When later asked what that meant, Hunt stated that he did not initially recognize the document as a legal document but rather as another political document from the FAA. Hunt stated he gets a lot of political documents from the FAA and he simply didn't recognize the formal Notice of Investigation for what it really was until much later. Hunt stated the notice sat on his desk for weeks, ignored.

According to Hunt's own hand, his explanation is anything but the truth.

In a signed letter to the FAA that asked for an extension to respond, Hunt wrote "[W]e hope the FAA reconsiders its current position of calling for the beginning of legal proceedings until the proper officials can meet and discuss the issues..." Later on in the letter, he writes, "We will need time to secure the necessary specialized legal counsel..." That letter was dated November 23, 2002.

So, contrary to the evasive story Hunt tried to sell to council, Hunt did indeed recognize that this was a legal document very early on. This document did not lie around for weeks ignored as Hunt would want everyone to believe. Hunt was all over this, he was scrambling fast.

Namedropping appears to have backfired
In an apparent attempt to intimidate the FAA, Hunt committed one major error which may very well prove to be fatal in its effect on the city's stance. He did a bit of namedropping in his letter of November 23 to the FAA, threatening the agency with the involvement of none other than famed Florida U.S. Representative Katherine Harris:

"[P]reliminary contact with Representative-elect Katherine Harris' office has indicated she is interested in becoming involved in the dispute as well. It is the city's intention to respond in detail, point by point... It will also take some time for Representative Harris's (sic) staff to become fully acquainted with the history of the lease and the context in which the FAA is reviewing it."
-- George Hunt, letter to the FAA, 11/23/02

When contacted yesterday by Venice Florida! dot com, Representative Harris' office indicated a non-committal posture in the matter. David Host, Harris' press spokesman, would not confirm that Harris had any interest in getting involved at all, contrary to Hunt's letter. In fact, Harris' office was totally unaware that her name had been used in Hunt's response to the FAA.

Host requested that a copy of Hunt's letter be faxed to him before he would answer any questions about the matter. After receiving a copy of Hunt's letter and downloading a copy of the Notice of Investigation from this web site (the office's first look at the document), Host would only confirm that, "We're giving the situation a preliminary look at this time."

This goes beyond just dropping the name of your own Representative. Harris is easily the most well-known Representative of her freshman class, her national prominence already outshining that of the majority of veteran congressional officeholders. By tossing Harris' name into the FAA's face, Hunt brought out THE BIG GUNS.

It's been two months since Hunt fired off his missive to the FAA, two months in which Harris has so far shown no inclination to get involved in this matter at all (and two months in which she had no knowledge that her name was being used as a sword to try to fend off legal action). It is fairly safe to conclude that the FAA has noticed by now a seeming lack of interest on Harris' part.

Sharks are in the water.

Note to George: you just ran out of chum.

Hardly anyone = the Boone law firm
When Hunt was asked who had initially received copies of the Notice of Investigation from the FAA, Hunt answered, "Hardly anyone."

Through a process of elimination, we have determined that hardly anyone equals only one entity: the Boone law firm.

The Boone law firm, representing the Venice Golf Association (whose lease with the city for land on airport grounds is at the heart of the disagreement between the city and the FAA) wasted no time. In a 7-page letter to the FAA dated November 21, 2002, E.G. "Dan" Boone took exception to the FAA's history of events as laid out in the Notice of Investigation, maintaining that all of the improvements to the golf course had been paid for by the VGA and not the city, the airport or the FAA. "There is no legal precedent for the action being attempted by the FAA at the Venice airport," Boone concluded.

Both letters, the one from the Boone law firm and the one from George Hunt's office, were sent off prior to anyone mentioning anything about the threat of the FAA investigation to Venice's own city attorney. In fact, the Boone letter was part of Hunt's official reply, it was included in his initial response to the FAA.

Why?
The obvious question is: why? Why would Hunt knowingly keep the city's own attorney in the dark about a serious legal matter that has the potential of having a costly judicial order placed on the city?

The heart of the matter
In spite of all of the confusing rhetoric that is spilled out to the public, the disagreement between the city and the FAA is actually deceptively simple.

Basically, the argument boils down to this: it is the FAA's contention that it is all well and good to have a golf course on airport land. However, any contracts with leaseholders must pay attention to one basic fact: this is an airport, it's primary function is to be part of a network of civil aeronautic facilities for the well-being of our country's aviation infrastructure. The land was never given to the city unconditionally, it was given with strings -- that the city be a good steward with the land with regards to keeping it viable and profitable as a government-sponsored civil aeronautic facility. If a leased contract does not economically benefit the airport itself, then it is the FAA's stance that there shouldn't be a lease at all.

It is the FAA's contention that the current lease with the VGA is a money loser as the land is capable of generating more revenue for the airport than the city is trying to get out of it. The implication is that the VGA or any other organization running the golf course should be capable of generating far more profit to the airport than what the current lease calls for.

As noted in the FAA notice, the original 1958 lease with the VGA was for $1 (one dollar) a year. At that point in time, the VGA was supposed to make a heavy investment into the land to develop the golf course with the understanding that any and all improvements they made would revert to the city's ownership in exchange for the nearly non-existent rent. In subsequent lease extensions through the years which increased the rent, that clause has been extended and extended to the point where the improvements have, to date, never been turned over to the city to become city property. Moreover, rent has been depressed and even reduced on occasion to allow the VGA to have funds to make more improvements.

It is the VGA's contention that all improvements on the land have been made at the expense of the VGA and not the city or the airport, and that the improvements, since they are owned by the VGA, should not be considered when assessing the fair market value of the rental amount of the property. The FAA counters with two arguments: 1.) That the initial improvements were paid for with a sweetheart lease in 1958 and subsequent favorable lease agreements with the understanding by all parties that the improvements would become property of the airport and not the VGA; and 2.) the improvements should have been converted over to the airport long ago in accordance with the original agreements, as that is why the original and subsequent rents have been reduced.

In summarizing previous deals and lease renegotiations between the city and the VGA, the FAA noted:

"The FAA is concerned that the City has reduced the appropriate rent amount due to the Airport account in order to gain commitments from a non-aeronautical leaseholder to make specific non-aeronautical improvements to the Airport property, undertaken pursuant to lease extensions. However, these improvements never benefit the Airport account by becoming lease fee property, and the extensions have the effect of continually delaying reversion of the leasehold improvements to the Airport. Furthermore, the parcel in question has continually failed to return an adequate rent to the Airport account, and includes specific lease language forgiving rent in exchange for non-aeronautical capital improvements, benefiting recreational users and off-airport utility ratepayers. Thus, the City's repeated trading of reduced Airport revenue in the form of reduced rent for non-aeronautical municipal benefit raises questions regarding the unlawful diversion of airport revenue as well as the failure to maintain a self-sustaining rate structure as required by the City's Federal grant agreement obligations summarized below."
-- FAA's Notice of Investigation to Venice, Nov. 6, 2002

Boone's response to this was to the point:

"There is no legal support for any theory that by extending the lease to the same tenant (VGA), improvements never have the chance to revert back to the City. Not allowing the City to extend a lease to an existing tenant would be a clear violation of our client's property rights which are protected by the Federal and State Constitutions. It would also constitute a governmental taking of private property without compensation. Past practice of the FAA clearly supports our position as the FAA has consented to numerous other leases of the City of Venice Airport property, both aviation and non-aviation, which have been extended in a similar manner as our client's lease and without any improvements reverting to the City."
-- E.G. Boone, Nov. 21, 2002, letter to David Bennett of the FAA in response to the FAA's Notice of Investigation

The city's current lease with the VGA is equally contentious, according to the FAA, as the city is not charging FMV (fair market value) or anything close to it (a point that even Bob Vedder of the Gondolier surprisingly conceded to in a recent column).

The end effect is that because of the dispute with the FAA, the city has lost out on the opportunity of millions of dollars in Federal grants for airport improvements over the last three years. Add on to that the amount of grants that the city won't receive in the future if it continues this course of action. Add on to that the amount that the FAA states the airport could have made if fair market value rent was being charged all along. Add on to that all of the legal and ancillary costs the city has accrued in waging this fight. Add on to that the amounts flushed down the toilet on professional Washington lobbyists in an attempt to end-run the FAA with a sympathetic congressional face.

The whole affair seems to be a classic lesson in how to not handle municipal finances. It is seemingly incomprehensible that any municipality would actually think that any of this is a good idea.

Again: why?
Again the same question pops up: why? Why is the city digging its heels in so firmly in a deliberate attempt to lose money? A lot of money at that. An obscenely huge amount of money for a town our size.

So far, Hunt has behaved like he has more of a vested personal financial interest in the VGA than he does in the city in which he lives. If that's the case, then OK, it all makes sense. From a business perspective, that's the only explanation that makes sense.

If Hunt takes offense to such a statement, that's too bad. As a public official supposedly working for the common good, he shouldn't put himself in a position of siding with a private business interest in a deal that will clearly only benefit the business in question and economically harm everyone else. When it is so blatantly obvious that the loss grossly outweighs the gain, as in this matter, people begin to wonder why. By continually digging his heels in and defying the FAA, Hunt has put himself in a situation where such base speculation appears to be the only reasonable explanation.

FAA to Hunt: yeah, yeah, Merry Christmas, now go away
One very telling detail in the exchange of paperwork foreshadows the ugly battle that the city will be in should this case ever come before a judge.

In his letter of November 23, Hunt asked for an extension to respond to the FAA's Notice of Investigation. At the end of the letter, Hunt curiously offers an olive branch of sorts: "I would suggest a meeting take place between representatives of your office and my staff (hopefully you and I included) to evaluate the differences and options available to the City for remedying the issues to the satisfaction on the FAA."

The FAA responded in a letter dated December 23. In the spirit of Christmas, David Bennett, Director of Airport Safety and Standards for the FAA, granted an extension to respond in part, extending the deadline to January 27.

In spite of the conciliatory gesture of extending the deadline, Bennett made it emphatically clear that he was wasn't about to stand under the mistletoe with Hunt: "In your letter you requested another meeting. We would be happy to meet with you. However the FAA would like to receive a formal response to the issues presented in the NOI [Notice of Investigation] before engaging in further meetings." 

Moore is right
Councilman John Moore said it right off the bat: this thing has gone on for too long and ultimately it needs to go before a tryer (a judge) for a final decision, if only to end the conflict. Seeing as none of the parties involved (the FAA, the VGA and George Hunt) are willing to give an inch on any of this, that's where it needs to go, and the sooner, the better.

Hunt must go
Council should be looking with a keen eye at the man who got them into this mess and then tried to hide it from them. This is far from the first time that George Hunt has placed council in a position that subjects them to deservedly harsh criticism. Guaranteed: it is far from the last.

Do we really need any more of this?