Collings Foundation under fire?

[garbs]

My vote is Wittman Field (KOSH). Next to Basler maybe?

[Mike]

Cue an endless list of Wixers telling the Collings Foundation that they should move to their local airport.....

[raconnel]

An airport isn't really necessary, since the town is not objecting to the existing facility. Collings wants to build a military museum to display air-to-ground targets (tanks, that is).

Sorry, I should have read more thoroughly. The original objection was to the military museum. Apparently the town board has now gone off the deep end.

Richard

[RickH]

A local zoning guy has delusions of grandeur and over ridden the MA Aviation Authority and closed the runway !

[p51]

Cue an endless list of Wixers telling the Collings Foundation that they should move to their local airport.....

That's exactly what I thought when I started reading this, even before I got to the first one like that.
It never ceases to amaze me that people are always decrying that a good museum or collection relocate. And yes, it's always to somewhere near them.
Heck, I live near Olympia, WA and that'd be the worst possible place to move anything like that. It rains several months out of the year normally (I remember one year it rained every day for over three months straight) and it's way out of the way of most people. I'd avoid moving to the Pacific NW for any large museum due to weather and how few people actually get out this far. t's really not on the way to anywhere other than Alaska and even then, few people stop by on the way.
I was born in Tallahassee, Florida and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It's just really a wide spot on I-10 with no real towns for several hours in any direction.
Now, somewhere near a major airline hub or large city from the east coast to the Midwest (or California due to the number of people who go there)? Okay, maybe a good idea. And I don't live anywhere near that region.

[C VEICH]

The level of "grumpiness" of some posters here never ceases to amaze me.

[kmiles]

Very short sighted on the planning board's part. Collings is a world class organization. Don't they have a presence in the Houston area? If they can't get the planning board to change their mind, then they could pull up stakes and take ppotential tourists with them.....to Texas.

No!!!!!! Texas has enough warbirds! Stay local in New England. I bet you could grab a whole lot of seeing and pituresqe land in upstate Connecticut!

No chance of moving to a state where they have a full on assault to the 2nd amendment. One look at the vehicles and destructive devices and Connecticut would send us packing for sure.

[maradamx3]

Very short sighted on the planning board's part. Collings is a world class organization. Don't they have a presence in the Houston area? If they can't get the planning board to change their mind, then they could pull up stakes and take ppotential tourists with them.....to Texas.

No!!!!!! Texas has enough warbirds! Stay local in New England. I bet you could grab a whole lot of seeing and pituresqe land in upstate Connecticut!

"enough warbirds"?????? That's like saying, "I've had "enough sex"". Is either case even possible?

Don't really care where CF decides to locate their birds, as long as it's accessible. Cross Mass. off the list though.

[phil65]

Very short sighted on the planning board's part. Collings is a world class organization. Don't they have a presence in the Houston area? If they can't get the planning board to change their mind, then they could pull up stakes and take ppotential tourists with them.....to Texas.

No!!!!!! Texas has enough warbirds! Stay local in New England. I bet you could grab a whole lot of seeing and pituresqe land in upstate Connecticut!

No chance of moving to a state where they have a full on assault to the 2nd amendment. One look at the vehicles and destructive devices and Connecticut would send us packing for sure.

Sad, but true....

[JohnB]

I assume any family with the resources the Collings' seem to have didn't get that way by being stupid or needing my business advise.
I'm sure they'll either accept the situation if they don't want to leave, or find someone more hospitable.

[Stephan Wilkinson]

We're all accustomed to people who complain about airport noise after they move next to an airport that was built 50 years before they were born. This Collings-versus-Stow situation is the reverse.

Stow has been there since 1660, which is three and a half CENTURIES ago. It is a beautiful rural town with an enormous amount of Colonial and Revolutionary history and a populace of individuals who very much want to live in a town of that sort. (I don't live in Stow, but I do live in a Hudson Valley (NY) town something like it.) Okay, so the Collings Foundation moves its offices to the Stow airport, no big deal, Stow can deal with the occasional warbird movement. But now Collings wants to establish a tourist attraction, an amusement park with tanks and stuff, lots of traffic, lots of people from "outside." I don't mean to sound like a snob, but if you lived in a small, quiet, rural town and suddenly there were people emptying their beer coolers (and worse) on your lawn, you wouldn't be happy.

Yeah, NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard. But imagine if you hadn't the slightest interest in performance cars and some entrepreneur wanted to build a drag strip across the road from your rural home. And don't tell me I don't know from cars: I was the editor of Car and Driver for several years and have probably been at more drag strips that you'll ever want to visit.

Collings needs to go build its amusement park somewhere else. In fact they'll have to, since they'll never win this battle.

[therealJR]

"The Board of Selectmen will perambulate the Town of Stow bounds, in accordance with MGL Chapter 42, section 2, beginning after May 1, 2015."

"Perambulate" - really, skuuze me. Ya'll need to move on out!

[kmiles]

We're all accustomed to people who complain about airport noise after they move next to an airport that was built 50 years before they were born. This Collings-versus-Stow situation is the reverse.

Stow has been there since 1660, which is three and a half CENTURIES ago. It is a beautiful rural town with an enormous amount of Colonial and Revolutionary history and a populace of individuals who very much want to live in a town of that sort. (I don't live in Stow, but I do live in a Hudson Valley (NY) town something like it.) Okay, so the Collings Foundation moves its offices to the Stow airport, no big deal, Stow can deal with the occasional warbird movement. But now Collings wants to establish a tourist attraction, an amusement park with tanks and stuff, lots of traffic, lots of people from "outside." I don't mean to sound like a snob, but if you lived in a small, quiet, rural town and suddenly there were people emptying their beer coolers (and worse) on your lawn, you wouldn't be happy.

Yeah, NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard. But imagine if you hadn't the slightest interest in performance cars and some entrepreneur wanted to build a drag strip across the road from your rural home. And don't tell me I don't know from cars: I was the editor of Car and Driver for several years and have probably been at more drag strips that you'll ever want to visit.

Collings needs to go build its amusement park somewhere else. In fact they'll have to, since they'll never win this battle.

I will make the suggestion that if you do not know the facts, you probably should just keep your mouth (fingers) shut. The Collings Foundation is not based at the Stow airport. They are on 90+ acres of privately owned property. The foundation was in place before there were any full time residences in the area they are located. You have not seen the plans for the American Heritage Museum, so how can you comment on what they plan on building. I can promise you it is not an "amusement park" as you somehow have it your mind without ever seeing the plans. There are noise studies that have been done, and what is done at The Collings Foundation produces less noise than a lawnmower of leaf blower. There are people that live on the street that have no idea what is happening on the property, and that is not going to change. As for your opinion on the legal battle, I suggest you start looking at rights of non-profit organizations protected under the Dover Amendment before you claim "they'll never win this battle".

[Chuck Giese]

And, if you're wondering what this Dover Amendment is all about, I found this analysis of it helpful.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140708 ... s-amending

Remember, as I stated earlier IANAL, but it seems to me that Collings would qualify. However; the definition of educational corporation is not clear, and case law (and most likely a judge the way it's going) will apply.

Last edited by Chuck Giese on Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[kmiles]

And, if you're wondering what this Dover Amendment is all about, I found this analysis of it helpful.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140708 ... s-amending

Remember, as I stated earlier IANAL, but it seems to me that Collings would qualify. However; the definition of educational corporation is not clear, and case law (and most likely a judge they way it's going) will apply.

Here is the part of that article that will have to be ruled on by the courts:
"Just because an agency falls under non-profit status, doesn't automatically give them the protection of the Dover Amendment unless the main source of the facility’s use is “education”. The bill specifically states that education must be the primary source in order for non-profit educational facilities to be protected."

The town will have to answer as to why/how they consider a museum not educational.