75 Year hangar lease

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.