Please help -- It's down to the wire

Jay, you need to demand that an economic impact study be done on your
airport. The average GA airport is worth around $20 million per year in
jobs, taxes, and "incidental revenue" (that's you). I'm the local AOPA
rep for our airport, and when I mailed that kind of data to our mayor,
the hue and cry for increased airport fees suddenly went away (our
airport is the only one in Connecticut that actually made a profit last
year). The city had NO IDEA that the airport had a monetary value. You
can also harp on the fact the airport is open space, that development
increases traffic, crime, pollution, etc., etc. Get interviewed by your
local newspaper. Most folks don't know GA from a hole in the ground, but
most of the general public is pro-GA, if it's presented in terms they
can grasp (personal freedom, reduction of housing development, more open
spaces, etc.) The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you don't squeak,
kiss your airport good-bye.

Rip

Jay Honeck wrote:
Sorry for the cross-posting, Guys and Gals, but I'm appealing for your
help -- NOW.

Our City Council will be deciding THIS WEEK whether or not to put the
dissolution of our independent airport commission on the ballot this fall.
If this goes to the ballot, the damage done to our airport may be
irreversible.

The Issue
************************************************** ******
Our Airport Commission was set up after World War II specifically to
insulate the airport from the winds of politics. Our grandfathers knew that
one day our airport -- once so far from town -- would become surrounded by
development, and that airport land would be almost irresistible to
developers.

They knew that no future city council, during some future budget crunch,
would be able to resist a wealthy land developer's offer to buy that land.
Thus, they entrusted management of the airport to a band of volunteer,
unpaid commissioners, who were given the sole mission of running and
protecting the airport well and properly.

Our current city council, for a myriad of reasons, has decided that the
commission has outgrown its usefulness. Budgetary problems (the city's
annual subsidy has grown from $40K to $180K in the past decade), management
issues (previous commissions did not keep a tight lid on paperwork),
communication issues (the city manager doesn't get along with the airport
manager and some previous commissioners), and our newspaper's rabid
anti-airport slant have all conspired to make the airport a BIG issue in the
city government.

The Reasons Why We Oppose This Change in Governance
************************************************** ******
Now, of course, we all know it's not the money. Ankeny, Iowa, with it's
slightly smaller airport, happily spends over $300K per year subsidizing
their airport. Our $180K subsidy would not buy a single city bus, nor would
it fund our city manager's salary for even one year.

To put this in perspective, $180K is LESS than Iowa City spent last year on
"cemetery beautification" in fiscal 2003.

Further, our airport brings something over $5 million per year into the
local economy -- not a bad return on a $180K investment!

And we all know it's not an issue with the management of the airport. Our
airport remains the best G.A.airport in the Midwest, and everything is
running smoothly.

And it can no longer be a personal struggle between commissioners and the
city manager -- all of the current airport commissioners have come on board
in the last six months. The entire previous commission resigned, some for
personal reasons, others in frustration. And this new crop of
commissioners are the best I've ever seen, with representatives from every
walk of life -- including a couple of heavy hitters from the biggest show in
town, the University of Iowa.

So what is it? A power struggle, plain and simple. If the City Manager can
convince the City Council to go down this path (and he, as full-time city
manager, is the guy who truly controls our part-time Mayor and councilors),
he will have achieved control of the one area of city government that he
could not directly control.

And, if you follow the money, this change will set the city up to be in a
position to close and sell the airport land down the road. If I were a
betting man, I'd wager that there are already wealthy land developers
steering this debate, behind the scenes.

WE NEED YOUR HELP.
************************************************** ******
City Councilors aren't schooled in airport management, or the needs of the
pilot community -- they are being led down this path by a City Manager who
has convinced them that this referendum is for the "good of the city and the
airport." It is our job to show them the error of this logic, and the only
way to do this is with letters, emails and phone calls!

PLEASE don't wait, as time is extremely short. Send your emails opposing a
referendum for the dissolution of our independent airport commission to
. (These letters become part of the public record,
viewable by all, so please keep them clean, brief, and professional.
Please don't just forward this post to them, as the "delete" key is simply
too easy to use. We need many voices!)

The best approach is to keep it simple. Mention the reasons for the
commission's existence. Mention the money saved by having a volunteer
commission running the show, versus a paid staff of city employees. Perhaps
even mention the wealthy land developers who are salivating over the thought
of developing this land. (Iowa City is a very left-wing, liberal town.
Calling someone around here a "wealthy land developer" is tantamount to
calling them a cockroach...)

If you have the time, a phone call is even more effective. Here are the
phone numbers of the "swing voting" councilors:

Reginia Bailey 319-351-2068
Dee Vanderhoef 319-351-6872
Bob Elliott 319-351-4056
Connie Champion 319-337-6608

(I have omitted the city councilors who are already vocally supporting the
referendum.)

All we need is FOUR councilors on our side (and we think we've already got
2) to make this issue go away -- for now.

Thanks in advance.

If it goes to a referendum, can't the battle for the public's vote
continue?

Yes, but...

The City Council has recently made a very subtle and politically brilliant
change in their approach.

Until now they were constantly berating the airport, and the commission, and
all of their actions were being taken in a punitive way. NOW, they have
changed their tune completely. NOW they are "on our side" and are "taking
this action so that we can all be on the same team" and all be "working
together."

NOW they are doing this to "help the airport" -- not hurt it!

The general public, when presented with this referendum, will hear the
council and the mayor saying "we are doing this to help the airport" -- and
what chance will we have, with our "doom and gloom" message?

We will be left standing there, saying "But, in ten years, the future city
council won't be able to resist a developer!" -- and John Q. Public will
have tuned out after we said "But..." All they will hear is the mayor
saying "this is good for the airport" -- and they will pull the wrong
lever....

Worse, even if we could somehow win the referendum, the issue will be so
negative, and so divisive, that I fear the airport would never fully
recover. The town would be completely polarized.

No, we must stop this BEFORE it gets to a referendum. And we are well on
our way to doing just that.

Thanks to everyone for our support -- I have personally received over ten
"cc'd" letters to the council, from all over the United States. It is truly
heart-warming, and I thank you all for your help!

Keep 'em coming!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsroHc.50517$XM6.16280@attbi_s53...
[...]
The general public, when presented with this referendum, will hear the
council and the mayor saying "we are doing this to help the airport" --
and
what chance will we have, with our "doom and gloom" message?

What chance? Simple enough: write some language, to be included in the
dissolution referendum, to a) require some sort of professional with a real
aviation background and real aviation qualifications to actually handle the
administration duties the City Council proposes to take on (in a real way,
not a "this advisor here that we never listen to" way), and b) restrict the
City Council from taking any action that might be detrimental to the
airport, including closing it and selling the land to a developer.

You (or a similar interested party) get to write the language. Make it as
reasonable, but as iron-clad as you can (IMHO, the simpler the language, the
fewer the loopholes, but you still need to remember to consider all the
possibilities). Then, in your public battle against the proposal, you
request (demand?) that the language be included in the referendum.

The City Council will either agree to it or they won't. If they do agree to
it, then you're "fine" (inasmuch as anyone is ever fine when dealing with
the government). If they don't agree to it, then that's your talking point
when lobbying against the referendum. "See? If the City Council really
wanted the airport to survive, they'd have no problem including this
addendum to the referendum" (you might not want to put that particular rhyme
in your press packet though ).

I know, "easier said than done". Even so, I think you ought to consider a
tactic along those lines.

Which is not to say that lobbying the council to prevent the referendum in
the first place isn't a good strategy. The earlier you nip it in the bud,
the better off you'll be, as you obviously know. This is just an idea for
down the road, if Plan A fails.

Pete

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 03:39:15 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

If it goes to a referendum, can't the battle for the public's vote
continue?

Yes, but...

The City Council has recently made a very subtle and politically brilliant
change in their approach.

Until now they were constantly berating the airport, and the commission, and
all of their actions were being taken in a punitive way. NOW, they have
changed their tune completely. NOW they are "on our side" and are "taking
this action so that we can all be on the same team" and all be "working
together."

NOW they are doing this to "help the airport" -- not hurt it!

The general public, when presented with this referendum, will hear the
council and the mayor saying "we are doing this to help the airport" -- and
what chance will we have, with our "doom and gloom" message?

We will be left standing there, saying "But, in ten years, the future city
council won't be able to resist a developer!" -- and John Q. Public will
have tuned out after we said "But..." All they will hear is the mayor
saying "this is good for the airport" -- and they will pull the wrong
lever....

Jay,

Have you written or shared these thoughts to the Iowa City mayor?

-Nathan

Have you written or shared these thoughts to the Iowa City mayor?

You betcha!

Although we've actually stopped contacting him, since we discovered that
he's in the City Manager's hip pocket. Everything we'd say to the Mayor
would get back to City Manager Atkins, which then gave him the opportunity
to formulate a politically correct response.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What chance? Simple enough: write some language, to be included in the
dissolution referendum,

The language of the referendum is already spelled out by Iowa State Law.
(The city attorney read it aloud at the last commission meeting, but I don't
have it in front of me.)

Luckily for us, it is written in a manner that will require a "Yes" vote to
retain the airport commission. (Apparently "Yes" votes carry the day more
often than "No" votes...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ZDwHc.55864$XM6.8221@attbi_s53...
The language of the referendum is already spelled out by Iowa State Law.

I guess I'm a little confused then. If the referendum is at this point
unchangeable, that implies to me that there's nothing the City Council could
do anything about keeping it from the vote. Conversely, if the referendum
can still be withdrawn, it seems to me it could also be modified (by
withdrawing it and reintroducing it with new language).

What am I missing?

Pete

The language of the referendum is already spelled out by Iowa State Law.

I guess I'm a little confused then. If the referendum is at this point
unchangeable, that implies to me that there's nothing the City Council
could
do anything about keeping it from the vote. Conversely, if the referendum
can still be withdrawn, it seems to me it could also be modified (by
withdrawing it and reintroducing it with new language).

Apparently in Iowa, the laws about airport commissions are codified and
ready for action at all times. (You know those lawyers!)

Thus, they seem to have a "rules for airport commissions" that spells out
precisely how a city can get rid of its airport commission. And in that
"rule book" is the precise language that must be used when the decision goes
to a referendum.

So, in the end, our City Council can decide to hold a referendum on the
airport commission -- or not -- but they are not allowed to tinker with the
language of the referendum's question. That is pre-determined.

I wouldn't have believed it if the city attorney hadn't spoken it herself.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"bryan chaisone" wrote in message
om...
How can I help if my emails and letters gonna fall on death ears? Is
there another way?

Skywriting. Get the media involved.

-c