Airport expansion opposition gains momentum

[Lee Chowaniec]

The Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) saw first-hand at the recent public hearing on a code text change that would make the Lancaster Airport a permitted use their ranks swelling with supporters who oppose further airport expansion. Further opposition support now seems to be coming from builders and their homebuyers who are not directly impacted by today’s current airport operation, but very well could be by further airport expansion.

Essex homebuilder president Philip Nanula submitted a correspondence to the Lancaster Town Board declaring: I am writing on behalf of our customers who have purchased new homes in the Cross Creek community located off of Pleasant View Drive in the Town of Lancaster. There is concern on the part of the residents of additional airplane traffic in the area. As a result of these concerns we respectfully request that the town not change the zoning classification of the airport and that it continue to be a non-conforming use.

Like Nanula, other developers and builders share like thoughts and declare that they are working behind closed doors to derail the airport expansion. Like the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) and Nanula they share like concerns that further airport expansion would not only bring more and larger aircraft into the area, but expand the scope or airspace and adversely impact the quality of life of residents now living in subdivisions outside the current airspace range.

Not only would it impact a larger area of town, but the threat of such an expansion is already having an adverse impact on home sales, would impact development of prime areas still undeveloped, and has the potential to devalue home value. With expansion, this airport would not only impact neighborhoods it already does but it would be in the backyards of many other residents, and that is bringing more opposition into the mix. To add to the concern is that of the 89 building permits that have been issued thus far this year at least half of the homebuyers can expect to be added to that airspace range should airport expansion take place.

Builders also lament that they have had to meet all requirements to get the necessary permits and see here a project where the town has issued permits, site plans, SEQR approvals and partnered with the airport to pass resolutions making it possible for them to receive $14 million in federal and state grants, all while being a non conformance entity. In addition, they have not been happy to hear that the airport received three LIDAS without one job being created. Some lament they have been lied to by the town.
Builders also grumble that they are building homes of such value that 3-5 homes pay as much or more in property taxes than the $37,600 the airport pays on 141 acres of industrial zoned land and where $14 million was spent on property purchases and improvements.

Residents who moved into the vicinity of a near defunct airport, and have watched it expand to its current size and use they take no issue with it remaining as such. However they did not move in with knowing there was a near defunct airport in operation and with the knowledge or expectation that they would have a commercial airport in their backyard; one that would bring in jets, 79 foot wingspan aircraft and helicopters.

Supervisor Fudoli has expressed his opposition to the airport expansion even before his election – during his campaign. It is the four town board members that for whatever reason have taken diverse paths into changing the language of the town code to make this a conforming use airport.

SACL and its supporters can only hope that the silent builder opposition does exist and in fact makes its opposition public; regardless for fear of intimidation by a current Democratic town board that may not be in the majority after the first of the year.

[shortstuff]

It was interesting, I had gotten a call the other day, this person was telling me about a proposal the Airport had over 20 years ago that was presented to the board. The proposal was about putting in a helipad for helicopters to land at the Lancaster Airport. Apparently, the board voted NO against having one.

Thanks for the update Lee.

[Lee Chowaniec]

For people that say homeowners should have known better when they moved near the near defunct airport and who now support the airport as a great investment and tell homepwners that if they don't like it that they should move:

• Those 89 homes/townhomes/patio homes mentioned in Post #1 are being built on less than ½ the acres that the airport takes up (141 acres)
• The building permit fees totaled $164,488 and the total project cost (homes sale price) is $23,329,652. Not a nickel of that $23.32 million was subsidized by government grants – unlike the $14 million the airport has received from federal and state grants.
• The airport reportedly paid $37,600 in property taxes this year on 141 acres of land. The 89 homeowners will pay somewhere from $400,000 to $500,000 in property taxes on half the amount of land – some will receive Condominium Law 339y tax breaks.
• Considering the revenue differences, quality of life issues and that 80% of the pilots using the airport are non residents, how can it be said that further expansion of the airport is in the best interests of the Lancaster community?

Perhaps it was the airport that should have considered moving when there were less than 10 aircraft flying out of that airport in the 90’s.

[ichingtheory]

I have to wonder WHY officials have been so lax with this airport. There has to be so much more to this story.

It is about time developers in Lancaster are concerned. After all, I would assume their profits are on the line big time. Now that people are aware of expansion plans, who would take a chance on building in Lancaster?

[4248]

I am posting this here because the question, "Who's giving away millions" was raised in another thread - I will create a link to place in the other thread to bring interested readers here ! Thanks
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
Please read the other posts here about Lancasters $13Million tax dollar funded airstrip !


WILLIAMSBURG, Ky. — One of the USA's newest airports has a 5,500-foot lighted runway, a Colonial-style terminal with white columns, and hundreds of acres for growth. But Kentucky's Williamsburg-Whitley County Airport lacks one feature: airline passengers.
Built using $11 million in federal money, the airport is used only by private airplanes. Many are piston-engine aircraft owned by residents such as Keith Brashear, the airport board chairman who keeps his two-seat Cessna in the airport hangar. On a typical day, the airport has just two or three flights, manager Jessica Roberts says. Some days, there are none.


The Williamsburg airport is the result of an obscure federal program that raises billions of dollars a year through taxes on every airplane ticket sold in the United States. The taxes can add up to 15% to the cost of a flight — or about $29 to a $200 round-trip ticket.

Federal lawmakers have used some of the money to build and maintain the world's most expansive and expensive network of airports — 2,834 of them nationwide — with no scheduled passenger flights. Known as general-aviation airports, they operate separately from the 139 well-known commercial airports that handle almost all passenger flights.

In the first full accounting of the 28-year-old Airport Improvement Program, USA TODAY found that Congress has directed $15 billion to general-aviation airports, which typically are tucked on country roads and industrial byways.

[ichingtheory]

I am posting this here because the question, "Who's giving away millions" was raised in another thread - I will create a link to place in the other thread to bring interested readers here ! Thanks
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
Please read the other posts here about Lancasters $13Million tax dollar funded airstrip !


WILLIAMSBURG, Ky. — One of the USA's newest airports has a 5,500-foot lighted runway, a Colonial-style terminal with white columns, and hundreds of acres for growth. But Kentucky's Williamsburg-Whitley County Airport lacks one feature: airline passengers.
Built using $11 million in federal money, the airport is used only by private airplanes. Many are piston-engine aircraft owned by residents such as Keith Brashear, the airport board chairman who keeps his two-seat Cessna in the airport hangar. On a typical day, the airport has just two or three flights, manager Jessica Roberts says. Some days, there are none.


The Williamsburg airport is the result of an obscure federal program that raises billions of dollars a year through taxes on every airplane ticket sold in the United States. The taxes can add up to 15% to the cost of a flight — or about $29 to a $200 round-trip ticket.

Federal lawmakers have used some of the money to build and maintain the world's most expansive and expensive network of airports — 2,834 of them nationwide — with no scheduled passenger flights. Known as general-aviation airports, they operate separately from the 139 well-known commercial airports that handle almost all passenger flights.

In the first full accounting of the 28-year-old Airport Improvement Program, USA TODAY found that Congress has directed $15 billion to general-aviation airports, which typically are tucked on country roads and industrial byways.

Yes, I remember this story and it makes me sick to think of all that money that could be put to much better use.

[Lancaster Resident]

For people that say homeowners should have known better when they moved near the near defunct airport and who now support the airport as a great investment and tell homepwners that if they don't like it that they should move:

• Those 89 homes/townhomes/patio homes mentioned in Post #1 are being built on less than ½ the acres that the airport takes up (141 acres)
• The building permit fees totaled $164,488 and the total project cost (homes sale price) is $23,329,652. Not a nickel of that $23.32 million was subsidized by government grants – unlike the $14 million the airport has received from federal and state grants.
• The airport reportedly paid $37,600 in property taxes this year on 141 acres of land. The 89 homeowners will pay somewhere from $400,000 to $500,000 in property taxes on half the amount of land – some will receive Condominium Law 339y tax breaks.
• Considering the revenue differences, quality of life issues and that 80% of the pilots using the airport are non residents, how can it be said that further expansion of the airport is in the best interests of the Lancaster community?

Perhaps it was the airport that should have considered moving when there were less than 10 aircraft flying out of that airport in the 90’s.

It is unfortunate that whenever there is a hotly contested issue that comes to the general public's attention, like the Lancaster Airport, that there are a certain group of people that take it upon themselves to make superficial negative comments about their fellow taxpayers that are impacted by the situation. In the case of the Lancaster Airport these superficial negative comments are not supported by the facts. So, for whatever reason, a very small number of individuals feel the need to express their uninformed opinions. Everyone is eligible to express their opinion, but I personally would be embarrassed to make such comments about my fellow taxpayers without becoming properly informed about the facts first. Fortunately, the facts regarding the Lancaster Airport have finally been fully exposed at the Public Hearing that took place at the Lancaster Opera house on July 1st in front of a large group of Lancaster residents and the Town Board. So many more Lancaster residents, and developers/builders, are no longer in the dark about the situation---hence the opposition to any further expansions has greatly grown and become much stronger. Facts are more powerful than uninformed opinions....