You are not looking at it from the viewpoint of the original builder of
the hangar.
What's better for the original hangar-builder: to build a hangar that
becomes the property of the airport after 30 years, or to build a hangar
that becomes the property of the airport after 75 years?
Clearly, the right to own the hangar for 75 years is preferable. If the
original builder chooses to sell it after 10, or 30 years with 60 or 40
years remaining on the land lease, it still has considerable value as a
structure.
What did you pay the hangar builder in your case? I would guess that
you paid a relatively low price to the original hangar builder because, with
only two years before the hangar becomes the property of the airport, he no
longer had much of a building to sell you. You simply bought the right to
lease space in this airport-owned hangar. That's OK for you, but the
builder lost a lot of money. That's why the right to lease space for 75
years is important.
Moreover, if the airport needed to relocate you, the airport could
likely move you out at the end of your lease term and not owe you a thing.
They would be fools to pay you for a hangar and land that THEY now own.
--Kent



From: "abripl"
Subject: 75 Year hangar lease

I just purchased a hangar from anothe person with remaining 2 year
"ground" lease from the city. The city simply renegotiates a new lease
at the end of the term. They can theoretically take the hangar over at
any time if need be but have to compensate me at a reasonable rate for
the "improvements". The hangar is about 30 years old and there is no
reason the city would take over the space unless they need to
re-construct the whole airport and in that case would likely compensate
me for a relocation.

Are there any situations where normal 5-10 year leases have caused
problems?