User Fees are coming closer to being very real

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:19:53 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in t::

Arguing economics as a justification for a GA airport is usually a
losing argument once the facts are clear.

So, in your opinion, what is a winning argument for justifying the
continued existence of the local municipal airport in the face of its
poor revenue generating potential compared to a new housing
development/mall?

The way I see it, eventually, the international airports will be
located in the outskirts causing the municipal airports to become
gateways to air travel. Unfortunately, if the airport real estate is
abandoned to development, in the future that community will lack local
access and will be unlikely to find a new local airport venue given
the dearth of open space.

So it's a matter of shortsighted greed vs long range planning for
local transportation infrastructure.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:19:53 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in t::

Arguing economics as a justification for a GA airport is usually
a losing argument once the facts are clear.

So, in your opinion, what is a winning argument for justifying the
continued existence of the local municipal airport in the face of
its poor revenue generating potential compared to a new housing
development/mall?


You hit the nail on the head. I have racked my brain and I cannot come up
with a winning argument that can stand on its own for justifying an airport.
Sure a GA airport has some benefits for society and some individuals, but
when examined these benefits are on an extremely small micro scale versus
the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site. If there was a
winning argument then I doubt if we would be constantly having these
airport/redevelopment situations. At least there does not appear to be a
one-size-fits-all argument. I get the feeling that we are only postponing
the inevitable when we fight back a closure. Of course that doesn't mean
give up, but it does seem to get harder and harder.

The way I see it, eventually, the international airports will be
located in the outskirts causing the municipal airports to become
gateways to air travel. Unfortunately, if the airport real estate
is abandoned to development, in the future that community will lack
local access and will be unlikely to find a new local airport venue
given the dearth of open space.

If the big airports are moved away the little GA only airports will not be
the gateway to the bigger airports. A high-speed dedicated rail line to the
airport makes more sense in that regard.


So it's a matter of shortsighted greed vs long range planning for
local transportation infrastructure.

when examined these benefits are on an extremely small micro scale versus
the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site.

What are the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site? More
traffic, more industry, more drain on the water system, more sewage,
another mall... pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
says...


Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.


Anecdote:
I actually know of a case in Europe where, because of its unique eco-system,
close to a city, but still quite wild, a medium-sized municipal airport has
become a recognized " endangered habitat " for some species of birds. It's
endangered of course because lawyers living nearby want to close it down, and
developers have their eyes on the open land. The city has grown out towards
the airport, to where the once forsaken territory now has immense value. The
environmentalists who prepared the bird report are stuck between a
philosophical rock and hard place - being dyed-in-the-wool
environmentalists, they cannot actually favor the continued existence of the
airport - Heaven forbid - but they admit it is the unique blend of open
space, grassland and even the method of upkeep of the airport that provides
the habitat for the birds. They even say if the airport were to be
eliminated, certain species could be in danger of extinction. Their proposal?
Well since they cannot actually come out and oppose closing the airport, they
suggest "in the event of an airport closure" the land should be maintained as
it is, with full maintenance staff at cost to the community, in order to
preserve the wild bird habitat. Now there's a progressive proposal for ya!
Eliminate the revenue portions of the operation, which allow it to be
self-sufficient and even a substantial economic motor for the community, but
maintain the land upkeep at cost to the residents! So far, I think it is only
an enlightened few who see the common sense in this proposal.

GF

Greg Farris opined

In article ,
says...


Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.


Anecdote:
I actually know of a case in Europe where, because of its unique eco-system,
close to a city, but still quite wild, a medium-sized municipal airport has
become a recognized " endangered habitat " for some species of birds. It's
endangered of course because lawyers living nearby want to close it down, and
developers have their eyes on the open land. The city has grown out towards
the airport, to where the once forsaken territory now has immense value. The
environmentalists who prepared the bird report are stuck between a
philosophical rock and hard place - being dyed-in-the-wool
environmentalists, they cannot actually favor the continued existence of the
airport - Heaven forbid - but they admit it is the unique blend of open
space, grassland and even the method of upkeep of the airport that provides
the habitat for the birds. They even say if the airport were to be
eliminated, certain species could be in danger of extinction. Their proposal?
Well since they cannot actually come out and oppose closing the airport,
they suggest "in the event of an airport closure" the land should be
maintained as it is, with full maintenance staff at cost to the community,
in order to preserve the wild bird habitat. Now there's a progressive
proposal for ya! Eliminate the revenue portions of the operation, which
allow it to be self-sufficient and even a substantial economic motor for the
community, but maintain the land upkeep at cost to the residents! So far, I
think it is only an enlightened few who see the common sense in this
proposal.

KCON is in a simular situation. There is a species of butterfly that lives on
the aiport, and it is endangered. Add in the National Guard, the state capital
and 1/2 of Louden's NASCAR team traffic, it is a safe to survive airport.

The rest of the GA airports in NH are not so asured of survival.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?