Comments on: Airport Vote Was Best Option
Newest First
By LogicalOne on 06-02-12 @ 9:01 am
Perhaps city council members can respond publicly?
Most voters have less knowledge about what they get to vote for than anyone involved in
the 30 year airport debacle continuing to unfold before them.
We need to know exactly what we get when we choose either airport ballot choice!
Describe the exact difference between the “rehabilitate or expand the airport” options.
Previously the choice was described as accepting the engineer’s city commissioned
recommendation to use FAA funds to move the runway 1000 feet south, add 600 feet to
the runway, and rehabilitate the airport to FAA standards, OR leaving the airport foot print
as is and use city developed funds to pay for the rehab, principally with 2 million in “TIFF”
funds, and as discussed….forever loosing FAA oversite and funding.
There has been argument among this split city council as to whether “TIFF” fund may even
be used at all. If the voters approve the ballot using these TIFF funds, and it is later
discovered, as expected by some, that TIFF funds cannot be used, what language will be
in the ballot measure to insure the city will pay for the 2 million dollar rehabilitation from
other than TIFF sources?
Under the FAA option, is it accurate to describe this option as “expansion”? Is adding 600
feet to the runway (adding 16%) and moving the runway 1000 feet further away from the
city better described with more precise modifiers such as “minor expansion”, “moderate
expansion” or “16% expansion” for better clarity and understanding, so that the average,
dispassionate, and non-following citizen voter can understand the scope of the project
without having to be mislead by vague language?
In the matter of “faith the airport would remain at its present location” as the reason for not
closing it because of “significant private investments in hangers and businesses at the
airport”: What will the ballot language for either choice have to assure the current and
subsequent future significant investments made there will not be subject to new city
councils’ whims, indecision, or agendas to close the airport in either case?
If the city cannot assure the airport is going to be there in perpetuity in the ballot language,
how can the investors, users and beneficiaries of the airport have the faith in the city to
make those investments and pay the fees to maintain and keep this airport secure in its
presence for future generations, economic development, and sustainability?
The city has a responsibility to have concise language on the ballot choices so that every
eventuality is covered and nothing is left to down the road speculation.
In either case, this vote is for an “airport”, or an “airport”! Very confusing, at best.
Therefore, unless the answers to the questions presented are clearly defined in what the
people are voting for, the community will continue to suffer the consequences of an
airport without clear purpose, character and viability.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.