Playing Hardball at the Airport

mondtster said:
So what is the airport sponsor going to do with the $135k? Have you bothered to ask?

My first thought is that they did it in order to raise money for the public hangars that the sponsor intends to build. $135k could go a long way if you're getting 90% federal funding for the project.

It also sounds to me like you want to throw stones at these 'rich' folks who are actually spending money on the airport and making improvements. This is a free country, and the grant assurances require the sponsor to make land available for people to build hangars. You're more than welcome to build some and rent them out if you'd like to. :)
Click to expand...

If the $135K goes toward the building of public T-hangars in 2016, I'm sure we will all be thrilled. To my knowledge, however, that money was dropped into the maw of the general fund.

Just curious: How, exactly, do you think the "rich folk are spending money on the airport" by keeping boats (instead of aircraft) in their privately owned hangars? They are costing the airport huge amounts of revenue, through lost fuel sales alone.

They certainly aren't supporting the airport with their land leases. Those leases, drawn up many years ago, are laughably small -- like, $600 per YEAR. Whoopee.

An airport needs to be used for aeronautical purposes. With nine of 18 hangars full of junk, and 21 guys on a waiting list, something must change. The FAA and TXDOT rules must be enforced, and airplanes must be housed in those hangars.

The only question is: How? What mechanism is there to enforce these rules?
 
docmirror said:
Well, let's review. The airport sits on city owned property, and is managed by the city. A group of aviation enthusiasts went to the city with a plan to spiff it up, add hangars, and provide needed space for people wanting to stay there. The city said no.

This really isn't rocket surgery. What you consider an important and valuable resource, the city has other ideas. My guess is that the airport property, or the over-run zones would be better use if there was a high rise major name hotel, or maybe a condo building with about 150 pricey condos for sale/rent.

It's just one mans opinion here, but from my experience, the tax revenue on airport property, and the surrounding dead zone for safety and noise is possibly only slightly higher than if it were swamp bog. The city has plans, and they don't include flying GA planes in and out of Mustang airport for the foreseeable future. A plane can take 4 people into or out of the town. A bus full of tourists to stay at a nice big hotel prolly sounds a lot better to the council.

But - I could be wrong. Maybe they want to keep that 200ac of land with one runway on it and a few storage buildings producing marginal tax revenues so the rich pilot playboys can use their city runway for their amusement. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

While I think you're close to right, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. IMHO the council is making the airport into a safe haven for the high rolling turbine crowd, rather than preparing it for closure. By auctioning off the right to build hangars to the highest bidders, they assure that no piston spam canners need apply.

Ironically, the only fuel available on the island is avgas, so the city gains little from the jet crowd. But those are the guys who own the council, and TXDOT.

As always, money talks, and the rules are written for other people.

In the meantime, however, there are 21 guys here who aren't about to give up without a fight. These guys live and work here, represent grassroots GA at its best, and don't take kindly to a bunch of prima donna rich boys from Austin (who visit six times a year) taking over their local airport.

Trouble is, when the rich boys own the rule makers, it's a pretty one-sided battle. And that's about the size of it, from where I'm sitting.
 
RotorAndWing said:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/media/airportSponsorAndUserRightsBrochure.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/
Click to expand...


Thanks for that. As I understand it, however, the airport has NOT accepted any FAA funding, but rather has used Texas Dept of Transportation, Aviation Division (TXDOT), Airport Improvement Program funding.

Again, as I understand it, TXDOT's rules mirror those of the FAA's, but I have no idea if the same enforcement procedures apply. Also, as someone else mentioned, the TXDOT AIP funding *may* have come from the FAA AIP fund, but I don't know how to confirm that.

If the funding source was the FAA, the enforcement procedure (as outlined in the documents you provided) should apply. Do you (or anyone know) how to discern the source of airport funding for any given project?
 
Jay Honeck said:
Thanks for that. As I understand it, however, the airport has NOT accepted any FAA funding, but rather has used Texas Dept of Transportation, Aviation Division (TXDOT), Airport Improvement Program funding.

Again, as I understand it, TXDOT's rules mirror those of the FAA's, but I have no idea if the same enforcement procedures apply. Also, as someone else mentioned, the TXDOT AIP funding *may* have come from the FAA AIP fund, but I don't know how to confirm that.

If the funding source was the FAA, the enforcement procedure (as outlined in the documents you provided) should apply. Do you (or anyone know) how to discern the source of airport funding for any given project?
Click to expand...

Contact the ADO (Airports Division Office) of the FAA and ask to speak with an Inspector. He can provide any information you ask for.

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Region
2601 Meacham Boulevard
Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298

Office: 817-222-5600

Office Directory
 
docmirror said:
Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder where the problem is with this situation? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

Money, they are holding the land for someone else who will pay a quarter of a million for the right to build a hangar. It's how the market works and the market is always right, at least it's the best we can do... Right?
 
Graueradler said:
Even if the hangar is privately owned, it is on leased airport land and subject to the same FAA grant agreements (if the airport has accepted FAA grants).

I would be very surprised if TXDOT AIP money doesn't come from the FAA with the same grant assurance requirements. If TXDOT won't enforce the rules, talk to Ed Agnew at the FAA Southwest Region Airports Div. in Fort Worth.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Our airport hangars are all privately owned. This has created a terrible, intractable problem, in that these owners feel that they can do what they want.

I actually sympathize with their position, but the moment the airport accepted TXDOT money, they became responsible for enforcing the rules.

The question that no one can seem to answer is...HOW? How does one force a private owner (albeit on leased public land) to put an airplane in a hangar?

We thought TXDOT was the answer. We were wrong.

So...what next?
Click to expand...

Call the EAA legal department.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Just curious: How, exactly, do you think the "rich folk are spending money on the airport" by keeping boats (instead of aircraft) in their privately owned hangars? They are costing the airport huge amounts of revenue, through lost fuel sales alone.
Click to expand...

Think of the wear and tear they are saving the airport by noting using the runways and taxiways.

;)
 
I penciled it out building a hangar at our airport and it's simply cheaper to rent.

My buddy who owns a 60X60 box hangar showed me a spreadsheet of his monthly costs to own it and it was over $700/month not including the purchase price of over $100,000.00. For $100K and $700 per month, I can rent my little $300/month T-hangar for decades with no hassle of ownership.

Sorry Jay, this has not much to do with your thread, but it ties in a little because they're doing the same thing at Brenham. The elite are buying up the box hangar spots at stupid prices, and building stupid lavish hangars to house maybe one Bonanza they never fly, and it has driven up the prices for everyone else. These are the guys who can spend money like it's toilet paper. There is nothing they don't own, including the people they deal with.
 
Henning said:
Money, they are holding the land for someone else who will pay a quarter of a million for the right to build a hangar. It's how the market works and the market is always right, at least it's the best we can do... Right?
Click to expand...
Selling the right to build on public land goes against EVERYTHING we were taught in civics class. (Anyone remember those?)

The municipal airport is there for the enjoyment and use of all citizens. Selling access off to the highest bidder is, at best, immoral. IMHO it's also illegal, but who has the time and money to fight city hall?

Think of the precedent this sets. Port Aransas has 15 miles of public beach. What's to stop the politicians from auctioning off access to the highest bidders? How about the fishing piers? And the boat slips in the marina?

It would be very easy to convert this island into a place that only billionaires can enjoy.
 
txflyer said:
I penciled it out building a hangar at our airport and it's simply cheaper to rent.

My buddy who owns a 60X60 box hangar showed me a spreadsheet of his monthly costs to own it and it was over $700/month not including the purchase price of over $100,000.00. For $100K and $700 per month, I can rent my little $300/month T-hangar for decades with no hassle of ownership.

Sorry Jay, this has not much to do with your thread, but it ties in a little because they're doing the same thing at Brenham. The elite are buying up the box hangar spots at stupid prices, and building stupid lavish hangars to house maybe one Bonanza they never fly, and it has driven up the prices for everyone else. These are the guys who can spend money like it's toilet paper. There is nothing they don't own, including the people they deal with.
Click to expand...
For years I simply could not understand why Iowa and Wisconsin airports would not allow private construction and ownership of hangars on municipal airports. It seemed so stupid of them to turn down "free" hangars.

Now, I know. When you allow private ownership on a public airport the hangar owners get a free, taxpayer-supported airport to play with, while we, the silly taxpayers, are denied access.

Those danged Midwesterners are looking smarter every day. :)
 
Yesterday, I saw Jay Leno being interviewed, and they showed part of his collection of beautiful old cars, which he keeps in a huge hangar.

(They didn't show enough of it to determine whether there was an aircraft in there anywhere.)
 
txflyer said:
I penciled it out building a hangar at our airport and it's simply cheaper to rent.

My buddy who owns a 60X60 box hangar showed me a spreadsheet of his monthly costs to own it and it was over $700/month not including the purchase price of over $100,000.00. For $100K and $700 per month, I can rent my little $300/month T-hangar for decades with no hassle of ownership.

Sorry Jay, this has not much to do with your thread, but it ties in a little because they're doing the same thing at Brenham. The elite are buying up the box hangar spots at stupid prices, and building stupid lavish hangars to house maybe one Bonanza they never fly, and it has driven up the prices for everyone else. These are the guys who can spend money like it's toilet paper. There is nothing they don't own, including the people they deal with.
Click to expand...

There is another airport that is doing that west of Fort Worth. Difference here is that the airport, despite the name is privately owned and operated. They are selling lots for hangers at fairly reasonable prices(I checked into it) and the airport business is picking up nicely from the doldrums of 2000-07. The key is this is a PRIVATELY owned airport with public access. The city, the county, state, and feds have absolutely no control over what happens there, which I think is how stuff should be run. There is a requirement that the hangar be used for 'aviation purposes' and if the guy who owns the land, and the building on it don't want to play that way, there is nothing the city, or county, or state can do about it. Private property is private property, and the airport board would have to use the HOA restrictions to make something happen.
 
When the condo T-hangars went in at HEF I figured with servicing the financing (that hey were offering) and paying the condo fee, it would run about $500/month. Hangars were running in the $400 range then, but you couldn't get one.
 
docmirror said:
There is another airport that is doing that west of Fort Worth. Difference here is that the airport, despite the name is privately owned and operated. They are selling lots for hangers at fairly reasonable prices(I checked into it) and the airport business is picking up nicely from the doldrums of 2000-07. The key is this is a PRIVATELY owned airport with public access. The city, the county, state, and feds have absolutely no control over what happens there, which I think is how stuff should be run. There is a requirement that the hangar be used for 'aviation purposes' and if the guy who owns the land, and the building on it don't want to play that way, there is nothing the city, or county, or state can do about it. Private property is private property, and the airport board would have to use the HOA restrictions to make something happen.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with private airports at all. In fact, I prefer them.

Part of the problem we are facing here on the island is that Mustang Beach Airport used to be a private airport. (It was developed by Pug Piper -- yep, THAT Pug Piper -- in the 1960s as part of a boating community.)

That development went bankrupt several times before hitting its stride. (Today it is hugely successful.). After the dust settled, the city ended up with ownership and responsibility for the airport.

There are still some hangar owners here from those private-airport years. In their heads, it is still "their airport", even though it has been municipally owned since the early '90s.

As I said, I truly sympathize with the hangar owner's dilemma. If I were in their shoes, I might want to use my hangar for any damned thing I want, too.

But that doesn't change the situation, or the solution. Airports are for aircraft, not boats or cars.
 
docmirror said:
There is another airport that is doing that west of Fort Worth. Difference here is that the airport, despite the name is privately owned and operated. They are selling lots for hangers at fairly reasonable prices(I checked into it) and the airport business is picking up nicely from the doldrums of 2000-07. The key is this is a PRIVATELY owned airport with public access. The city, the county, state, and feds have absolutely no control over what happens there, which I think is how stuff should be run. There is a requirement that the hangar be used for 'aviation purposes' and if the guy who owns the land, and the building on it don't want to play that way, there is nothing the city, or county, or state can do about it. Private property is private property, and the airport board would have to use the HOA restrictions to make something happen.
Click to expand...



I totally agree that private airports should be privately owned and operated however the owners and it's associations see fit.

I mis-spoke before when I said the whales were paying big for the land here, they're not, they're paying a paltry lease for the land, because it's taxpayer subsidized municipal land. Then they go and build an extravaganza of a hangar that costs big bucks to house one plane. :dunno:

It sure creates a have and have not's environment I can tell you that.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Think of the precedent this sets. Port Aransas has 15 miles of public beach. What's to stop the politicians from auctioning off access to the highest bidders? How about the fishing piers? And the boat slips in the marina?
Click to expand...
that is already happening in many places. And in some cases, I'm all for it. The government owns way too much land.
 
JHW said:
that is already happening in many places. And in some cases, I'm all for it. The government owns way too much land.
Click to expand...
Well, if they want to privatize the airport, I'm all for it. Of course, that means returning all the AIP tax funds they've received.

Until they do this, they are obligated by law to require that airplanes be kept in these hangars. Which means we've got a problem.
 
My wife's family is from Asheville NC, when we are there, we drive past a row of T hangars on the way to and from their house. If it's a pretty weekend, many of the hangars are open, a few even have planes in them, most look like staged episodes for "Horders".:mad2:
Destin, DTS, has large hangars, most would fit a decent size jet or a King Air. They are ground leases, a buddy just bought one for $400K!:yikes: And he
thinks he stole it!:dunno:
A couple years ago I saw one advertised on the message board at the airport, $1,100,000.00 and it had 11 years left on the lease. :dunno:
I'll suffer along and pay my hangar rents for now. ;)
 
JHW said:
that is already happening in many places. And in some cases, I'm all for it. The government owns way too much land.
Click to expand...
I agree, but remember -- they aren't auctioning off OWNERSHIP. They are auctioning off ACCESS.

The local government is using our taxes to build and maintain the airport, and then auctioning off access to the highest bidder.
 
In an ATTEMPT to cut down on all the DRAYMA in this thread I suggest the waiting list people get a class together and SUE the city COUNCIL. If the laws read the way they read, and the people at the airport currently are BREAKING THE LAW, then - take em to court. Shouldn't cost more than $20-35 thousand to enforce your position.
 
This thread reminds me why federally funded airports have so strings associated with the money. If it were up to local governments, the airport would be pillaged until it was no longer economically viable and then redeveloped into condos.

I sometimes thing we don't realize how much forsight the folks who wrote the original Surplus Property Act after world war II had. Most of major grant assurances can be traced back to this law. Not only did it establish a huge network of civilian airports, but it included provisions to ensure they remain airports--even 70 years later.
 
Brad Z said:
This thread reminds me why federally funded airports have so strings associated with the money. If it were up to local governments, the airport would be pillaged until it was no longer economically viable and then redeveloped into condos.

I sometimes thing we don't realize how much forsight the folks who wrote the original Surplus Property Act after world war II had. Most of major grant assurances can be traced back to this law. Not only did it establish a huge network of civilian airports, but it included provisions to ensure they remain airports--even 70 years later.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Those boys wrote laws that made sense, and were for the good of all.
 
docmirror said:
In an ATTEMPT to cut down on all the DRAYMA in this thread I suggest the waiting list people get a class together and SUE the city COUNCIL. If the laws read the way they read, and the people at the airport currently are BREAKING THE LAW, then - take em to court. Shouldn't cost more than $20-35 thousand to enforce your position.
Click to expand...
Gosh, what a great idea! Let's sue city hall!

Cuz that works so well. lol

No, we are going to go through the long, methodical, often pointlessly infuriating steps to force the government to enforce its own laws.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Gosh, what a great idea! Let's sue city hall!

Cuz that works so well. lol

No, we are going to go through the long, methodical, often pointlessly infuriating steps to force the government to enforce its own laws.
Click to expand...

You asked for ideas, I gave you one. Also, you clearly articulated the problem with going through the hoops. It's long, pointless, and infuriating. So - pay a lawyer to do your bidding and avoid the hassle. Most issues in the US today can be solved with a liberal application of dollars.
 
Graueradler said:
Sometimes I think people aren't really interested in a solution.
Click to expand...
The solutions are obvious, and codified in law.

The trick is get the airport authority motivated to follow the law as written. Bringing a lawsuit against the city is the A-bomb approach. It might work, eventually, but would cost more than most people can afford.

I'm searching for ways that other airport users have successfully used to work through this issue. Unfortunately, the audience here is probably too small to have snared anyone who has experienced this problem and brought it through to a happy outcome.
 
Jay Honeck said:
The solutions are obvious, and codified in law.

The trick is get the airport authority motivated to follow the law as written. Bringing a lawsuit against the city is the A-bomb approach. It might work, eventually, but would cost more than most people can afford.

I'm searching for ways that other airport users have successfully used to work through this issue. Unfortunately, the audience here is probably too small to have snared anyone who has experienced this problem and brought it through to a happy outcome.
Click to expand...
if you want to be an activist, you have been given 2 choices:
1. litigation
2. arson
I'll offer a third, get yourself and your cronies elected to whatever board makes these calls. Generally if the problem is to do with a good old boys network, the solution is to join the good old boys or come up with a competing faction of good old boys.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Also, on another topic, I know two pilots who are in an ongoing battle with their municipalities over hangars at airports that are filled with junk, instead of airplanes.

This has been an ongoing issue at every airport I've been based at, in three different states (WI/IA/TX) -- so I think its safe to say that this is a common, often intractable problem.

At our airport, for example, there are just 18 hangars, only nine with airplanes in them. The rest are full of boats and other non-aviation junk.

Meanwhile, we have 21 guys with airplanes, waiting for a hangar. It's an aggravating situation that is costing the airport a lot of fuel sales.
Click to expand...

The solution to this problem is simple:

If the airport has accepted federal funds for improvements or maintenance - then they cannot have non-conforming non-aviation uses in the hangars - unless they are privately owned.

Call the FSDO, ask about the rules, get the name of the person you speak with [don't drop a dime you are just gathering information] and then go to the airport manager and remind him of the rules. That you have not complained formally but will if airplanes are not in the hangars in 3 months.

The airport manager or the civilians running the airport likely have their friends and relatives in the hangars at sweetheart rental deals - so tread carefully but the scandal will rise to the top in every instance . . .

When you have the meeting, give the airport manager an FOIA request for the rentals being received in each of the hangars - follow the money. Or in this case, probably the lack of money. . ..
 
comanchepilot said:
The solution to this problem is simple:

If the airport has accepted federal funds for improvements or maintenance - then they cannot have non-conforming non-aviation uses in the hangars - unless they are privately owned.

Call the FSDO, ask about the rules, get the name of the person you speak with [don't drop a dime you are just gathering information] and then go to the airport manager and remind him of the rules. That you have not complained formally but will if airplanes are not in the hangars in 3 months.

The airport manager or the civilians running the airport likely have their friends and relatives in the hangars at sweetheart rental deals - so tread carefully but the scandal will rise to the top in every instance . . .

When you have the meeting, give the airport manager an FOIA request for the rentals being received in each of the hangars - follow the money. Or in this case, probably the lack of money. . ..
Click to expand...

Joe, getting here late again, I see. :) We already determined it was not a federally obligated airport. By the way, private hangars on airport property must still be for aeronautical use unless the airport gets FAA authorization to the contrary.
 
Does a Freedom of Information Act request carry any weight at the municipal level?
 
Jay Honeck said:
If the $135K goes toward the building of public T-hangars in 2016, I'm sure we will all be thrilled. To my knowledge, however, that money was dropped into the maw of the general fund.

Just curious: How, exactly, do you think the "rich folk are spending money on the airport" by keeping boats (instead of aircraft) in their privately owned hangars? They are costing the airport huge amounts of revenue, through lost fuel sales alone.

They certainly aren't supporting the airport with their land leases. Those leases, drawn up many years ago, are laughably small -- like, $600 per YEAR. Whoopee.

An airport needs to be used for aeronautical purposes. With nine of 18 hangars full of junk, and 21 guys on a waiting list, something must change. The FAA and TXDOT rules must be enforced, and airplanes must be housed in those hangars.

The only question is: How? What mechanism is there to enforce these rules?
Click to expand...

:idea: Flamethrower comes to mind.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Selling the right to build on public land goes against EVERYTHING we were taught in civics class. (Anyone remember those?)

The municipal airport is there for the enjoyment and use of all citizens. Selling access off to the highest bidder is, at best, immoral. IMHO it's also illegal, but who has the time and money to fight city hall?

Think of the precedent this sets. Port Aransas has 15 miles of public beach. What's to stop the politicians from auctioning off access to the highest bidders? How about the fishing piers? And the boat slips in the marina?

It would be very easy to convert this island into a place that only billionaires can enjoy.
Click to expand...


Boat slips went 'dockominiums' years ago.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Meanwhile, we have 21 guys with airplanes, waiting for a hangar. It's an aggravating situation that is costing the airport a lot of fuel sales.
Click to expand...

Couple of more ideas come to mind:

-I would do the math and show the airport manager and your city councilman how much is being lost in revenue from fuel sales.

-Are any of the 21 attorneys? Or connected enough to get an attorney to send a letter to the Port A city attorney? Don't threaten to sue; just point out the issue and say "I'd sure hate for this sleepy little town to get stuck with a big bill from the FAA when it is so easily preventable."

-Does Port A have a "Citizens to be Heard" time on their weekly agenda? A time when anybody gets a couple of minutes to say whatever they want about any subject? You'd have everyone's attention then. Cite the lost revenue figures. That doesn't mean they'll care of course, but they can't deny being informed.

-Tip off the Caller-Times.

Good luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top