Dan Hoehn
May 14th 04, 08:00 PM
(StShaffer) wrote in message >...
> Dan, is this a bill to delay the closing of airports like the one
at Sandstone?
> What exactly is it designed to accomplish? I find this in the text...
>
> For
> 1.22 120 days following receipt by the commissioner of the notice
> 1.23 described in subdivision 2, the municipality may not abandon,
> 1.24 significantly alter, demolish, or convey airport property.
As I understand it, the purpose of this bill is to offer some
"protection" to Minnesota public airports from closure without the
opportunity for the aviation community, public, and state to build
support and make a case for keeping an airport open. Quite often the
decision to close an airport are made hastily and/or without the
benefit of adequate information and understanding of the bigger
picture.
My contacts at the legislature tell me that this bill has been watered
down a bit to address the concerns of some municipalities and the
League of MN Cities. Under the original language, airport sponsors
would not have been able to close the airport without legislative
approval. Under the current language, an airport sponsor must give
written notice to MNDOT prior to, or concurrently with, the cessation
of operations at an airport but they can't damage or dispose of the
airport for 180 days after giving notice and must hold a public
hearing among other things.
This legislation provides some protection to airports against such a
situation as that which occurred at Chicago Meigs. Also, once a law
gets in place it is much easier to toughen the restrictions. Thus, if
the current legislation can get into law, the aviation community can
work on getting additional protection for airports over time.
This legislation passed the Minnesota House by an overwhelming margin
and the Minnesota House version is on general orders in the Minnesota
Senate awaiting action. Additionally, the Minnesota Senate language
was rolled into a larger transportation policy bill. However that
language only provides 120 days of protection for an airport. We will
have to see if this language makes it into law in any form given the
deadlock currently being experienced at the legislature.
AGAIN, it wouldn't hurt to call your legislator to request their
support for this legislation.
> Dan, is this a bill to delay the closing of airports like the one
at Sandstone?
> What exactly is it designed to accomplish? I find this in the text...
>
> For
> 1.22 120 days following receipt by the commissioner of the notice
> 1.23 described in subdivision 2, the municipality may not abandon,
> 1.24 significantly alter, demolish, or convey airport property.
As I understand it, the purpose of this bill is to offer some
"protection" to Minnesota public airports from closure without the
opportunity for the aviation community, public, and state to build
support and make a case for keeping an airport open. Quite often the
decision to close an airport are made hastily and/or without the
benefit of adequate information and understanding of the bigger
picture.
My contacts at the legislature tell me that this bill has been watered
down a bit to address the concerns of some municipalities and the
League of MN Cities. Under the original language, airport sponsors
would not have been able to close the airport without legislative
approval. Under the current language, an airport sponsor must give
written notice to MNDOT prior to, or concurrently with, the cessation
of operations at an airport but they can't damage or dispose of the
airport for 180 days after giving notice and must hold a public
hearing among other things.
This legislation provides some protection to airports against such a
situation as that which occurred at Chicago Meigs. Also, once a law
gets in place it is much easier to toughen the restrictions. Thus, if
the current legislation can get into law, the aviation community can
work on getting additional protection for airports over time.
This legislation passed the Minnesota House by an overwhelming margin
and the Minnesota House version is on general orders in the Minnesota
Senate awaiting action. Additionally, the Minnesota Senate language
was rolled into a larger transportation policy bill. However that
language only provides 120 days of protection for an airport. We will
have to see if this language makes it into law in any form given the
deadlock currently being experienced at the legislature.
AGAIN, it wouldn't hurt to call your legislator to request their
support for this legislation.