Re: FAA says homebuilders have to build the components of theirprojects off-airport

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 5:57:52 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
>
>
>
> Having taken a look at the legislation, I have to say that I'm far from
>
> certain that the FAA really has the power to say how hangars are to be used.
>
>
>
> It probably should, given that the government is subsidising them, but
>
> to my mind the legislation doesn't go that deep. The airport plan will
>
> show where the hangars are, and the airport owner will not be able to
>
> pull them down and erect something else, but as long as the hangars are
>
> there, I can't see a constraint that they be used for aviation purposes.
>
>
>
> Charging a market rate rent when a hangar is not used for aviation
>
> purposes appears to go against the express words of 49 USC 47107.a(13)(B).
>
>
>
> Sylvia.

Which is why community level airports should avoid federal funding.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Saturday, August 9, 2014 5:57:52 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> > > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
> >
> >
> >
> > Having taken a look at the legislation, I have to say that I'm far from
> >
> > certain that the FAA really has the power to say how hangars are to be used.
> >
> >
> >
> > It probably should, given that the government is subsidising them, but
> >
> > to my mind the legislation doesn't go that deep. The airport plan will
> >
> > show where the hangars are, and the airport owner will not be able to
> >
> > pull them down and erect something else, but as long as the hangars are
> >
> > there, I can't see a constraint that they be used for aviation purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Charging a market rate rent when a hangar is not used for aviation
> >
> > purposes appears to go against the express words of 49 USC 47107.a(13)(B).
> >
> >
> >
> > Sylvia.
>
> Which is why community level airports should avoid federal funding.

Yes and no. Federal funding helps to insulate the airport against
covetous local politicians seeking to placate their developer campaign
contributors' plans to close the airport so they can develop it.

See: Santa Monica for a prime example.

[not given]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:37:22 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 9, 2014 5:57:52 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> > On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>> >
>> > > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

....much cutting...

> Yes and no. Federal funding helps to insulate the airport against
> covetous local politicians seeking to placate their developer campaign
> contributors' plans to close the airport so they can develop it.
>
> See: Santa Monica for a prime example.

Federal dollars are no protection from development.
See Meigs Field for a prime example.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
not given > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:37:22 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, August 9, 2014 5:57:52 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> > On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
>
> ...much cutting...
>
> > Yes and no. Federal funding helps to insulate the airport against
> > covetous local politicians seeking to placate their developer campaign
> > contributors' plans to close the airport so they can develop it.
> >
> > See: Santa Monica for a prime example.
>
> Federal dollars are no protection from development.
> See Meigs Field for a prime example.

The problem with Meigs was that they did NOT receive Federal dollars for
improvements.

Santa Monica received the airport from the Federal government under a
clause ensuring that it would remain an airport -- IN PERPETUITY, unless
the Feds released it.

Reid-Hillview, in San Jose, CA was purchased under similar conditions,
with the Feds telling Santa Clara County that they would insist on
repayment of their share of the investment, based on sale price -- not
just their initial cost. This put a damper on the greedy politicians.

[Bug Dout]

writes:

> Which is why community level airports should avoid federal funding.

If they can afford to. The vast majority of public airports would wither
and die with only local funding.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts."
-- Bertran Russell


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:37:22 AM UTC-6, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, August 9, 2014 5:57:52 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> > > On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Having taken a look at the legislation, I have to say that I'm far from
>
> > >
>
> > > certain that the FAA really has the power to say how hangars are to be used.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > It probably should, given that the government is subsidising them, but
>
> > >
>
> > > to my mind the legislation doesn't go that deep. The airport plan will
>
> > >
>
> > > show where the hangars are, and the airport owner will not be able to
>
> > >
>
> > > pull them down and erect something else, but as long as the hangars are
>
> > >
>
> > > there, I can't see a constraint that they be used for aviation purposes.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Charging a market rate rent when a hangar is not used for aviation
>
> > >
>
> > > purposes appears to go against the express words of 49 USC 47107.a(13)(B).
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Sylvia.
>
> >
>
> > Which is why community level airports should avoid federal funding.
>
>
>
> Yes and no. Federal funding helps to insulate the airport against
>
> covetous local politicians seeking to placate their developer campaign
>
> contributors' plans to close the airport so they can develop it.
>
>
>
> See: Santa Monica for a prime example.

I agree that it brings some protections, but it also brings a boatload of use constraints. Furthermore the FAA seems unwilling and unable to reign state aviation departments who are making their own set of rules. There are several airports where flying clubs and gliding activities have been adversely impacted.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 9:24:49 AM UTC-6, Bug Dout wrote:
> writes:
>
>
>
> > Which is why community level airports should avoid federal funding.
>
>
>
> If they can afford to. The vast majority of public airports would wither
>
> and die with only local funding.
>
> --
>
> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
>
> so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts."
>
> -- Bertran Russell
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>
> http://www.avast.com

The federal funds and matching funds are often for large projects which may be of questionable need to the local community. My own city/county airport has a 10,000ft runway which was largely a stepping stone project for the then airport manager who was on the career progression ladder. The next one immediately started recommending a control tower. Then a county commissioner started saying there should be a regional airport halfway between this airport and another municipal airport, a distance of 60 miles. Please. Frederick, MD, airport is another example of how (the promise of) federal money destroys airport use and access.

Frank Whiteley