Harvey Field Endangered

On 2007-08-06 08:26:45 -0700, said:

C.J.,

Here is what my friend Glenn (former AOPA ASN volunteer) told me:

The airport is still going like gangbusters. Its status is
grandfathered, so it isn't shutting down any time soon. We are indeed
stopped from making a reasonable sized runway, and have to treat every
landing as a short field landing. We're planning to do what we can to
fight this, as the CLOMR is being reevaluated and things could
change. People played politics to do what they did to the airport.
Without expansion, the existing tenants have to pay for the increases
in property taxes that are skyrocketing. I'd like to spread those tax
increases across some new tenants.

Charles Hower volunteered to be the AOPA ASN rep. He has a 6 month
appointment to see if it goes well. If I want it back, I can have
it. I'm hoping he does a good job and can just take it over, but I'm
still supposed to be working on this. I'm sort of recovering from
many months of 60 hour weeks and haven't dived into this yet.

The airport actually does flood. The last one was in late 2006, and
we lucked out. Despite having to evacuate all aircraft and empty the
shop, it didn't even get the floor wet in the shop. Parked aircraft
still needed to be moved from the lower areas.


Glenn

Well, there is a major article coming out in the next issue of Wings
that you might want to read.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Aug 3, 9:43 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
To date, letters
to Snohomish County commissioners have been running 100 to 1 against
the airport.

Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

MY own observation of one occurrence is that the pilots will HAVE to
get highly organized, which is not their normal state.
Here in Chandler, AZ, the anti-airport crazies showed just how
organized they can be, and it was a very impressive grass-roots
effort. Unfortunately, there wasn't any integrity at all to their
campaign, but accuracy doesn't get a vote.

Since pilots are a minority of the population, it gets very
challenging to win a vote.

In article .com,
wrote:

On Aug 3, 9:43 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
To date, letters
to Snohomish County commissioners have been running 100 to 1 against
the airport.

Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

MY own observation of one occurrence is that the pilots will HAVE to
get highly organized, which is not their normal state.
Here in Chandler, AZ, the anti-airport crazies showed just how
organized they can be, and it was a very impressive grass-roots
effort. Unfortunately, there wasn't any integrity at all to their
campaign, but accuracy doesn't get a vote.

Since pilots are a minority of the population, it gets very
challenging to win a vote.

Since developers are behind most of the anti-airport action, you can
expect them to lie, exaggerate and rabble-rouse to the max. Just look at
Hamilton AFB, Reid-Hillview, Moffett, Sand Point, El Toro, for starters.

Developers are the biggest campaign contributors in the country, at
state and local levels. It is an uphill battle, but it CAN be won!

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:18:36 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

Since developers are behind most of the anti-airport action, you can
expect them to lie, exaggerate and rabble-rouse to the max. Just look at
Hamilton AFB, Reid-Hillview, Moffett, Sand Point, El Toro, for starters.

Developers are the biggest campaign contributors in the country, at
state and local levels. It is an uphill battle, but it CAN be won!

Nobody likes being lied to. Look what it's done to Bush's popularity.

If the anti-airport activist's exaggerations and outright lies can be
publicly exposed in the news media, their public support will diminish
and their attempt to close the airport will be rendered impotent.

Someone needs to address the issues raised in their brochures and
press releases point by point, and expose their deliberate attempts to
mislead the public, and get it published in the local newspapers.

Do the anti-airport activists have a web site on-line?

On Aug 8, 8:54 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:18:36 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

Since developers are behind most of the anti-airport action, you can
expect them to lie, exaggerate and rabble-rouse to the max. Just look at
Hamilton AFB, Reid-Hillview, Moffett, Sand Point, El Toro, for starters.

Developers are the biggest campaign contributors in the country, at
state and local levels. It is an uphill battle, but it CAN be won!

Nobody likes being lied to. Look what it's done to Bush's popularity.

If the anti-airport activist's exaggerations and outright lies can be
publicly exposed in the news media, their public support will diminish
and their attempt to close the airport will be rendered impotent.

Someone needs to address the issues raised in their brochures and
press releases point by point, and expose their deliberate attempts to
mislead the public, and get it published in the local newspapers.

Do the anti-airport activists have a web site on-line?

In the case of Chandler, yes they did.
But this was a one-sided battle. There had been an election before,
and the anti-airport people were still very organized. Signs came out
en masse, and very quickly. They convinced people that "airport
noise hurts property values". Pure bunk, since most of the anti gang
lived near the airport and had very expensive property. Since pilots
are a small minority, and the majority are therefore not in aviation-
related interests and don't care, it doesn't take much to win against
an airport. If a group is opposed to something, they can be easily
mobilized for an election. If the other side is blase', they can't be
mustered, and then all sorts of mischief can occur.

I like (hah) the claim that airports aren't "self-sufficient". An
airport is a transportation hub. So are roads. Are roads self-
sufficient (other than the few toll roads, which are a different
story)? Is the road in front of your house or business self-
sufficient? No, but the tax support from other sources allows the
roads to be there, so that those businesses and homes are accessible.
Airports are an integral part of a complete transportation system.
Furthermore, they are analogous to only needing driveways, not the
entire road network. In that respect they are very efficient.

The real shame was the absolutely beautiful political acumen of the
anti-airport gang. The way this was run should be in a textbook--it
was pure classic stuff and highly effective. Too bad it was
dishonest. They even allied themselves openly with another "anti"
group. A company called Covance, which is involved in drug testing
and uses live animals, is building a facility right near the airport.
So the anti-airport people allied themselves with the anti-Covance
group, since "Covance officials will fly big jets into Chandler
(false)..." and cooperated. Now, I see letters to the editor
proclaiming anti-Covance stances, and the names are faimiliar from the
anti-airport campaign.

I wasn't sure about Covance, but I don't like being lied to, so I am
now firmly in the pro-Covance side.

Chandler city council isn't too bright either. I had higher hopes for
them since we bounced half of a bad clique out in the last election.
But they recently allowed a developer to build 16 homes in the million
dollar range right into the airport development zone. Thanks a lot.
That's 15 households that will complain about the noise the day they
move in--NEXT TO THE AIRPORT!!!!!

I think the battle is a longer one. Don't wait until an election to
try to tell the story. Over a few years, mount an effective campaign
that touts the benefits of the airport. We have to gain support long
before the contest.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:36:49 -0700, wrote in
.com:

On Aug 8, 8:54 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:18:36 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

Since developers are behind most of the anti-airport action, you can
expect them to lie, exaggerate and rabble-rouse to the max. Just look at
Hamilton AFB, Reid-Hillview, Moffett, Sand Point, El Toro, for starters.

Developers are the biggest campaign contributors in the country, at
state and local levels. It is an uphill battle, but it CAN be won!

Nobody likes being lied to. Look what it's done to Bush's popularity.

If the anti-airport activist's exaggerations and outright lies can be
publicly exposed in the news media, their public support will diminish
and their attempt to close the airport will be rendered impotent.

Someone needs to address the issues raised in their brochures and
press releases point by point, and expose their deliberate attempts to
mislead the public, and get it published in the local newspapers.

Do the anti-airport activists have a web site on-line?

In the case of Chandler, yes they did.
But this was a one-sided battle. There had been an election before,
and the anti-airport people were still very organized. Signs came out
en masse, and very quickly. They convinced people that "airport
noise hurts property values". Pure bunk, since most of the anti gang
lived near the airport and had very expensive property.

Are you familiar with what happened in the late '50s to property
values in upscale Morningside Park (a suburb of Inglewood, CA) when
the airlines started flying B707s in there? It completely changed the
neighborhood. But I see your point in this case.

Since pilots
are a small minority, and the majority are therefore not in aviation-
related interests and don't care, it doesn't take much to win against
an airport. If a group is opposed to something, they can be easily
mobilized for an election. If the other side is blase', they can't be
mustered, and then all sorts of mischief can occur.

I like (hah) the claim that airports aren't "self-sufficient". An
airport is a transportation hub. So are roads. Are roads self-
sufficient (other than the few toll roads, which are a different
story)? Is the road in front of your house or business self-
sufficient? No, but the tax support from other sources allows the
roads to be there, so that those businesses and homes are accessible.
Airports are an integral part of a complete transportation system.
Furthermore, they are analogous to only needing driveways, not the
entire road network. In that respect they are very efficient.

Very true. And each airport is part of the NAS system. If the parts
of the system disappear at the rate of one a week, soon it will be
nearly impossible to implement SATS; there won't be any vacant real
estate to rebuild the municipal airports.

The real shame was the absolutely beautiful political acumen of the
anti-airport gang. The way this was run should be in a textbook--it
was pure classic stuff and highly effective. Too bad it was
dishonest.

I would be interested in hearing more about the specifics of their
strategy and how they managed to communicate their message publicly.

They even allied themselves openly with another "anti"
group. A company called Covance, which is involved in drug testing
and uses live animals, is building a facility right near the airport.
So the anti-airport people allied themselves with the anti-Covance
group, since "Covance officials will fly big jets into Chandler
(false)..." and cooperated. Now, I see letters to the editor
proclaiming anti-Covance stances, and the names are faimiliar from the
anti-airport campaign.

I wasn't sure about Covance, but I don't like being lied to, so I am
now firmly in the pro-Covance side.

Chandler city council isn't too bright either. I had higher hopes for
them since we bounced half of a bad clique out in the last election.
But they recently allowed a developer to build 16 homes in the million
dollar range right into the airport development zone. Thanks a lot.
That's 15 households that will complain about the noise the day they
move in--NEXT TO THE AIRPORT!!!!!

Did you attend the county/city planning commission hearings, and voice
your opposition to the development? I would think it reasonable to
require the developer to insert avigation easements in the deeds as a
condition of issuing the building permits.

I think the battle is a longer one. Don't wait until an election to
try to tell the story. Over a few years, mount an effective campaign
that touts the benefits of the airport. We have to gain support long
before the contest.

How do you get the message out?

Charles Hower volunteered to be the AOPA ASN rep. He has a 6 month
appointment to see if it goes well. If I want it back, I can have
it.

??

I'm Iowa City's AOPA Airport Support Network volunteer. To my
knowledge there is no "term" -- you just do it until you tell AOPA you
don't want to do it anymore.

Maybe out by you there is such a surplus of guys wanting to do this
job that they must divvy it up into 6 month terms? Around here, most
of our airports can't buy an ASN rep, let alone find a volunteer...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Aug 9, 5:26 am, Jay Honeck wrote:
Charles Hower volunteered to be the AOPA ASN rep. He has a 6 month
appointment to see if it goes well. If I want it back, I can have
it.

??

I'm Iowa City's AOPA Airport Support Network volunteer. To my
knowledge there is no "term" -- you just do it until you tell AOPA you
don't want to do it anymore.

Maybe out by you there is such a surplus of guys wanting to do this
job that they must divvy it up into 6 month terms? Around here, most
of our airports can't buy an ASN rep, let alone find a volunteer...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

Harvey Field has quite a few tenants, and a close-knit community of
pilots. I'm sure that there isn't a problem getting someone on the
hook as the ASN rep there, or doing a hand-off. Your airport
situation is likely much different... Harvey Field is located in a
bedroom community in the Seattle Metro area which is a much different
circumstance than Iowa City.

Dean

On Aug 8, 11:21 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

In the case of Chandler, yes they did.
But this was a one-sided battle. There had been an election before,
and the anti-airport people were still very organized. Signs came out
en masse, and very quickly. They convinced people that "airport
noise hurts property values". Pure bunk, since most of the anti gang
lived near the airport and had very expensive property.

Are you familiar with what happened in the late '50s to property
values in upscale Morningside Park (a suburb of Inglewood, CA) when
the airlines started flying B707s in there? It completely changed the
neighborhood. But I see your point in this case.

No, I'm not.
In Chandler's case, the city had gone to quite a length to appease the
anti- crowd before the elections. They had passed ordinances against
any scheduled flights, etc. Essentially, the only reason we wanted to
extend the runway about 400' was to provide a safety measure, and so
that aircraft of the type already coming in would be able to take off
with full loads in the hot summer air.
But the anti-s kept talking about jets, jets, jets. The general
public must have thought we were opening up a military base for dead
diseased animals from Covance!
Chandler's longest runway is about 4800 feet. The anti-s were writing
letters telling people that there were going to be 747s and B52s
coming in. Those were the sane and sensible letters!!!

The real shame was the absolutely beautiful political acumen of the
anti-airport gang. The way this was run should be in a textbook--it
was pure classic stuff and highly effective. Too bad it was
dishonest.

I would be interested in hearing more about the specifics of their
strategy and how they managed to communicate their message publicly.

They were highly organized. In only a short time after the election
was announced, there were hundreds of signs "Jet noise lowers property
values"
There were letters to the editor on a nearly daily basis, and only a
few in favor of the airport. I sent several, but none got published.
I can't say whether the submitted letters were that one-sided, or
whether the papers were selective. I do know that you had to meet
certain requirements to get considered for publication. If your group
was organized, you would make sure that everyone knew what those
requirements were. Additionally, I could nearly pick the tone of the
letters based on their authors. One person would go hyperbolic with
the name calling against pro-airport people taking down anti-airport
signs. (Not bloody likely; anti-airport signs were everywhere--public
and private. I rarely saw a pro-airport sign except at certain
properties near the airport, where they were least likely to be
effective.) I can only guess that they had many meetings, and the
letter-writing was highly organized.

It didn't help that the city threw this into the election, and
basically sat out the election without supporting the proposal. This
just made things worse than not having had a proposal at all, since
the next time--if it occurs--will be that much more difficult.

That's 15 households that will complain about the noise the day they
move in--NEXT TO THE AIRPORT!!!!!

Did you attend the county/city planning commission hearings, and voice
your opposition to the development? I would think it reasonable to
require the developer to insert avigation easements in the deeds as a
condition of issuing the building permits.

I wanted to attend, but had a class.
There are "easements", but that's meaningless. All of the new
residents can still vote, protest, write letters, and complain. If
there is no airport, the easement means nothing. Actually, the
easement means nothing at all.

I think the battle is a longer one. Don't wait until an election to
try to tell the story. Over a few years, mount an effective campaign
that touts the benefits of the airport. We have to gain support long
before the contest.

How do you get the message out?
I'm not much of a PR guy. But the public has to be made aware,
consistently, of the importance of the airports. They have to be made
aware of the dishonesty of much of the anti-airport propaganda.
Instead of "Don't kill my airport" campaigns only when there is an
identified threat, we have to have "I love your airport" all the
time. The people who move next to an airport and then complain have
to be "outed" as the selfish, arrogant people they are, but it has to
be done with more class than that. We pilots don't mix well with the
general population; they don't see what we see--they only see us for a
few seconds, down low and noisy. And they think we are all rich,
because that's how the anti-s portray us. We're all wealthy
pilots!!! ( I maybe coulda been wealthy, but then I started wanting
to fly....)

Today, I went to rent an airplane for Saturday. My rental place
closed up; they are moving to another airport. They bailed on $10
million in investments. When the bond issue failed, the airport lost
$2 million in fed funds, so thats $12M and counting. I'd gring that
up to the editorial column, but the anti-s would count that as a
victory. One business down, half a dozen more to go. This makes it
harder for the airport to be "self-sustaining", which makes that
argument self-fulfilling.

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2007-08-04 05:21:56 -0700, "Jeff" jfranks1971 minus
said:

Is the AOPA involved, yet? They're very good at fighting this kind of
fight.

jf

Both AOPA and WPA are involved in this. They are encouraging this letter
writing campaign.



Yeah, a letter writing campaign. I just betcha the Snohomish folks are
shakin' in their boots.

Letter writing didn't save Meigs, and won't save Harvey either. It'll be
a sad loss to a great airport.

The AOPA, well-meaning organization that it is, just doesn't have the
clout to save any airport that the local population, meaning non-flying
public, doesn't care about.

--
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
—- Voltaire