Can the airport ban bicycles?

[Jay Honeck]

Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
related to aviation.)

Is this legal?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?

If they use a nebulous term, such as "safety", it probably is.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>

So you can't park your car in your hangar while you're flying your airplane?


>
> Is this legal?
>

Possibly. Is it right? No.

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 28, 2:43 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?

IANAL, but I don't see why not. My experience is with residential
leases, so what I say may or may not apply; while there are
restrictions on what owners can write into a lease, they are pretty
specific (i.e. I can't write a restriction on smoking for a
residential lease, but i can for pets. I cannot require a "pet
deposit," but I can have a "pet rider" which increases the rent).
Waterbeds are an example of a property restriction I cam make
perfectly legally even on the first floor.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes. In a lot of states,
bicycles are covered under the motor vehicle code and are considered
"vehicles" (that's how they can apply operating under the influence
laws to bicycles). If the lease was worded to restrict other
"vehicles," it may not be clear that bicycles are included in that
definition. However, by excluding bicycles specifically, the lessor
removes that ambiguity.

JMHO TIFFIW.

[Maxwell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?

It's certainly legal, but the question is, what is their intent? Do they
really resent your leaving a car or bicycle behind while you go flying, or
are they just trying to keep the their hangers from becoming clutter barns?
A lots of people turn hangers in to junk barns, with just enough space to
push the airplane in. In addition, I have seen people ( I guess ) sell their
planes, and keep the hanger for cheap storage. We had a local enforcement
action one time that insisted any hanger not actually storing an aircraft
had to be surrendered, and almost a dozen units were freed up for those on
the waiting list. Not to mention how junky airports often look on Sunday,
when everyone's door is open.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Not absolutely sure if it still applies, but if it's a commercial lease,
it's legal the instant you accept the conditions and sign the lease, as
long as the conditions don't violate existing law.
It gets a bit tricky when there's federal or state dollars involved in
airport construction, but if it's private property issuing a commercial
lease, if it doesn't violate, it's legal for the conditions they put on
the lease. The way I understand it, it's your option not to accept the
stated conditions.
This was the way it was in our old operation. God only knows what the
politicians have altered since then. :-)
Dudley Henriques

--
Dudley Henriques

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 28, 3:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> > things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> > related to aviation.)
>
> > Is this legal?
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> >www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Not absolutely sure if it still applies, but if it's a commercial lease,
> it's legal the instant you accept the conditions and sign the lease, as
> long as the conditions don't violate existing law.
> It gets a bit tricky when there's federal or state dollars involved in
> airport construction, but if it's private property issuing a commercial
> lease, if it doesn't violate, it's legal for the conditions they put on
> the lease. The way I understand it, it's your option not to accept the
> stated conditions.

And this is also the reason why leases are separated into clauses that
can be severable if they violate any existing laws...and one of the
clauses in the lease usually states this <g>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Doug Semler wrote:
> On Aug 28, 3:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
>>> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
>>> related to aviation.)
>>> Is this legal?
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>> Not absolutely sure if it still applies, but if it's a commercial lease,
>> it's legal the instant you accept the conditions and sign the lease, as
>> long as the conditions don't violate existing law.
>> It gets a bit tricky when there's federal or state dollars involved in
>> airport construction, but if it's private property issuing a commercial
>> lease, if it doesn't violate, it's legal for the conditions they put on
>> the lease. The way I understand it, it's your option not to accept the
>> stated conditions.
>
> And this is also the reason why leases are separated into clauses that
> can be severable if they violate any existing laws...and one of the
> clauses in the lease usually states this <g>
>
>
One thing's for certain. We'll NEVER get beyond those wonderful friends
of ours in general aviation....those champions of GA who protect us from
that which THEY alone have designed to be what we need protection
from......our benefactors......the protectors of the weak and of the
innocent....as long as the weak and the innocent have the money to pay
for the protection.........you guessed it.......the LAWYERS involved in
general aviation!!!!
:-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck]

> I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
> restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
> becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes.

The "owners" are "We the People" -- it's a municipal airport hangar.

I believe the original intent of the clause(s) was to prevent the use
of hangars as non-aircraft storage units. The current commission,
however, is taking a very rigid reading of the lease, and has
announced a ban on ANYTHING not directly related to aviation --
including bicycles, of all things.

Our airport support group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", is
absolutely abuzz with comments and crossfire, from commissioners and
tenants. It's actually kind of fun, but the ramifications are too
serious to really enjoy it.

Honestly, just when you thought you had seen everything...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> > things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> > related to aviation.)
>
> So you can't park your car in your hangar while you're flying your airplane?

No, they specifically okay that practice in the lease. But bikes,
cars, motorcycles, and anything "non-aeronautical" is banned
(according to their reading of the rules) at all other times -- even
if there is ample room around the aircraft.

In my opinion, this is a gross mis-reading of the FARs, which were put
in place to make sure that airport hangars were not used as cheap
storage units for boats and other non-aircraft.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

> The "owners" are "We the People" --
Hehe! Good one! :) but that would require electing officials that still
agree with the We the People concept rather than the You are the People, WE
are Gods concept of government.

Jim

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)

Ma$$port at KBED has the same thing. Practically speaking, bikes
and cars can be left in the hangar while the airplane is out, but the
idea is to use the hangar for airplanes.

I would think your various airport cars would be just fine. That
mustang IS an airport car, right? It just doesn't get as much use
as the van, right?

And the refrig is to store essential liquids for your mechanics, right?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> In my opinion, this is a gross mis-reading of the FARs, which were put
> in place to make sure that airport hangars were not used as cheap
> storage units for boats and other non-aircraft.
>

What FARs cover hangar leases?

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>What FARs cover hangar leases?

Yeah.
I was wondering that misself.

Maybe part "86"

Hmmm , it reads:"..any item not directly related to operating a hangared
aircraft must be "86'd", kaput, nada, outta dere.."

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1

[Ross]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
>>restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
>>becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes.
>
>
> The "owners" are "We the People" -- it's a municipal airport hangar.
>
> I believe the original intent of the clause(s) was to prevent the use
> of hangars as non-aircraft storage units. The current commission,
> however, is taking a very rigid reading of the lease, and has
> announced a ban on ANYTHING not directly related to aviation --
> including bicycles, of all things.
>
> Our airport support group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", is
> absolutely abuzz with comments and crossfire, from commissioners and
> tenants. It's actually kind of fun, but the ramifications are too
> serious to really enjoy it.
>
> Honestly, just when you thought you had seen everything...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I have been on the local airport board off and on for years. We
originally had situations where the cheap storage was occurring. We
started eviction notices, when he finally left. You must have an
airworthy aircraft or be progressively working on a plane. Other things
can be kept in the hangars as long as they comply with the fire marshall
such as oil, small amounts of solvents, but I would think a 55 gal drum
of mogas would be not be welcomed. I leave my car in the hangar when
going cross country. I have my fake Christmas tree there. But, I keep
mine rather clean.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Tater]

On Aug 28, 1:43 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?

hmmmmm, sounds like something an insurance policywriter woudl put in.
how much hangar rash gets caused by bikes?

Directly related to aviation? put wings on yer bike!

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Depends on the lease - no CFR Chapter 14 anything about it...

[Jay Honeck]

> What FARs cover hangar leases?

It's called "Grant Assurance 29". Here ya go:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport_sponsor_assurances.pdf

Specifically Grant Assurance #29 says this:

29. Airport Layout Plan. a. It will keep up to date at all times an
airport layout plan of the airport showing (1) boundaries of the
airport and all proposed additions thereto, together with the
boundaries of all offsite areas owned or controlled by the sponsor for
airport purposes and proposed additions thereto; (2) the location and
nature of all existing and proposed airport facilities and structures
(such as runways, taxiways, aprons, terminal buildings, hangars and
roads), including all proposed extensions and reductions of existing
airport facilities; and (3) the location of all existing and proposed
nonaviation areas and of all existing improvements thereon. Such
airport layout plans and each amendment, revision, or modification
thereof, shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary which
approval shall be evidenced by the signature of a duly authorized
representative of the Secretary on the face of the airport layout
plan. The sponsor will not make or permit any changes or alterations
in the airport or any of its facilities which are not in conformity
with the airport layout plan as approved by the Secretary and which
might, in the opinion of the Secretary, adversely affect the safety,
utility or efficiency of the airport. b. If a change or alteration in
the airport or the facilities is made which the Secretary determines
adversely affects the safety, utility, or efficiency of any federally
owned, leased, or funded property on or off the airport and which is
not in conformity with the airport layout plan as approved by the
Secretary, the owner or operator will, if requested, by the Secretary
(1) eliminate such adverse effect in a manner approved by the
Secretary; or (2) bear all costs of relocating such property (or
replacement thereof) to a site acceptable to the Secretary and all
costs of restoring such property (or replacement thereof) to the level
of safety, utility, efficiency, and cost of operation existing before
the unapproved change in the airport or its facilities.

The airport commission is using this as justification for the ban,
since allowing the hangars to be used to "store" stuff would be a
"change or alteration in the facilities" and put our FAA grant money
at stake.

It's all BS, if you ask me. I think it's a gross mis-reading of the
rule.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Tue 28 Aug 2007 01:43:35p, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?

Hook up a tow hook to the bicycle and claim that it is a tug for moving
your aircraft. Most of the hangars that I've rented over the years don't
care what you put in them as long as you can still fit a plane in there.
At one time, I used a hangar for storage of my household items while moving
between houses (hadn't closed on the new house yet) and my plane was based
elsewhere. Some nosy asshole complained and I had to move everything to a
normal storage site.

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Tue 28 Aug 2007 03:17:42p, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> In my opinion, this is a gross mis-reading of the FARs, which were put
> in place to make sure that airport hangars were not used as cheap
> storage units for boats and other non-aircraft.

I store my boat, utility trailer, ATV, and beer fridge in my hangar at my
current airport. The ATV acts as an aircraft tug, so technically it is
aviation related. The beer fridge is for after flight refreshments, so I
guess it is aviation related also. Give me a bit of time and I can
probably come up with an aviation related justification for the boat and
utility trailer also.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 28, 3:11 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > What FARs cover hangar leases?
>
> It's called "Grant Assurance 29". Here ya go:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_assurances/...
>
> Specifically Grant Assurance #29 says this:

Doesn't that assume that the hangers will build with AIF?

-Robert

[Really-Old-Fart]

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Tue 28 Aug 2007 04:20:02p, Ross
> wrote:

> I have been on the local airport board off and on for years. We
> originally had situations where the cheap storage was occurring. We
> started eviction notices, when he finally left. You must have an
> airworthy aircraft or be progressively working on a plane. Other
> things can be kept in the hangars as long as they comply with the fire
> marshall such as oil, small amounts of solvents, but I would think a
> 55 gal drum of mogas would be not be welcomed. I leave my car in the
> hangar when going cross country. I have my fake Christmas tree there.
> But, I keep mine rather clean.

Yeah, shame on us for thinking that we can keep a 55 gallon drum of fuel in
our hangar with 50-100 gallons of fuel that is already in our wing tanks.
One could argue that the 55 gallon drum is probably made from stronger
material than the tanks on our aircraft. Hell, it's probably even safer
since it doesn't have gaskets on the bottom that leak fuel.

[Jon Woellhaf]

"It's not a bicycle," your honor, "it's an experimental human-powered
aircraft. I'm working on the wing design and plan to attach them soon." <g>

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

>
> The airport commission is using this as justification for the ban,
> since allowing the hangars to be used to "store" stuff would be a
> "change or alteration in the facilities" and put our FAA grant money
> at stake.

NOT allowing this stuff would be a change. People have been using
hangars to store stuff since the beginning...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Al G[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
>> restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
>> becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes.
>
> The "owners" are "We the People" -- it's a municipal airport hangar.
>
> I believe the original intent of the clause(s) was to prevent the use
> of hangars as non-aircraft storage units. The current commission,
> however, is taking a very rigid reading of the lease, and has
> announced a ban on ANYTHING not directly related to aviation --
> including bicycles, of all things.
>
> Our airport support group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", is
> absolutely abuzz with comments and crossfire, from commissioners and
> tenants. It's actually kind of fun, but the ramifications are too
> serious to really enjoy it.
>
> Honestly, just when you thought you had seen everything...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Wait until the Oregon Green Peace folks find out someone, anyone, banned
a bicycle, anywhere.

Al G

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?

It is if you sign it.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
>> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
>> related to aviation.)
>>
>
> So you can't park your car in your hangar while you're flying your airplane?

You can't at ELM where my airplane was formerly based. The cars had to
be parked outside the hangar which was a real pain when lots of folks
were out flying.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
>>> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
>>> related to aviation.)
>> So you can't park your car in your hangar while you're flying your airplane?
>
> No, they specifically okay that practice in the lease. But bikes,
> cars, motorcycles, and anything "non-aeronautical" is banned
> (according to their reading of the rules) at all other times -- even
> if there is ample room around the aircraft.
>
> In my opinion, this is a gross mis-reading of the FARs, which were put
> in place to make sure that airport hangars were not used as cheap
> storage units for boats and other non-aircraft.

What FAR addresses hangars?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> What FARs cover hangar leases?
>
> It's called "Grant Assurance 29". Here ya go:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport_sponsor_assurances.pdf
>
> Specifically Grant Assurance #29 says this:

I don't think this is an FAR though.

Matt

[Big John]

ROF

Paint "Crash Boat" on side of boat and use it to rescue pilots that go
down in the water.

Write a procedures manual to cover operation of "Crash Boat".

Big John
******************************

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:04:05 +0200 (CEST), "Really-Old-Fart"
> wrote:

>In rec.aviation.piloting, on Tue 28 Aug 2007 03:17:42p, Jay Honeck
> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, this is a gross mis-reading of the FARs, which were put
>> in place to make sure that airport hangars were not used as cheap
>> storage units for boats and other non-aircraft.
>
>I store my boat, utility trailer, ATV, and beer fridge in my hangar at my
>current airport. The ATV acts as an aircraft tug, so technically it is
>aviation related. The beer fridge is for after flight refreshments, so I
>guess it is aviation related also. Give me a bit of time and I can
>probably come up with an aviation related justification for the boat and
>utility trailer also.

[Travis Marlatte]

But it sounds like it is the municipality protecting the federal funding,
right? If the funding was provided with stipulations that the funds be used
for only aviation related activities, then that is being passed on to the
leasors as a restriction.

The problem is with the stipulations of the funding. As one of the "We the
people" I don't mind subsidizing airports and hangars as long as they are
used for aviation related purposes. I also don't mind someone storing their
boat or other non-aviation related stuff in the hangar - as long as it is
also used as a hangar.

But, if someone wants to use the hangar that was built with aviation
subsidies that I provided as merely a storage shed, I gotta a problem with
dat. There are lots of public storage facilities that they can use (and
probably pay more per square foot).

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
>> restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
>> becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes.
>
> The "owners" are "We the People" -- it's a municipal airport hangar.
>
> I believe the original intent of the clause(s) was to prevent the use
> of hangars as non-aircraft storage units. The current commission,
> however, is taking a very rigid reading of the lease, and has
> announced a ban on ANYTHING not directly related to aviation --
> including bicycles, of all things.
>
> Our airport support group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", is
> absolutely abuzz with comments and crossfire, from commissioners and
> tenants. It's actually kind of fun, but the ramifications are too
> serious to really enjoy it.
>
> Honestly, just when you thought you had seen everything...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Denny]

On Aug 28, 2:43 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

My airport is specifically renting space in the winter to RV's, boats,
cars, etc. due to low occupancy... Yes, the airport has state and
federal grant money - put in a spanking new ILS a year ago...

denny

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
>
> I use my bike a lot for transportation around the airport. My suggestion
> would be to keep bikes and use them. Sometimes the adage about "it is better
> to ask for forgiveness than permission" works.

I use my bicycles for serious transportation, including commuting.

Many places post "no bicycles" signs for liability reasons. The usual
reason is that you are violating the rule, should you get in an accident
on their property. The rule is usually only enforced when some kid
starts X-games style rail grinding, or jumping with his BMX, or someone
locks a bike stupidly, like to a fire escape railing, in a damaging
manner, or blocking an emergency exit.

The local strip malls that contain my local grocery store, Staples, Home
Depot, etc... as well as my airport, all have "No Bicycles" posted. I
respectfully lock up by bikes, and ride carefully and not on the
sidewalks, and have never been questioned.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
>
> It's certainly legal, but the question is, what is their intent? Do they
> really resent your leaving a car or bicycle behind while you go flying, or
> are they just trying to keep the their hangers from becoming clutter barns?

Storing bicycle(s), especially folding, that actually travel in the
plane may be allowed, if requested in a business-like manner.

Some hangars really do become a mess, so I can see a point.

Perhaps you could work to have the wording changed to something like:
"Items not related to aviation or airport activity"?

Folders are aviation related, and a get around or to the field bicycle
is related to airport activity. Other bikes are simply stored
household items.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> No, they specifically okay that practice in the lease. But bikes,
> cars, motorcycles, and anything "non-aeronautical" is banned
> (according to their reading of the rules) at all other times -- even
> if there is ample room around the aircraft.
>
> In my opinion, this is a gross mis-reading of the FARs, which were put
> in place to make sure that airport hangars were not used as cheap
> storage units for boats and other non-aircraft.

If they own the land, they can impose lots of additional restrictions well
above and beyond anything in the FARs.

[El Maximo]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> The airport commission is using this as justification for the ban,
> since allowing the hangars to be used to "store" stuff would be a
> "change or alteration in the facilities" and put our FAA grant money
> at stake.
>
> It's all BS, if you ask me. I think it's a gross mis-reading of the
> rule.

Jay, have your A&P place a green tag on the bicycle, indicating it needs
repair, or a red tag, indicating it is unable to be made airworthy. Use this
tag as evidence that it is, in fact, an airplane part, in compliance with
the regulations.

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 28, 4:12 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
> > restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
> > becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes.
>
> The "owners" are "We the People" -- it's a municipal airport hangar.
>
> I believe the original intent of the clause(s) was to prevent the use
> of hangars as non-aircraft storage units. The current commission,
> however, is taking a very rigid reading of the lease, and has
> announced a ban on ANYTHING not directly related to aviation --
> including bicycles, of all things.
>
> Our airport support group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", is
> absolutely abuzz with comments and crossfire, from commissioners and
> tenants. It's actually kind of fun, but the ramifications are too
> serious to really enjoy it.
>
> Honestly, just when you thought you had seen everything...

Jay,

I see your point with respect to the "we the people" part. However,
that being said, it's like saying the owners of a public company are
the shareholders. Sure they are, but the shareholders (or people)
hire (elect) a management team (commissioners) to run the company
(municipality) on a day to day basis.

Any "insurance reasons" aside, it seems that there is a consensus
about personal storage and protection of grant monies. Neither of
which seem (at least to me) to be that unreasonable. However, to me,
at least, the specification of bicycles could also deal with a more
general term "vehicle." Without having seen any insurance policies
that are applicable to the property, anything else from me is just a
WAG. <shrug>

Regardless, I don't see why a potential lessee couldn't at least
*attempt* to negotiate bicycles, fridges, or any other item as an
exception to the clause when negotiating the terms of the lease.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:11:17 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in om>:

>
>The airport commission is using this as justification for the ban,
>since allowing the hangars to be used to "store" stuff would be a
>"change or alteration in the facilities" and put our FAA grant money
>at stake.

While I agree with the notion of using publicly funded aircraft
hangars solely for aviation purposes (not socializing nor domicile nor
non-aviation storage) it would seem that the airport commission is
citing an inapplicable regulation. To get the government's official
position on this bicycle issue, you might contact the local FAA
Regional office, and ask their opinion after you have read the Airport
Layout Plan, and are familiar with the specific language it contains
relating to bicycles.

[Jay Honeck]

> But, if someone wants to use the hangar that was built with aviation
> subsidies that I provided as merely a storage shed, I gotta a problem with
> dat. There are lots of public storage facilities that they can use (and
> probably pay more per square foot).

Agree 100%. There should be no hangars occupied by "stuff" instead
of an airplane.

However, what our airport commission (one ****ed off commissioner,
more accurately) is insisting is that we cannot keep "stuff" in our
hangars along *with* our airplanes.

This is a huge change, and will destroy what minimal social aspects
our airport has to offer. If we can't keep a fridge full of
refreshments, or a couch, the hangars revert to being nothing but a
tin shack on hot asphalt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Perhaps you could work to have the wording changed to something like:
> "Items not related to aviation or airport activity"?

It already says that. The airport commission is now proposing
interpreting this rule as meaning no non-aviation "stuff" in hangars
even WITH an aircraft inside.

Until now, that clause has been used to prevent people from renting
hangars solely to store "stuff". Now, they're trying to extend it to
apply to tenants who have aircraft properly stored in their hangars --
a HUGE change.

This has all happened because a single commissioner was/is ****ed that
she lost a vote to raise hangar rents sky-high. When she lost the
vote, she announced that "if this rate increase cannot go through than
I will insist that the hangar leases be followed strictly to the
letter of the law, and that regular inspections be made to make sure
that no hangar tenants are improperly using hangars for storage".

It's nothing but a snit from a scorned commissioner, but it could have
long-range (and bad) ramifications for our airport. Our rents are
already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA activity overall
is still way down...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Is this legal?
>
> It is if you sign it.

Sadly, they are the only show in town.

However, I disagree that it's legal for them to change the
interpretation of an existing lease, simply because we signed it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[El Maximo]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> This has all happened because a single commissioner was/is ****ed that
> she lost a vote to raise hangar rents sky-high. When she lost the
> vote, she announced that "if this rate increase cannot go through than
> I will insist that the hangar leases be followed strictly to the
> letter of the law, and that regular inspections be made to make sure
> that no hangar tenants are improperly using hangars for storage".

It sounds like a letter-writing campaign to the powers-that-be above the
airport commissioners (city council? Mayor?) may be in order.

[Ross]

Clark wrote:
> Ross > wrote in news:7k0Bi.2$%H6.1@dfw-
> service2.ext.ray.com:
>
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
>
> [snip]
>
>>of mogas would be not be welcomed. I leave my car in the hangar when
>>going cross country. I have my fake Christmas tree there. But, I keep
>>mine rather clean.
>>
>
>
> So just how do you clean your fake Christmas tree?
>

OK, poor grammar. The hangar is pretty clean. :)

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Perhaps you could work to have the wording changed to something like:
>> "Items not related to aviation or airport activity"?
>
> It already says that. The airport commission is now proposing
> interpreting this rule as meaning no non-aviation "stuff" in hangars
> even WITH an aircraft inside.
>
> Until now, that clause has been used to prevent people from renting
> hangars solely to store "stuff". Now, they're trying to extend it to
> apply to tenants who have aircraft properly stored in their hangars --
> a HUGE change.
>
> This has all happened because a single commissioner was/is ****ed that
> she lost a vote to raise hangar rents sky-high. When she lost the
> vote, she announced that "if this rate increase cannot go through than
> I will insist that the hangar leases be followed strictly to the
> letter of the law, and that regular inspections be made to make sure
> that no hangar tenants are improperly using hangars for storage".
>
> It's nothing but a snit from a scorned commissioner, but it could have
> long-range (and bad) ramifications for our airport. Our rents are
> already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA activity overall
> is still way down...

My questions is how is your airport commission set up that one ****ed
commission member gets to set the rules and interpitation of the leases?

[Ross]

El Maximo wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
>>This has all happened because a single commissioner was/is ****ed that
>>she lost a vote to raise hangar rents sky-high. When she lost the
>>vote, she announced that "if this rate increase cannot go through than
>>I will insist that the hangar leases be followed strictly to the
>>letter of the law, and that regular inspections be made to make sure
>>that no hangar tenants are improperly using hangars for storage".
>
>
> It sounds like a letter-writing campaign to the powers-that-be above the
> airport commissioners (city council? Mayor?) may be in order.
>
>
>

Are the commissioners elected or appointed? Our airport board is
appointed by the city council.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> My questions is how is your airport commission set up that one ****ed
> commission member gets to set the rules and interpitation of the leases?

Looks like Iowa City has a web site and several pages dealing with the
airport and its commission:

http://www.icgov.org/airport/default.htm

Using the link in the upper right-hand corner goes to this page, which may
answer your question:
http://www.iowa-city.org/board_members.asp?id=1

Also, one can find the agenda and minutes for past meetings of the Iowa
City Airport commission online here:

http://www.icgov.org/boardminutes.asp?ID=1

Here's the meeting minutes for one that seems to be the origin of the
debate (I stopped looking at them when I found this; there may be more):

http://www.icgov.org/boardminute/1486.pdf

[RST Engineering]

Jay...

You are the recipient of the oldest aviation shell game known. WHen the
local elected wheezers want to do ANY wild hair, they hang their hats on the
"...but it will void the FAA funding..." line.

Tell ya what ... if Chicago can get by with wiping an entire airport off the
map and all the FAA can do is wring its hands and say oh my, oh my, you
think they are coming down to a small Iowa town with the bicycle police?

You think any judge in his right mind is going to convict you of breach of
lease for a lousy bike or two in the hangar when it can be shown that the
bikes are used to go to the potty from the hangar?

Let the sons of bitches put anything they want in the lease and then nail
their asses if they try and enforce it.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > Is this legal?
>>
>> It is if you sign it.
>
> Sadly, they are the only show in town.

[El Maximo]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo wrote:

>> It sounds like a letter-writing campaign to the powers-that-be above the
>> airport commissioners (city council? Mayor?) may be in order.
>
> Are the commissioners elected or appointed? Our airport board is appointed
> by the city council.
>

A quick search shows that they are appointed by the mayor, with approval of
the City Council. The only female member of the council appears to be Janell
Rettig, although it looks like she's missed the past few meetings.

http://www.iowa-city.org/board_members.asp?ID=1

It doesn't look like they have any mandate to promote aviation, only to
exercise all powers granted......

I don't see any mention of Hangar Lease enforcement in the agendas or
minutes, so sh may be violating open meeting laws by discussing airport
business 'off the record'.

I still think if the Mayor would react if he gets a letter from EVERY hangar
tenant.

[RST Engineering]

So, is this your public announcement that you are running to beat the
elected ******* that appointed her?

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...


>
> This has all happened because a single commissioner was/is ****ed that
> she lost a vote to raise hangar rents sky-high.

[Montblack]

("Al G" wrote)
> Wait until the Oregon Green Peace folks find out someone, anyone, banned a
> bicycle, anywhere.


That bit of irony lit up my screen too, considering who runs Iowa City
government.


Paul-Mont

[RST Engineering]

An individual elected or appointed official can discuss anything they want
publicly or privately without violating open meeting laws (California's
Ralph M. Brown Act). It is only when they get together as a quorum or more
to do so that they are transgressing.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...

> I don't see any mention of Hangar Lease enforcement in the agendas or
> minutes, so sh may be violating open meeting laws by discussing airport
> business 'off the record'.

[john hawkins]

It may be but google earth shows two grasss strips nearby. Why not move

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > Is this legal?
>>
>> It is if you sign it.
>
> Sadly, they are the only show in town.
>
> However, I disagree that it's legal for them to change the
> interpretation of an existing lease, simply because we signed it.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[bdl]

On Aug 29, 10:27 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Perhaps you could work to have the wording changed to something like:
> > "Items not related to aviation or airport activity"?
>
> It already says that. The airport commission is now proposing
> interpreting this rule as meaning no non-aviation "stuff" in hangars
> even WITH an aircraft inside.

Hmm. So let's get to work on classifying all the "stuff" aviation
stuff.

That couch? Why, its the perfect height for doing wing (wheel?
strut?) maintenance while sitting down. Put some wheel's on the
bottom so that it rolls around and its just an oversized creeper.

The fridge? Hmm.. I've got it. You must store your landing lights in
the fridge to keep them fresh and lasting long!

The bike is easy its your ground transportation at the other end of
your flights.

Sounds like this commissioner wants to get rid of the airport (in line
with raising the rents sky high).

Brian

[S Green]

"Doug Semler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 28, 4:12 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> > I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a CYA move on the owner's part to
>> > restrict any other "vehicles" being "parked" there and the hangar
>> > becoming a "garage" for insurance purposes.
>>
>> The "owners" are "We the People" -- it's a municipal airport hangar.
>>
>> I believe the original intent of the clause(s) was to prevent the use
>> of hangars as non-aircraft storage units. The current commission,
>> however, is taking a very rigid reading of the lease, and has
>> announced a ban on ANYTHING not directly related to aviation --
>> including bicycles, of all things.
>>
>> Our airport support group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", is
>> absolutely abuzz with comments and crossfire, from commissioners and
>> tenants. It's actually kind of fun, but the ramifications are too
>> serious to really enjoy it.
>>
>> Honestly, just when you thought you had seen everything...
>
> Jay,
>
> I see your point with respect to the "we the people" part. However,
> that being said, it's like saying the owners of a public company are
> the shareholders. Sure they are, but the shareholders (or people)
> hire (elect) a management team (commissioners) to run the company
> (municipality) on a day to day basis.
>
> Any "insurance reasons" aside, it seems that there is a consensus
> about personal storage and protection of grant monies. Neither of
> which seem (at least to me) to be that unreasonable. However, to me,
> at least, the specification of bicycles could also deal with a more
> general term "vehicle." Without having seen any insurance policies
> that are applicable to the property, anything else from me is just a
> WAG. <shrug>
>
> Regardless, I don't see why a potential lessee couldn't at least
> *attempt* to negotiate bicycles, fridges, or any other item as an
> exception to the clause when negotiating the terms of the lease.

and if you don't like the terms of the lease then you can always try parking
it elsewhere.

[RST Engineering]

C'mon fella, give us a break. Fifty lines of quoted text for a one line
answer?

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"S Green" > wrote in message
...

>> Regardless, I don't see why a potential lessee couldn't at least
>> *attempt* to negotiate bicycles, fridges, or any other item as an
>> exception to the clause when negotiating the terms of the lease.
>
> and if you don't like the terms of the lease then you can always try
> parking it elsewhere.
>

[Doug Semler]

On Aug 29, 11:30 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > > Is this legal?
>
> > It is if you sign it.
>
> Sadly, they are the only show in town.
>
> However, I disagree that it's legal for them to change the
> interpretation of an existing lease, simply because we signed it.


I think your misnaming "interpretation" for "lack of enforcement of
lease provisions". You agreed to the lease to begin with. If the
lease states that you will only store things that are aircraft or
related to aircraft maintenance, and you store a bicycle there, you
are in violation of the lease's provisions REGARDLESS of whether or
not they have ever enforced the provision (unless you can show that
the bicycle is an aircraft or related to aircraft maintenance <g>).

There is usually a Waiver clause in leases that states something to
the effect that "lack of enforcement of any provision of the lease
shall not be construed as a waiver therof so as to excuse the other
party from future perfomance of that provision or any other
provision." And you should be careful, because violation of a lease's
provisions can put you into default of the lease (you may have a
"correction period" though. Depends on the state and/or the lease
itself. Look for a Default clause).

I should note, that even if there are no Waiver, Severability, or
Default clauses defined explicitly in your lease agreement, state law
may define them for you.

All of this is speculation because I have NO idea exactly how your
lease is worded <g>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:

>
> Here's the meeting minutes for one that seems to be the origin of the
> debate (I stopped looking at them when I found this; there may be
> more):
>
> http://www.icgov.org/boardminute/1486.pdf

Well I read that one and the next two. In the one you link to they say they
are going to get FAA guidance on the issue. I didn't see anything in the two
following about the issue.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Hey butthead, the FAR's do not govern what can be kept in a hangar. What do
> you keep in your hangar, an imaginary bicycle?

That's not a very nice way to talk to Jay.

[Really-Old-Fart]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Our rents are already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA
> activity overall is still way down...

How much do they charge for hangar rental in Iowa City?

[Jay Honeck]

> Well I read that one and the next two. In the one you link to they say they
> are going to get FAA guidance on the issue. I didn't see anything in the two
> following about the issue.

You won't find anything of use in the official meeting minutes. They
are often not released until 60 days after the meetings, and are
thoroughly cleansed of any nuance or detail.

I started "Friends of Iowa City Airport" -- an airport advocacy group
-- several years ago, because the commission at the time had
completely lost touch with their responsibilities. As part of FOICA
each month a volunteer attends the commission meeting and spends
several hours furiously scribbling the UNofficial meeting minutes,
which are then published to the group within hours or days via email.

The group is now over 240 airport supporters, so the quick
dissemination of real-time information (including such subtleties as
tone of voice and wise cracks) has really kept our commission on its
toes.

If you want to join (and have access to the unofficial meeting minute
archives) drop me an email off-group...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Our rents are already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA
> > activity overall is still way down...
>
> How much do they charge for hangar rental in Iowa City?

They just raised ours to $137/month.

I know that probably sounds absurdly low to you guys in big cities,
but it's 25% higher than an equivalent hangar in nearby Cedar Rapids
(CID), a Class C, top-notch airport.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > Our rents are already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA
>> > activity overall is still way down...
>>
>> How much do they charge for hangar rental in Iowa City?
>
> They just raised ours to $137/month.
>
> I know that probably sounds absurdly low to you guys in big cities,
> but it's 25% higher than an equivalent hangar in nearby Cedar Rapids
> (CID), a Class C, top-notch airport.

I don't know about big cities, but it's damn low in this "big" city (with a
state population smaller than many middle sized cities).


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[RST Engineering]

>>
> Why reference Kalifornia law for an Iowa problem??????

Because that is the one I used to teach and am most familiar with. I also
know as a general rule that California law parallels quite a few other
states in the provisions.

>
> A civil action can be pursued on the basis of due process if topics are
> pre-
> judged and discussed in public.

If you have superior knowledge that Iowa law prescribes this, then I bow to
your better understanding. Otherwise hogwash.

Jim

[Really-Old-Fart]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> They just raised ours to $137/month.

Around here, it's not uncommon to hear of hangar rentals being twice that
figure.

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> This has all happened because a single commissioner was/is ****ed that
> she lost a vote to raise hangar rents sky-high. When she lost the
> vote, she announced that "if this rate increase cannot go through than
> I will insist that the hangar leases be followed strictly to the
> letter of the law, and that regular inspections be made to make sure
> that no hangar tenants are improperly using hangars for storage".

Sounds like the commissioner should comply with the same standard, that
is, strictly following the letter of the law wrt her responsibilities and
obligations as commissioner as well as holding the airport to the same
standard.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Doug Semler]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > Our rents are already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA
>> > activity overall is still way down...
>>
>> How much do they charge for hangar rental in Iowa City?
>
> They just raised ours to $137/month.
>
> I know that probably sounds absurdly low to you guys in big cities,
> but it's 25% higher than an equivalent hangar in nearby Cedar Rapids
> (CID), a Class C, top-notch airport.

Grosse Isle average T-hanger slot is avg twice that much.

I'm moving to Iowa <g>

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:43:35 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
>things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
>related to aviation.)

I take it this refers to the storage of, rather than the presence of:
Ours did have such regs, but regardless of what was stored in the
hangars, as long as there was an airplane in there, pilots found
justifiable reasons for them being aviation related. For instance the
bicycle was for riding home after the wife/husband dropped the pilot
off to go flying. The old furniture was used for hangar flying
(really was/is) and the old cabinets hold airplane parts. (really do)

FBO was getting bent out of shape due to all the cars parked around
the one hangar where you might find 10 or 12 pilots gathered eating
popcorn and/or donuts (they have a popcorn machine, donut maker,
refrigerator, and kitchen range in there too) and drinking beer (after
flying). So the next step was to ban beer on the airport and parties
at the hangars.

Some one with some common sense realized this was creating a good
atmosphere for the pilots, their families, and friends. People at the
parties were well behaved and keep the place clean. IOW it was
attracting more pilots and planes as well as more flying and
introducing more people to flying which was considered a good thing.
That was with the exception of the people who built expensive homes
right off the departure end of 18. Since complaints now go on the
record they have been strangely silent over there.

Of course the one guy closest to the end of the runway is probably
still sore about having to take down his tall TV antenna. He probably
still blames me for having to take it down.

I was on final for 36 one day, coming in over the new subdivision when
I became aware of something ahead sticking up darn near as high as I
was and it looked like some one was on it. I don't know how tall the
tower was, but there was a guy installing a big TV antenna on top of
it. I had to apply power to stay above it and the guy on it got a real
good look at the gear and underside of a 3000# airplane. Next day it
was gone! <:-)) Those small towers and TV antennas are very hard to
see! I might not have seen it either if the guy hadn't been working on
it. BTW the trees to the north of him are trimmed short (topped)

This did bring to mind that a pilot should never get complacent even
though you are flying into and out of the same airport a number of
times per week. It's unlikely all the neighbors know they need a
permit to stick up anything much above the tops of the trees, or
anything that sticks up if they are under the approach. One of those
steel or aluminum towers can pop up in a matter of an hour or two.


Roger (K8RI)
>
>Is this legal?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> They just raised ours to $137/month.
>
> I know that probably sounds absurdly low to you guys in big cities,

Big city? <G>

Tee hangars in the sticks, halfway between Hartford and Providence are
in the $350-400 / mo range. And there's a waiting list, so I can't have
one.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> > They just raised ours to $137/month.
> >
> > I know that probably sounds absurdly low to you guys in big cities,

At KBED, Ma$$port charges $119/month for a tie-down with zero services.
My old t-hangar is now $606/month with rumors of more price increases
on the way

Believe it or not, there's a waiting list for these hangars even though Ma$$port
charges a non-refundable fee for the "privelege" of being on the list. There
are some D U M B owners around here.

>
> Big city? <G>
>
> Tee hangars in the sticks, halfway between Hartford and Providence are
> in the $350-400 / mo range. And there's a waiting list, so I can't have
> one.

I'm not sure I'd call "halfway between Hartford and Providence" the sticks.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I'd call "halfway between Hartford and Providence" the sticks.

You're right, semi-sticks. <G>

Next time you fly over Danielson or Windham airports or the Norwich or
Putnam VOR's, note that it's far from a metropolis. Still lots of
trees and farms along the way. Look:

<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=windham+airport&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.939885,59.765625&ie=UTF8&ll=41.74442,-72.181549&spn=0.121164,0.233459&t=k&z=12&om=1>


The folks in Hartford or Groton have it worse than I do, hangar-wise,
but not as bad as KBED.

[Jay Honeck]

> Tee hangars in the sticks, halfway between Hartford and Providence are
> in the $350-400 / mo range. And there's a waiting list, so I can't have
> one.

Ouch. I know we're very lucky to have the hangars that we do (or,
perhaps you guys who are paying triple are just getting the shaft?)
here in Iowa City, and no one is complaining (too much) about the rate
increase. (Although the percentage increase -- 13% -- was somewhat
breath-taking)

The real outcry has been over this new ban on bicycles (and grills,
and motorcycles, and...) -- but it appears we have won the argument,
for now. Both the airport manager and the airport commissioner who
started all this have stated -- in writing, to all 240 members of
Friends of Iowa City Airport -- that bicycles are NOT banned at the
airport, despite their letter of announcement.

Democracy in action!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Well I read that one and the next two. In the one you link to they
>> say they are going to get FAA guidance on the issue. I didn't see
>> anything in the two following about the issue.
>
> You won't find anything of use in the official meeting minutes. They
> are often not released until 60 days after the meetings, and are
> thoroughly cleansed of any nuance or detail.
>
> I started "Friends of Iowa City Airport" -- an airport advocacy group
> -- several years ago, because the commission at the time had
> completely lost touch with their responsibilities. As part of FOICA
> each month a volunteer attends the commission meeting and spends
> several hours furiously scribbling the UNofficial meeting minutes,
> which are then published to the group within hours or days via email.
>
> The group is now over 240 airport supporters, so the quick
> dissemination of real-time information (including such subtleties as
> tone of voice and wise cracks) has really kept our commission on its
> toes.
>
> If you want to join (and have access to the unofficial meeting minute
> archives) drop me an email off-group...

Here's an idea. Ask each of the 240 members of FOICA to donate $100.00. Take
the $24K to a good lawyer and tell him to go be the Bulldog that all good
lawyers are. You will probably never even have to file suit the thought of
it might rein in the problem members.

[El Maximo]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> The real outcry has been over this new ban on bicycles (and grills,
> and motorcycles, and...) -- but it appears we have won the argument,
> for now. Both the airport manager and the airport commissioner who
> started all this have stated -- in writing, to all 240 members of
> Friends of Iowa City Airport -- that bicycles are NOT banned at the
> airport, despite their letter of announcement.

Put a dryer exhaust hose on/near the grill and call it an engine pre-heater.

I'm glad you've won this one.

[RST Engineering]

I asked if you had direct experience with Iowa law. You chose to fancydance
around the answer. I think we all know what that implies.

Yes, civil actions can be pursued for putting your pants on left leg first
but winning them is another matter. I've spent almost twenty years in
elected public office and can tell you from experience what is and is not
acceptable behavior. Discussing matters one on one in either a public or
private arena is acceptable.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



>>
> Most definitely not hogwash. Civil actions can be pursued for any imagined
> reason. In this particular case any appearance of preventing due process
> is
> going to be acceptable to a judge. Even in Kalifornia. It's a civil
> matter,
> not a criminal matter such as ignoring open meeting laws.

[Ross]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Our rents are already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA
>>>activity overall is still way down...
>>
>>How much do they charge for hangar rental in Iowa City?
>
>
> They just raised ours to $137/month.
>
> I know that probably sounds absurdly low to you guys in big cities,
> but it's 25% higher than an equivalent hangar in nearby Cedar Rapids
> (CID), a Class C, top-notch airport.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

We pay $205 / mo at Sherman for a standard (very old) T-hangar,
electricity, sliding doors. 9 have concrete floors and the other 9 have
asphalt and / or concrete combination. We are 60 miles north of Dallas.
We have had to fight to keep the at that. The mayor believes the entire
airport support (revenue) should come from the tenants and fuel flow. We
do keep our fuel the lowest of the area and we have the traffic because
of it. We are still trying to get more hangars built, but that will be
another thread.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:32:58 -0500, "Travis Marlatte"
> wrote:

>But it sounds like it is the municipality protecting the federal funding,

They aren't. They may think so though.

>right? If the funding was provided with stipulations that the funds be used
>for only aviation related activities, then that is being passed on to the
>leasors as a restriction.

The feds only care about the airport, not the hangars...as long as
what you have in there is legal.

>
>The problem is with the stipulations of the funding. As one of the "We the
>people" I don't mind subsidizing airports and hangars as long as they are
>used for aviation related purposes. I also don't mind someone storing their
>boat or other non-aviation related stuff in the hangar - as long as it is
>also used as a hangar.
>
>But, if someone wants to use the hangar that was built with aviation
>subsidies that I provided as merely a storage shed, I gotta a problem with

You can get subsidies for building hangars?
All the hangars here were built with either city or private money. No
fed funds were available.

>dat. There are lots of public storage facilities that they can use (and
>probably pay more per square foot).

The feds would probably have a problem with the airport being used as
and renting public storage facilities. Although, any money brought in
from ... say renting open land out for parking for near by events is
permissible as long as the money goes to the airport fund. It can not
go into the general fund.

[james]

On Aug 28, 12:43 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
> related to aviation.)
>
> Is this legal?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Ya know cyclists, and people who use bikes for regular utilitarian
purposes are a group that are stereotyped as much as pilots. Only
they thing cyclists are poor, and pilots are rich.

Hit up the League of American Cyclists http://www.bikeleague.org/ or
www.bikeforums.net For some advocacy ideas. FYI some airports
allow biking right to the airport (like Denver) and even offer
parking.

james http://www.futuregringo.com

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

james wrote:
>
> Ya know cyclists, and people who use bikes for regular utilitarian
> purposes are a group that are stereotyped as much as pilots. Only
> they thing cyclists are poor, and pilots are rich.

You got that right. I love to use my bikes for commuting and errands,
even though I own nice, relatively new vehicles.

The funniest stereotype is cycling a beer / wine run and being asked
when I get my license back!

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> B A R R Y > wrote:
>
>> > They just raised ours to $137/month.
>> >
>> > I know that probably sounds absurdly low to you guys in big cities,
>
> At KBED, Ma$$port charges $119/month for a tie-down with zero services.
> My old t-hangar is now $606/month with rumors of more price increases
> on the way
>
> Believe it or not, there's a waiting list for these hangars even though
> Ma$$port
> charges a non-refundable fee for the "privelege" of being on the list.
> There
> are some D U M B owners around here.
>
I pay $3180/year ($265 a month) here in the massive metropolis of Cheyenne
(pop: 55,300, in the densely populated Wyoming, pop: 515,000). That includes
electricity, and the roof is insulated, but not the sidewalls.

When I was in Montrose (pop: 15,400) I paid $3800/year, $316/month.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Tee hangars in the sticks, halfway between Hartford and Providence are
>> in the $350-400 / mo range. And there's a waiting list, so I can't have
>> one.
>
> Ouch. I know we're very lucky to have the hangars that we do (or,
> perhaps you guys who are paying triple are just getting the shaft?)
> here in Iowa City, and no one is complaining (too much) about the rate
> increase. (Although the percentage increase -- 13% -- was somewhat
> breath-taking)
>
> The real outcry has been over this new ban on bicycles (and grills,
> and motorcycles, and...) -- but it appears we have won the argument,
> for now. Both the airport manager and the airport commissioner who
> started all this have stated -- in writing, to all 240 members of
> Friends of Iowa City Airport -- that bicycles are NOT banned at the
> airport, despite their letter of announcement.
>
> Democracy in action!

Did anyone propose that they kept a bike in the hangar to get around the
airport?

When they said "no cars", did that include parking your car in the hangar
while you were away?

[RST Engineering]

>> I asked if you had direct experience with Iowa law. You chose to
>> fancydance around the answer. I think we all know what that implies.
>
> So you believe that refencing

I don't ever have to refence. Once I put the sucker up, it is up for good.


Kalifornia law is fine as long as no one has
> specific experience with Iowa law. Wow. Like I said, you have no reason to
> apply Kalifornia law to an Iowa problem. I bet that nice little Kalifornia
> law doesn't protect folks from civil action.

Like I said, I taught it at the state level for a number of years ... I
believe without rummaging through old notes six or seven. And you are going
to "bet" me? How much you got to lose and who is going to hold the wager?
This is Jay's thread and if he volunteers to hold the bag, that's fine by
me.


> Ummm, I specifically mentioned due process and pre-judgement. Both of
> those
> topics are relevent for public officials and they are sufficient reason to
> avoid any public discussion prior to a final, public decision. Some
> matters
> may be acceptable for discussion prior to public meeting and action but
> many
> are not.

Anything under the sun may be discussed by a public official in public or
private and (s)he can make as many prejudgements as they wish.
Individually, but not as a quorum. In some instances it may not be a
politically clever thing to do, but as a matter of legality not prohibited.


>
> Perhaps you have spent "almost twenty years in elected public office." For
> all I know that elected office is dog catcher.

Quite frankly, I don't give a hairy rat's ass what you think, and in this
state dog catchers are appointed, not elected. For sixteen of those twenty
(which, if you include the academic public office, is more like 25) I was on
the city/town or county board that did the appointing.


> Lot's

Didn't you ever learn the difference between possessive and plural?


>of folks think that what they are doing is
> fine only to learn later that it isn't fine and there are plenty of
> examples
> in this particular case.

Fine, quote me a res judica example where an individual public official was
convicted (not sued, convicted) of one on one public or private discussion
of any matter before them and I'll believe you. Just one, not plenty.

Until then, PLONK.

Jim

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:35:17 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>An individual elected or appointed official can discuss anything they want
>publicly or privately without violating open meeting laws (California's
>Ralph M. Brown Act). It is only when they get together as a quorum or more
>to do so that they are transgressing.

Pretty much that way in Michigan as well. Opend Meetings Act.

>Jim

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:19:39 -0400, "Doug Semler"
> wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> > Our rents are already much higher than neighboring airports, and GA
>>> > activity overall is still way down...
>>>
>>> How much do they charge for hangar rental in Iowa City?
>>
>> They just raised ours to $137/month.
>>
>> I know that probably sounds absurdly low to you guys in big cities,
>> but it's 25% higher than an equivalent hangar in nearby Cedar Rapids
>> (CID), a Class C, top-notch airport.
>
>Grosse Isle average T-hanger slot is avg twice that much.
>
Just come on up to Midland, but there aren't any hangars available at
present. Rent varies, but runs $125 to $145 with some larger ones
going for more.

>I'm moving to Iowa <g>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:45:14 -0700, Denny > wrote:

>On Aug 28, 2:43 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Our new hangar lease includes a specific ban on bicycles, of all
>> things. (And cars, and anything else in the hangars not directly
>> related to aviation.)
>>
>> Is this legal?
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>My airport is specifically renting space in the winter to RV's, boats,
>cars, etc. due to low occupancy... Yes, the airport has state and
>federal grant money - put in a spanking new ILS a year ago...

And the Feds are quite happy with that as long at the money goes to
the airport and not the general fund (FAA Order 5190.6A - Airport
Compliance handbook - Available from the AOPA, no charge)

There are three books of interest. Grant Assurances, Airport
Improvement Trust Fund, and the Compliance Handbook listed above.

We even close 18/36 several times a summer for day long sports car
rallys

Roger

>
>denny

[Blueskies]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message ...
>
> The feds would probably have a problem with the airport being used as
> and renting public storage facilities. Although, any money brought in
> from ... say renting open land out for parking for near by events is
> permissible as long as the money goes to the airport fund. It can not
> go into the general fund.


I seem to recall Santa Monica airport in CA doing all kinds of rentals of the hangars, very few with airplanes...

[Jay Honeck]

> Did anyone propose that they kept a bike in the hangar to get around the
> airport?

Yes. That was the meat of our argument. (The alternative? Build
more bathrooms!)

> When they said "no cars", did that include parking your car in the hangar
> while you were away?

We weren't sure. Although they SAID it was okay, if they take a
strict interpretation of everything in the lease, you wouldn't be able
to keep a roll of paper towels in your hangar.

That was the crux of the issue. It wasn't the bicycles, it was the
precedent.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ross]

Clark wrote:
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in
> :
>
> Snip all in between banter. (after checking the dictionary, maybe that is not the best choice of words)
>
> Please, by all means kill-file me. That is for certain the way to stop all
> thoughts that don't agree with your own. It works every time and you never
> have to concern yourself with anything disagreeable ever again.
>
>

I think it is time that a forum of "rec.aviation.children time out" be
established.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Jay Honeck]

> I think it is time that a forum of "rec.aviation.children time out" be
> established.

What, and deny the rest of us all this fun? Why, this whole sub-
thread has made the cost of membership in rec.aviation worth every
penny we've paid!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Did anyone propose that they kept a bike in the hangar to get around the
>> airport?
>
> Yes. That was the meat of our argument. (The alternative? Build
> more bathrooms!)
>
>> When they said "no cars", did that include parking your car in the hangar
>> while you were away?
>
> We weren't sure. Although they SAID it was okay, if they take a
> strict interpretation of everything in the lease, you wouldn't be able
> to keep a roll of paper towels in your hangar.
>

Jay, don't you know that toilet paper goes on the OUTSIDE of the hangar?

[John Godwin[_2_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
t:

> I seem to recall Santa Monica airport in CA doing all kinds of rentals
> of the hangars, very few with airplanes...
>
The People's Republic of Santa Monica have always done many bizarre things.

[RST Engineering]

And if you take it one step further, since the aircraft isn't being flown
IFR, the airspeed indicator can be a little lightweight plumb bob on the end
of a string held out into the slipstream with a 3x5 recipe card behind it
calibrated in furlongs per fortnight.

Altimeter? Balloon with a calibrated piece of paper behind it. THe bigger
the balloon, the higher you are.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

>
> Install an altimiter and and airspeed indicator, put a 3" N number on
> it and register it as an airplane. You don't need an inspection.
>
> I have it on good authority that there's a carpet and a broom out
> there with registrations. I don't know if anyone's gotten an
> airworthyness certificate for one yet. Remember - an airplane doesn't
> have to be able to fly to get a cert.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:18:01 GMT, "El Maximo" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Jay, have your A&P place a green tag on the bicycle, indicating it needs
>>repair, or a red tag, indicating it is unable to be made airworthy. Use
>>this
>>tag as evidence that it is, in fact, an airplane part, in compliance with
>>the regulations.
>>
>
> Install an altimiter and and airspeed indicator, put a 3" N number on
> it and register it as an airplane. You don't need an inspection.


Don't forget an "EXPERIMENTAL" sticker on the handle bars.

>
> I have it on good authority that there's a carpet and a broom out
> there with registrations. I don't know if anyone's gotten an
> airworthyness certificate for one yet. Remember - an airplane doesn't
> have to be able to fly to get a cert.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Richard Riley > wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:18:01 GMT, "El Maximo" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...

> >
> >Jay, have your A&P place a green tag on the bicycle, indicating it needs
> >repair, or a red tag, indicating it is unable to be made airworthy. Use this
> >tag as evidence that it is, in fact, an airplane part, in compliance with
> >the regulations.
> >
>
> Install an altimiter and and airspeed indicator, put a 3" N number on
> it and register it as an airplane. You don't need an inspection.
>
> I have it on good authority that there's a carpet and a broom out
> there with registrations. I don't know if anyone's gotten an
> airworthyness certificate for one yet. Remember - an airplane doesn't
> have to be able to fly to get a cert.

Present the recalcitrant airport commissioner with a broom (with
N-number) as a token of appreciation. l>)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> No, they specifically okay that practice in the lease. But bikes,
>> cars, motorcycles, and anything "non-aeronautical" is banned
>> (according to their reading of the rules) at all other times -- even
>> if there is ample room around the aircraft.
>>
>> In my opinion, this is a gross mis-reading of the FARs, which were
>> put in place to make sure that airport hangars were not used as cheap
>> storage units for boats and other non-aircraft.
>
> If they own the land, they can impose lots of additional restrictions
> well above and beyond anything in the FARs.
>

You are an idiot


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Hey butthead, the FAR's do not govern what can be kept in a hangar.
>> What do you keep in your hangar, an imaginary bicycle?
>
> That's not a very nice way to talk to Jay.
>



Look at who's talkin


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> Present the recalcitrant airport commissioner with a broom (with
> N-number) as a token of appreciation. l>)

Priceless !!!
--
Jim in NC