American Lake SPB Closing

[C J Campbell]

On Thursday, Dec. 23, the city of Lakewood announced that it would be
closing the American Lake seaplane base effective Dec. 31, 2004 -- in just 9
days! No hearings or other public input were sought. The decision was made
and announced by Deborah Johnson ). Her phone
number is (253) 983-7770. Those interested in preserving this seaplane base
should contact her and urge her to delay the decision until public hearings
can be conducted by WSDOT.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


Ne Obliviscaris

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:28:21 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>On Thursday, Dec. 23, the city of Lakewood announced that it would be
>closing the American Lake seaplane base effective Dec. 31, 2004 -- in just 9
>days! No hearings or other public input were sought.

Have you forwarded this information to AOPA and the FAA?

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:28:21 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >On Thursday, Dec. 23, the city of Lakewood announced that it would be
> >closing the American Lake seaplane base effective Dec. 31, 2004 -- in
just 9
> >days! No hearings or other public input were sought.
>
> Have you forwarded this information to AOPA and the FAA?

AOPA and the SPA already have it. It was SPA that told me about it.
Obviously WSDOT knows about it. I don't know if anyone has contacted the
FAA, but the more that do the better. Here is the text of their message:

Dear SPA Member:

The City of Lakewood has just informed the Washington State Division of
Aeronautics (WSDOT) that it will be deactivating the American Lake Seaplane
Base near Tacoma effective December 31, 2004 - in 9 days!!

WSDOT is asking the city to delay the closure until a public hearing has
been conducted. American Lake Seaplane Base is identified in the state's
aviation system plan, but is not identified as an essential public facility
in the county's comprehensive plan.

WSDOT is willing to work with the city to develop an operating agreement to
preserve the facility, but they need our help to convince the City of
Lakewood that the facility should be preserved.

Please contact Deborah Johnson with the City of Lakewood,
or 253/983-7770, and let her know that the
American Lake Seaplane Base is an important and irreplaceable element in the
state's aviation infrastructure. Encourage her to work with WSDOT to develop
a long-term solution that preserves this important public facility for
future generations.

While this email will reach many, our email list is far from complete, so
please pass this message along to anyone with an interest in preserving the
American Lake Seaplane Base.

Michael Volk

President,

Seaplane Pilots Association

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:48:24 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:28:21 -0800, "C J Campbell"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>> >On Thursday, Dec. 23, the city of Lakewood announced that it would be
>> >closing the American Lake seaplane base effective Dec. 31, 2004 -- in
>just 9
>> >days! No hearings or other public input were sought.
>>
>> Have you forwarded this information to AOPA and the FAA?
>
>AOPA and the SPA already have it. It was SPA that told me about it.
>Obviously WSDOT knows about it. I don't know if anyone has contacted the
>FAA, but the more that do the better. Here is the text of their message:

Thanks for the full text.

It would seem that the City of Lakewood would be in violation of the
required 30-day notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
of the deactivation of an airport in the NAS if they follow through
with their plan. The notice requirement is intended to allow the FAA
to study proposed actions that may affect the national airspace system
prior to the actions being taken. According to FAA regulations, a
maximum penalty of $1,100 per day can be assessed for a violation of
this type.

Here's the relevant FAA regulation Part 157:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ca32e86541115bb494c46d4f150e7797&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.2.12&idno=14

Additional information here: http://www.faa.gov/ARP/ace/part157.cfm

[E-mailed to Deborah Johnson with the City of Lakewood]

[zatatime]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:28:21 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>On Thursday, Dec. 23, the city of Lakewood announced that it would be
>closing the American Lake seaplane base effective Dec. 31, 2004 -- in just 9
>days! No hearings or other public input were sought. The decision was made
>and announced by Deborah Johnson ). Her phone
>number is (253) 983-7770. Those interested in preserving this seaplane base
>should contact her and urge her to delay the decision until public hearings
>can be conducted by WSDOT.


Typical government fast one. I just called and she's out of the
office until the 29th, which only gives two days to have a change
made!

Might be worthwhile to call AOPA about this one.

If you repost her number on the 29th, I'll definately give her a call.

z

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> According to FAA regulations, a
> maximum penalty of $1,100 per day can be assessed for a violation of
> this type.

According to a recent AOPA article, that penalty was just substantially
increased. I've found several references to the increase (called the "Miegs
Legacy" ammendment), but can't find documentation of the exact amount.

That said, there may not be any violation. It's quite possible that the
authorities gave the FAA notice last month but didn't make a public announcement
about it. Let's hope that isn't the case.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[David Reinhart]

The 30 day notice is for "emergency" closings. Non-emergency closings require 90 days.

That said, I'm pretty sure the notice requirement doesn't apply unless the landing facility is part of the National Plan of Integrated
Airports. I'm not sure how many seaplane bases come under that heading. It also matters if the airport has an instrument approach which
some (most?) SPBs do not. Having an IAP is reason behind the minimum 30 day notice: the charting cycle is 28 days, therefore there's
enough time to include the closing in the next release.

Dave Reinhart


Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:48:24 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:28:21 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> >> > wrote in
> >> >::
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, Dec. 23, the city of Lakewood announced that it would be
> >> >closing the American Lake seaplane base effective Dec. 31, 2004 -- in
> >just 9
> >> >days! No hearings or other public input were sought.
> >>
> >> Have you forwarded this information to AOPA and the FAA?
> >
> >AOPA and the SPA already have it. It was SPA that told me about it.
> >Obviously WSDOT knows about it. I don't know if anyone has contacted the
> >FAA, but the more that do the better. Here is the text of their message:
>
> Thanks for the full text.
>
> It would seem that the City of Lakewood would be in violation of the
> required 30-day notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
> of the deactivation of an airport in the NAS if they follow through
> with their plan. The notice requirement is intended to allow the FAA
> to study proposed actions that may affect the national airspace system
> prior to the actions being taken. According to FAA regulations, a
> maximum penalty of $1,100 per day can be assessed for a violation of
> this type.
>
> Here's the relevant FAA regulation Part 157:
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ca32e86541115bb494c46d4f150e7797&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.2.12&idno=14
>
> Additional information here: http://www.faa.gov/ARP/ace/part157.cfm
>
> [E-mailed to Deborah Johnson with the City of Lakewood]

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:05:19 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> According to FAA regulations, a
>> maximum penalty of $1,100 per day can be assessed for a violation of
>> this type.
>
>According to a recent AOPA article, that penalty was just substantially
>increased.

I had heard rumor that such was in the works, but hadn't heard that it
was law yet.

>I've found several references to the increase (called the "Miegs
>Legacy" ammendment), but can't find documentation of the exact amount.

As search using those terms (and even with the correct spelling of
'amendment') failed to turn up anything for me. If you are able to
provide any links to articles referencing it, I'd be interested.

>That said, there may not be any violation.

Given the fact that the sea plane base is still open, there's
definitely no violation yet.

>It's quite possible that the
>authorities gave the FAA notice last month but didn't make a public announcement
>about it. Let's hope that isn't the case.

At best, that will only delay the inevitable for 30-days unless the
FAA finds that deactivation will affect the national airspace system.
Now if the city of Lakewood has received AIP funds (unlikely for a sea
plane base) in the last 20 years, there might be some hope of delaying
the closure.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:00:37 GMT, David Reinhart
> wrote in
>::

>The 30 day notice is for "emergency" closings. Non-emergency closings require 90 days.

Thanks for the information.

>That said, I'm pretty sure the notice requirement doesn't apply unless
>the landing facility is part of the National Plan of Integrated
>Airports. I'm not sure how many seaplane bases come under that heading.

http://www.faa.gov/ncarc/whitepaper/airports/
The Secretary of Transportation, in a biennial report to Congress,
is required to identify those airports that are important to
national transportation and, therefore, eligible to receive grants
under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). This report--the
National Plan of Integrated Airports (NPIAS)--currently designates
3,331 of the 18,292 existing airports in the United States as
components in the national system.

Given the above information, it would appear that there is about an
18% chance of a US airport being included in the National Plan of
Integrated Airports. As you intimated, it's even less likely for a
sea plane base with an average of 67 operations a month.

>It also matters if the airport has an instrument approach which.
>some (most?) SPBs do not. Having an IAP is reason behind the minimum
> 30 day notice: the charting cycle is 28 days, therefore there's
>enough time to include the closing in the next release.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/W37
W37 American Lake Seaplane Base
Tacoma, Washington, USA

The information at the above link indicates that there is no IAP.

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Given the above information, it would appear that there is about an
> 18% chance of a US airport being included in the National Plan of
> Integrated Airports. As you intimated, it's even less likely for a
> sea plane base with an average of 67 operations a month.

Even WSDOT has not identified the base as essential. It is going to be a
tough fight.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> As search using those terms (and even with the correct spelling of
> 'amendment') failed to turn up anything for me. If you are able to
> provide any links to articles referencing it, I'd be interested.

Mentioned in
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-1-160x.html
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-2-196.html
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2004/act0412.html

and others. It's a provision of the FAA reauthorization act passed about a year
ago.

> >It's quite possible that the
> >authorities gave the FAA notice last month but didn't make a public announcement
> >about it. Let's hope that isn't the case.
>
> At best, that will only delay the inevitable for 30-days unless the
> FAA finds that deactivation will affect the national airspace system.

If I understand the regs correctly, it won't postpone it at all. I believe the
regs state that the owners have to give the FAA 30 days notification. They don't
have to give anyone else notification. IF (and that's a big if) they notified
the FAA last month, they will be able to close the airport at the end of this
month without penalty.

Perhaps my understanding is incorrect. It's based on the fact that every mention
of the situation states that Chicago was "required to provide 30 days notice
before deactivating the airport." None have stated that public notice is
required.

Anyone more familiar with the wording of the regs? Rick Durden, perhaps?

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Even WSDOT has not identified the base as essential. It is going to be a
> tough fight.

If it's not essential, then what's the worry? Are they also going to then
prohibit water operations at the lake? Otherwise, the closure of the
seaplane base shouldn't affect most people's operations at all.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Even WSDOT has not identified the base as essential. It is going to be a
> > tough fight.
>
> If it's not essential, then what's the worry? Are they also going to then
> prohibit water operations at the lake?

Well, most seaplane pilots think it is essential, but it somehow escaped
designation as such by the WSDOT. With Alderbrook now closed by Microsoft,
you are basically left with Lake Union and Renton. Renton is also threatened
with closure. There just are not many seaplane bases left.

It would not be unreasonable to expect that the next step will be an attempt
to ban seaplanes from the lake, given the attitude of many officials of the
City of Lakewood.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Well, most seaplane pilots think it is essential, but it somehow escaped
> designation as such by the WSDOT.

Most? I doubt that. Perhaps "most seaplane pilots who actually use
American Lake", but then if that's just a half-dozen people, it's not really
meaningful to say "most". I'm a seaplane pilot based in the Northwest and
have never had a need to land at American Lake. It certainly isn't
essential to me.

I don't know how many seaplane pilots there are in the US. There are 7500
pilots in the SPA, and I'm guessing they don't have the "market penetration"
AOPA does, so I'd guess that extrapolates to maybe 30,000 seaplane pilots in
the US. I'll bet "most" of those seaplane pilots have never even heard of
American Lake, never mind have an opinion on whether it's essential or not.

Perhaps the seaplane base IS essential. I don't know. But the basis for
"essential" is in what the seaplane base is used for, and whether that need
can or cannot be served by other similar facilities nearby. The basis
cannot be the unqualified opinion of an unqualified number of seaplane
pilots. You can't answer the question "is American Lake SPD essential?" by
saying "most seaplane pilots think it is essential". Clearly, "most
seaplane pilots" don't even have an opinion, and even if "most seaplane
pilots of some

> With Alderbrook now closed by Microsoft,

Now you're just being irrational. I don't know what "Alderbrook" you're
talking about, but Microsoft isn't in the business of seaplane bases. It's
not possible for them to close a seaplane base. It boggles my mind that
even a thread entirely about aviation has become a vehicle for baseless
accusations of a software company.

> you are basically left with Lake Union and Renton. Renton is also
> threatened
> with closure. There just are not many seaplane bases left.

Forgot Kenmore? Poulsbo? Quartermaster Harbor? Even Harvey Field supports
seaplanes (though I'll admit it's nowhere near as convenient as a real
seaplane base). Probably others I've forgotten. Lake Union and Kenmore
aren't going anywhere in any case, and various aspects of Renton have been
"threatened with closure" off and on for years.

That said, I'm not going to dispute that "there just are not many seaplane
bases left". It's just that there haven't been all that many for a long
time anyway. SPA hasn't provided me with any insight as to WHY the seaplane
base is being closed. Just that they are alarmed that the seaplane base is
closing and that I should be alarmed too.

If the seaplane base is being closed due to lack of economic viability
and/or use, then it would seem to me that the WSDOT's not calling it
"essential" is reasonably accurate. But in any case, it seems to me that
it's a bit premature to be alarmed about the closure, given the lack of
facts about both sides that is available.

Seaplanes are not the critical element of our nation's transportation
infrastructure that they used to be. They haven't been for a long time.
They serve a niche market, and if a city wants to get out of the seaplane
operations subsidy business, why should they be forced to stay in?

> It would not be unreasonable to expect that the next step will be an
> attempt
> to ban seaplanes from the lake, given the attitude of many officials of
> the
> City of Lakewood.

What attitude? Maybe they have attitude, but no one's provided any
documentation of that. But in any case, a ban on seaplane operations can be
fought separately, and an underused seaplane base shouldn't be forced to
stay open just so that water rights can be protected.

I suspect (even though no seaplane advocate will provide this information)
that the primary reason for the closure is that the city of Lakewood has
been providing budgetary support for the seaplane base, that the seaplane
base is not benefiting the city, and that they want to get rid of that
liability. If other people feel that the seaplane base is so important,
then they need to find funding elsewhere and talk the city into transferring
ownership. Forcing the city to continue to fund the seaplane base against
their desire isn't reasonable.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> > With Alderbrook now closed by Microsoft,
>
> Now you're just being irrational. I don't know what "Alderbrook" you're
> talking about, but Microsoft isn't in the business of seaplane bases.
It's
> not possible for them to close a seaplane base. It boggles my mind that
> even a thread entirely about aviation has become a vehicle for baseless
> accusations of a software company.

Alderbrook is located at the Great Bend of the Hood Canal. You do know who
owns Alderbrook, don't you? It is Microsoft. Bill Gates and John Nordstrom
fly into there frequently.

The good news is that Microsoft may build a new base there, but there has
been a lot of foot-dragging. The idea is that the base would serve their new
convention center they are building.

You again seem determined to disagree with me no matter what.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Alderbrook is located at the Great Bend of the Hood Canal. You do know who
> owns Alderbrook, don't you? It is Microsoft.

No, I never heard of Alderbrook, and I'm not aware of Microsoft owning any
property out there. Any documentation that shows that Alderbrook is
property of the Microsoft Corporation?

> Bill Gates and John Nordstrom fly into there frequently.

Nordstrom is a pilot. Gates, not really. In any case, if the site is
closed, how do they "fly into there frequently"?

> The good news is that Microsoft may build a new base there, but there has
> been a lot of foot-dragging. The idea is that the base would serve their
> new
> convention center they are building.

Your claim is that Microsoft would actually maintain a full seaplane base,
complete with services and presumably a fleet of airplanes, just for a
convention center?

Uh, right.

> You again seem determined to disagree with me no matter what.

As long as you keep coming up with hard-to-believe claims, I'm going to
comment on them. In any case, I notice that you had absolutely no rebuttal
to the real issue at hand, which is the question of whether American Lake
SPD is "essential" or not.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:58:42 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>
>I suspect (even though no seaplane advocate will provide this information)
>that the primary reason for the closure is that the city of Lakewood has
>been providing budgetary support for the seaplane base, that the seaplane
>base is not benefiting the city, and that they want to get rid of that
>liability.

While this argument may not be germane to Lakewood SPB, it can be said
that outlaying airports, though not currently essential, will be key
elements in the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS)* strategy.
Without them, SATS will be crippled.

Regaining the right to construct replacement airports and finding
sufficient open space once the uneconomical municipal airports are
closed will be difficult and greatly hinder the SATS alternative
solution to international airport hubs sited in urban locations.

So SATS foresight can be used as a reasonable argument to persuade
cities to continue to subsidize their municipal airports or get left
behind when (if) SATS is implemented.

* http://sats.nasa.gov/

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:27:12 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>You do know who owns Alderbrook, don't you? It is Microsoft.

I wasn't able to find Alderbrok here:
http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/WA

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> While this argument may not be germane to Lakewood SPB, it can be said
> that outlaying airports, though not currently essential, will be key
> elements in the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS)* strategy.
> Without them, SATS will be crippled.

I agree that airports not necessarily considered "essential" today may wind
up categorized that way, if and when SATS ever becomes reality.

However, I don't expect SATS to ever rely in any significant amount on
seaplanes, nor would I expect American Lake SPB to have any significance
with respect to SATS.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Alderbrook is located at the Great Bend of the Hood Canal. You do know
who
> > owns Alderbrook, don't you? It is Microsoft.
>
> No, I never heard of Alderbrook, and I'm not aware of Microsoft owning any
> property out there. Any documentation that shows that Alderbrook is
> property of the Microsoft Corporation?
>

There is nothing I could say that you would not claim is a lie. We are done.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> There is nothing I could say that you would not claim is a lie. We are
> done.

In other words, you have no documentation for your claim. Well, why didn't
you just say so in the first place?

In any case, twice you have conveniently ignored the primary point of the
thread. I presume that means you have no real information regarding that as
well.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > There is nothing I could say that you would not claim is a lie. We are
> > done.
>
> In other words, you have no documentation for your claim. Well, why
didn't
> you just say so in the first place?
>
> In any case, twice you have conveniently ignored the primary point of the
> thread. I presume that means you have no real information regarding that
as
> well.

I will keep that in mind when the base you fly out of is threatened. Don't
bother to ask for help around here. Apparently you think airport closures
are only an issue if they affect you personally. I saw the same attitude in
regard to the Los Angeles tower crash. I guess if you don't fly there you
don't care about it, which seems incredibly selfish and short-sighted.

I did not define the base as "essential," so you are deliberately lying when
you claim (repeatedly, I might add) that I did. I said that WSDOT did not
define the base as essential. You know that, yet you continually insist that
I said something I did not.

I did say that most seaplane pilots think it is essential. I might have
qualified that in two ways. First of all, I am not a seaplane pilot and
never have claimed to be one. Secondly, you are the only seaplane pilot that
I have talked to that seems to think it is a good idea to kill this base, so
I could have said that most of the seaplane pilots that I have talked to
around here think the base is essential.

Frankly, I am getting tired of your lying to make a point, your putting
words in my mouth which I did not say (and I am not the only one you do this
to), and your general antagonistic attitude. You have not got the faintest
idea what you are talking about, and tear down anyone who does. I am
thoroughly sick of your sarcastic, condescending air.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Frankly, I am getting tired of your lying to make a point, your putting
> words in my mouth which I did not say (and I am not the only one you do
> this
> to), and your general antagonistic attitude. You have not got the faintest
> idea what you are talking about, and tear down anyone who does. I am
> thoroughly sick of your sarcastic, condescending air.

I quoted this first, because I found it so amusing. You are the one lying,
and even putting words into my mouth. I made some simple comments with the
goal of getting some elaboration on this supposedly critical issue. You
managed to take it personally, apparently because you were unable to
actually ANSWER the questions asked.

Anyway, if you're so sick and tired of me, why don't you killfile me
already? You obviously aren't cut out for having your statements
questioned, having utterly no factual response for simple, direct questions.

As far as the stuff you falsely attribute to me goes...

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I will keep that in mind when the base you fly out of is threatened. Don't
> bother to ask for help around here. Apparently you think airport closures
> are only an issue if they affect you personally.

I never said anything remotely like that. However, it is absolutely true
that NOT ALL AIRPORT CLOSURES ARE A PROBLEM. As pilots, we do no service to
our own cause by acting Chicken Little every time someone proposes to close
an airport. Some airports ought to be closed, while some others are ones
that we have no right to expect to remain open.

If you cannot answer a simple question about WHY an airport should not be
closed, you have no business sounding the alarm.

> I did not define the base as "essential," so you are deliberately lying
> when
> you claim (repeatedly, I might add) that I did.

You certainly made the implication that you feel the SPB is essential.
However, again...if you don't feel it's essential, you have no business
asking other pilots to lobby the city government telling them how
"essential" it is.

> [...]
> I did say that most seaplane pilots think it is essential. I might have
> qualified that in two ways. First of all, I am not a seaplane pilot and
> never have claimed to be one. Secondly, you are the only seaplane pilot
> that
> I have talked to that seems to think it is a good idea to kill this base,

Again, words in my mouth. I never said that I think it's a good idea to
kill this SPB. However, I certainly have seen no evidence to suggest that
it's NOT a good idea to kill the SPB. And despite repeated opportunities,
you continue to fail to provide any such evidence.

Even though you're the one sounding the alarm, you have no actual
information as to WHY you are sounding the alarm. You're just doing the
standard "oh my god, another airport gone" crap. If you can't explain why
it's bad an airport (or a seaplane base) is going away, you have no business
complaining that it's going away.

> so
> I could have said that most of the seaplane pilots that I have talked to
> around here think the base is essential.

And what reasons did they give you for saying that the seaplane base is
essential? That would, after all, be the proper response to the VERY simple
questions I've asked.

Pete

[Denny]

OK CJ and Pete, no kicking, gouging, or biting..

I am of the inclination that no airport should close, but the reality
is that some airports are going to close just because of the nature of
our society - Meigs is a case in point - and that we/AOPA have to pick
our fights carefully...

I have had discussion with the county commissioners who 'own' my
airport... When they whined about $68,000 to subsidize the operating
costs over and above the income from rentals and fuel sales last year,
I asked how much they made from the brand new, multimillion dollar,
boat launch and park they had just built the year before (use is free
to the public), and how much income they got from stop signs, snow
plowing, or street lighting (big dollars for electricity 365 nights a
year), and so on... The answer was that the park, the streets, etc.,
were line items in the budget and therefore didn't cost them anything
!?!... Understanding the mind set I was dealing with - which is they
will fund politically popular programs and deny anything that doesn't
bring them relection votes - I suggested that they make the airport an
line item in the budget and then the airport would not cost them
anything from then on... The looks I got would curdle mothers milk...
Denny