the airport (assuming it is a Federally obligated airport). In theory, if the airport was self-sustaining, it would either 1) reduce rates somewhere else (i.e. hangars, fuel, etc) or 2) increase spending on maintenance, improvements, salaries, etc. If the airport is subsidized by the city, the fee increase would reduce the subsidy by a small amount, which is better for the long-term health of the airport.

Basically, your extra $60 a year might make your crooked airport manager richer, but not your crooked mayor :)
 
Brad Z said:
Jay, if it makes you feel any better, that increase in parking fees is considered airport revenue, and cannot be taken off the airport (assuming it is a Federally obligated airport). In theory, if the airport was self-sustaining, it would either 1) reduce rates somewhere else (i.e. hangars, fuel, etc) or 2) increase spending on maintenance, improvements, salaries, etc. If the airport is subsidized by the city, the fee increase would reduce the subsidy by a small amount, which is better for the long-term health of the airport.

Basically, your extra $60 a year might make your crooked airport manager richer, but not your crooked mayor :)
Click to expand...

Well, that's good to know. :D

I don't think anyone here is crooked, by the way. I just think they are not acting in the best interests of the airport or Port Aransas.

But what do I know? I'm just another taxpayer.
 
I'm not defending more taxes, but sometimes these user fees stay the same for 20 years, let's say. Then when they're jacked up to the inflation-adjusted equivalent of what they were 20 years ago, we all cry foul. Basically we had a really cheap privilege for the last decade. The bureaucrats would have been wiser to let them creep up with inflation.

Look at the banks. They're way worse. They used to get all their money from the difference between what interest they paid you for your savings and the interest they charged you on a loan. And they paid more employees out of it. Now they have far fewer employees and computers do most of the work, they pay us next to nothing on savings, and charge us all sorts of fees. They make enormous profits compared to two or three decades ago. They make bureaucrats look like small-time thieves.

Dan
 
Yeah, it was so cheap the pilot population dropped dramatically. Guess they needed more expensive hobbies. ......
And since the banks are so bad I guess that means we have to give the greedy, wasteful bureaucrats a pass, great idea. :nono:
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
I'm not defending more taxes, but sometimes these user fees stay the same for 20 years, let's say. Then when they're jacked up to the inflation-adjusted equivalent of what they were 20 years ago, we all cry foul. Basically we had a really cheap privilege for the last decade. The bureaucrats would have been wiser to let them creep up with inflation.

Look at the banks. They're way worse. They used to get all their money from the difference between what interest they paid you for your savings and the interest they charged you on a loan. And they paid more employees out of it. Now they have far fewer employees and computers do most of the work, they pay us next to nothing on savings, and charge us all sorts of fees. They make enormous profits compared to two or three decades ago. They make bureaucrats look like small-time thieves.

Dan
Click to expand...
That's just a crock. We pay taxes for the services the town, city, county, state, or federal government provides us. Then after years of said service paid for by taxes, these clowns figure out they cannot balance the budget without more revenue and we've closed the tax loophole so... USER FEES! Call it what you will, it is a tax. It doesn't matter if it is a fee to use ATC, park on a city street, or drive on a toll road. It is still a tax.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, I call it a duck. Government calls it a horse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top