If you watched the Super Bowl, you saw The Who perform their great anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again." If only the citizens of Douglas County could learn the same lesson.
In 2002 voters passed a residential growth limit. The county sided with developers and fought the limit for years. Then, after wearing the limit's sponsors down, the county initiated a "process" to reach a "compromise." The county ultimately repealed the voter-adopted limit and then offered voters only the "compromise" instead. Meaning that in the end our only choice was between no limit at all and a limit in name only.
It's now clear that the citizens were right in 2002 and their leaders were wrong. But it's too late. We've got a glut of unneeded, unwanted houses and projects that will weigh down our local economy and blight our community for years. The foresight of voters was trumped by the accommodation of commercial interests seeking short-term gain.
In a case of deja vu all over again, voters years ago adopted an airport weight limit to prevent the adverse impacts that we all know result from uncontrolled airport growth. Despite the desire of voters to limit the airport to traditional users, light aircraft and gliders, the county in 2008 adopted an airport master plan that will take things in the opposite direction.
The plan creates a new "second" airport to the east to which light powered and glider aircraft will be relegated, freeing the "old" airport to the west for the likes of Hutt Aviation and Pinon Aero, who are determined to bring more, larger, faster, noisier aircraft here.
Then last year the county initiated yet another "process" to craft yet another "compromise" that is fundamentally about gutting the weight limit adopted by voters. I'm afraid that once again the county has succeeded in wearing down its opponents, who apparently have agreed to support a revised "airport ordinance" that allows the airport to evolve in a manner opposite to that preferred by voters who adopted the current weight limit. Following is what I see, using a few quotes from The R-C's recent article on this topic as examples.
"The section of the ordinance that sets limits on airport expansion highlights the importance of infrastructure controls on maintaining an airport consistent with the airport master plan ..." So, the AMP can and will be implemented under this ordinance, meaning that the new "second" airport to the east will be built as planned, clearing the decks to the west for the likes of Hutt and Pinon to expand.
"The language restricts pavement growth so that operations at the airport remain consistent with current capacity." Current capacity, based primarily on our big old military runway, is actually quite large, much larger than current usage. So, while capacity might remain unchanged, use of the airport can go up considerably. And since capacity is based primarily on runway size, pavement growth can occur elsewhere so long as total capacity is not increased. And of course if Hutt and Pinon, and I guess the County, have their way, most of the growth in use will be in larger, faster, noisier aircraft.
"... no FAA grant funds or county general funds would be used for anything but maintenance, noise control, FAA standards for general aviation airports, preservation of existing pavement and infrastructure for small aircraft and sport aviation." So any improvement that arguably is driven by some FAA standard, whether mandatory or not, could proceed. Likewise preservation and maintenance of all existing runways, taxiways and ramps. And, most importantly, this allows all new infrastructure that is arguably for small aircraft and sport aviation, i.e., the new facilities to the east, thus freeing the existing facilities to the west for expansion by the likes of Hutt and Pinon. And they remain free to build private facilities that go beyond small aircraft and sport aviation.
"The language also precludes utilizing funds for a permanent control tower, precision landing system or passenger security systems." A lot can happen at an uncontrolled (non-tower) airport. And with the weather here precision approaches aren't really much of an issue. For example, last summer I saw lots of scheduled air carrier activity (737s etc.) all over Alaska at uncontrolled airports lacking precision approaches. And there is nothing to preclude passenger facilities and security systems installed by others.
There's more, but you get the point.
My conclusion is that honest citizens trying to protect their community have been co-opted again. The Airport Master Plan, which is the real problem here, can still be fully implemented, relocating most of the "nuisance" gliders and light aircraft to the east, clearing the decks for Hutt, Pinon and the like to expand to the west.
A meaningful weight limit seems to be out the window despite the FAA's recent decision that the technical work on that should be redone since the analysis that the County has relied upon to say the limit is too low was apparently flawed. And while there are supposedly some limits on infrastructure that the County can build with its own or FAA funds, there seem to be significant loopholes in those and nothing to limit private spending on aviation facilities.
With the AMP in place and the weight limit effectively out of the way, the stage will be set for airport growth without meaningful limits. Just as with residential growth here. The citizens who value long-term quality of life for all over short-term financial gain for a few are once again being manipulated into supporting something contrary to their best interests.
What should really be on the ballot is a referendum on the Airport Master Plan. Won't happen. Instead, expect the county commission itself to repeal the old voter-adopted weight limit and once again give us a choice between no limits at all or the new "compromise" ordinance they've crafted, which creates limits in name only. The Who had it right. Will the rest of us ever learn?
Terry Burnes is a retired county planner and a licensed pilot with over 2,500 hours of military flying time.
