Mike[_22_]
September 10th 08, 05:39 AM
"SR300" > wrote in message
...
> Background
> In October, 2006, the Wickenburg Town Council approved a 34-unit housing
> development called Hermosa Ranch on 35 acres off the approach end of
> Runway 23. The development property is less than 3500 feet from the end of
> the runway. Although no homes will be built right beneath the centerline,
> they will be less than 100 feet away from that line. Using FAA glide slope
> standards, we calculated that airplanes could fly less than 200 feet above
> ground in this area. And, as pilots, we know that aircraft often drift off
> the centerline.
>
> Town Planner and Council Approve Despite Opposition by Concerned Residents
> The development's proposal was approved by Wickenburg's Town Planner, who
> is also the Airport Manager, despite the fact that two members of the
> public attended the Planning and Zoning meeting and voiced concerns about
> the development's unusually high density for Wickenburg and its proximity
> to the airport. These same two members of the public spoke at the October
> Town Council meeting. They were ignored again and the plan was approved.
>
> Airport Advisory Commission Not Consulted
> The town of Wickenburg has an Airport Advisory Commission that meets
> monthly and discusses issues related to the airport. It advises the Mayor
> and Council on airport matters. This Airport Commission includes a Town
> Council member and the AOPA Airport Network volunteer member. The
> commission was not consulted on this matter and neither of these empowered
> members stepped forward to suggest that the commission be consulted.
>
> Open Space Designation Ignored
> It should be mentioned here that this same parcel of land is included in
> the Town's General Plan as "open space" land. The previous Town
> Planner/Airport Manager had the good sense to realize that developing land
> so close to the airport would cause problems in the future. Either the
> Town of Wickenburg saw fit to ignore the "open space" designation when
> allowing the developer to put in his housing development or the Town
> Planner is incapable of reading a color-coded map.
Just so you know, these types of plans really aren't worth anything from a
legal standpoint. How property is zoned is what matters.
> Future Instument Approaches and Commuter Airline Service Impossible
> It should also be mentioned here that with homes so close to the airport's
> glideslope, it will be impossible to ever get an instrument approach at
> Wickenburg Municipal Airport. This means Wickenburg will never get
> commuter airline service currently available at Prescott, Lake Havasu
> City, Bullhead City, and Kingman, AZ.
>
> Local Pilots Contact AOPA and the FAA for Help
> Several town resident, who are pilots and member of AOPA, saw the threat
> to the airport and decided to act.
>
> AOPA Does Nothing
> A town resident who operates a helicopter charter business based at the
> airport wrote to AOPA about the problem. It was referred to the AOPA
> Airport Network Volunteer, who did nothing.
>
> This same town resident also wrote to Phil Boyer, President of AOPA, on
> two occasions -- by U.S. Mail and by e-mail. She included the
> illustrations you see here. He did not respond to either communication.
>
> Other AOPA members based at the airport contacted AOPA. They were referred
> to the Airport Network Volunteer and the FAA.
>
> The FAA Demands an Explanation from Wickenburg
> The helicopter operator wrote to the FAA, citing the town's violation of
> its Airport Sponsorship Agreement with the FAA. This agreement provides
> assurances to the FAA that the town will operate the airport and
> surrounding area in a matter satisfactory to the FAA in order to receive
> federal funding. The airport's runway had recently been lengthened with
> federal funds at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars. According to
> Paragraph 21 of the agreement:
>
> Compatible Land Use. It [the town] will take appropriate action, to the
> extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the
> use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to
> activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations,
> including landing and takeoff of aircraft....
>
> The FAA wrote to the Airport Manager:
>
> Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use, stipulates that the Town will take all
> reasonable measures to restrict land uses adjacent to the airport to
> activities that are compatible with normal airport operations. Residential
> property in the vicinity of the airport is not a compatiable land use.
> Airport noise will inevitably cause homeowners to complain about the
> airport and demand restrictions on airport operations. The FAA does not
> support this type of development next to the airport. In view of Assurance
> 21, why would the Town approve residential homes so close to the airport?
>
> A Town Resident Uses Her Constitutional Right to Petition for Redress of
> Grievances
> The helicopter operator then attempted to stop the development by putting
> it to the vote of townspeople.
>
> The First Petition is Submitted and Rejected
> She gathered 77 signatures -- 14 more than the 63 required -- on a
> petition to put the development to a vote. Unfortunately, this
> well-meaning resident didn't understand what was required in the wording
> for a petition and the petition was rejected by the town in November 2006.
>
> The Mayor Announces a Conflict and a New Vote is Taken
> Right around the same time, the Mayor suddenly revealed that he had a
> conflict of interest in the development. Members of his family owned a
> 3-6% interest in the project. The initial vote was rejected and a new vote
> was taken with the mayor sitting in the back of the room. The six council
> members -- one of which is a Realtor, another who sits on the Airport
> Commission-- again approved the development -- despite the petition and
> letter from the FAA.
>
> A Second Petition is Started
> Because of the new vote, there is another 30-day period to attempt a new
> petition. Unfortunately, because of high turnout for the recent election,
> 231 signatures are now required.
>
> The helicopter operator hires an attorney to help her compose the language
> for the petition. She creates a political committee, the Committee to Stop
> Irresponsible Development, so she can get volunteers to help her collect
> signatures. Approximately a dozen people step forward to help. Signatures
> are gathered.
>
> The Developer Sues the Town
> In an effort to invalidate the date of the second vote (thus making the
> second petition invalid), the developer sues the Town of Wickenburg. The
> town does nothing to fight this lawsuit.
>
> The Town Responds to the FAA
> The Airport Manager, in an overly friendly letter to the FAA, claims that
> "noise exposure patterns were analyzed for the airport's long term
> activity conditions." This work was done by the Airport Consulting firm
> hired and paid for by the Town of Wickenburg. It showed little or no
> impact for Hermosa Ranch.
>
> Given the photo shown above and the complaints by current residents in the
> adjacent housing development, it's hard to believe that the residents of
> Hermosa Ranch will not be affected by airport noise -- and complain about
> it.
>
> The Voters Keep Fighting
> The helicopter operator continues to provide updated information to the
> FAA. And she continues to work hard to use her Constitutional Right of
> Petition for Redress of Grievances to protect the airport.
>
> The Second Petition is Submitted and Rejected
> By November month-end, volunteers for the Committee to Stop Irresponsible
> Development submit the petition on time with 336 signatures -- 105 more
> than what is required. Nearly every single person who was asked to sign
> signed. Clearly, the people wanted to bring this to a vote.
>
> Unfortunately, the well-meaning helicopter operator who started the
> petition put the wrong number in the lower right corner of the petition
> forms. In January 2007, the Town of Wickenburg used this technicality to
> reject the petitions.
>
> The Petitioner Sues the Town
> The Committee to Stop Irresponsible Development sued the town in an effort
> to get the petition accepted by the Town. Legal costs are estimated at
> $6,000 to take this action through three levels of the court. The
> Committee is actively seeking contributions to cover this cost. However,
> any costs that are not covered by donations will be borne by the
> helicopter operator who began the fight to protect the airport.
>
> How You Can Help
> Do you use Wickenburg Airport? Do you care about it? Do you care about all
> General Aviation Airports threatened by residential encroachment?
>
> If so, you can help us.
>
> Write to AOPA
> If you are an AOPA member, write to AOPA about our problem. Tell them
> you're worried about the future of this airport. Tell them that you've
> read about their efforts in Upland, CA, which involved a similar
> situation.
>
> Here's who you can write to:
>
> Phil Boyer
> President
> Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
> 421 Aviation Way
> Frederick, MD 21701
>
> Bill Dunn
> Vice President, Airports
> Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
> 421 Aviation Way
> Frederick, MD 21701
>
> Write to the FAA
> The FAA has the power to cut funding to the airport. This power, when
> wielded, should be enough to show the Town of Wickenburg that their
> decision to allow this development is a mistake. Contact the FAA and tell
> them that you care about the future of Wickenburg Airport.
>
> Here's who you can write to:
>
> Kimchi Hoang
> Airports Program Manager
> FAA Airports Division - LAX ADO
> P.O. Box 92007
> Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
>
> Anthony Garcia
> Federal Aviation Administration
> Western-Pacific Region Airports Division
> 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Room 3024
> Lawndale, CA 90261
>
>
> Contact the Concerned Pilot Spearheading this Effort
> Maria Langer is a commercial helicopter pilot, owner/operator of Flying M
> Air, and concerned Wickenburg resident. She is the idiot who put the wrong
> number at the bottom right corner of the petition form. She's the one
> determined to take the Committee to Stop Irresponsible Development's
> petition through the Arizona Court system. She feels she owes it to the
> Committee's volunteers -- many of whom took time off from work to get
> signatures -- as well as the 336 residents of Wickenburg who want the
> opportunity to vote on this issue.
>
> You can contact Maria by e-mail by using the form found at
> http://www.marialanger.com/?page_id=20.
>
> Thank You
> Thank you for taking the time to read this. We hope you've decided to
> help.
>
> Remember, it's our airport in jeopardy today -- but it might be yours
> tomorrow.
The thing that really works against you here is the fact that the airport
doesn't have an instrument approach. If you had one, you'd have much more
ammunition against the developer.
I don't think writting to the FAA airports division manager is going to do
any good, and writting to a program manager is going to do even less good.
Even if the FAA were in a position to help, the best chance you would have
is to put on a suit and tie and knock on the door of your local US
representative and senators (the rep should be your first stop). Ask to
speak to their aviation staffer (this is who you really want to talk to, not
the rep or senator themselves). Ask them to draft a letter to the FAA
administrator asking why this is happening. This will light a fire
underneath the airports division manager I can assure you.
Another approach you should take is to get the media involved. Form a local
coalition and call it something like the "save the Wickenburg airport
coalition". The media loves coalitions, community action groups, or
whatever other clever titles you can bestow upon yourselves. Tell the media
the city may be looking at serious federal fines if the developer procedes,
and explain the impact such a project will have on the community as a whole.
If you can get your face on the local news stations, the developer may
decide it's going to be more trouble than its worth and build somewhere
else.
Good luck.
...
> Background
> In October, 2006, the Wickenburg Town Council approved a 34-unit housing
> development called Hermosa Ranch on 35 acres off the approach end of
> Runway 23. The development property is less than 3500 feet from the end of
> the runway. Although no homes will be built right beneath the centerline,
> they will be less than 100 feet away from that line. Using FAA glide slope
> standards, we calculated that airplanes could fly less than 200 feet above
> ground in this area. And, as pilots, we know that aircraft often drift off
> the centerline.
>
> Town Planner and Council Approve Despite Opposition by Concerned Residents
> The development's proposal was approved by Wickenburg's Town Planner, who
> is also the Airport Manager, despite the fact that two members of the
> public attended the Planning and Zoning meeting and voiced concerns about
> the development's unusually high density for Wickenburg and its proximity
> to the airport. These same two members of the public spoke at the October
> Town Council meeting. They were ignored again and the plan was approved.
>
> Airport Advisory Commission Not Consulted
> The town of Wickenburg has an Airport Advisory Commission that meets
> monthly and discusses issues related to the airport. It advises the Mayor
> and Council on airport matters. This Airport Commission includes a Town
> Council member and the AOPA Airport Network volunteer member. The
> commission was not consulted on this matter and neither of these empowered
> members stepped forward to suggest that the commission be consulted.
>
> Open Space Designation Ignored
> It should be mentioned here that this same parcel of land is included in
> the Town's General Plan as "open space" land. The previous Town
> Planner/Airport Manager had the good sense to realize that developing land
> so close to the airport would cause problems in the future. Either the
> Town of Wickenburg saw fit to ignore the "open space" designation when
> allowing the developer to put in his housing development or the Town
> Planner is incapable of reading a color-coded map.
Just so you know, these types of plans really aren't worth anything from a
legal standpoint. How property is zoned is what matters.
> Future Instument Approaches and Commuter Airline Service Impossible
> It should also be mentioned here that with homes so close to the airport's
> glideslope, it will be impossible to ever get an instrument approach at
> Wickenburg Municipal Airport. This means Wickenburg will never get
> commuter airline service currently available at Prescott, Lake Havasu
> City, Bullhead City, and Kingman, AZ.
>
> Local Pilots Contact AOPA and the FAA for Help
> Several town resident, who are pilots and member of AOPA, saw the threat
> to the airport and decided to act.
>
> AOPA Does Nothing
> A town resident who operates a helicopter charter business based at the
> airport wrote to AOPA about the problem. It was referred to the AOPA
> Airport Network Volunteer, who did nothing.
>
> This same town resident also wrote to Phil Boyer, President of AOPA, on
> two occasions -- by U.S. Mail and by e-mail. She included the
> illustrations you see here. He did not respond to either communication.
>
> Other AOPA members based at the airport contacted AOPA. They were referred
> to the Airport Network Volunteer and the FAA.
>
> The FAA Demands an Explanation from Wickenburg
> The helicopter operator wrote to the FAA, citing the town's violation of
> its Airport Sponsorship Agreement with the FAA. This agreement provides
> assurances to the FAA that the town will operate the airport and
> surrounding area in a matter satisfactory to the FAA in order to receive
> federal funding. The airport's runway had recently been lengthened with
> federal funds at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars. According to
> Paragraph 21 of the agreement:
>
> Compatible Land Use. It [the town] will take appropriate action, to the
> extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the
> use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to
> activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations,
> including landing and takeoff of aircraft....
>
> The FAA wrote to the Airport Manager:
>
> Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use, stipulates that the Town will take all
> reasonable measures to restrict land uses adjacent to the airport to
> activities that are compatible with normal airport operations. Residential
> property in the vicinity of the airport is not a compatiable land use.
> Airport noise will inevitably cause homeowners to complain about the
> airport and demand restrictions on airport operations. The FAA does not
> support this type of development next to the airport. In view of Assurance
> 21, why would the Town approve residential homes so close to the airport?
>
> A Town Resident Uses Her Constitutional Right to Petition for Redress of
> Grievances
> The helicopter operator then attempted to stop the development by putting
> it to the vote of townspeople.
>
> The First Petition is Submitted and Rejected
> She gathered 77 signatures -- 14 more than the 63 required -- on a
> petition to put the development to a vote. Unfortunately, this
> well-meaning resident didn't understand what was required in the wording
> for a petition and the petition was rejected by the town in November 2006.
>
> The Mayor Announces a Conflict and a New Vote is Taken
> Right around the same time, the Mayor suddenly revealed that he had a
> conflict of interest in the development. Members of his family owned a
> 3-6% interest in the project. The initial vote was rejected and a new vote
> was taken with the mayor sitting in the back of the room. The six council
> members -- one of which is a Realtor, another who sits on the Airport
> Commission-- again approved the development -- despite the petition and
> letter from the FAA.
>
> A Second Petition is Started
> Because of the new vote, there is another 30-day period to attempt a new
> petition. Unfortunately, because of high turnout for the recent election,
> 231 signatures are now required.
>
> The helicopter operator hires an attorney to help her compose the language
> for the petition. She creates a political committee, the Committee to Stop
> Irresponsible Development, so she can get volunteers to help her collect
> signatures. Approximately a dozen people step forward to help. Signatures
> are gathered.
>
> The Developer Sues the Town
> In an effort to invalidate the date of the second vote (thus making the
> second petition invalid), the developer sues the Town of Wickenburg. The
> town does nothing to fight this lawsuit.
>
> The Town Responds to the FAA
> The Airport Manager, in an overly friendly letter to the FAA, claims that
> "noise exposure patterns were analyzed for the airport's long term
> activity conditions." This work was done by the Airport Consulting firm
> hired and paid for by the Town of Wickenburg. It showed little or no
> impact for Hermosa Ranch.
>
> Given the photo shown above and the complaints by current residents in the
> adjacent housing development, it's hard to believe that the residents of
> Hermosa Ranch will not be affected by airport noise -- and complain about
> it.
>
> The Voters Keep Fighting
> The helicopter operator continues to provide updated information to the
> FAA. And she continues to work hard to use her Constitutional Right of
> Petition for Redress of Grievances to protect the airport.
>
> The Second Petition is Submitted and Rejected
> By November month-end, volunteers for the Committee to Stop Irresponsible
> Development submit the petition on time with 336 signatures -- 105 more
> than what is required. Nearly every single person who was asked to sign
> signed. Clearly, the people wanted to bring this to a vote.
>
> Unfortunately, the well-meaning helicopter operator who started the
> petition put the wrong number in the lower right corner of the petition
> forms. In January 2007, the Town of Wickenburg used this technicality to
> reject the petitions.
>
> The Petitioner Sues the Town
> The Committee to Stop Irresponsible Development sued the town in an effort
> to get the petition accepted by the Town. Legal costs are estimated at
> $6,000 to take this action through three levels of the court. The
> Committee is actively seeking contributions to cover this cost. However,
> any costs that are not covered by donations will be borne by the
> helicopter operator who began the fight to protect the airport.
>
> How You Can Help
> Do you use Wickenburg Airport? Do you care about it? Do you care about all
> General Aviation Airports threatened by residential encroachment?
>
> If so, you can help us.
>
> Write to AOPA
> If you are an AOPA member, write to AOPA about our problem. Tell them
> you're worried about the future of this airport. Tell them that you've
> read about their efforts in Upland, CA, which involved a similar
> situation.
>
> Here's who you can write to:
>
> Phil Boyer
> President
> Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
> 421 Aviation Way
> Frederick, MD 21701
>
> Bill Dunn
> Vice President, Airports
> Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
> 421 Aviation Way
> Frederick, MD 21701
>
> Write to the FAA
> The FAA has the power to cut funding to the airport. This power, when
> wielded, should be enough to show the Town of Wickenburg that their
> decision to allow this development is a mistake. Contact the FAA and tell
> them that you care about the future of Wickenburg Airport.
>
> Here's who you can write to:
>
> Kimchi Hoang
> Airports Program Manager
> FAA Airports Division - LAX ADO
> P.O. Box 92007
> Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
>
> Anthony Garcia
> Federal Aviation Administration
> Western-Pacific Region Airports Division
> 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Room 3024
> Lawndale, CA 90261
>
>
> Contact the Concerned Pilot Spearheading this Effort
> Maria Langer is a commercial helicopter pilot, owner/operator of Flying M
> Air, and concerned Wickenburg resident. She is the idiot who put the wrong
> number at the bottom right corner of the petition form. She's the one
> determined to take the Committee to Stop Irresponsible Development's
> petition through the Arizona Court system. She feels she owes it to the
> Committee's volunteers -- many of whom took time off from work to get
> signatures -- as well as the 336 residents of Wickenburg who want the
> opportunity to vote on this issue.
>
> You can contact Maria by e-mail by using the form found at
> http://www.marialanger.com/?page_id=20.
>
> Thank You
> Thank you for taking the time to read this. We hope you've decided to
> help.
>
> Remember, it's our airport in jeopardy today -- but it might be yours
> tomorrow.
The thing that really works against you here is the fact that the airport
doesn't have an instrument approach. If you had one, you'd have much more
ammunition against the developer.
I don't think writting to the FAA airports division manager is going to do
any good, and writting to a program manager is going to do even less good.
Even if the FAA were in a position to help, the best chance you would have
is to put on a suit and tie and knock on the door of your local US
representative and senators (the rep should be your first stop). Ask to
speak to their aviation staffer (this is who you really want to talk to, not
the rep or senator themselves). Ask them to draft a letter to the FAA
administrator asking why this is happening. This will light a fire
underneath the airports division manager I can assure you.
Another approach you should take is to get the media involved. Form a local
coalition and call it something like the "save the Wickenburg airport
coalition". The media loves coalitions, community action groups, or
whatever other clever titles you can bestow upon yourselves. Tell the media
the city may be looking at serious federal fines if the developer procedes,
and explain the impact such a project will have on the community as a whole.
If you can get your face on the local news stations, the developer may
decide it's going to be more trouble than its worth and build somewhere
else.
Good luck.