# Closing Miegs Field **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525 "2003-03-31T20:15:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/121 "2003-04-10T22:58:50Z")
> [@](#): > > I have not seen any credible evidence, nor heard any compelling arguments, that convince me Meigs is not an aviation terror risk. You have not provided any evidence that it _is_ a terror risk. Since you are saying there is a terror risk, it is your responsibility to provide evidence that supports your position. I did not “invite you to get lost.” I suggested that you learn the rules of debating before you try to debate. > [@](#): > > I invited _him_ to construct an argument worth my attention instead. What’s “worth your attention”? I have provided facts to support my side of the debate. Do you not accept facts? _You_ have not disputed any of those facts by presenting other facts. I and others _have_ made arguments that are worthy of attention. _You_ have not. > [@](#): > > For that reason alone I wouldn’t _dream_ of asking you to leave Oh, no? What about (emphasis where applicable): "If you want to talk about the risk of someone trucking a bomb under Lower Wacker Drive, **take it to another thread** and “If non-Meigs-related threats are worthy of discussion, surely they’re worthy of their own threads” (the latter clearly an invitation to leave). And about that last one. **Robot Arm** said “The existence of other alleged terror threats, of equal or greater likelihood than Meigs, is relevant to this debate.” Since they are relevant to the discussion, they should not have their own threads. **KoalaBear** : You have ignored factual evidence, and then claim that we are not proving our case because we have not provided evidence thats “good enough for _you_”. Hey, all we have are the facts. Why let facts get in the way? You have **not** provided any evidence to prove that Meigs presented a terror threat. You said it in your very last post: > [@](#): > > My position \*was and \*is that Meigs is a credible aviation terror risk But you **refuse** to give evidence to back up your claim. You make accusations, then immediately do the same thing you accuse others of. You call **Broomstick** dishonest. But **you** are the one who keeps shouting “Terror threat! Terror threat!” when you know good and goddamn well that there is no terror threat. Before you call someone dishonest, you should have alook in the mirror. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/122 "2003-04-10T23:39:59Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ I have not seen any credible evidence, nor heard any compelling arguments, that convince me Meigs is not an aviation terror risk. Again, see it is YOU who assert Meigs was a “terror risk” it is up to YOU to provide evidence. Cite, please? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ Broomstick’s spin because her dishonesty is more sincere position that it is YOU have the the false view of reality. I have than Daley’s when they both seek to impose a false view of reality to protect their respective interests. And it is my made my arguments. Some are based on personal experience with the type of aircraft in question. I have provided cites and links to supporting sites for my argument. You… you have provided _nothing_ to support your side of the argument other than your own circular reasoning. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ Thus the conundrum for me, personally, is the reconciliation of mutually exclusive values: one one hand, I disbelieve the principle that the end justifies the means; on the other hand, to the extent the airport is closed I’m satisfied of its security. And you totally blast past my point that the airport COULD have been legally closed without violating any law whatsoever. In other words, both of YOUR ends - security and honesty - could have been satisfied and were not. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ I agree with you. The City owes the citizens a candid explanation for its actions, especially when it anticipates a tough sale. I’m ashamed of the City’s exhibition of cowardice and dishonesty in the matter _ **My God, we both agree on something!!! Stop the presses! Koala admits city of Chicago and Mayor Daley not perfect!!!** _ > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ Well, it’s a good thing for us you’re not the City’s emergency service coordinator: the nearest alternative heliport I can think of is at Cook County Hospital, which is no further away than it was before Meigs was closed. Good thing you’re not running the city emergency services, either - the old Cook County hospital doesn’t exist anymore. Extra credit points if you can give the name of the new city hospital. Does THAT one have a heliport? I don’t know - I’m not familar with the facility. Hence my phrase _“that I am aware of”_. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ If you were in that much of a hurry you’d beeline to the University of Chicago from Midway. It also has a heliport, by the way, which Northwestern Memorial does not. Is the closest Level I trauma center not good enough for you? Depends on what I need. Gunshot wound? I want the county hospital, not the acedemic/research institutions. Childbirth? Anywhere BUT county. Different hospitals have different areas of expertise. Medical transportation includes not only trauma and emergency but also frail patients being transported for treatment. I know several private pilots involved in charity-run medical transport. Sometimes they transport to near one hospital, sometimes to near another. It all depends on the need of the patient. Oh, by the way - Northwestern DID ask for a heliport about 10 years ago. They were told no - use the one at Meigs. Then, when Meigs closed the first time they asked for one, but when the airport was re-opened they were told no, use the one at Meigs. So basically, the city (in my view) screwed the hospital on this one. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ Most certainly it is. But I happen to be debating with you, in which case it would be prudent to remove the log from your own eye before pointing to the sliver in his. Demonstrate where I have lied in a statement of fact - we’ll let the others in thread judge the validity of your claims - or take back that statement, Koala. [OPINION]Koala is acusing me of falsehood because he has run out of logical arguments and is losing the debate. Dirty pool, if you ask me[/OPINION} > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ Indeed they have, and I quote Mr. Ridge: “I am not about to second guess any mayor or any governor for making an executive decision to do or not to do something they feel will have or have not an impact on their community.” Nice selective quoting. Let me throw in another: _Ridge said he was under the impression that Daley’s decision to shutter Meigs had nothing to do with terrorist threats._ Don’t like that one? How about that Ridge _“was personally “disappointed” to see Meigs closed.”_ As I said - nice selective quoting, Koala. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by KoalaBear_ Citations, please? We have supplied them ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/123 "2003-04-11T00:06:19Z")
(My remarks are addressed to KoalaBear.) I still think my analogy is relevant and potentially illuminating, and you were the one who first mentioned Soldier Field in this thread, but I’ll shelve it for the moment and just ask a couple direct questions based on your statements: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KoalaBear \* > My position _was_ and _is_ that Meigs is a credible aviation terror risk, and that the City was justified closing it for that reason. Why do you believe that Meigs Field was a terror risk? Why do you believe that closing Meigs (in fact, plowing up the runway to make it unusable) was required to deal with that risk? > [@](#): > > I’m ashamed of the City’s exhibition of cowardice and dishonesty in the matter. Are you saying the city was dishonest in its original explanation of the closing of Meigs, or are they being dishonest now when they say the closing was not for reasons of security? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/124 "2003-04-11T10:46:53Z")
Why is prior notice for closing an airport so important? You have to remember that airplanes do not stay in one place. Their purpose is to go long distances and go there fast. A high percentage of pilots landing at any airport are NOT locals and will not be privy to local trends, news, and information. Pilots are dependent on a network of information sources to let them know what’s happening where they’re going. A large part of that is weather - if you’re starting out on 1000 mile journey the weather where you start may or may not have anything to do with the weather where you’re going. Since the weather can affect whether or not you can safely land, or even if you’re going to be able to get where you’re going, it’s a very important thing to know even before you take off. Another aspect to all this is knowing the condition of your landing area. You need to know what the airport looks like and where it’s located. You need to know the radio frequencies used around the airport, length of the runways, what their surfaces are like, and the lighting systems used at night if you’re flying after dark. Again, there is a whole network that provides this information, from diagrams of the airport layout and descriptions of features in text to GPS coordinates. Someone coming from St. Louis in a Bonanza (which we know there was at least one of ) or a Mooney (another type of plane I clearly identified from picutres of those stranded at Meigs). will take about one and a half hours to make the trip. If, on March 30, someone had left St. Louis at 10:30 to go to Meigs all information available to them - maps, reference books, the nice people at Flight Service who give you recent updates on the stuff in maps and books, talking to Uncle Louie who lives at Lake Point Towers - would have said there’s a nice, accomodating airport on the lakefront for you. They would have arrived to find the runway destroyed. Here’s another scenario: When airplanes fly on an instrument flight plan they have to list their destination, and they have to list an alternate. This is an airport they will go to if they can’t reach their first airport. Any airport can be either a destination or an alternate. If someone had listed Meigs as an alternate (which isn’t that unusual), had had a problem and needed to divert at 11:45 on March 30 … they would have arrived to see the runway filled with heavy equipment and unusable. Keep in mind, this would be someone _who is already having some other problem_. (That’s why they’re diverting to Meigs) Here’s another one: someone is flying over Lake Michigan and starts having engine problems halfway across. They’re going to try to make land or get as close as possible. If they head for Meigs, thinking it’s available to use, by the time they arrive they may not have enough engine power to climb over the tall buildings. So… if on March 30 this had happened you might have wound up with an airplane in distress and not functioning well arriving and finding no safe landing spot - in which case the alternatives are the lake itself (very poor likelihood of survival), Lake Shore Drive (if you get hit by the traffic it’s bad news) or Grant Park (watch out for tourists). This is not a safe situation for anyone. In this scenario, if the pilot had known beforehand he might have aimed for Gary or Waukegan - but he didn’t know. He couldn’t know. Situations like the above are WHY prior notice is so important to closing an airport or doing work on the landings areas. 30 days notice isn’t enough to update maps or printed references, but it’s enough for notification to Flight Service and various Internet outlets. So our hypothetical St. Louis doctor in the Bonanza can call up Flight Service (FSS) before he ever leaves St. Louis and FSS can tell him “by the way - they’re going to shut down the airport on March 30. Plan accordingly”. Or someone coming from New York and planning to cross the big lake can consider other alternative airports in the event of an emergency either in the air or at the intended destination airport. Situations like the above are WHY airports are closed by painting X’s - not carving them - or by blocking a runway entrance. It allows for those who DIDN’T get the message to make a safe landing. It allows use of the runway as an emergency landing field for a few weeks, until the message gets out that the runway is closed. And that’s why I argue that Daley’s manner of closing Meigs - physically carving up the runway - was hazardous. If someone had planned on that runway being there, or had needed a runway badly, a tragedy could have occurred. And that’s why I also say that, regardless of his “safety” alibi - which we now know was a _lie_ - what he did was in reckless disregard for the safety of those in the air - and those on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![PVenkman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed8c4c/32.png) [@PVenkman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PVenkman)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/125 "2003-04-11T18:34:54Z")
Did Meigs pose some kind of terrorist threat? Of course. HOWEVER, every single other airport in the country does as well! In fact simply destroying all the airports wouldn’t remove this threat, ad many aircraft are capable of operating from any reasonably smooth field. The only way to eliminate this threat is to destroy every single aircraft in existance! KoalaBear, can you think of a single credible attack that was possible when Meigs was open that is not still possible today? I can’t, but perhaps I’ve missed something. In fact, most of the scenarios I can envision would be much more difficult to carry out from Meigs simply because the security there was much stricter than at any other airport of comparable size I can think of. And what upsets you so much about the statement that Daley broke both Illinois state law and a FAA regulation? It’s a simple statement of fact. He may not ever be prosecuted for it (given that he’s a Daley and this is Chicago, I’d be surprised if he was), but it doesn’t change the fact that he did break the law. And it’s been explained that Meigs tower monitored and controlled air traffic over the lakefront. How can shutting this facility down increase safety? To me it seems certain this will decrease the safety of every passenger and pilot traveling through the Chicago airspace. ---
**Author:** ![KoalaBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KoalaBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KoalaBear)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/126 "2003-04-12T00:10:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Broomstick_: > > And you totally blast past my point that the airport COULD have been legally closed without violating any law whatsoever. No, I totally blast past your delusion that you’re qualified to render a legal opinion on this matter. Are you even _intermittently_ conscious of anything outside your own hatred? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Is the closest Level I trauma center not good enough for you? > > Depends on what I need. That’s _weak_, Broomstick. If someone is emergent enough to be airlifted to a trauma center, they won’t care which one has the nicer gift shop. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Then he can tell the TRUTH - or isn’t that important to you? > > > > … it would be prudent to remove the log from your own eye before pointing to the sliver in his. > > Demonstrate where I have lied in a statement of fact … My pleasure: “_The Department of Homeland Security, the Transporation Security Administration, the CIA, and the FBI have all stated that Meigs is NOT a security risk and recommended NOT closing it_.” The _CIA_, Broomstick? The **CIA**?! Frankly I’d be delighted to read any of these briefs, but the one that elevates Meigs to the proportion of a national security interest has _got_ to be the best of the lot. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Robot Arm_: > > I still think my analogy is relevant and potentially illuminating, and you were the one who first mentioned Soldier Field in this thread… _God forbid_ we overlook a point that is relevant and potentially illuminating. I’ll answer the question. > [@](#): > > Would you support closing Soldier Field by the same methods and the same rationale as Meigs was closed? If not, what is the difference between the two facilities that justifies their different treatment? My gut reaction would be purely ambivalent: I would neither support nor oppose the City’s decision to close the stadium for any reason or no reason. If they said they shuttered it to foreclose a terror risk, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. If they later said it wasn’t a terror risk but an obstruction to a city plan, I’d be disappointed in their lack of integrity, but I wouldn’t be writhing in orgiastic spasms of hatred. > [@](#): > > Why do you believe that Meigs Field was a terror risk? I wouldn’t assume an airport on the lakefront to be secure for the same reason I wouldn’t assume a handgun in the yard to be unloaded: positive proof of security must be established before you can certify the improbability of harm. Aircraft have proven to be a uniquely effective means of achieving both practical and psychological terror, and we’ve been caught with our pants down at large and small airports alike. Anecdotal evidence of safety (“the odds are there would be no fire at all”) and security (“rumor has it they’ve been quite thorough about this”) do not inspire my confidence _particularly_ in light of their source. > [@](#): > > Why do you believe that closing Meigs (in fact, plowing up the runway to make it unusable) was required to deal with that risk? Strictly speaking, I don’t. I’m sure the CIA report I’m waiting to read will certify the airport to have been both infinitely secure and perfectly safe. But inasmuch as it wasn’t my decision to close the facility I can’t speak to the nature of the tactics employed. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/127 "2003-04-12T00:52:27Z")
> [@](#): > > positive proof of security must be established before you can certify the improbability of harm. You’re asking us to prove a negative. We have shown that light aircraft would be a poor choice to use as terror weapons. We have shown that Daley himself did not believe that Meigs was a terror risk. We have provided logical arguments as to why Meigs was not a terror risk. But you are the one maintaining that Meigs was a terror risk. Since that is your position, it is up to you to support it; it is not up to us to disprove it. You have not provided any citations to support your position. You have not provided any statements from people who are in a position to know whether there is a risk, that Meigs posed a terror risk. (Except for Daley himself, who A) has been trying to close the airport for years; and B) who has admitted that the airport did not pose a terror risk. Daley has denied that he wants to build a casino in its place; but interestingly Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has said that he would not oppose granting a license for one. Cozy, isn’t it?) I say again: You have not provided any evidence to support your contention. It is up to you to provide facts that support what you are saying. In the spirit of debate, we’d all like to see such evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/128 "2003-04-12T01:38:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > \*\* > but interestingly Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has said that he would not oppose granting a license for one. Cozy, isn’t it?) > \*\* Remember my earlier post? Gov. Blagojevich, throughout his political career, has been regarded as the creation of Richard “Dick” Mell, a powerful North Side alderman, and staunch ally of the Daleys. Why wouldn’t Blagojevich give approval? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/129 "2003-04-12T01:55:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KoalaBear \* > No, I totally blast past your delusion that you’re qualified to render a legal opinion on this matter. Are you even _intermittently_ conscious of anything outside your own hatred? How do YOU know I’m “not qualified” to render a legal opinion? On what do you base this? Have you awareness of my educational status? My experience with law? Perhaps I have consulted an attorney. Perhaps I haven’t. You don’t know that. Have YOU investigated, even slightly, the legal issues and precedents involved? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Depends on what I need. > > That’s _weak_, Broomstick. If someone is emergent enough to be airlifted to a trauma center, they won’t care which one has the nicer gift shop… So… we should close Northwestern’s trauma unit because the slight risk of terrorism out of a particular airfield outweighs the sure benefit of transporting 200+ seriously ill and/or injured people per year? We have such an overabundance of trauma capacity that we can discard this service in downtown Chicago? > [@](#): > > The _CIA_, Broomstick? The **CIA**?! Frankly I’d be delighted to read any of these briefs, but the one that elevates Meigs to the proportion of a national security interest has _got_ to be the best of the lot. Dude, you don’t need a national security briefing for this. It was a quote by a spokesman - which I’d consider getting a cite on IF it would do any good whatsoever. Judging by your reaction to my “revelation” Daley is a law-breaking liar, though, I’d fear inducing a fit of apoplexy in you. > [@](#): > > Aircraft have proven to be a uniquely effective means of achieving both practical and psychological terror LARGE aircraft have been used for terror. Things weighing well over 300,000 lbs fully loaded. [OPINION]We have an aviation-phobe in our midst [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > But inasmuch as it wasn’t my decision to close the facility I can’t speak to the nature of the tactics employed. So you endorse unlawful activities on the part of government officials? It’s OK if they suspend due process and democracy? This is OK for you? [mind-boggling] ---
**Author:** ![KoalaBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KoalaBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KoalaBear)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/130 "2003-04-13T05:04:46Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Broomstick_: > > > > Demonstrate where I have lied in a statement of fact … > > My pleasure: “_The Department of Homeland Security, the Transporation Security Administration, the CIA, and the FBI have all stated that Meigs is NOT a security risk and recommended NOT closing it_.” You’re a **liar** , Broomstick. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/131 "2003-04-13T19:52:44Z")
Hardly. What this is, **Koala** , is you stubbornly refusing to admit that you are 1. wrong 2. phobic about aircraft (it’s OK if you are - you are entitled to your feelings just so long as you admit they have an internal origin and not an external one) 3. and calling everyone who doesn’t agree with your phobias liars Strictly speaking, since neither of us has supplied any cite in reference to the above statement it has been neither proven nor disproven. Untill you provide a cite from one of those agencies stating they they recommended closing, or I provide one for my side, then the statement remains in dispute and you have no basis on which to call me a liar. You, on the other hand, have failed to back up any one of your stated positions (other than repetitiously bleating “It IS! It IS!”) and failed to answer many of the questions posed to you. This in addition to repeatedly displaying ignorance and misinformation about aircraft and aviation. All in all, I haven’t been impressed with you. Except your utter stubbornness. Now I need to consider if it is really worth the time to provide cites to an unarmed opponent in a battle of wits. Although I had hoped this thread would result in an intelligent DISCUSSION of the issue at hand it has degenerated considerably. ---
**Author:** ![KoalaBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KoalaBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KoalaBear)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/132 "2003-04-13T20:04:35Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Broomstick_: > > > > Demonstrate where I have lied in a statement of fact … > > My pleasure: “_The Department of Homeland Security, the Transporation Security Administration, the CIA, and the FBI have all stated that Meigs is NOT a security risk and recommended NOT closing it._” I’m calling your bluff, Broomstick. It’s time to show your hand or fold. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/133 "2003-04-13T20:26:17Z")
Here are some cites for the “Meigs field is not a problem” side of this argument: [Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge:](http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030409_meigs_update.html) > [@](#): > > Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Tom Ridge, who was in Chicago on Tuesday, April 8, told reporters that he occasionally used Meigs Field when he was Pennsylvania governor and that he was personally disappointed to see the airport closed. DHS was never consulted regarding the airport’s terror threat potential, he said. This link has the ACTUAL security recommendations for all Chicago airports, including [Meigs](http://www.ohare.com/doa/avi_news/doa_avi_news_pr_95.shtm), issued just over a week prior to the destruction of Meigs field. Nowhere is it stated that “digging up the pavement” is warranted. On to the next link, with one Mr. Blakely. [Statement from Marion C. Blakely (head guy at the FAA)](http://www1.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1727) > [@](#): > > FAA STATEMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ADMINISTRATOR MARION C. BLAKEY IN RESPONSE TO CLOSING OF MEIGS FIELD > > We at the FAA were concerned to learn this morning of the decision to close Meigs Field. Already, we have heard from members of the general aviation community and we share their concern. Removing any centrally located airport such as Meigs from the system only diminishes capacity and puts added pressure on O’Hare and Midway airports. Sounds to me like the FAA thinks it’s a bad idea [Daley Strikes Again](http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/apr5-2003/An-129-ga-security-m.html) > [@](#): > > On Mar. 22nd, the FAA issued a Notam establishing a small temporary flight restriction area over downtown Chicago. > > It initially refused Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s request to institute a permanent no-fly zone over the city, arguing that the threat to Chicago was not on the same level as Washington and New York. But FAA and TSA caved to political pressure when Daley took his case to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, demanding that Chicago get “the same thing as Mickey and Minnie.” > > Despite Daley’s previous attempts to close his city’s downtown airport, the TFR permits normal flight ops along the lakefront and around Meigs Field. Sounds like the FAA and TSA didn’t think Meigs itself was a problem even after they “caved” and granted a TFR over the actual skyscrapers themselves. Now, **Koala** let’s see some evidence for YOUR side of the argument. Surely, if this little airport was such a hazard SOME government authority (outside of Daley, who has conflicts of interest up the wazhoo on this one) would have made some mention of it. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/134 "2003-04-13T20:37:11Z")
**KoalaBear** : We have been asking you to provide some evidence to back up your claims. > [@](#): > > It’s time to show your hand or fold. ---
**Author:** ![KoalaBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KoalaBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KoalaBear)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/135 "2003-04-14T00:43:58Z")
You need a straight flush, Broomstick. In other words you need to prove that the Department of Homeland Security **AND** the Transporation Safety Administration **AND** the Central Intelligence Agency **AND** the Federal Bureau of Investigation have **ALL** stated that (a) Meigs is **NOT** a security risk and (b) recommended **NOT** closing it. Let’s have a look at your hand: 1. [EAA.ORG](http://EAA.ORG) – [NEWS](http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030409_meigs_update.html): “MORE PARK SPACE, NOT TERRORISM THE REASON MEIGS DEMOLISHED – Homeland Security Chief Ridge ‘Disappointed’ In Runway Destruction.” **Face Value** (DHS, TSA, CIA or FBI): **NONE**. **Risk Assessment** : **NONE**. “‘DHS was never consulted regarding the airport’s terror threat potential,’ [Ridge] said.” **Recommendation** : **NONE**. “Ridge was also aware that the city wanted to close the airport well before Sept. 11, but declined to second-guess the mayor’s motives.” 2. [OHARE.COM](http://OHARE.COM) – [PRESS RELEASE](http://www.ohare.com/doa/avi_news/doa_avi_news_pr_95.shtm): “THE CHICAGO AIRPORT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTS ELEVATED ALERT STATUS” **Face Value** (DHS, TSA, CIA or FBI): **NONE**. **Risk assessment** : **NONE**. “All vehicles entering Midway, O’Hare and Meigs Field will be subject to random inspection.” **Recommendation** : **NONE**. “Travelers should arrive to the airport at least two hours prior to flight departures.” 3. [FAA.GOV](http://FAA.GOV) – [PRESS RELEASE](http://www1.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/1062?id=1727): “FAA STATEMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ADMINISTRATOR MARION C. BLAKEY IN RESPONSE TO CLOSING OF MEIGS FIELD” **Face Value** (DHS, TSA, CIA or FBI): **NONE**. **Risk assessment** : **NONE**. **Recommendation** : **NONE**. 4. [LANDINGS.COM](http://LANDINGS.COM) – [NEWS](http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/apr5-2003/An-129-ga-security-m.html): “Daley Strikes Again” **Face Value** (DHS, TSA, CIA or FBI): **NONE**. **Risk assessment** : **NONE**. “It initially refused Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s request to institute a permanent no-fly zone over the city… But FAA and TSA caved to political pressure when Daley took his case to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge…” **Recommendation** : **NONE**. “…the TFR permits normal flight ops along the lakefront and around Meigs Field.” There’s not even a low pair here, Broomstick. You gambled your integrity and lost. Ask yourself whether you **really** want to pursue this debate any further before you ride the reply button like a bad driver rides the clutch. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/136 "2003-04-14T01:26:50Z")
What debate? You haven’t supported your position. There can’t be a debate unless you do. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/137 "2003-04-14T02:16:47Z")
Have to agree, **Johnny** - every time we come up with a refutation, provide cites, etc, **Koala** screams NOT GOOD ENOUGH and ups the ante. **Koala** - it’s time for YOU to support YOUR POSITION. YOU provide cites for YOUR position that Meigs somehow poses a danger severe enough to justify closing it. Quoting Mayor Daley does not suffice. Cease calling people liars. ESPECIALLY since you provide _nothing_ to support your position. And please remember I left for _the other readers of this thread_ to determine the veracity of our respective claims, not you nor me. You are being irrational. If you want to indulge in irrationality and hysterical name calling take it to the Pit. Great Debates is for discussion, not name-calling. ---
**Author:** ![KoalaBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KoalaBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KoalaBear)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/138 "2003-04-14T20:56:20Z")
**PVenkman** : I apologize for the delay in my reply – I had a bigger fish to fry, so to speak. Since you’re entering the thread closer to the end than the beginning, let’s review the most important facts: Meigs Field is closed. If and when Northerly Island is reopened, it will be a patch of greenspace rather than an airport. Debating the issue is interesting and fun, but it’s also _purely academic_, a fact that bears repeating since it seems to have been overlooked in the crossfire. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by PVenkman_: > > Did Meigs pose some kind of terrorist threat? Of course. HOWEVER, every single other airport in the country does as well! I agree with you: airports are credible terror risks. Meigs was an airport, therefore Meigs was a credible terror risk. > [@](#): > > In fact simply destroying all the airports wouldn’t remove this threat, ad many aircraft are capable of operating from any reasonably smooth field. The only way to eliminate this threat is to destroy every single aircraft in existance! There are other more prwctical options. For example, why not close those airports whose operational risk exceeds their benefit to the community? > [@](#): > > KoalaBear, can you think of a single credible attack that was possible when Meigs was open that is not still possible today? The City of Chicago owned and operated Meigs Field and was responsible for its security – it would be liable for any breach of that security that resulted in the loss of property or life. However, it would not be similarly liable if a terrorist attack were launched from an airport whose safety and security is the responsibility of another municipality or the federal government. > [@](#): > > And what upsets you so much about the statement that Daley broke both Illinois state law and a FAA regulation? It doesn’t upset me at all, quite frankly, it’s just irrelevant to the discussion. If Daley committed one or more felonies in the exercise of an executive decision he should be indicted and tried, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking it would reverse the decision itself. > [@](#): > > And it’s been explained that Meigs tower monitored and controlled air traffic over the lakefront. How can shutting this facility down increase safety? There is TFR downtown, an ATC site in Elgin and a NORAD installation in McHenry – how does the loss of Meig’s control tower significantly degrade airspace security? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Broomstick_: > > Have to agree, Johnny - every time we come up with a refutation, provide cites, etc, Koala screams NOT GOOD ENOUGH and ups the ante. Here, let me throw you both a [bone](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm). > [@](#): > > Koala - it’s time for YOU to support YOUR POSITION. You’ll have to figure how to put me on the defensive first. I don’t owe you an easy argument any more than the City owes you a lakefront airport, so that’s **two** luxuries you’ll have to learn to live without. > [@](#): > > Cease calling people liars… Cease telling people lies. > [@](#): > > You are being irrational… Not telling grandiose lies is the _easiest_ way to avoid being caught telling them; not inviting people to expose them afterward is the _second_ easiest. You handed me the rope, I hung you with it. What’s irrational about that? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/139 "2003-04-14T21:07:12Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Koala - it’s time for YOU to support YOUR POSITION. > > You’ll have to figure how to put me on the defensive first. I don’t owe you an easy argument any more than the City owes you a lakefront airport, so that’s two luxuries you’ll have to learn to live without. I can see that you still do not understand the concept of debating. You made a claim; to wit: > [@](#): > > airports are credible terror risks. Meigs was an airport, therefore Meigs was a credible terror risk. You have not produced **any** evidence, nor have you produced **any** logical arguments to support your claim. Several of us have pointed out that General Aviation aircraft do not pose a serious terror threat. We have given you logical reasons why this is so. We have pointed out that Meigs was not a terror threat (counter to your statement), and we have provided reasons why. On the other hand, you say that Meigs was a terror risk and you made the general statement that airports are terror risks. **You made the claims. It’s up to you to support them.** ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525/140 "2003-04-14T23:30:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KoalaBear \* > Meigs Field is closed. If and when Northerly Island is reopened, it will be a patch of greenspace rather than an airport. Debating the issue is interesting and fun, but it’s also _purely academic_, a fact that bears repeating since it seems to have been overlooked in the crossfire. People said the same thing in 1997 - that Meigs was done as an airport, that it would become a park, etc. etc. And yet it WAS resurrected as an airport. Until all the lawsuits wind their way through court - which could take years as such suits are pending on the county, state, and federal levels - the jury is out. Until then, the dual injuctions (county and federal) preventing further alterations to the facility will likely stand. Granted, it will cost some money to repair - estimates vary from 300,000 to 30,000,000. Not being an authority on such things I can’t provide a definitive answer, but since the real task is to fill in the X’s I’d say the lower estimate is probably closer to the truth. MOST of the pavement is still intact, although not usual at present. > [@](#): > > For example, why not close those airports whose operational risk exceeds their benefit to the community?The City of Chicago owned and operated Meigs Field and was responsible for its security – it would be liable for any breach of that security that resulted in the loss of property or life. Which neatly side-steps the fact that the city - through it’s mayor, Mr. Daley - has already admitted that security had _nothing_ to do with the decision to close Meigs. If even Mayor Daley - long known for his antipathy towards aviation - did not seriously consider Meigs a security risk why should you? > [@](#): > > If Daley committed one or more felonies in the exercise of an executive decision he should be indicted and tried, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking it would reverse the decision itself. And why wouldn’t it? If Daley is removed as Mayor due to felony conviction what is to say his successor wouldn’t restore the airport to functionality? > [@](#): > > There is TFR downtown, an ATC site in Elgin and a NORAD installation in McHenry – how does the loss of Meig’s control tower significantly degrade airspace security? I said it some time ago, but it must have slipped your mind. The downtown TFR is a _joke_. It covers a very small geographic area. That area is defined as follows: EXCEPT FOR MEDEVAC, LAW ENFORCEMENT, RESCUE/RECOVERY, EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS - which means quite a few forms of activity are permitted. ALL VFR FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED - so if you’re on an instrument plan you can still pass within 1000 feet of the Sears Tower, or any other high rise. WITHIN AN AREA BEGINNING ON THE LAKE MICHIGAN SHORE LINE …THEN WEST VIA THE EISENHOWER EXPRESSWAY TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE DAN RYAN EXPRESSWAY …THEN NORTH VIA THE DAN RYAN/KENNEDY TO THE INTERSECTION OF ASHLAND AVENUE … THEN NORTH VIA ASHLAND TO THE INTERSECTION OF IRVING PARK ROAD … THEN EAST VIA IRVING PARK TO LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE … THEN SOUTH VIA THE SHORELINE EXCLUDING OLIVE PARK AND NAVY PIER…_(Guess the water purification plant and a major tourist attraction didn’t require protection)_…TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AT AND BELOW 3000 FEET AGL UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY ATC - in other words, if you ask nice and have a reason you can still fly VFR in the TFR. Which explains why the news and traffic choppers are still flying in those areas. (The “…” stands in for latitude/longitude coordinates and radio navigation references. If anyone wants to see the whole thing I’ll cut and paste the whole ugly mess) In sum, the “TFR” restricts very little. > [@](#): > > I don’t owe you an easy argument any more than the City owes you a lakefront airport, so that’s **two** luxuries you’ll have to learn to live without. Two points, **Koala** - first of all, you haven’t presented an argument, at least not in the sense of providing support for your position although both **Johnny** and I have provided outside support for ours. Second, since I never used Meigs even when I lived in Chicago it is questionable how “deprived” I have been as far as flight is concerned. IF Daley had given PROPER AND LEGAL notice, _in accordance with the law_, then I would not be here arguing about the closure. Sad? Yes, I don’t like to see an airport go. But not angry, not furious. The Mayor of Chicago broke the law and that is intolerable. NO ONE is above the law and I find it _extremely_ disturbing that this doesn’t seem to be a concern on your part, and when I pointed out that the mayor had broken the law you jumped on me like I had done something wrong by pointing that out. Speaking of which - today the FAA filed official complaint against _Richard M. Daley_, as an individual and not a representative of the city, for violation of 49 U.S.C. § 44502 © and various sections of Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. (The “49 U.S.C. § 44502 ©” is news to me, so apparently the lawyers are still finding new things to charge him with) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-miegs-field/165525.md?page=8)