State (VT) owned hangar ground leases doubled overnight. What's up with that?

Wannabe said:
The lease that is the explicit subject of this thread is only for the LAND under the hangar. The “ground lease”. The hangar cost is quite a separate matter. So, we MAY not be comparing apples to apples in this case.
Click to expand...


The rent of the LAND on the airport where Your Hangar is located for $1000 a year is not unreasonable. If it is, buy your own land, build a runway and a hangar see what It costs to operate it.
 
Tend to agree with the OP that the relative cost is irrelevant. He has a lease, which is a contract. Contracts form one of the key parts of our legal system.
Having said that, not sure what posting here accomplishes other than venting.
 
mr_happyland said:
While perhaps your argument is completely valid and I genuinely wish you success, I find it hard to sympathize for a ground lease increase of $195 per year for a 1500 sq ft hangar. It doesn’t seem that unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Fortunately, I am not looking for sympathy, but I am looking for the State to follow the one-sided rules that they wrote! As you surmised, this is not about how much we’re paying, but it is about following the “rules” of the contracts / leases. Clearly, the State can do whatever they want AFTER my lease expires. In the meantime, bureaucratic arrogance (and ineptitude) abounds.
 
Salty said:
Then it wouldn’t be violating the contract would it?
Click to expand...
Without reading the contract, neither of us can determine if a violation is occurring. I find it a bit hard to believe the State of Vermont is violating their contracts for airport land leases.
 
Well, I thought I remembered reading a specific max bump in the OP but I don’t see it now, so I agree.
 
Hang 4 said:
Tend to agree with the OP that the relative cost is irrelevant. He has a lease, which is a contract. Contracts form one of the key parts of our legal system.
Having said that, not sure what posting here accomplishes other than venting.
Click to expand...
And I agree with you, that posting here may appear to be venting. However it has already yielded a few contacts in the State that I did not know, and who may join the many hangar owners in the appeal before the Board. The “big win” for us pilots in VT is the long game to encourage the state to re-organize to have Aviation run by those who know something about aviation. It was that way until around 2017. The growth and positive strides made statewide were HUGE! The story of what happened to change that situation is another topic / thread / story for another day. So, shining a light on the intractable nature of the current regime, their numerous instances of ineptitude at best or malfeasance at worst, is part of a bigger picture. I really appreciate all the input from all sides though… even the snarky stuff!
 
Clip4 said:
Without reading the contract, neither of us can determine if a violation is occurring. I find it a bit hard to believe the State of Vermont is violating their contracts for airport land leases.
Click to expand...
And that, my friend, is exactly why the Board will hear and decide this issue. Thanks again for your perspective.
 
Wannabe said:
And that, my friend, is exactly why the Board will hear and decide this issue. Thanks again for your perspective.
Click to expand...


From the origianal post, “the lease says the increase in MY rate must be based on increases in the CPI index and costs at this specific airport within the last two years”.
 
Half Fast said:
Read the thread.

The permitted increase is less than the increase they’re trying to impose. That’s the point.
Click to expand...
Not from what the OP posted. If you have been involved with an
any property management over the last 36 months, the costs have gone up significantly.

Here is the bottom line, it takes money to run an airport and the non flying citizens don’t want to subsidize your hobby.
 
Salty said:
Well, I thought I remembered reading a specific max bump in the OP but I don’t see it now, so I agree.
Click to expand...


Bump is tied to CPI; no way CPI is 108%. Also the bump can be done every two years, but they’re trying to raise it early.

From the first post:

Wannabe said:
a 20-year lease during which the state can adjust that lease rate in accordance with increases in the CPI (no decreases are allowed!) and costs directly attributed to that airport, every 2 years during that 20-year period of the lease
Click to expand...

Wannabe said:
In less than two years, you get a letter from VTrans with a decree: the new land lease rate will now be 108% greater than your lease stated.
Click to expand...
 
Clip4 said:
There are contracts that allow for periodic increases.
Click to expand...
Indeed these lease agreements DO allow periodic and bounded increases during the life of the lease. No question about that at all. This issue is all about that the increase of July 2019 was outside of those bounds… by a huge, wide margin. So, this issue is, at the lowest level, simply about “playing by the rules” that the State wrote.
 
Last edited:
Wannabe said:
Indeed these lease agreements DO allow periodic and bounded increases during the life of the lease. No question about that at all. This issue all about that the increase of July 2019 was outside of those bounds… by a huge, wide margin. So, this issue is, at the lowest level, simply about “playing by the rules” that the State wrote.
Click to expand...

2019? You are still bitching about increases from 3-1/2 years ago? Honestly, I suspect you were being charged an artificially low rate for too long.
 
Back to the original post..."This simple, contractual issue has been contested since the decree was promulgated in July 2019." Indeed, the wheels of justice turn very slowly.
Furthermore, we'd just negotiated the lease, and bought the hangar prior to the increase. The State had ample opportunity to make any adjustment they liked PRIOR to agreeing to the new lease. Once they agreed to that price, signed the new lease, etc. they were constrained to increases as given in the lease terms. Pretty simple, really.
 
Not helpful for the technical contract arguments, but if a $500/yr unexpected cost increase knocked me out of aviation, I would think I was already on the hairy knife-edge of unaffordability and should probably look to rent instead. Most of the planes I've owned over the years had within them multiple surprise potentials in $10,000 or $20,000 increments.
 
Wannabe said:
Thank you. Fortunately, I am not looking for sympathy, but I am looking for the State to follow the one-sided rules that they wrote! As you surmised, this is not about how much we’re paying, but it is about following the “rules” of the contracts / leases. Clearly, the State can do whatever they want AFTER my lease expires. In the meantime, bureaucratic arrogance (and ineptitude) abounds.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, and knowing my stubbornness perhaps I’d be doing the same if I were in your shoes. I once wasted a day going to court to contest a $200 traffic ticket because I knew that I was in the right. I printed out maps/diagrams to prove my case. Judge ruled against me anyway.

While perhaps you may be completely in the right, some battles aren’t worth the blood spent trying to win.
 
who said anything about being "a poor"? One shouldn't presume the reasons behind others having a differing price elasticity of demand than your own. I hate it when people in this hobby flex to the socioeconomic smear when they hear people complain about cost. It's presumptuous af.
 
hindsight2020 said:
who said anything about being "a poor"? One shouldn't presume the reasons behind others having a differing price elasticity of demand than your own. I hate it when people in this hobby flex to the socioeconomic smear when they hear people complain about cost. It's presumptuous af.
Click to expand...

A good question, who said anything about being a poor?
 
Justin Brady said:
So when's the hearing?
Click to expand...
The Board has yet to decide on that date. The contractual issue is so straightforward and simple, there's a reasonable chance this will be decided in summary judgement in the May 2023 timeframe. Then, we as reasonable Vermonters, may agree to a more reasonable method for the State to achieve its goals, and for the stakeholders to have some say in that plan. Even if we have to allow some extra-curricular increases to get there, just because we want to be good citizens, too. We'll certainly post the outcome here when we can.
 
You bought an existing hangar. Did you get a new 20-year ground lease, or did you assume the prior owner's existing lease?
 
Lindberg said:
You bought an existing hangar. Did you get a new 20-year ground lease, or did you assume the prior owner's existing lease?
Click to expand...
Because it was a purchase, the State had the opportunity to “reform” the lease in any way they saw fit. It was issued as a new, 20-year lease.
 
schmookeeg said:
Not helpful for the technical contract arguments, but if a $500/yr unexpected cost increase knocked me out of aviation, I would think I was already on the hairy knife-edge of unaffordability and should probably look to rent instead. Most of the planes I've owned over the years had within them multiple surprise potentials in $10,000 or $20,000 increments.
Click to expand...
Ahh, yes, the venerable AMU. I know what you mean! My approach was to get another airplane to help assuage my grief and fill my hangar life with more enjoyment.
 
I dealt with this exact issue at a remote Texas airport several years ago. The airport sponsor tried to impose “catch-up” increases just as the OP described Vermont’s, and when challenged on it, they wrote (in a letter) that they had “…gotten the opinion of San Antonio lawyers…” on the subject. I wrote them, let ‘em know that I was a Dallas lawyer, and that Dallas was bigger than San Antonio, so there.

Interestingly, they dropped it, and we never heard from the “San Antonio lawyers,” which makes me think that those self-same San Antonio lawyers had agreed with my interpretation of the lease.

Anyway, it is a fight worth having, for a host of reasons. Good luck!
 
SCCutler said:
I dealt with this exact issue at a remote Texas airport several years ago. The airport sponsor tried to impose “catch-up” increases just as the OP described Vermont’s, and when challenged on it, they wrote (in a letter) that they had “…gotten the opinion of San Antonio lawyers…” on the subject. I wrote them, let ‘em know that I was a Dallas lawyer, and that Dallas was bigger than San Antonio, so there.

Interestingly, they dropped it, and we never heard from the “San Antonio lawyers,” which makes me think that those self-same San Antonio lawyers had agreed with my interpretation of the lease.

Anyway, it is a fight worth having, for a host of reasons. Good luck!
Click to expand...
Your experience sounds to be identical. Thanks for your input. And it is that “host of reasons” that motivates us, not the money!
We’ve asked our question to about half a dozen attorneys, including an AOPA panel attorney, and they’ve always given us input that we were 100% correct. That’s not to say we WILL win, as the Board is a politically appointed group and functions as a quasi-court in order to alleviate the actual court system of these squabbles. We’ll see soon enough. The appeal from here would be the State Supreme Court.
 
I realize this is an old thread but @Wannabe and @dbahn I'm also (newly) in VT and would be interested in learning more about the hangar situation in the state. I'm halfway between Springfield (KVSF) and Rutland (KRUT) and have been told there's nothing available. I'd be interested in teaming up on a new T-hangar project with some folks as I'm told that's possible...
 
One nearby airport rents you a hanger or the plot to build your hanger.
Then they charge you an annual "entrance fee" to get on the airport grounds.
Don't pay your fee, they jersey barrier your hanger so you can't get your plane out.
 
Shepherd said:
One nearby airport rents you a hanger or the plot to build your hanger.
Then they charge you an annual "entrance fee" to get on the airport grounds.
Don't pay your fee, they jersey barrier your hanger so you can't get your plane out.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good reason to get your helo rating, and build a retractable roof. Or, just use the tow hooks on the GMC.
 
Futches said:
I realize this is an old thread but @Wannabe and @dbahn I'm also (newly) in VT and would be interested in learning more about the hangar situation in the state. I'm halfway between Springfield (KVSF) and Rutland (KRUT) and have been told there's nothing available. I'd be interested in teaming up on a new T-hangar project with some folks as I'm told that's possible...
Click to expand...
I sold my hangar in Rutland in 2012 and bought a newer, better one in Middlebury (6B0) in which I'm able to store two planes. Cost-wise it was essentially a trade and has worked out well for me. A new private hangar was recently built and I believe that three more are about to be built in Middlebury, but the process has been pretty difficult from what I'm told, and there always seems to be a lot of people looking for one. They wanted to build a 3 plane hangar on the field in Middlebury but the state would only issue them a permit for three separate buildings. I have no idea why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top