Don't believe everything you read. Mark Gruber wants to chase away commercial development. He is a no-growther of the worst kind.

Why are PDs bad? How do they lower quality? How are revisions to the UDC lowering quality? Notice that none of these things are answered by Moore. He just asserts that changes are being made (but not before the election as he contends) and uses innuendo to suggest that the changes must lower quality. In reality, the UDC is so rigid that it often drives poor quality by excluding creativity that could result in higher quality. Old town standards are a prime example. In addition, when the UDC was passed, Moore himself said that it wasn't a perfect document and it would require changes in the future.

A PD is simply a process, not a set of standards. One would think that someone who was mayor for six years would know this. Either Moore has a fundamental misunderstanding of municipal planning, or he is intentionally trying to mislead the reader.

If the changes are lowering quality, PROVE IT, don't just assert it. www.moore-lies.com for the facts, not spin.

"During his six years as mayor, Moore said he made every effort to run the trustee meetings in a way that ensured that everyone's voice was heard and that no one felt ignored."

Really? Not from my perspective. I was totally ignored the last year of my term. In fact, "steamrolled" comes to mind. Hauger and Towner are only upset because they are finally in the minority. Neither seemed to have a problem with 5-2 votes and disrespecting the minority when they were on the winning side. It was just such a vote that got the town sued over the airport in the first place, but I don't hear Towner or Hauger bemoaning that process.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. You got outvoted. Grow up and deal with it like adults.

Make that $300 in "airport" contributions (as Andrew would say) that Moore conveniently forgot to include on his "transparency" list.

I have a copy of Mark Gruber's campaign finance report that was on file (filed 3/15/10) at the time the mayor wrote his famous e-mail (dated 3/19/10). That report shows $200 in contributions from the airport, however Moore's e-mail shows no airport contributions. An amended report (filed 3/22/10) by Gruber shows the refunds.

I've tried several ways to come up with a nicer way of saying the mayor lied, but if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

The mayor lied.

I'm not sure how my being a pilot is germane to the conversation or how it fits into the context of your response, except perhaps to suggest (subliminally or otherwise) to those reading these comments that I am somehow biased toward airports. I thought the topic was TABOR and enterprise funds. But since you brought it up, yes I am a former airline pilot, however I do not now, nor have I ever flown out of Erie Municipal Airport, so this discussion is not personal to me. In terms of being precise, I am that way by nature, not based on aviation training. As a corporate manager, I'm sure you can agree.

I would add one point to your thoughts, Andrew. As you have said, "The key is we have to ensure we don't jeopardize the enterprise status by funding airport related activities outside the airport enterprise fund in excess of what TABOR allows."

We also need to ensure that we don't jeopardize the enterprise status by doing just the opposite -- by funding non airport related activities with the airport enterprise fund. For example, if the roughly 3/5 general taxpayer benefit of which you speak turns out to be more than 3/5 of the cost paid by the general fund, then the airport enterprise fund would be subsidizing a general economic study. This a true subsidy, as there are relatively few restrictions on what the general fund can accept for revenues, unlike the airport fund, which cannot accept subsidies.

The determination of cost/benefit assignment is the challenge that will likely face the Board of Trustees and is probably best discussed and debated in an open public forum, such as a board meeting.

I must respectfully disagree with Mayor Moore's assessment of subsidies. The airport operates under an "enterprise fund," which by law must be self-sustaining. Only a very small portion of the revenue to the fund can legally come from outside sources, such as the general fund. Currently, no general fund dollars are put into the airport enterprise fund.

To say the airport economic development study was "subsidized" by the taxpayers is a not altogether correct. "Subsidized" is an inflammatory and misleading term with a specific connotation. Webster defines a subsidy as “a grant or gift of money.”

In this case, the a portion of the study was paid for by the taxpayers, not subsidized. That portion of the economic study that benefitted the town as a whole was paid for by the town as a whole. That portion that benefitted the airport directly was paid for by the airport enterprise fund.

The taxpayers no more “subsidized” the study than the taxpayers “subsidize” the police force. This was a simple general fund expenditure designed to economically maximize an asset, hopefully gaining a return to the entire town (i.e. general fund revenues) greater than the expense of the study. One could argue, however, that the community center is, in fact, subsidized by the general fund, as the revenues fall far short of operating expenditures.

By definition, it is all but illegal to subsidize an enterprise fund, and to do so now would be a violation of TABOR.

Glenn Massarotti
Mayor Pro Tem