Actually Larry, I have contacted, by letter, each council member. I have
contacted the AOPA, who have never replied to me except to send me 3
letters asking me to renew my membership.

I stand by my statement that the AOPA is essentially useless.

Tom

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:06:50 -0700, "Tom" wrote in
::

Meigs revisited ... and why the AOPA is basically useless. I especially
like
the "stern letter" approach. Read on at:

Have you requested a copy of AOPA's "stern letter" from them?

It would appear that AOPA is making some effort to stop the closing of
Oceanside Airport. What have you done?


http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*77294031!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/oct4-2005/On-79-oceanside-airp.html

oceanside-airport
In the ongoing tragi-comedy that is the Oceanside, Calif. city council
vs. its airport, a local attorney has warned the three anti-airport
council members that they violated the state Brown Act by voting 3-2
to hire a consultant for a land-use study of the field.

Moreover, the AOPA said they planned to warn the trio (as did we in
e-mails to their offices) that not only would they have to repay an
FAA grant but it would be a far larger amount than even they knew -
90% of the fair market value of the land, not the $3.5 million they
were given. The value of the land, adjacent to Highway 76, could
exceed $10 million or more.

And finally, the FAA reminded them, or told the AOPA that they planned
to, that when they accepted a grant to buy 14.7 acres around the field
the conditions were that it remain an airport "in perpetuity."

Even though this issue was reportedly settled two years ago when Phase
One of the Airport Master Plan (approved many years ago) was
re-approved by the then-sitting council (after a long battle), two of
the council members have subsequently been replaced. Curiously, the
city went ahead and authorized the building of 11 hangars, which were
completed in late May.

No one (including us) has been allowed to move into them, however
because the new council refused to pay the contractor for their
construction. Then, the FAA offered the city $150,000 in free money to
upgrade its fencing and security systems, per the TSA's
recommendations.

However, although the council reluctantly agreed to pay the contractor
(or be sued) they did not accept the free $150K and instead decided to
pass the cost on the airport tenants. Even if that is legal (and
there's some question about it), it's highly unethical and indicates
to what lengths the three council members - Mayor Jim Wood and new
council members Esther Chavez and Shari Mackin - will go to punish
their own citizens and business owners.

As of this writing, Sept. 23, the new hangars are still vacant even
though they would bring the city thousands of dollars of rent each
month.

As for the 3-2 vote to hire a land use consultant, bystanders have
quipped that it's like hiring a fireman to guard a building that has
already burned down. The money has been spent, the hangars built and
the FAA has told the council that it can not close the airport.

Subsequently, attorney Leon Page, deputy county counsel in Orange
County and a columnist for the local newspaper, wrote to the
councilmembers saying their vote to hire a land use consultant "is
void and can (and should) be set side by the Superior court" since
"nothing (on the council agenda) suggested that the council" would be
taking such an action.

Page wrote that had he known that the council would also be voting to
direct their staff to hire an outside consultant to analyze the
advantages and disadvantages of maintaining an airport on the
property, "I could have offered to the council my thoughts on the
proposal."

Furthermore, he demanded that the council "cure or correct the
challenged action" or inform him in writing why it isn't within 30
days, as required by state law.

Pacific Flyer contacted the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
which claims to represent 60% of the 600,000 pilots in the country to
inform them of the situation and to see what action, if any, they
planned to take.

Chris Dancy, their new media relations director, said a stern letter
would be sent to the council warning them of the 90% repayment rule,
plus the fact that they signed an agreement with the FAA to keep the
airport open forever. Although we were promised a copy of the letter,
we never received it and do not know if it was ever sent.

However, we sent e-mails to the three council members who voted for
the land use plan, asked if they were aware of the FAA requirements
and sought a comment. Wood and Sanchez didn't respond; Mackin sent an
e-mail saying she was going to a meeting but would get back to us.

Of course, she never did.

Why do the new councilmembers and Wood want to close the airport?
Because Costco has suggested that it would like to have the land, or
at least locate near it, but wouldn't because of the airport.
Oceanside airport, by council edict, has no flight schools nor an FBO,
just a few tie downs, dilapidated old hangars (and 11 empty new ones)
and a fuel pit.

Our office is located (purposefully) on base to final and we rarely
see or hear more than two planes a day.

What happens next? It depends on how tough the FAA wants to get with
the city; whether AOPA keeps its word and jumps into the fray, and
whether or not attorney Page is successful.

How are things in your town?

- Wayman Dunlap

----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/2005/050825asn.html
California volunteers meet to protect airports
Encroachment, airport closure, noise - these are issues that could
creep up at your local airport. And the key to stopping or preventing
these issues all together starts at the local level with the pilots
and AOPA Airport Support Network (ASN) volunteers.

For example, a San Diego-area comprehensive airport land-use plan has
sparked controversy over protecting land around airports. The San
Diego area alone has nearly a dozen public-use airports.

Alan Cruise, the ASN volunteer for Oceanside Municipal in the San
Diego area, other San Diego area volunteers, and pilots are actively
advocating and educating their local elected leaders and the general
public about the value of smart land-use planning, which can prevent
encroachment, airport closure, and noise issues that face airports
nationwide.

"In California and across the country, airports are being threatened
by development because of poor land-use oversight at the local level,"
said AOPA ASN Director Stacy Platone Swigart. "These meetings are
terrific opportunities for ASN volunteers to exchange ideas to combat
land-use issues - like they did in San Diego - as well as to share
their successes and seek advice from peers and AOPA staff."

The next ASN meeting takes place Friday, November 4, during AOPA Expo
2005 in Tampa. More information about becoming an ASN volunteer is
available on AOPA Online.

August 25, 2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/2005/050513ca.html
Let reason prevail in San Diego County
Land-use planning has stirred up a hornet's nest in San Diego County.
AOPA is urging everyone to calm down, listen to all sides, and make
rational choices that will protect both the interests of local
communities and their airports. And in regard to a June 30 deadline to
complete the county's airport land-use compatibility plan, AOPA told
the regional airport authority, "We would urge you to ensure this date
does not become an artificial barrier to the county's need to develop
clear, concise, and appropriate airport land-use plans based on state
standards." AOPA asked for the opportunity for public comment on any
changes to draft plans. The San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority is charged with updating land-use master plans around the
area's airports, including Oceanside, McClellan-Palomar, Gillespie,
and Montgomery Field airports. Although the authority's actions are
more advisory than regulatory, some local communities have felt their
zoning authority was being usurped while some pilots have felt the
plans were too pro-development.

May 13, 2005

================================================== ====================
From AOPA Pilot, June 2005
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...caact0506.html
Oceanside airport eyed for development
When Oceanside City Council members close their eyes they see a
Costco, Borders bookstore, or a Sam's Club store on what is now a
drive-in movie theater lot. The problem is that the site may interfere
with Oceanside Municipal Airport, according to a story in The San
Diego Union-Tribune. Several council members told the paper they
thought commercial development would win if it came down to the
airport versus development. One councilman said that while the airport
may not be threatened, there is sentiment on the council to abandon
the airport if it would stop development of the drive-in movie
property.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...c9airport.html
Airport under fire again in Oceanside

Consultant OK'd to study its future

By Lola Sherman
STAFF WRITER

September 9, 2005

OCEANSIDE - This city's municipal airport appears to be fighting for
its life - again.

By a 3-2 vote late Wednesday night, the City Council decided to hire a
consultant to figure out the best use of the airport land and how to
close the field if the council eventually decides to do that.

Councilmen Jack Feller and Rocky Chavez voted against seeking the
consultant.

Feller said shutting down the airport would be a shortsighted
decision.

Chavez said the harbor, airport and parks are what make Oceanside
unique.

"This continuous cycle of redigging old graves is why this city does
not go forward," he said. "It's a shame we have no vision."

On the other side, Councilwoman Esther Sanchez said the airport "is
not in the best interest of Oceanside's future" and asked, "What do we
have to do to close" it?

She said she hates to remember that terrorists used a municipal
airport to train for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

And she said the airport is preventing Costco from locating a store in
Oceanside.

The discount chain has been considering the old Valley Drive-Ins site
just east of the airport.

But development of that site is complicated by proposed limits on the
height and density of development around airports. The county Regional
Airport Authority, a new player in the airport debate, is expected to
approve new regulations in the coming months.

Mayor Jim Wood, who joined Sanchez and Councilwoman Shari Mackin in
voting to hire the consultant, said the authority is his biggest
concern.

Wood, who has lived in Oceanside most of his life, said he never knew
the airport was an issue in town before he ran for office in 2002
until he was questioned on where he stood on it.

He said he favored asking for a consultant's study then and he still
does.

Public Works Director Peter Weiss said the city would have to pay back
to the Federal Aviation Administration $3.5 million it has received in
grants and loans for improvements if it does not maintain the airport
until 2024.

Weiss also said nearly 15 acres acquired for the airport with one of
those grants could not necessarily be sold for other commercial uses
because the previous owner has a first right to get the property back.
Oceanside is the only city in the county besides San Diego to operate
its own airport. The single 2,000-foot-long-runway accommodates
primarily propeller-driven light planes.

Council members also voted 4-1 Wednesday, with Sanchez opposed, to pay
a $195,000 bill outstanding on new hangars already built at the
airport.

It had deadlocked 2-2 two weeks ago, with Wood absent, on paying the
bill.

At the time, both Mackin and Sanchez balked. But on Wednesday, Mackin
changed her vote, because paying the bill would not extend the time
frame for the airport's existence, she said.

That earlier 2-2 vote also killed a proposed $150,000 FAA grant for
security fencing and an access-card system at the airport because the
deadline to accept the money has now passed.

But Weiss said the Homeland Security Department suggests the fencing,
so it may have to be paid for by assessing owners who use hangars and
tie-downs.

The Oceanside Airport Association told members it now fears that a
majority of the council members favor closing the field, and it urged
members to make their voices heard in its behalf.

Both sides spoke at Wednesday's meeting.

Rayford Scott said he's been fighting the airport for 50 years and
knows that the land "is worth millions of dollars," but said the
airport is "a financial disaster and has been for years."

Proponent Bruce Willbrant asked, "Why is it just the airport and
pilots that you have it in for?"


--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1mi14oair.html


Oceanside council orders airport study

Critics fear the city is trying to close facility

By Lola Sherman
STAFF WRITER

October 14, 2005

OCEANSIDE - Supporters of Oceanside Municipal Airport fear that an
upcoming study of the best uses for the property will be the first
step toward closing the airport.

They said so at a City Council meeting late Wednesday night.

But the pleas of a dozen airport supporters did nothing to sway the
council from voting 3-2 to ask a consultant to do the study.

Mayor Jim Wood and Councilwomen Esther Sanchez and Shari Mackin
remained firm in their support of the study, while Councilmen Rocky
Chavez and Jack Feller voted no.

Sanchez said the study should show the economic benefits to the city
from an alternate use of the airport property.

Mackin said she needs the facts a consultant will provide.

"The airport should never have been located in a residential area,"
Sanchez said.

It wasn't a residential area 46 years ago when the airport was built,
Feller responded. He said doing the study "is just another way of
closing the airport."

Jimmy Knott and Sandy Saiz were the only two speakers in the audience
Wednesday who supported the study, although other airport opponents
have spoken up in the past.

Feller noted that one proponent had offered to lease the airport and
run it.

"Private enterprise is willing to partner with us," Feller said. "I
think that what we've done is quit on the airport."

Chavez remembered that one local company, Deutsch, had wanted the
airport in the beginning and now another, Genentech, is interested.

"Deutsch was yesterday," Chavez said. "Genentech is tomorrow."

"It's a sad state of affairs that it (the airport) has been allowed to
fall into a state of disrepair," pilot Greg Genova said. "We need to
make the airport what it should be" and, if the city doesn't want to
do it, private enterprise can step in.

"I will lease it," Genova told the council.

Alan Cruise, president of Oceanside Airport Association, which he said
has close to 900 members, said no price tag has been placed on the
consultant's study but it's apt to cost $100,000.

That's money he said would be better spent on airport fencing.

"As you go forward with the study, it certainly appears that you are
on the road to airport closure," Cruise said.

The council lost a chance in August at a Federal Aviation
Administration grant for the fencing when it split 2-2, with Wood
absent, on accepting the funds. It then said it wanted the study
instead.

"I do not want us to rely on any FAA grants," Sanchez said Wednesday.
"It's something I have a lot of heartburn over."

Consultants are to respond to the city's request by 2 p.m. Nov. 10.