75 Year hangar lease

Here in Salisbury, NC, the owners of portable hangars were just told they
had 30 days to remove their hangars. They leased land without the right to
a long term lease. For the moment the County has relented but without that
long-term lease, the County is just being nice.

At McClellan-Palomar, California, the airport owner told some 100 hangar
leasees that the hangars they leased were going to be torn down and they had
to find some other airport to operate from. These people may not have built
these hangars but the lesson is the same. Unless you have a long term lease
to airport property, your lease can, and might be terminated.

http://www.palomarairportassociation...master&PAGE_us
er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=13&MMN_position=19:19

--Kent


From: "abripl"
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Date: 30 Mar 2005 17:54:37 -0800
Subject: 75 Year hangar lease

BTW. I did ask for one real example of a problem with normal 5-10 year
leases. Are we trying to fix a problem that does not exist?

Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act enacted last year,
requires

(21) if the airport owner or operator and a person who
owns an aircraft agree that a hangar is to be constructed at the
airport for the aircraft at the aircraft owner's expense, the
airport owner or operator will grant to the aircraft owner for
the hangar a long-term lease that is subject to such terms and
conditions on the hangar as the airport owner or operator may
impose.''
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...cong_public_la
ws&docid=fubl176.108

Problem is, the act doesn't say what a long-term lease is.
Representative Pearce (R-NM) proposed a new law to say that a long-term
lease is 75 years. I'm suggesting we should support that.
--Kent

From: Darrel Toepfer

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

With and airport receiving support funding from the FAA, the feds frown
on leases over 25 years...

Patrick, Patrick. It's a good deal--for the Airport. You build a hangar at
your expense, then you give it to the government after 20 years. If you
could own it for 75 years, you would have an opportunity to sell it to
somebody after you lost your medical. ;-)
--Kent

From: "W P Dixon"
Organization: Internet News Service
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:43:10 -0500
Subject: 75 Year hangar lease

Hawkins County Airport, TN. was doing a thing that you built a hangar and
you used it for 20 years, then it becomes property of the airport....which
is county owned. Yep, they do get the hangar after 20 years ! I guess it's
not to bad a deal. You get free land rent for 20 years, and the airport then
gets a 15,000-20,000 dollar hangar.

Patrick

"Kent Ashton" wrote in message
...

Patrick, Patrick. It's a good deal--for the Airport.

Oh I don't really think it is a good deal either, but it is the deal you
get. Myself I do not have that kind of money just to give the local
government,...they should build hangars from all the taxes they raise, and
pilots should be able to use them for free; since our taxes paid for them in
the first place. But that would be to much like a perfect world wouldn't it?


Patrick

Terms of a ground lease is a factor, but not the major problem. A
building merely housing airplanes is not the "highest and best use" of
airport property, as they say in the business. The reason is that we
don't like paying much in rents, even if we own a $400K airplane.
C-172, forget it. Investors thus shy away.

Sufficient length on the ground lease can attract commercial lenders,
meaning much less put up by investors. Problem there is the need to
assure the lender you'll be able to charge enough to make at least a
little money.

At our field, we worked with a commercial developer who donated his
services to do various workups in full professional format. Rents,
condo, combination, private money, banks. The cheapast one was still
so costly a survey of all aircraft owners in a large area produced
little interest. This even included an assumption of bays big enough
for the corporate jet set, so as to subsidize the small bays. They
later built three big hangars...for themselves. Two other groups of
well-to-do people with planes worked up T-Hangar and community hangar
proposals. Both abandoned the idea.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
Terms of a ground lease is a factor, but not the major problem. A
building merely housing airplanes is not the "highest and best use" of
airport property, as they say in the business. The reason is that we
don't like paying much in rents, even if we own a $400K airplane.
C-172, forget it. Investors thus shy away.

Sufficient length on the ground lease can attract commercial lenders,
meaning much less put up by investors. Problem there is the need to
assure the lender you'll be able to charge enough to make at least a
little money.

At our field, we worked with a commercial developer who donated his
services to do various workups in full professional format. Rents,
condo, combination, private money, banks. The cheapast one was still
so costly a survey of all aircraft owners in a large area produced
little interest. This even included an assumption of bays big enough
for the corporate jet set, so as to subsidize the small bays. They
later built three big hangars...for themselves. Two other groups of
well-to-do people with planes worked up T-Hangar and community hangar
proposals. Both abandoned the idea.

Fred F.

I have no idea what you just said.

Rich "That's why I'm poor, I guess" S.

Maybe the problem is "minimum standards". The FAA permits an airport to
set "minumum standards", ostensibly to prevent plywood and tarpaper aircraft
hangars, however the FAA lets airports set the minimum standards too high.
At my local airport, the minimum aircraft hangar that can be built is a
60 X 80 foot hangar with full foam-water fire suppression, taxiway paving,
car park paving, etc.; about a $300,000 project.
A light aircraft owner seeking to build his own T-hangar is shut out.
This airport will not even permit operators to share a hangar unless both
own an equal interest in the hangar.
--Kent

From: "TaxSrv"
Terms of a ground lease is a factor, but not the major problem. A
building merely housing airplanes is not the "highest and best use" of
airport property, as they say in the business. The reason is that we
don't like paying much in rents, even if we own a $400K airplane.
C-172, forget it. Investors thus shy away.

Sufficient length on the ground lease can attract commercial lenders,
meaning much less put up by investors. Problem there is the need to
assure the lender you'll be able to charge enough to make at least a
little money.

At our field, we worked with a commercial developer who donated his
services to do various workups in full professional format. Rents,
condo, combination, private money, banks. The cheapast one was still
so costly a survey of all aircraft owners in a large area produced
little interest. This even included an assumption of bays big enough
for the corporate jet set, so as to subsidize the small bays. They
later built three big hangars...for themselves. Two other groups of
well-to-do people with planes worked up T-Hangar and community hangar
proposals. Both abandoned the idea.

Fred F.

("Darrel Toepfer" wrote)
With and airport receiving support funding from the FAA, the feds frown on
leases over 25 years...


Huh? The two are related how? Curious.

Montblack
Sitting on a 99 year land lease in our Townhose Association paperwork.
Wonder what will happen in 60-75 years when all of these Townhome
Association leases come due?

Montblack wrote:
("Darrel Toepfer" wrote)

With and airport receiving support funding from the FAA, the feds
frown on leases over 25 years...

Huh? The two are related how? Curious.

Thats what we were told when we approached the airport board with our
construction request. Previous constructors were given 50 or more year
land leases. Nothing new has been built in over a decade though... 4R7

Since they are generous with the taxpayers dollars, the feds now want
proof of performance from the locals airports before kicking in
additional funding. ie. for new fueling systems and additional hanger
construction, they wanna see budgets and operation information...

Its been making me seriously consider something that easily folds,
instead of having a fixed wing/location based plane...