The PTAA meeting was postponed one week with little notice and held on 11/21/00. Perhaps the change was advertised in a paper, but if so, I missed it. Certainly others missed it as the crowd was not as large as anticipated and some of the people I expected to see there were absent. Perhaps if they would quit changing the date, or else hold it at 5:00 p.m. more people from both sides of  the fence could attend. I personally took a vacation day to be able to attend.

The meeting took place at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21st 2000.  Seating was limited, and many people were forced to stand.

As usual, they gave each speaker a whopping three minutes each to speak, and from where I was standing, I could clearly see that on at least two occasions, the clock started before the speaker did. On the plus side, while I and a couple others ran a few seconds over, we were able to finish though it was clear they wanted us to stop. (I had previously timed my speech at 3 minutes 14 seconds, and left off one small part to try and get it under the wire. I didn't make it and ran over about seven seconds.) Perhaps they could see fit to allot us four minutes each in the future.

There was a group of senior citizens there speaking out against the hub, their main concern being that the retirement communities they live in are seriously threatened by the hub. (We made sure they had a place to sit.)

Only one person spoke out for the hub, and while I admire his courage for speaking, it was obvious he was clueless as to the reality of the situation. He wanted to insure jobs for his kids. Guess he wants his kids to grow up and move boxes for a living. I hope the alternative I presented (discussed below) is more to his liking.

One speaker expressed concern that part of the responsibility of the Airport Authority in this matter is that the local zoning boards be kept informed of the plans, to use while planning residential growth. He stated he attended a zoning board meeting recently where they approved changing an area zoned agricultural to residential, despite it being clearly in the 65db zone indicated by the project. Indeed, he stated the zoning board members were not even sure of what a 65db zone was. Clearly the Airport Authority has fallen down on the job on this one. I see potential lawsuits coming from this.

On a more positive note, I could see that at least one board member (Not Walt, of course) was paying better attention to what was being said than the last meeting. We are making progress with them after all.

Overall I think the meeting went well.  Below is the speech I gave (or tried to give. I did have to leave out the final paragraph which is addressed to Walt Cockerham personally. I hope he can either read it here, or else will see it in the copy I left with the lady at the front desk.)

Here's the speech:

There's been a lot of debate over the FedEx hub. I can see the points of each side, however, there's one major point that has been overlooked. One that would be acceptable to almost everyone: An alternative use for the property that the hub would take up. Instead of a FedEx hub, and instead of building nothing at all, why not build a technology hub, much like Research Triangle Park? Consider this: 1. RTP is only 8 miles long by 2 miles wide, yet has over 140 technology and research businesses there employing over 50,000 people.* Source: The RTP home page, http://www.rtp.org 2. The same land the new runway would take up could hold from 25 to 60 businesses similar to those in RTP alone. 3. No constant night-time flights to disturb people 4. No need to buy or soundproof houses in the surrounding area 5. The land would not be dependent upon a single business for it's usage. (What happens if FedEx decides to leave? Which makes more sense: Rent to one customer or rent to fifty?) 6. More jobs, better paying jobs. (The average annual wage in RTP is $54,145, v.s. the $20,000 a year 90% of the FedEx employees would earn. Higher wages means more money collected from income taxes.) 7. A "mini-RTP" could employ over 25,000 people, not just 1600 as with the FedEx proposal, or zero if we build nothing. 8. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no law or rule against using existing airport land for this purpose. You already lease property to companies that are not airlines. If there is a law or rule, it can be changed. 9. RTP was built because of encouragement by the local government, easy access to interstate highways and the airport, and local colleges and universities to draw upon. 10. Our park would be conveniently located between Raleigh and Charlotte, with I-85 and I-40 nearby as well as access to our airport, which is currently being used at less than 30% capacity. We have many fine schools in our area to draw upon. (NC A&T, GTCC, Greensboro College, High Point University, Davidson County Community College, ECPI, Forsyth Technical Community College, and more. How do I know that businesses would be interested in building here? Simple, I asked. I sent out a postcard style survey (return postage paid) to 30 companies at RTP without saying anything at all about FedEx or identifying who I am. It read: If the cities of Greensboro and High Point, NC were to build a smaller version of Research Triangle Park, conveniently located near the Piedmont Triad International Airport, with easy access to Interstate Highways I-40, I-85 and the future I-74, at a cost to businesses equal to or less than that which currently exists in Research Triangle Park, would your company consider building or expanding your business to this area at some future date? ______Yes_______No As expected, I got some "no" answers, but more importantly, I got some "yes" answers too! Think about this! There are businesses willing to build here! ABEST Communications recently chose to build a research and development center in Thomasville, only a short distance away. Now, do we "need" another runway at our airport? LaGuardia Airport in New York has only two main runways, yet handles five times the traffic we do. Improvements in technology will increase capacity for any given runway. It will be a long time before we actually need another runway, if ever. If you think we will need a bigger terminal, then use the land you were going to build the FedEx sorting facility on. That land would practically double your current terminal size, and it's located close to the existing terminal. Personal note to Walt Cockerham: Walt, I know you want the FedEx hub as your legacy, and I know that you have done quite a lot of good in the past. Think about this, though: Would you rather have as your legacy a single business that pays it's employees barely above minimum wage and will bring only a few thousand jobs to our area, or would you rather bring in twenty, thirty, or more businesses using the same land, that will bring in 20,000, 30,000 or more jobs paying from twice to five times the minimum wage? If nothing else, set up a commission to study the proposal. You might be surprised by the results. Wayne Quigley High Point, NC 27261 www.boycottfedex.com

Note: I gave out some copies of the survey there, and asked that some be given to the board members.

If any of the other speakers would like me to post their comments, feel free to send them to me. Thanks!

Close This Window