On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:10:32 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

snip


Whenever we hear someone utter an anti-airport opinion, be it in the
newspaper or in person, I believe we (as pilots) should respond calmly,
logically, immediately and forcefully.

Careful here. Remember, people tend to respond in kind. Get forceful
and they in turn either get forceful in return, or dig their heels in.
When some one gets forceful with me I start developing an attitude
against what ever it is they are promoting, even if it was something I
had supported.

One thing to consider is the State of Michigan has a video for
airports to use in combating unfriendly neighbors. I believe it can
be obtained from the Michigan Department of Transportation
(aeronautics) in Lansing Michigan. That's at least close.

We've gone through unfriendly neighbors and attempts to close the
airport (3BS). Our fight is one of the examples used on the tape.

Another recent example is the county decided to build a jail. Their
approach is a prime example of how not to go about doing something
like this according to the National Institute of Corrections. They
arbitrarily set up some standards, looked at some sites and kept
changing the standards to fit each site. They excluded the public and
played down any opposition as NIMBY when that was relatively small
part of the opposition. Basically 7 commissioners got together and
decided how they are going to do things. One even made the statement
that the issue was too complex for the public to be included. (great
statement to win support)

Now they have found a county wide group has been formed, that is well
organized, has more than sufficient financial backing to tie the
county up in the court system for years, and they have alienated the
voters to the point where they may not (most likely won't) be able to
even get necessary millages passed. Most likely several commissioners
will be out of a job and the county may end up in deep financial
trouble. Any bond issues will be challenged and put to a referendum.
Plus the Township where they decided to put the thing has told them
they will take them to court as well. The township refused to grant
the county permission to run a sewer from town out to the remote site.
There is far more involved, but this basically covers the area I
wanted to cover.

Incidentally the county wide group has become basically a watchdog
group to make sure they don't put the thing in a residential area,
they use a tried and true methods of site selection that will be
applied uniformly, they investigate alternative forms of
incarceration/treatement such as work release programs and they spend
the county's money wisely.

Had the county commissioners not taken such an elitist attitude to
begin with they'd probably already be under construction. Of course
the *appearance* of having lied to the public (whether justified or
not) hasn't helped their stance. One thing we have to remember about
the general population. They see pilots as a rich and elitist group of
people with expensive toys. They don't realize that *most* small
planes are owned by groups and many of the single owner planes are
old enough to be called, classics. It takes a lot of work to dispel
that notion and to demonstrate just how much money the airport brings
into an area. Some will never listen to logic, but don't make the
ones who might be swayed, more rigid in their stance.

When trying to close the airport the city hired a firm to find out how
much money the little airport brings into the area. The value was
given as a conservative 10 million a year. They said "that can't be
right" and commissioned another study. That one came up with 16
million. People were complaining about the $100,000 plus the city was
paying to run and maintain the airport. Then they discovered all the
money they'd been raking in from parking cars on the airport property
(purchased with federal funds) for the county fair and several antique
shows, was supposed to go to the airport. That alone would have made
the airport show a direct profit. They had been putting the money in
the general fund and claiming any of it used on the airport as a
subsidy. Soooo...What did the city do? Instead of putting all that
money in the airport fund as required, they quit charging for parking
and raised the entrance fees to the events.

18/36 is only 3000 feet long. The expensive subdivision directly off
the south end was/is the one that does the complaining. We wanted to
lengthen the runway. The subdivision said we'd be getting jets in and
they didn't want that. They didn't realize the modern small jets are
quieter than most high performance singles and twins, or that we get 3
or 4 per week already. So...on windy days people like me end up going
over their homes at close to 200 feet when a 4000 foot runway would
have put me near or even at pattern altitude.

In the end they ended up with a compromise. We ended up with lots of
improvements lengthening 06/24, new taxi ways and it looks like a new
$400,000 (give or take) terminal building, but 18/36 is still a short
3000 feet and they still get big planes rattling the shingles. Any
longer on 06/24 and they'd have to move a road and some businesses.

So... I agree with the Immediate, calm, and logical approach, but the
forceful puts you on shaky ground with potential dangerous and counter
productive consequences.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)