OCR Text |
Show To the Editor: Dear Editor: In reading your article on the last council meeting I would like to question the expenditure expendi-ture of our tax money for a direct subsidy for the airport. First of all I question the thinking of this and past administrations ad-ministrations that the people of Milford need a lighted (when was the last time any sized group of citizens landed at night?), paved runways (Didn't you notice the nice smooth runways the last time a big group of Milfordites landed at the airport?), with covered hangers (covered Hangers! Oh, you didn't notice they were covered when we parked all two of them that are hangered in Milford). Even Nickey Hilton would be broke with a 50 occupancy ratio. If the airport cannot sell enough gas and rent enough hanger spaces to pay its own way without tax payer subsidy then cut the services. It seems that in recent years governmental govern-mental bodies, at all levels, try to run businesses that don't pay and worst of all do not benefit the majority of the tax payers. The airport is a drag on a bulging city budget and takes funds that could be used for the good of all the people, or better yet, to reduce our taxes. Last year the city purchased two used pumps (which turned out to be near junk, for $300 and now are going to expend $1500 more making the pumps cost $1800, not $1500. If any of us ran our business in this manner there would be no businesses busi-nesses operating here or any where else. If the F.F.A. and the State believe that the Milford Airport Air-port is so important to them then let them pay for the operation oper-ation of the airport, not the citizens of Milford. Sincerely, Talmadge Gray |