Trouble ahead over small plane fees

"ET" wrote in message
...
"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:


Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and
should therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a
local airport, they charge no landing fees, charge only about
$600 per year for a tie down, and thats it. Overnight tie-down
is $5. Yet, they receive millions of dollars in AIP grants
(derived from general taxpayer dollars and commercial airline
ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state subsidies,
etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to
"burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It
costs $3500 per year for the slip; transient slips will
cost upwards of $75 per night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal
infrastructure compared to an active GA airport. Tax subsidies
make GA flying artificially cheap.

So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.


We have to stop repeating this AOPA talking point, and stick with the facts.
Whenever we say this we just look like deer in the headlights; i.e. clueless
and dumbfounded. Yes, GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

In article et,
"Tom Conner" wrote:

Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

based on ....?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article et,
"Tom Conner" wrote:

Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

based on ....?

still waiting for the source of your claim...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:07:51 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in et::

GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

Agreed.

The airport's value lies in it's existence in the nation's/world's
infrastructure as a portal for aerial transport. Further, the value
of the real estate upon which the airport is sited is obviously not in
the revenue the airport generates for the municipality operating it.
And the value of the property tax on the real estate if it were zoned
for development would surely be several times more than the airport
pays. Both economic issues motivate airport closures as do noise
complaints and developer lobbying.

But consider the future. If the airport real estate is allowed to be
subdivided into residential lots, the municipality's reacquiring the
property in 2020, when a local airport is being demanded by the
citizens, may prove difficult and unpopular.

There are a lot of issues in life that require foresight to achieve
long term goals, rather than failing to plan ahead in the face of
immediate gratification.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:07:51 +0000, Tom Conner wrote:

virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

This turns out to be false, much to my town's annoyance.

We're learning that new housing is *expensive*. Sure, it means taxes.
But in our town, a new home means kids. And schooling two or more kids
costs more than most houses pay in taxes.

Anything more dense than a house (ie. an apartment building) which is well
suited to children is worse. A couple of developers got projects past the
town by claiming that the resulting homes would be kid-unfriendly. This
was recent, with the projects still under construction, so it remains to
be seen if kid-unfriendly can actually work. I've my doubts.

High density commercial or industry might generate more cash than a GA
airport. But it might also have additional costs. More, an airport
nearby is an asset for corporate sites. Take the airport away, and large
corporations will be less willing to pay for the space.

- Andrew

Tom Conner wrote:
Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

But when a community closes an airport, what happens to the value of
the infrastructure, not just the land.

If the community buys your house, they buy the house and the lot.
Maybe they bulldoze the house, but they have to buy that first.
I'm not aware of communities paying for the runways, towers, hangars,
etc. Those investments seem to just disappear, and the aviation
community is supposed to wander in the desert for 40 years looking for
a new. home.
The developers didn't tie up their money for decades, investing in the
land. They use commmunity government connections to get them condemned
or otherwise closed, and reap $$$$$$$$ on aviations investment. This
is doubly dammned because they build the houses next to the airport,
that got the residents, that complained about the noise, that was there
before they moved in, that was less than their kid's boombox cars.

End of rant. Continue with your normal programming.

Yes, GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

Well, not really. What happens is that the existance of DXR makes the
existance of BID more valuable. DXR is providing positive economic
impact to BID (and the rest of Block Island). Were DXR to be leveled
and replaced with condos or some such, the economic benefit would go to
the land developers, BUT IT WOULD COME OUT OF BID (and other places that
have no say in the matter).

It just =looks= like condos are a better deal, but that's because the
benefit of one airport is spread out over all the other airports.

It's the same argument against getting "corporate taxpayers" on the real
estate rolls. More business developement should mean more town taxes
coming from their corporate tax, and lessen the burden on homeowners.
But it doesn't work that way. Graph the mill rates of towns vs their
corporate development ratio, and you'll see (at least I've found in my
area) that the more corporate developement, the HIGHER the mill rate.

The EXPENSES to the town generated by businesses is diluted so it can't
be seen, but it is juts as real.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.