"Airport Land Use: Consider accommodating airport neighbors by creating buffer area"

Saturday, May 8, 2004

Editorial
Consider accommodating airport neighbors by creating buffer area  
The East Valley (AZ) Tribune 


Protecting Williams Gateway Airport from residential encroachment is as
delicate a task as it is crucial to the future economic vitality of the East
Valley. A confrontation this week between the Mesa City Council and
residents of a subdivision near the airport makes that point clear. 
 
As the Tribune's Jason Emerson reported on Wednesday, dozens of residents of
the Queen's Park subdivision just south of the airport chastised the council
for its proposed zoning change on nearby land from residential to industrial
that could put factories next to their homes. Their concerns are perfectly
understandable. 

But Mayor Keno Hawker discounted their objections, saying their homes never
should have been built so close to the airport. 

Rezoning is a smart and necessary move by the council, but existing
residents' concerns should be accommodated, possibly by creating a buffer or
open space or some acceptable, low-impact use such as a business park or a
neighborhood commercial center. 

For their part, some of the residents didn't help their cause by suggesting
council members had been bought off by the landowners. Such character
assassination poisons civil debate on a serious issue. Mesa's elected
officials are trying to protect the economic potential of the Williams
Gateway Airport area so the East Valley can attract more high-paying jobs.
Much of the resistance to this worthy goal has come from landowners and
developers near the airport who can turn a quick profit by building
subdivisions; industrial development, on the other hand, generally takes
longer and may not be as profitable to landowners. 

The City Council acted wisely to delay action on the issue for a couple
weeks. We would hope that both sides would dispense with the accusatory
rhetoric and focus on a workable solution that also respects the property
rights of the owners of the land in question. 

Ideally, a productive land use that is compatible with existing residents
and the airport should be sought. But city officials should not rule out
purchasing part of the undeveloped property if that is the only way to
protect private property rights and the airport's future.


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

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


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