A campaign to decommission Boulder Municipal Airport (KBDU) in favor of a new, mixed-use neighborhood has begun circulating online.
Petition advocates say the airport’s 179 acres of land could much better serve the community as a mixed-use neighborhood rather than what it calls a “small, hobbyist airport” for some 200 people who own or fly private aircraft. Residents have also expressed concerns about noise and leaded aviation fuel and its effect on neighbors and children who live near the airport.
The petition comes amid a contentious debate over the airport’s future. Several options have been explored, including keeping the existing airport with upgraded facilities, improving some aspects of the airport while adding new amenities, or decommissioning it altogether for development.
The latter has gained some support with comments saying, “The airport serves a limited elite group of people who can afford a very expensive hobby. The rest of us get no benefit.” Another resident wrote, “Please decommission the Boulder Airport. There are many uses which would provide so much more value to our community. The noise and leaded gas fumes are also big concerns.”
However, because Boulder has accepted FAA grant funds to maintain and operate the airport, closing it would not be easy. The city would need to be released from the terms of its obligation.
Still, the City Council has requested additional legal and financial analysis to better understand future options for the airport. A project team is currently performing an analysis that will be shared with the City Council later this year where further discussions will take place on its future.
Another one (will) bite(s) the dust.
“Small, hobbyist airport for some 200 people who own or fly private aircraft.”
This sums up the attitude well.
This is the way of the future, and we are not in it. We still need to fight and go kicking and screaming into the environmentalist utopia they are planning for us, but I suspect our gains will be few compared to our losses.
Such is the future.
To quote a line form Saturday Night Fever when Tony told his boss at the hardware store he didn’t care about the future and said “F*&^ the future”
The response was epic.
“No Tony, you don’t f*&^ the future. The future f*&^’s you.”
Unfortunately, ditto…
Yea, who needs diversity and inclusion?
Let’s get rid of those we don’t like and build a happy utopia.
This is a crises and must be done for the school children.
Nothing says “equality” more than Communism.
I hate to say it man, but you’re missing the forest for the trees.
They want to redevelop the airport. I guaran-dang-tee that (like SMO) that if you dig deep it’s not islamocommifascist durty libz, but good old-fashioned real estate developers.
Airports are PRIME property but generate low levels of taxes in comparison to “mixed use” neighborhoods, or even single family housing, in many places.
Start paying attention to the end plans because I bet, if you dig, you’ll find a real estate agent (or developer) is greasing palms and astroturfing to rile up people.
Exactly right, but that won’t stop Arthur from tilting at windmills.
Geesh, it’s a joke, I thought about putting before the comment but thought you’d be smart enough to catch it.
Precisely
I was replying to Mr. Arthur J Foyt.
Arthur, I do not agree with the petition. However, your comment is harmful. It promotes exclusion, uses threatening and intimidating language, and is factually wrong.
I didn’t see “threatening language”. I saw sarcastic hyperbole that was attempting to highlight what so much “progress” lately seems to consist of, namely ostracism and marginalization of all who don’t subscribe to the currently-approved-and-fashionable progressive-liberal group-think. Frankly, your response is a fairly good example of what I’m talking about and what I believe he was trying to highlight. And, since we’re all (apparently) sharing opinions no one asked for, I’m far more “threatened” by people that believe it’s okay to go around calling other people’s opinions “harmful” simply because they don’t agree, than I am by anything in the comment that seems to have “triggered” you. But, your mileage may vary. So, carry on, and have a nice day.
Like a nightie, it was a thinly veiled comment. Frankly I’m disappointed you
Weren’t able to see through it. Keep it up Mr. Foyt.
Raf, It’s a joke.
What’s intimidating, threatening and wrong are people facing getting thrown out of their dream homes.
Raf, you’re looking at yourself in the mirror…
Every chance I get. I’m ok with it. Seen worse.
Raf, your comment is nothing short of virtue signaling. Please stop. It’s insulting.
Delicate much? This isn’t some lightweight college campus.
Mr Sierra;
I would disagree with your assertions – even if the post you commented on were not intended as humor. I would of course be interested to hear exactly in what way you find the comment “harmful”- and to what.
With due respect sir I would argue that your reply fails to endorse diversity by attempting to invalidate the post. That also would seem to be treating that post as not equitable with others here. At least you didn’t suggest it be deleted.
And while that may seem specious and insincere , its not. I really do believe that in being offended by someone’s lack of endorsement for DEI, you have abandoned the principle in reply. Certainly we’re all human and I hold no ill will towards you for that. But as others have suggested, I believe a bit of serious dispassionate introspection might not go amiss.
I’ve seen many of your posts and while I haven’t always agreed with you, I have been impressed with your desire to address the issues respectfully and intellectually. In this instance I believe you may have inadvertently shown disrespect for the very principles you hoped to defend. I could be wrong of course. It’s happened before.
Regarding the issue at hand – the airport closure.
If you have anything to do with that airport, find your new one now. I’ve never seen an airport closure beaten permanently. The best you can hope for is a few years. Right or wrong, once the “civilians” get their heads around the concept it’s a done deal. If you start looking now you can be comfortably situated when the place goes belly up.
And yes it’s bad and it’s wrong and its evil and there’s money being made and it won’t be good in the long run and a thousand other things we all know and are true. But it’s gong to happen, so wipe your tears and adapt.
Quite right You’re Mr. Bill, and used sapient words.
“The rest of us get no benefit.”
Really?
I’d bet the patient that flew out of KBDU on the A350 helicopter a couple of days ago felt they got a benefit.
And those Amazon packages you like to get? Did you really think that delivery van drove them the whole way? Here’s a tip – if you see BDU on the shipping label, it came through Boulder airport.
Plus, do you think Agilent is next to the airport because of the rent? Do you really think they’ll stay there (and their jobs) after the airport is gone?
Saying you get nothing from the airport because you don’t fly a plane is like saying streets are a waste of money because you don’t drive a car.
The aviation community has spent 30 years saying they will solve the lead in the fuel problem. Well, they didn’t do it and now they’re paying the price cause the communities are going to shut their airports down crying that lead is the reason, and it is going to work. AOPA and many other people who thought that continuing to kick the can down the road, Just give us a little bit of time, well, the time actually ran out years ago, and now the airports are gonna be closed down because of it. This will go down as one of the biggest missed calculations in generally aviation history.
Maybe, but I feel like the lead is just “another issue” to argue. If that wasn’t available, the noise complaints and the elitist arguments would be enough.
Lead is a fake issue playing on the memory of 1970s studies of children chewing on lead paint, which caused harm. Some studies apportioned some blame on lead in auto gas for the lead found in children but strangely did not report the same levels of exposure in the adults of the same households.
People moved into houses near the airport because they were less expensive and now want to get rid of the noise which enabled their purchase in the first place. Every airport owner should create a standard airport proximity notification, required on all real estate transactions in the airport impact area. Many airport owners have already done this.
If you think lead in gas is the reason “The People’s Republic of Boulder” is trying to close the Boulder airport now, you are naive, respectably. This extreme left community is not happy unless you march lock step with their insane policies, they are proof you get the government you vote for. Mob real is their specialty. As a Colorado resident for the last several decades, I have no doubt, they will find a way to close it down.
Eric Fisher – you hit that nail on the head.
I can’t argue with you here. Honestly, I believe the FAA is deliberately delaying distribution of 100UL kicking the can down the road using it as a tactic to close airports and appease environmentalists.
The writing’s on the wall, folks. The list of targeted airports subject to closing is growing. “And that’s the way it is”
Yes; it’s comply or they are coming for you.
That sort of heavy handed control is why people left other countries and came here.
I guess once we stopped teaching history in public schools we get this sort of thing here too.
The 100LL issue is a red herring as the recently released data about Colorado’s Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport shows. The main issue is that land developers see the large areas around GA airports as valuable due to increasing housing demand and decreasing land availability. Local governments are strongly lobbied and campaigns financed by land developers while GA advocates are a relatively weak voice that does not contribute to campaign finances. We all know that GA airports are more than a playground for a small, wealthy group of hobbyists. You might say the same for racetracks, RV parks, campgrounds, golf courses, off-road trail systems and so on. Those do not get Federal funding. I think a widely distributed network of GA airports is essential to our national transportation system. Commercial airlines serve a small percentage of the country around major cities. For smaller population areas there are few long distance transportation options other than driving a long distance to a commercial airport. Instead of squeezing out GA airports, we should be investing in expanding their use and tying them more closely into the national air transportation system. Otherwise, they will go the way of railroads. I think commercial air taxi systems are the way to save and expand GA airports. Uber has shown the benefits of technology applied to urban automotive transportation systems. The massive investments in eVTOL technology hold more promise for GA airports as commercial air taxis. The FAA can help this process by easing some of the regulatory burden on Part 135 air taxi operators. Today it is extremely difficult and expensive for an air taxi operator to comply with all the Part 135 regulations considering the cost/benefit. You cannot apply most of the same standards that govern the airlines to much smaller operations without choking them to death.
Yes. AOPA and EAA have not used their financial muscle to lobby the socioeconomic benefits of GA. 100LL is a red herring.
Very true!
This line caught my eye: “GA advocates are a relatively weak voice that does not contribute to campaign finances.”
AOPA is one of our main lobbying groups. Yet it’s continuously hobbled by people “…dropping my membership because they don’t write enough articles about MY kind of flying!”
People need to realize the magazine is a side benefit, not the main point of the AOPA. If the AOPA goes away, then we lose a large unified voice in government. And then there’ll be none of “MY kind of flying” to write about anywhere!
Great point, Kirk. I’m looking at the AOPA magazine that landed in my mailbox yesterday, and right under “AOPA PILOT” it says “The voice of general aviation.” We need that voice, because the combined voices of the commenters on AV Web don’t amount to a hill of beans where it counts – in local and national governmental affairs meetings. AOPA and EAA are there, speaking for us. If you’re not a member – who do you think is going to save your airport for you?
Well…, may be. But it depends on who is in “command” of AOPA and EAA. At least, for the former, we hope that the “next commander” isn’t the exactly photo of the current.
Agree. I continue to pay my AOPA dues not because of PILOT, but because of all the behind scenes work they do on our behalf. We need the advocacy of the AOPA in DC and they have done significant and very important work in helping to police attacks of this kind on airports, airspace and airplanes in general.
As for Boulder Airport, it is my staging airport before flying across the Rockies from the Midwest for refueling and toping the oxygen tank. I suppose the airport doesn’t pay property taxes, but then, neither does US36. All it does is bring lots of traffic, noise, congestion and accident prone cars and trucks into town.
Thank you for saying this. I hear all the gripes about AOPA – many accurate – but I lose them when they say they’re dropping their membership. I stopped flying 5 years ago (had to), but I still pay. No one else is doing what they do.
And IMBO (In My BIASED Opinion), the Airport Support Network quietly avoids many of these issues in the first place. With help from HQ, the volunteers are both an early warning system and a local voice of reason, and it works very often. (I was a volunteer for 25 years; kept a house of worship from being built under the downwind.)
Screaming on AvWeb won’t accomplish a lot. AOPA does. For roughly 30 minutes of flying a year, we should all get on board.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken away, not even by a 99% vote.”
Freedom is a well armed lamb.
Nope, Freedom comes from the sheepdog protecting the lamb.
Even when the lamb doesn’t like the sheepdog during peacetime.
So well said!
Local zoning laws allow dense housing in very close proximity to an “existing” airport, then the screaming begins. The airport is loud, smelly, scary or whatever else triggers anyone. Goodbye airport, hello convenience stores, Low rent housing, and hello neighborhood I don’t want to drive through.
Yep…
Yep, tear down the nice pretty secure airport and replace it with smelly, scary, low rent housing, bars and strip malls, and mentally ill homeless sleeping just anywhere. Then promote STEM and tell school kids to explore flying and becoming airline pilots!!
That land could be better used as a park that only a few residents eve visit, or maybe a free-needle clinic to encourage drug use (crime, sloth, etc), or maybe even a place to park the illegal aliens I’m sure the oh-so virtuous Boulder residents champion (but wouldn’t ever drive them in their Prius/Subaru to their OWN home).
Bingo!
Extremely low amounts of lead and a few ppm more of co2 are not the real threats to families trying to raise their kids in safety. Going after people who try and fly may feel good to some, but aviators are not the people (nor the dangers) that truly exist in cities today.
During the past twenty years, my beautiful home state of Colorado has dramatically shifted to a one-party State. These anti-airport activists are wealthy, well-organized, well-funded, and have significant political power. Until the silent majority of clear-thinking citizens stop just shaking their heads in disbelief over the duplicity and craziness and actually get out and vote en masse, we are going to loose our airports and our freedom to fly. Elections have consequences…
AOPA vs. EAA: Where’s their Intervention in Airport Closures?
With the growing trend of airport closures, particularly smaller airports, the question arises: where are the aviation advocacy groups like AOPA and EAA in all this?
AOPA’s broader advocacy focus might lead them to take a more direct approach, while EAA’s community-driven approach could focus on raising awareness and supporting specific segments of GA impacted by closures.
So, where’s their Intervention in Airport Closures?
The aggressive push is on to transform Boulder and select cities around the country (and in the EU) into a technocratic form factor called “15 minute cities”. Being able to walk to anything you might need within 15 minutes is the tempting sales pitch, but that’s not all you get (lose).
California and Germany are test cases, Colorado is more or less following the recipe CA is using. Boulder is leaning into this transformation, as are the three L’s, already adopting Nat gas bans.
This is the fulfillment of the WEF’s “Great Reset” agenda, cloaked in false virtue and aimed at eliminating cars and travel in general. Their Orwellian catch phrase is…. “You’ll own nothing, and be happy!”
The elimination of single family housing is instantiated by pushing high density / mixed use development. Polis tried this state-wide, got shut down, but select cities that got bum-rushed under cover of Covid are forging ahead with this agenda. Witness the multiple projects already being quickly ushered by City Council and staff.
Restricted and/or limited travel is enforced by geofencing a programmable digital currency, license plate scans, etc. Look up ULEZ cameras in the U.K., and you’ll see what’s in store here. Boulder is already setting the stage for this.
The city is being divided into districts that act as a control grid, all done in the context of a choreographed crisis and false scarcity.
We didn’t organically and suddenly succumb to homeless camps, addiction, and a crime wave – or unwittingly hobble and demoralize local law enforcement. This is intentional, managed decline, happening here and in select cities around the country.
The airport is low hanging fruit in this fundamental transformation.
Regarding airport closure proposals:
It should be emphasized that MOST GA airports were funded by the FAA–and the reason they were funded is as “RELIEVER” airports–rather than mix GA, Airlines, and Military on one airport, capacity at large airports is INCREASED–benefiting the “General Public”. Part of that bargain to fund by the FAA was that these airports were built to FAA specifications–adequate runways, clearways, airport zoning, safety studies and procedures, and specified airport operating procedures.
Now, the “developers” and “land grabbers” seek to undo all of that Federal, State, Local, and private investment for their own use. THAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED!
Airport owners, FBOS, and based aircraft owners have paid their own way through local , State, and Federal taxes, fuel taxes, and user fees–now, the “do-gooders” seek to sell that valuable and protected property to “developers.” Using that very same logic–I can think of many other State, Local, and Federally funded projects that would fall into the same category–Public Parks, Recreational Facilities (stadiums, ball diamonds, dog parks) and the BIGGEST OF THEM ALL–FREEWAYS! Freeways ALSO were funded by state, local, Federal taxes–as well as GAS TAXES
Perhaps the “DO GOODERS” would like to see General Aviation (that’s ALL AVIATION EXCEPT THE AIRLINES AND THE MILITARY) forced back onto major airports. I’ve flown GA airplanes to 83 countries around the world, and I haven’t seen any aviation system that compares to the U.S.
The “do-gooders” should be careful what they WISH FOR!
Smal airports and GA communities, face a troubling reality: politically weakness. This isn’t due to a lack of importance, but rather a lack of representation that leave our voices unheard as individual pilots, flying clubs, and small businesses struggle to present a unified front. Without a strong voice and stronger unity we will be toast.
I guess we like “freedom” when it’s our freedom to do with what we want. But, developers want their freedom to make money from the development of 180 acres of prime Boulder real estate and Boulder taxpayers want their freedom to zone municipal land so they get what they want from their tax dollars.
I wish I understood what is being advocated by commenters here. That there be regulations preventing the loss of municipal airports when the land they are on becomes valuable?
That a small group of pilots somehow gets to control how a city manages land that is owned by the city?
This isn’t about “environmentalist utopia”, this isn’t about “communism”, and this isn’t about “illegal aliens” or any of the other name-calling that typifies this comment section. This is about property values and zoning.
The hyperbole about needle clinics and low rent housing and how we teach history and whatever other nightmare scenarios are being tossed about are utterly unhelpful. Raf got accused of “virtue signaling” earlier in this thread. And all the bashing of “liberal group think” is what, something other than anti-liberal “group think”?
Yes, I am a member of AOPA and yes, I am a member of EAA. Yes, I own two GA airplanes that I fly regularly and I hangar them at a municipal GA airport. So, no, I do not favor closing GA airports. But, I strongly suspect that bitter name-calling of people with politics other than mine isn’t going to do even the smallest bit to keep my local airport open.
Hear, hear. Well said.
Absolutely! Fighting this battle will require working together and meeting the moment with the correct responses (they may vary with location, etc). Political/cultural hyperbole and tangential arguments aren’t helpful.
Lived in Boulder all my life. Soloed here in the 70’s. I’m well aware of land grab politics(Danish plan) in Boulder County. This is blatant attempt to develop commercial land for commercial interest who knowingly built next to an active airport. Make all the excuses you want, your goals are painfully obviously. If Boulder wants to exclude an airport from its future, why hasn’t it proposed a wetland, bird refuge, or wildlife/park? Because corporate greed is driving this change.
Tom K
This is a damned shame. A first timer at this beautiful airport visiting my niece in Boulder and flying a sailplane there. First, how much pollution (save for the occasional tow plane exhaust) is there from the many hours flown by the two sailplane orgs there?
Now let’s say we convert all of that acreage to mixed use. Are they going to HOA it so you can only enter the area in EV’s?? Oh, right. All those nasty aeroplanes. But not my car!!
What is up with comments that are “awaiting moderation”?
“Comments awaiting moderation”–I’ve seen that, as well. I believe it is tied to the commenter, NOT the comment itself–even the most innocuous comments get “flagged.”
Back to the topic–the EASIEST and MOST EFFECTIVE way to stop the “land grabbers” is to require that the FAA, State, and City BE REIMBURSED FOR THE MONEY THEY PUT INTO IT. Why should these investments–usually funded by “aviation taxes”–be diverted to private developers? Make the would-be “developer” REIMBURSE the public money that built the airport in the first place–OR–use that money to build a REPLACEMENT airport.
I posted that comment with a link to the EPA’s 2015 report on airborne lead concentrations around 17 airports across the country. They monitored these airfields for one year and the results were made part of the report. Prior to the test, pressure from interested parties lowered the acceptable threshold to accommodate a three-month average of 0.15 maximum; Another way of taking a yearly level of 1.5 to 0.60 by simply doing some math. The results, and the conditions in the area around Boulder, speak for themselves.
I guess that airport was there long before the complainers showed up. That’s the sort of thing that ought to be laughed out of any court or public hearing. If you think airports are a detriment to your health, don’t buy a house there. And wha make the “hobbyists” at that airport any less important than the idiots that move there knowing it’s an airport?
Isn’t Boulder already pretty bad with unaffordable housing? Why in the world does a certain other elite want to get rid of the “hobbyist” that can afford to scrape together a few hundred per flight to get their license or fly around just to build more dang empty or exploited houses? This just takes one cool airport off the map for students while flashing homes some can’t even afford!
Year after year, Colorado is increasingly becoming a hostile state towards aviation and there needs to be significant pushback to stop this lunacy. This lead concern is a fabrication as a front to satisfy the greed of those that want to develop the land and any thinking person knows it. If lead is such a major concern, (total BS), then why would anyone want to build a “mixed use” neighborhood on land that’s been continuously contaminated with lead since 1928?
We are looking at the future and it isn’t going to go well for general aviation. Enjoy your flying while you can… I don’t think my grand-children will be allowed the same freedom to fly that I now have. There is nothing the AOPA, EAA, NAFI, SAFE, or any of the alphabet groups can do about it except ask for our hard-earned money and write stern ‘feel-good’ articles to attempt to justify the cash they collect.
It’s Monday…
Ok, developer who wants the property. Build us a new airport on a mutually agreed upon site, pay the difference in land value and costs to move, and have at it.
And that is exactly my point. Most airports are funded by Federal, State, local government money–and the hangars and other improvements may be made by private owners. If a “developer” wants the property, they should have to compensate the public and private entities that BUILT IT.
The true value of the property is what it is worth to someone willing to pay for it. Why would anyone put a “value on the land only” for selling to a developer? Why shouldn’t the developer pay the inflation-adjusted cost of building the original airport–OR the cost of building a replacement? Most airports are built with public funds–and THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE PAID BACK FOR THOSE FUNDS.
I believe that MOST OF US would love to be able to buy additional property at the original cost of the land–why sell public property at prices below present value?
Even a small GA airport contributes millions of dollars in local economic activity. We did an economic study of our small airport in a village of 3000 and found that it contributed around 1 million annually in local economic activity based on the activities of those arriving and departing our airport. I suspect the Boulder airport dwarfs ours in volume.
Used by Elite…Watch the fury if you suggest that the Golf Course could also be used for mixed use housing.
My thought as well. Substitute airport with golf course here and then you have a true statement.
“The airport serves a limited elite group of people who can afford a very expensive hobby. The rest of us get no benefit.”
Really, what does a golf course contributed to the greater community beyond enjoyment of golfers? In the west water is a precious resource. At least airports don’t demand huge amounts of water. Airports in contrast produce a great deal of commerce and societal benefit that are not widely recognized.
As many others have pointed out this is all about $$$ for land developers who make more money by chopping up a big piece of land and selling many tiny pieces of land. I’ll bet the land developer and local government officials golf. Not that I have anything against golf, but the hypocrisy of golfers saying aviation is an expensive hobby for an elite group of people who are the only ones who benefit is rich.
Wanna close the airport? Not so fast, think first… Where do airline pilots start their training? GA airports!!! Where do you get your instrument rating and required 1500 hours to be an airline pilot??? GA airports!!!! If you don’t like the airport noises, DON’T MOVE NEXT TO AN AIRPORT!!!! There are plenty of places that are away from airports…In many cases the airports were there first before the neighborhoods were built. Folks were not forced to move there. It’s not like they built an airport in a neighborhood, if you suddenly decide you don’t like the airport nuisance you are welcome to move somewhere else and there are other folks who like to live by an airport not to mention fly in communities, I’m a pilot and I’m tired of others making excuses to shut down GA
It is politics driven by money. The politicians are all for who provides the money to power their campaigns so that they may remain in power. Likewise for that new politician who believes the “lead is bad” stalking horse and believes that those rich bastards shouldn’t have what would be better for the community as mixed use is going to be backed by the developer with lots of money so they get elected. Mass marketing works. It is powered by money.
If they really cared about lead, they would go to the most-exposed and check them for lead levels. I have been breathing 80/87, 100/130, and 100LL fumes for 54 years. I will happily provide a hair sample. And considering how little of it I still have, I think that is pretty darned generous. But they don’t care about lead. It is just a stalking horse. Raise the cry, “It is for the CHIL-DREN,” and almost everyone falls in line. After all, who isn’t for protecting the children?
Amen Brian, Where is Ross Perot when we need him the most?
Any petition to close a local airport by the nearby residents should consist of the following:
If you support the closure of the KXYZ airport, please answer the following question:
Was the airport in operation when you bought your property?
[No] Name: _________________________ [Yes] STFU
[No] Name: _________________________ [Yes] STFU
[No] Name: _________________________ [Yes] STFU
🤣🤣🤣
We had a similar situation in CT 20+ years ago. The town finally shut an airport down, sold it to a developer (graft was obviously involved) and then …. nothing. It was a superfund site! There is a vast difference between being the neighbor to an airport and digging it up for housing. 20 yeras later it is a narrow long field that has a 3000′ “road” running down the center. The town lost he income from the airport and since the developer wnet bankrupt the income from the taxes they so greedily had their eye on.
I learned to fly at the Boulder Airport in the early 70s. It was home to a great collection of wonderful people and the best flight instructors ever. The Great Dave Boles, Bud Henderson, Tom Meeker, John Smith, and my first flight instructor Marsha Ivins who was a CU student at the time and later a NASA astronaut. I was too young at the time to fully appreciate the quality of flight instruction at Boulder, but I like to think that with age has come appreciation for all they did. A wonderful place and a lot of wonderful memories.
Said above:
“Saying you get nothing from the airport because you don’t fly a plane is like saying streets are a waste of money because you don’t drive a car.”
This is all about tax revenue and nothing else. Heaven forfend that ANY government trims its sails on spending, no.
At some point there could come a time when the entities coming after the things people hold dear might start disappearing. Wouldn’t be the first time.
“Small, hobbyist airport for some 200 people who own or fly private aircraft.” is 100% how most GA airports are viewed, and it’s up to us to change that. Otherwise of course airports once on the edge of town become a target for endless outward development.
Well which is it? Hardly anyone uses the airport, or there’s so much flyin’ going on that it’s a danger to community.