On May 12, 2006, at 12:30 AM, Roger Halstead wrote:
> We had that too, but when they found that because part of the land
> had been
> purchased with federal money they would have to pay it back "AT
> MARKET VALUE" and not just that portion opinions began to change.
> Also part
> of it was donated with deed restrictions. I think it would have
> run close
> to the whole city budgett to pay off the feds and even the
> complainers shut
> up after that.
It's actually worse than that, Roger. If a municipality accepts FAA
money, then they have to agree to operate the airport for a long
period of time (typically 20-25 years). It carries the stipulation
that they have to keep it up to standards.
More than once, a town has gotten FAA money, improved the airport,
then after a few years gets overtures from developers looking for
cheap land. They convince the town to close the airport and develop
it. The town then goes to ask the FAA how much they need to pay back.
Years and years ago, the FAA might go for this. But not recently.
They get the AOPA, EAA and other alphabet organizations breathing
down their neck, and the FAA says nothing doing -- you've got to
continue to operate the airport.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: email@example.com
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
TowerTalk mailing list