M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3145 Apr 2, 2013
This letter below is from one of the pilots that is in opposition of their airport expansion.

Clearing the Air

A Memo From
T-SAW's Founder

We now realize it's time I came clean about my intentions, what we're trying to accomplish with this campaign.

Some people are confused, even The Pilot's Editor Steve Bouser, who asked twice during a recent conversation whether we're only interested in protecting my home near the north end of the runway from an airport take-over, like the theft of Eva Dowd's property, under threat of condemnation, for half what it's worth.

Steve should know better. Two homes on Highland Drive have recently sold at prices considered reasonable in this market. So, we're no longer con-cerned about the airport's power to seize private property by eminent domain.

Fact is that we like life among the Pines and Sandhills, with other transplants and especially the Real People of Moore County, such as the Biscoes and the Dowds and the Fryes and our friends whose family names are recorded in 250 years of County history.

Moore County is a beautiful place to be and to become.

We just want to keep it that way. For Real Folk and for us Carpetbaggers.

There are more important things to do with our tax money than to grow this silly playpen for people, like me, who've owned airplanes. Let's stop the waste of our tax dollars, hey?

Best, Fred

http://www.stopairportwaste.com/

M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3146 Apr 2, 2013
SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS?

The study’s authors came to a simple conclusion:“A community's growth is not directly attributable to airport improvements.

http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_3dc48e7c ...

BRACK RAYLES: ECONOMIC STATS AND COMMENTARY:

"The first sheet explains pretty well, the who, what, when, how, why and where. But for those who want further explanation, I compared employment data and income data from 2000 to 2006-2008 for each of these areas. I took percentages of that and extrapolated it to "what can we expect to happen" in our area in 8 years.

It basically showed that these 45 areas didn't show a marked improvement in employment or income in 8 years after they built or expanded an airport. That should surprise anyone who thinks airports create jobs. It surprised me when I started compiling it."

http://blog.brackwho.com/2010/02/opposing-pre ...
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3147 Apr 2, 2013
This sounds familiar.

Is Airport Expansion Worth the Cost?
.
As of Friday, August 31, 2012

As stated in The Pilot (“Airport Work Under Way,” Aug. 29), work will now begin on the expansion of the runway at Moore County Airport. Moore County commissioners quietly and without protest signed off on this project with a $300,000 check within the last couple of weeks.

I have read somewhere in the last 18 months that a commissioner said,“If we don’t take the dollars offered by the state or federal governments, someone else will.”

This kind of reasoning nationwide about projects like this and others is what contributes to our $16 trillion dollar debt.
Safety issues by the FAA are also cited as justification. That is true if you are referring to large aircraft of commercial airlines using MCA. I don’t see that happening.

I would hope, as with any successful business or corporation, follow-through on this investment is conducted and evaluated to determine the cost benefit to all taxpayers.

Dennis Kirby
Carthage

http://www.thepilot.com/news/2012/sep/07/airp ...
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3148 Apr 3, 2013
"Iowa airport could cost city more: Series of events caused facility's financial woes"

After taking off in 1919 and flying high in the 1950s, Iowa City's municipal
airport has hit a patch of turbulence, causing residential taxes to rise and
government subsidies to increase.

"The taxpayers will have to pay more if we can't find additional sources of
revenue," he said.

In the budget year that ended June 30, 1999, the city was providing $28,000
in financial support for the airport's operations. By the last budget year,
which ended June 30, the city's subsidy had increased to $166,700. It is
projected to be $183,000 in the current budget year.

The dramatic hike is a result of increasing debt and decreasing revenue,
O'Malley said.

"If nothing changes come February, that debt will have to be paid by the
taxpayers," he said.

During the airport's 84-year existence, it has been used for airmail
delivery, Naval training, flight school and commercial and non-commercial
flights.

"It doesn't provide me with service," said Elise Kendrot, 28, of Iowa City.
"It's never been able to afford me anything. I always thought it was a
private thing. If residents are paying for it, they should be getting
something from it."

To reduce its financial dependence on city support, the Iowa City Airport
Commission last fall recruited an Atlanta-based consulting firm, Airport
Business Solutions, to devise a revenue-increasing strategy. Iowa City
councilors agreed to pay the consulting firm more than $15,000 for a
business plan during a special formal meeting Feb. 10.

"It's always nice to have another set of eyes to look at the situation,
especially someone in the industry," O'Malley said. "But Airport Business
Solution's only option is to find a new source of revenue."

Loans sparked trouble

O'Malley said the airport's financial woes began in the 2000 budget year,
when city officials obtained loans to build two new hangar buildings that
cost a combined $1.03 million. The loans were to be repaid over a 20-year
period with hangar rental revenue.

At the time, the fixed base operator - an airport's primary tenant providing
charter services, flying lessons and distributing aircraft fuel - was Iowa
City Flying Service. It served at the local aviation facility for about 40
years until defaulting in January 2001, abandoning its lease and financial
commitments.

"They got into financial problems, which contributed to problems for the
airport," said Airport Manager Ron O'Neil. "When they defaulted, that left a
revenue deficit for the airport and a lot of other problems."

Without a fixed base operator, airport officials could not generate the
necessary funds to repay the city loans. As a result, the city subsidy of
$64,000 increased to $99,600 the following year and ballooned to $154,800 in
the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2002.

Vanderhoef said she did not expect the airport to give a new fixed base
operator a low-rent contract.

"Our second surprise was that the new contract was written for a lesser
amount," she said.

Airport officials said they were forced to settle for the modest contract
because of the struggling economy and shift away from aviation that occurred
in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"When the commission was looking for a new fixed base operator, it made
negotiations more difficult," he said. "The fixed base operator business is
a marginal business. One of the things that Airport Business Solutions has
stated is that general aviation airports cannot be self-sufficient by the
aviation services they provide. General aviation airports that are
self-sufficient are that way because they have revenue from other things."

O'Neil said the plan is a step in the right direction, but is not confident
the facility will be self-supporting.

Why is the city in
the business of running an airport? Because the airport is not profitable
enough for a private business to be running it.
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3149 Apr 3, 2013
I forgot to put the link on the above post so here tis :

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airpor...

Here is also the AIR NAV info on that airport:

Iowa City Municipal Airport
Iowa City, Iowa, USA

FAA INFORMATION EFFECTIVE 07 MARCH 2013

Runway Information

Runway 7/25

Dimensions: 5004 x 100 ft./ 1525 x 30 m

Airport Ownership and Management from official FAA records

Ownership: Publicly-owned
Owner: CITY OF IOWA CITY

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KIOW
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3150 Apr 3, 2013
Population of Iowa City, Iowa

Johnson County

Population in 2011: 68,051. Population change since 2000:+9.4%

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Iowa-City-Iowa....

They have a larger population than Decatur County..more than double.
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3151 Apr 3, 2013
Perhaps this airport should have been checked out by our airport board BEFORE any decisions were made for our airport to expand.

Does anyone remember our ED director touting airports in Tennessee and how valuable they are without any statistics at the Public Environmental meeting?

and yet this airport is one of the ONLY ones in the state to be "self-supporting"?

QUOTE:

"The Airport’s largest tenant is the Aerospace Department of Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU). MTSU is one of the airport’s assets as it is one of the top schools for aviation in the nation.

The Murfreesboro Airport is one of the only General Aviation Airports in the state of Tennessee that is self- supporting. No city tax dollars are used towards the daily operations of the airport. The revenue generated from leases and fuel sales funds the operations and capital improvement programs."

http://www.murfreesborotn.gov/default.aspx...

OOPS!!! look at the size of this runway!! It is not expanded to the length currently being proposed here! it IS wider than ours is...but our Attorney has always said that FAA safety requirements could be met with a lot less invasive plan and it looks like Murfreesboro has done that! AND remember they are one of the ONLY SELF SUPPORTING GA airports in Tennesse.

AIR NAV INFO ON MURFREESBORO TN AIRPORPT:

Runway Information

Runway 18/36

Dimensions: 3898 x 100 ft./ 1188 x 30 m

Airport Ownership and Management from official FAA records

Ownership: Publicly-owned
Owner: CITY OF MURFREESBORO

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMBT

Murfreesboro City, Tennessee Statistics and Demographics (US Census 2000)
Number Percent
Murfreesboro Population: 68816

http://murfreesboro.areaconnect.com/statistic...

Murfreesboro (the town) is over double the size of the population of Decatur County....and yet they do not have a 5,405' long runway.
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3152 Apr 3, 2013
OOPS!!! look at the size of this runway!! It is not expanded to the length currently being proposed here! it IS wider than ours is...but our Attorney has always said that FAA safety requirements could be met with a lot less invasive plan and it looks like Murfreesboro has done that! AND remember they are one of the ONLY SELF SUPPORTING GA airports in Tennesse.

AIR NAV INFO ON MURFREESBORO TN AIRPORPT:

Runway Information

Runway 18/36

Dimensions: 3898 x 100 ft./ 1188 x 30 m

Airport Ownership and Management from official FAA records

Ownership: Publicly-owned
Owner: CITY OF MURFREESBORO

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMBT

Murfreesboro City, Tennessee Statistics and Demographics (US Census 2000)
Number Percent
Murfreesboro Population: 68816

http://murfreesboro.areaconnect.com/statistic ...

Murfreesboro (the town) is over double the size of the population of Decatur County....and yet they do not have a 5,405' long runway.
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3153 Apr 3, 2013
SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS?

The study’s authors came to a simple conclusion:“A community's growth is not directly attributable to airport improvements.

http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_3dc48e7c ...

BRACK RAYLES: ECONOMIC STATS AND COMMENTARY:

"The first sheet explains pretty well, the who, what, when, how, why and where. But for those who want further explanation, I compared employment data and income data from 2000 to 2006-2008 for each of these areas. I took percentages of that and extrapolated it to "what can we expect to happen" in our area in 8 years.

It basically showed that these 45 areas didn't show a marked improvement in employment or income in 8 years after they built or expanded an airport. That should surprise anyone who thinks airports create jobs. It surprised me when I started compiling it."

http://blog.brackwho.com/2010/02/opposing-pre ...
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3154 Apr 4, 2013
The following article is by an airport resistance group in another state. The concerns of this letter sound very familiar.

QUOTE:

Commissioner Picerno Seen Defending
Dubious Claims by Airport Manager
'Whose interests do these Commissioners serve?
Certainly not the interests of County taxpayers ...'
- T-SAW board member

MOORE COUNTY, NC (Jan. 22)– Leaders of Taxpayers to Stop Airport Waste (T-SAW) say they are appalled, "but not surprised," by County Commissioner Nick Picerno’s rush to defend dubious claims put out by an airport official at the Commissioners’ meeting Tuesday night.

"How can one of the County’s top elected officials be so out of touch," asks T-SAW’s Fred Korb, "with the needs of the County’s parents and children and the desires of all Moore County taxpaying voters?"

Korb aimed special criticism at Picerno’s attempt to back up the claim by Airport Manager Ron Maness that airport expansion is having no effect on airport neighbors and other taxpayers.

"Wasteful government spending of any sort, particularly on the futile dream of a big commercial airport, should not happen at a time when schools are being closed, and teachers and first responders are being laid off," Korb told the commissioners at Tuesday’s meeting.

During the board’s questioning of Maness, Picerno stated that he was unaware of any such layoffs.

Another T-SAW board member asked, "Need we remind County voters of cutbacks in essential services while the airport and some noses grow?

"This latest waste of taxpayer funds," she added, "comes just months after the County was forced to close its top elementary school to relieve a projected Education Department deficit of $11 million."

She pointed, too, to another victim of last year's education cutbacks, the widely praised County School Orchestra Program, which had served Moore County's children for 36 years.

"Who do these Commissioners serve?" yet another T-SAW member stated angrily. "Certainly NOT the interests of County Taxpayers, but the Special Interests of a small sector of our business community, the people we refer to as 'The Pinehurst Hotel & Golf Cartel'. They'll be hearing our message loud and clear right up to November elections." END QUOTE

http://www.stopairportwaste.com/
Nobody Important

Greenwood, IN

#3155 Apr 4, 2013
Here's a Republican without his head in the sand....

"It’s time to act. It just is, because you’ve got to see the future coming. You can either live in 1950 or you can live in 2050, take your pick. I choose to move toward 2050.”
- Indianapols Mayor Greg Ballard

Open the link to see what he's talking about.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130404/NEWS...
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3156 Apr 4, 2013
Nobody Important wrote:
Here's a Republican without his head in the sand....
"It’s time to act. It just is, because you’ve got to see the future coming. You can either live in 1950 or you can live in 2050, take your pick. I choose to move toward 2050.”
- Indianapols Mayor Greg Ballard
Open the link to see what he's talking about.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130404/NEWS...
Interesting!
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3157 Apr 4, 2013
The following letter is on the Michigan proposed airport expansion that has hired the same Attorney that we have locally.

QUOTE:

"As a pilot and a Pittsfield Township resident I have followed closely since 2009 the debate about the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport (ARB) runway expansion. Although I have almost 30,000 flight hours throughout four decades of military and civilian flying, I write this as a concerned citizen troubled by both the questionable process that brought us to this point and the negative impact the expansion will have on the surrounding communities.

The arguments against expansion are led by a grass roots community organization of more than 400 people, which has done an excellent job exposing falsehoods and dubious claims by expansion proponents. The leaders advocating for expansion appear to be a shadowy group of local aviation advocates and behind the scenes business interests with strong connections and influence in the city administration.

The proponents want the expansion in order to bring traffic to an underutilized facility; and to bring in more and bigger planes that will buy more fuel and rent more parking. Suspiciously they kept their formal expansion plans hidden from the public and the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees until it legally was too late to file an objection. Then the proponents used a bogus “safety reasons” argument to con the Ann Arbor City Council into providing $400,000 for an environmental assessment (EA).

The safety argument has since completely been discredited as research through Federal Aviation Administration reports proved that every incident/accident (11 in all) at ARB during the past 20 years were not caused by the 3,500-foot runway but rather pilot error, weather issues, or mechanical events. When pilots land long and “hot” they can either go around or go off the end. Runway length is not a safety issue at ARB.

As for the EA, that too has been discredited as shoddy and not at all impartial. It did not analyze the runway expansion’s effects on the large aquifer beneath the airport from which Ann Arbor gets much of its drinking water and it failed to take into account increased noise caused by more night operations or noise pollution caused by an increase in larger jet traffic year round. Its poor quality and prejudice may be one of factors causing the FAA to delay approval of the EA.

Yes people bought or built their homes knowing they were near a 3500 foot runway. That was the deal. But now they have every right to object to an expansion project that appears solely to be in the best interests of a few moneyed businessmen while harming a surrounding community’s quality of life.

Very powerful individuals are obviously behind the expansion project for this city subsidized and financially struggling airport because someone at City Hall was still able to place runway expansion funds back onto the AA Capital Improvement Plan.

Justifications for the runway expansion do not hold up to honest scrutiny. I hope Ann Arbor respects the wishes of the Pittsfield Township community.

Michael Petraszko"

http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/ann-arbo...
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3158 Apr 5, 2013
Lebanon — A majority of city councilors appear to be leaning away from backing a long-debated runway expansion at the municipal airport that would require a massive rock and soil removal project, according to recent interviews and statements made during past Council deliberations.

While a decision against extending the main runway would please opponents, it would also solidify the city’s noncompliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations and risk financial assistance from Washington. The runway issue is also raising questions about the role and future of Lebanon’s airport, which has weighed on city officials for more than a decade.

The proposed airport runway expansion will come up later this month for its third City Council discussion since February. The FAA has called the expansion necessary for airport safety and has urged the city to move forward with the project, which would lengthen the southern end of the north-south runway by 1,000 feet and reduce the elevation of a nearby hill by 30 feet. The project would also require the removal of 800,000 cubic-yards of rock and soil during two-plus years of work, resulting in a huge daily influx of heavy truck traffic along Route 12A.

But most of the nine city councilors appear to be less than convinced of the project’s necessity.

“The real safety argument just hasn’t ever been perfectly articulated,” said Assistant Mayor Steve Wood.“I think the city, in all of its efforts, has got to be more reluctant to engage in irrevocable destruction without a clear reason why to do it, and the fact that a regulatory agency is telling us to do it really is a wash for me.”

Wood is among the six city councilors who have signaled they are opposed to expanding the runway, although how that might affect the type and size of aircraft that would be able to land has not yet been made clear.

The city’s 5-percent share in the cost of the runway expansion project could run as high as $1.3 million, and the total cost could range anywhere from $13.3 million to $23.2 million. The FAA would pay 90 percent of the project, while the state of New Hampshire would pick up the tab for another 5 percent.

When it comes to the future of the Lebanon airport, the City Council is fractured between two visions, with the divide hinging on the question of whether the facility can ever return to profitability, as was the case during its heyday in the 1990s.

Liot Hill stressed that taxpayers have contributed more than $2 million to the airport in the last decade.

“I consider those subsidies a loan, and my intention is to see that loan paid back to the taxpayers,” she said in an interview last week.

She went on to say that an underpinning of airport economics has been absent throughout the discussion: that most airports are not self-sustaining as a result of their commercial operations. Rather, she contends, the budgets of most airports are buoyed by the development and leasing of airport-owned real estate.

“That is something that was well understood by decision-makers in the past and not something that is generally known to the public,” she said.

“If the people flying those private jets want to support the Upper Valley, as they are asking the Upper Valley to support them, I would suggest they hop on a commercial plane,” said Heistada city councilor.“Fly up here, they can get here the same as everyone else.”

“I look at that, but then I notice that a lot of these jets are coming in on Fridays and leaving Sundays, and I’m like,‘OK, how do they define business activity?’” she said.“Is this really business, or is this someone going to the spa in Quechee? We have borne a tremendous amount of the load for the region here and I think the airport in particular is a good example of that.”

http://www.vnews.com/home/5410256-95/an-airpo...
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3160 Apr 5, 2013
Global automotive parts supplier adding jobs in Bartholomew County.

Columbus -

PMG Indiana Corporation, a subsidiary of PMG Group, announced plans today to expand its operations here, creating up to 50 new jobs by 2014.

The f,ssen, Germany-headquartered company will invest $22.97 million to construct and equip a second manufacturing facility on its 40-acre campus in Columbus. The 36,000 square-foot facility, which is expected to be completed by the end of the year, will accommodate two new manufacturing lines. In addition, a third line will be installed in an existing plant.

"PMG Indiana's expansion in Columbus is further validation that Indiana's pro-growth environment is attracting impressive investment from motor vehicle manufacturers around the globe," said Eric Doden, president of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. "With the best location, infrastructure and workforce in the nation, Indiana is the state that works for automotive companies."

With more than 240 fulltime Indiana employees, the company employs more than 1,250 associates worldwide. It plans to begin hiring additional production, manufacturing and logistics personnel in Columbus this summer.

"PMG Indiana takes great pride in our team, our product and now in our growth as we continue to experience great success," said Steve Bricker, chief financial officer of PMG Indiana. "This expansion would not be possible without the business-friendly environment the state and local community has fostered. We appreciate doing business in Indiana and look forward to our future growth here.

Founded in 1960, PMG Group supplies sintered components and systems for the global automotive industry. With six facilities located across North America, Europe and Asia, the company's Columbus facility began operations in 1989 and produces powdered metal parts and sub-assemblies.

The Indiana Economic Development Corporation offered PMG Indiana Corporation up to $250,000 in conditional tax credits and up to $75,000 in training grants based on the company's job creation plans. These tax credits are performance-based, meaning until Hoosiers are hired, the company is not eligible to claim incentives. The city of Columbus approved additional incentives at the request of the Columbus Economic Development Board.

"I'm very glad PMG Indiana is so successful in Columbus and making such a significant contribution to our leadership in automotive manufacturing," Columbus Mayor Kristen Brown said.

- Daily News
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3161 Apr 5, 2013
Water supply is the first and most basic rule of Economic Development.

Columbus Indiana (where PMG located) has a great water supply.

quote:

"Columbus is in the heart of an area that abounds in small streams. By the building of judiciously located dams and storage reservoirs, it has been estimated that these streams could be developed into a water supply system sufficient ...for 2,500,000 people."

Charles Hoover, chief chemist,

In 1945, much to the surprise of our city planners, Columbus was nearing the limits of its water supply. Post World War II growth of population had increased demand for water equal to a normal 15 year period; and in January 1945, the watershed froze for three and one half months producing the longest drought Columbus had ever known. This prompted plans for a dam on the Big Walnut Creek. In September 1955, the dam was dedicated "Hoover Dam" in memory of brothers, Charles and Clarence Hoover, who both served the City of Columbus Waterworks.

In the late 1960s it became apparent that an additional water supply would be needed. A study of southern Franklin county found a large underground water supply between the Scioto River and Big Walnut Creek. Construction began on four large Ranney Collector Wells that ranged from 68 to 109 feet deep with laterals totaling more than 6,000 feet reaching into the aquifer. These wells supply an average of 20 million gallons of water daily to residents in southern Franklin County.

Today, the three reservoirs provide 90% of the more than 140 million gallons used daily. The remaining 10% is drawn from the wells in southern Franklin County.

The Scioto River begins as a small creek about 80 miles north in Hardin County, northwest of Kenton, Ohio. Rolling through woods and farmlands, this river remains a main water source for Columbus. The Griggs and O'Shaugnessy Reservoirs, located on the Scioto River, have a combined storage capacity of 6.2 billion gallons, holding only a small percentage of the water that flows through Columbus, and providing water for downtown, west and northwest Franklin County. Family picnics, fishing, boating, and waterskiing in the recreation area surrounding and including both reservoirs are enjoyed by thousands every summer.

Big Walnut Creek forms about 20 miles northeast of Columbus and feeds Hoover Reservoir. This reservoir can hold 20.8 billion gallons of water; it supplies water for the entire northeast portion of Franklin County and provides a beautiful recreation area for boating and fishing.

The rest of the world is recognizing something that our leaders in Columbus have known for decades, the most important part of the water treatment process is protection of our water sources. The Division resumed responsibility and management of the reservoirs in 1994. Our Watershed Management Team is responsible for overseeing the land management, boat safety, and public education regarding protection of drinking water sources. In 1996, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) approved the Wellfield Protection Plan we developed.
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3162 Apr 5, 2013
Here is the link to the article I posted above:

http://utilities.columbus.gov/content.aspx...
old news

Greensburg, IN

#3163 Apr 5, 2013
thought this was the airport thread not the water thread.
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#3164 Apr 5, 2013
old news wrote:
thought this was the airport thread not the water thread.
Why invest 32 million dollars on an airport expansion over the next 20 years when an engineer on the front page of the Greensburg Daily News stated we do not have the water for more development?

WHERE IS THE ECONOMIC STUDY JON DOOLEY PROMISED BY MORTON MARCUS?
Ask Jon Dooley

Oxford, OH

#3165 Apr 5, 2013
M Jean Johannigman wrote:
<quoted text>
Why invest 32 million dollars on an airport expansion over the next 20 years when an engineer on the front page of the Greensburg Daily News stated we do not have the water for more development?
WHERE IS THE ECONOMIC STUDY JON DOOLEY PROMISED BY MORTON MARCUS?
Ask Jon Dooley or Morton Marcus fool.

U claim u r at all the meetings.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greensburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Rushville police, DCS investigating allegation ... 4 hr Finnigan9 4
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Indiana (D... (Oct '10) 17 hr psychosis abounds 180
What’s the word? Feb 15 Jo Mama 1
Missing German Shepherd Feb 10 keep watching 1
Native American history in Greensburg (Jun '13) Jan '18 ufo 34
Hope everyone has a good holiday Dec '17 scrooge 2
The Wreck called Hillary Clinton Dec '17 The Egregious One 2

Greensburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greensburg Mortgages