|
Don Hodges Responds to Long "Pro-Airport Board" Letter to News-Herald |
||
| Bay County Commission and
Citizens:
This is a scan of the long"pro-airport-relocation" letter in the June 16 News Herald, with my comments in italics. - Don Hodges: Many of the people opposed to a new West Bay airport are Johnny-come-latelys to the project and know nothing about what has transpired to date. All of a sudden, they have become experts without ever being involved. I doubt if most of them have ever attended an Airport Authority meeting, discussed the project with a current board member, attended the presentations, or talked with the consultants. I am very familiar with the project, and I believe that I have been MORE involved than any Board member except Don Crisp. This Board does not discuss the relocation project at any length, and votes lock-step to the agenda placed before them by the Airport Director and the Chairman. I don't recall meeting Ms. Shanholtzer at any Board meetings since last July when I rose to oppose the Feasibility Study for reasons which will follow. I have been very disappointed in the effectiveness of the "public participation" aspect of this project, and I finally concluded that the only way to influence the outcome is to become a member of the Board. History and circumstances make me qualified, which is apparently unusual when a citizen is stymied by the process, but in this case is true. I welcome this opportunity to respond to the thoughtful letter – this is not personal, but the truth has been poorly served by this project and many people have been misinformed. They don't know the facts behind the defeat of the runway into the bay, why the airport cannot be expanded where located, or how the new airport will be financed. I have reviewed the westward expansion and I agree it was ill-conceived. I am quite sure the airport CAN be expanded where located with minimal intrusion into the community. I have not insisted on this option, however, because I believe there is a phased relocation plan which preserves the present airport until passenger traffic expands enough to justify moving the terminal. After this move, a decision can be made on continuing the present airport in service or decommissioning it. NOBODY knows how the new airport will be financed - the grant funds are insufficient to build a complete new airport (before the cost overruns even start), and the Board has no defined plan for raising the difference. They have a concept of "pre-selling" the airport for delivery later, but there is NO precedent for this type of financing. My alternative first phase can be built within the funds already programmed without selling the airport or bonding all future revenues "to the teeth". Here are some points that should be noted: • The current runway cannot be extended into the bay as it is against the law, and more specifically in violation of the federal/Florida Coastal Zone Management Program. I agree. • Extending the runway over State 390 and meeting the FAAs required safety criteria would cause several hundred homes and businesses to be destroyed, and would cost more than the proposed new airport. This is not true and the reason that I started looking into the project in the first place. The Feasibility Study stated that it would cost $394 million to extend the runway to the east, and I said that figure could not be right. The consultants stood by it, however, and I finally decided to see if it could possibly be true. I found that the actual cost of extending the runway is nominal ($15-20 million), BUT the estimate is then larded with $96 million of the Airport Director's "Master Plan", some of which is pure fantasy (a seaplane port, international arrivals building, large cargo facilities, complete relocation and expansion of General Aviation facilities beyond any reasonable need). On top of that, the design recognizes NO options except the FAA standards for building a NEW runway - my design conforms to all FAA Airport Design and safety guidelines, intrudes into Forest Park very little, and allows SR 390 to stay where it is or be straightened and widened to five lanes as desired by FDOT. The consultants design, after extending 1500 feet into Forest park, wraps SR390 around the periphery (taking another several blocks of housing beyond that needed by the runway), and as a final insult installs two lakes alongside the runway atop another neighborhood, while violating FAA guidelines on attracting birds to airports. The estimate then applies 25 percent contingencies and 14 percent fees to the whole travesty and says it is the baseline alternative to relocation. The estimate assumes that all affected real estate will be purchased at market value - if you think that is the way this Board treats affected neighbors, go by and talk to Andy Hoffman at Ole Lighthouse Marine. The Airport has "designated" his property for acquisition, but refuses to actually buy it. Andy has been trapped in a location he would like to vacate but the airport's action has made his property unmarketable.
Even then, you would still have an airport with no room for expansion, too close to the hospital, improperly buffered by residential homes, still in a hurricane flood zone, and incapable of attracting new airline business. It is doubtful that the FAA would look favorably on financing that project. The airport can be expanded to approximately the same capacity and runway length as La Guardia in New York. When do YOU think Panama City will surpass 22 million passengers per year (present traffic at LaGuardia)? I am baffled by the hospital remark, the airport will meet all FAA safety, communty noise, and operational standards. As for hurricanes, please name ONE airport which remains open in a hurricane. This airport is unavailable due to weather less than almost any other airport in the USA. I have seen Boston’s Logan Airport, for instance, up to the eaves in snow and shut down for 7 days running, disrupting about as many passengers as this airport serves in a year. • The majority of the financing will come from FAA federal funds. It seems ludicrous that the naysayers want all that money, which we the citizens of Bay County have already paid in our federal taxes and our airfare taxes, to go to some other county or state, while it could be spent here. This money has been set aside by the federal government strictly for aviation, and cannot be used for paving roads or building bridges. You can read my essay on the Aviation Trust Fund on my web site, www.ECoastLife.com . The funding for the proposed airport is NOT majority-federal, however. It is: $70 Million Federal $70 Million State DOT $38 Million (sale of $80-90 Million-value- Present Airport) $28 Million Revenue Bonds $206 Million Total (this is the estimate before starting construction - these projects NEVER finish where they start financially!) My first phase airport, which serves both Panama City/Bay County and St. Joe's needs, costs $136 Million going in. The St. Joe Co. is willing to donate the land, approximately 4,000 acres, as well as the land needed for environmental mitigation. St. Joe has said this, but will not commit to it in advance. I am very opposed to becoming totally dependent on the generosity and environmental sensitivity of St. Joe and Bechtel Infrastructure, interlocked by a common attorney/lobbyist. Once the present airport is sold in advance, there is no turning back. My plan preserves the present airport until a complete new airport is in service, and beyond if desired. This airport would be more centrally located for all of Bay County. Most of our County's growth is now occurring on the beach and to the north. I will leave that one as a map study for the reader, but it doesn't match my view of the territory. I think most residents of Panama City and our eastern communities would disagree. According to the Feasibility Study, passenger trips originate predominantly EAST of Hathaway Bridge presently, and no data is available on the size and time frame of demographic shifts. I submit that relocating the airport 30 miles closer to a lower-fare competitor is as harmful to traffic as several years of west/north population growth is beneficial. This entire project is based on ONE WEEK of off-season passenger data collected between Thanksgiving and Christmas! Additionally, with all the planned development on State 30A in South Walton County, Fort Walton Beach's airport may not have enough allotted slots to meet the demand. These slots are set up by Eglin Air Force Base and military operations are its primary concern. It will be more convenient for many off 30A to come to the new Bay County airport. The Eglin lease allows 30 flights per day, and all the airlines serving Eglin have airplanes of up to 250 seats available to them. 30 757's, for example, would handle 1.6 million passengers per year, whereas Eglin's present traffic is 526,000 per year. Traffic doubles about every 20 years, so Eglin appears to be adequate for 30 more years without additional slots. There is an opportunity, however, for our airport in the Eglin lease. NO charters, cargo, or maintenance flights are allowed. My alternative airport would be able to receive 747 charters from any range, for passengers or cargo, and I have agreed with St. Joe that aviation maintenance should be a top priority in their development plans. The new airport will be properly buffered with a commercial area to provide an industrial base, as well as the appropriate safety factor. This commercial area could provide many additional jobs to our area, and additional tax revenue base. I agree. My plans STARTS with a full-length industrial/charter airfield, which the Board’s plan does not. My plan does NOT require moving scheduled passenger service to this remote location until the industrial/population increase is demonstrated. This new airport will not be under water in the next hurricane and should not have to close because of being flooded. See my comment above - I have never seen an airport anywhere OPEN during a hurricane, and the new one will not be either. The existing airport was, however, the base chosen by the National Guard for immediate Hurricane Opal relief efforts. The location of the new airport will not require the destruction of hundreds of existing homes and businesses, nor endanger hospitals or schools. I agree, and neither will the present airport. The whole Hospital/school remark is inflammatory and has no basis in aviation regulations, zoning, airport/airplane, or school/hospital design or regulation. The new airport will strongly enhance the possibility of better air travel and better airfares. I wish I could agree with this, but it simply is not true. The airlines have invested $Billions (with a "B") in Regional jet airplanes (NO government grants, they really believe in this business plan) in order to serve small markets like Bay county and defend high fares. This trend alone sets airport expansion plans back 10 to 12 years. No airline has requested to serve Bay county subject to a longer runway, and the Feasibility Study only makes a guarded prediction that approximately FOUR mainline flights might be RE-INTRODUCED about the year 2020. Furthermore, the location of the new airport 30 miles closer to its low-fare competitor virtually assures LESS traffic and continued high fares. Since State 77 and State 79 are both scheduled to be four-laned in the future, an enhancing of County 388 would provide a quick and easy access from U.S. 231 to State 79. I am not expert in roads, but there is vehement opposition to a new limited-access road, which residents along US 231 feel would relegate their communities to rural obscurity. Your statement contradicts your contention that this project does not divert funds from other, more urgent road/infrastructure needs. FDOT’s participation in "enhancing" an obscure County road is certainly a lesson in priorities, since they are not even responsible directly for county roads. The current airport property of about 840 acres will be sold. Due to the increasingly short supply of Panama City residential real estate lots, and prime waterfront property, it should be rezoned as single family residential. It is important to remember that residences pay real estate taxes, which we need in Bay County. Businesses are often given exemptions from taxes for long periods of time. While a golf course has been mentioned for the property, I believe the land is far too valuable for that purpose. What you or I believe will be irrelevant when the airport is sold - the new owner will decide how to develop it, and it will NOT be with the bottomless pockets of the FAA to study mitigation. I believe that a viable General Aviation airport has far more value than this Board (with limited aviation background) can see. Once an airport is decommissioned, it cannot be restored - we should preserve our option on the present airport until a new airport is completely established. The favorite "growth model", Ft. Myers. has a long-runway passenger airport AND Page Airport, which is almost identical to our existing airport. In addition to the airport land and mitigation land, St. Joe has offered to set aside most of the land around West Bay (part of which would be used for airport mitigation) as a conservation area. This reserved conservation land could be purchased by a large conservation group, and/or some of it could be used for mitigation for other projects in Bay County. This conservation opportunity should excite every fisherman, wildlife person, and environmentalist. I say, "Show Me!!" St. Joe adamantly refuses to show the Bay County Planning Commission ANY plans for Bay County. Until St. Joe is more forthcoming, I will rely on the National Environmental Protection Act to protect the environment. Will St. Joe make money from this? At some point, of course. They own lots of land and plan to develop it within a specific time frame. They are a for-profit business. Who else will profit? All of Bay County. I am a St. Joe shareholder and I hope they are successful. I oppose, however, setting up their entire strategy at public expense before they invest a dime. At present, they are using their considerable capital to prop up their stock price by buying their own shares, and spending enormous sums lobbying for ever-more public infrastructure. I believe the economic development of Bay County is at least a 30-year project, needing significant improvements in higher education, vocational education, and classical bottom-up economic development. This comes from entrepreneurs, not consultants drawing "storyboards" in Jacksonville. The need for a new airport is rapidly approaching and Bay County needs to start now in planning for our long-range airport needs. The FAA agrees with that fact. The need is very preliminary and I confess I cannot fathom why the FAA and FDOT are so pliable – my plan offers a logical path to a real regional airport some time in the future, and it can be accelerated at any point if explosive growth becomes a problem. Meanwhile, Panama City and the historic communities retain the economic benefits of a local airport as long as it is viable. The Board’s plan sacrifices a beautiful and capable local airport IN ADVANCE to raise less money than will be required to grade the West Bay site to environmental acceptability. As many people will remember, the current Airport Authority members originally favored extending into the bay. When that couldn't happen, those members had to take a hard look at all the possible options. They have taken hundreds of hours of their own time (without compensation) over the last few years, and finally reached the conclusion that with the land donation, a new airport is the most logical and economical thing to do for the current and future citizens of Bay County. Most of these board members are also private pilots and certainly don't stand to gain anything by the relocation of the new airport away from town. All I can say is that the present Board is not all that attentive to aviation business, based on my attendance at their meetings. I will not attempt to assign them any motives. For the record, only two members are pilots, and I believe only Mr. Johnstone is currently active as a pilot. My concern for this Board is that they have abdicated their policy-making responsibility to the Airport Director and his consultants, who obviously have an enormous self-interest in furthering this project at any expense, not to mention the interlocking relationship between the consultants and St. Joe. These relationships are questionable when the airport is supposedly negotiating at arms-length for land and mitigation concessions from St. Joe.
As aptly put by Airport Director Randy Curtis, the learning curve for the current airport board members has been a very long and detailed process. Now is not an appropriate time to put new members on this board. I told Randy Curtis last week: he, as an employee of whatever Board is appointed, should have NO position on the membership of the Board unless he wants to resign and put his name in consideration. I will put my qualifications and "learning curve" against any of these men, including Randy Curtis and especially Don Crisp, who is ineligible for reappointment under the County term limit ordinance. NOW is the only time to re-constitute this Board and bring better policy to its deliberations. If the present "perpetual" board is undisturbed, this project has the potential to bankrupt the county without any recourse to elected officials in time to avoid it. I will be happy to meet with Ms. Shanholtzer or any group who wants to discuss my qualifications or suggestions for airport development. My telephone: 265-1032 cell 866-1032 Don Hodges (Original signed by:) Marilyn Shanholtzer, Panama City
|