"Editorial: Homes and runways don't mix"

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Editorial
Homes and runways don't mix
The Denver (CO) Post


Broomfield officials and residents proved they understand the lessons of
aviation history by turning their backs on a foolish plan to build a
residential neighborhood near the runway of the Jefferson County Airport.

Poor land-use planning in the past has repeatedly led to the eventual
removal of airports. After World War II, Denver allowed residential
development near the runway at Lowry Air Force base. Eventually, the new
residents complained about the noise and the Air Force closed the runway -
an action that, years later, led to the closure of the base itself.

Similarly, Denver built Stapleton Airport in what was then the boondocks and
allowed a residential neighborhood to grow around it. That mistake
eventually forced the city to built the new Denver International Airport - a
facility Denver has zoned against residential encroachment. Even so, DIA has
paid millions of dollars after being sued by owners of homes built before
DIA's arrival because the airport couldn't stay within noise regulations.

Dealing with housing built before an airport's construction is one thing.
But it makes no sense to build new residential housing near an existing
airport. The noise is too intense, an oily residue will cover patio
furniture, kids will breathe fumes when they play outside, and housing built
at the end of a runway is in harm's way if crashes occur upon takeoff or
landing.

Despite the many reasons against building residential housing near airports,
developers continue to gravitate toward them. Housing has been proposed near
Centennial Airport. And, most recently, a developer wanted to build high-end
townhomes in Broomfield near the end of a Jefferson County Airport runway.
Fortunately, the developer decided to withdraw his proposal after
substantial testimony opposed to the plan was heard Tuesday night during a
city council meeting.

Perhaps airports attract development because they are businesses that
support other businesses and people want to live close to their jobs. But
we've all had more than ample time, examples and experience to make us
realize that housing and airports are not compatible.

"That airport has been there a long, long time and it's not going away,"
said Jefferson County Commissioner Michelle Lawrence. "It's the Jefferson
County Airport and it's staying, so it's inconceivable to build there,
knowing that people who would live there would not be happy with the noise."

Keeping residential areas away from airports doesn't mean nearby land can't
be put to productive use. Appropriate commercial and industrial uses are
perfectly appropriate for land near aviation facilities. But we are glad
that Broomfield, its residents and, in this case, the developer joined the
growing list of cities that realize the folly of building housing near an
airport.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************