[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

              

"A Big Debate Over A Tiny Airport"



Monday, May 10, 2004

A Big Debate Over A Tiny Airport
By DON STACOM
The Hartford (CT) Courant


BURLINGTON -- Passing motorists could almost mistake the wide, grassy
field along Route 4 for a rural pasture: There's just one short paved
runway, a few vintage hangars, a tiny office and a patch of tarmac for
plane tie-downs.

Johnnycake Mountain Meadows Airport has no control tower, its flight
school and fuel depot closed years ago and it was home to only a couple
of dozen single-engine planes when it shut down April 1.

But where the casual observer sees a fading leftover from Burlington's
days as a farm town, the Federal Aviation Administration views
Johnnycake as a useful link in America's airport system - a link that
might be worth $5 million or more.

"Airports like Johnnycake are important to aviation. If you shut them
down, those pilots and their planes go somewhere else that may already
be congested," said Vincent Scarano, manager of the FAA's New England
Region airports division.

The FAA and the state Department of Transportation are shaping up as the
most powerful allies that Johnnycake's supporters have mustered to
preserve the half-century-old airfield. The two agencies are holding out
the lure of millions of dollars in aid if Burlington and Harwinton buy
Johnnycake and reopen it as a municipal airport.

But there's a problem: Runway owner Richard Miller no longer wants an
airport on his property, and he's refusing to sell. He dismisses
Johnnycake as a plaything for a handful of pilots who expect taxpayers
to subsidize their hobby, and ridicules the defense that it could be an
engine for regional business growth.

"It's been there 50 years, and what do you have? The Landing Zone and
the Countryside," he said, referring to two nearby restaurants that are
popular with visiting pilots. "That's it."

Miller's position has municipal leaders talking about perhaps taking his
land by eminent domain - a prospect that unsettles even some of
Johnnycake's supporters. The towns plan a forum later this spring for
taxpayers to discuss the idea.

The FAA is interested in Johnnycake because of its location. The
agency's National Plan of Integrated Airports lists about 3,000 airports
that it considers significant to America's aviation system, and
Johnnycake is on it. The field is one of only 15 Connecticut airports on
the list, and the only one near Litchfield County.

The country has been losing small airports for more than a decade, with
about 60 closing in the past three years, according to Jeff Myers, a
spokesman for the Frederick, Md.-based Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association. Pilots blame the loss on a combination of anti-noise
campaigns and developers who acquire airports for their large, flat and
clear land.

Buying Johnnycake, they say, would be a sensible use of public money.

"If you take I-95 or I-91 and start closing exit ramps, at some point
those highways become less and less useful," Myers said. "No matter how
small, every airport is a cog in the national air transportation
system."

But acquiring Johnnycake would be expensive. Burlington First Selectman
Ted Scheidel estimates Miller's 237 acres are worth $4.7 million, and
pilots say that improving the facilities might run another $1 million.
The price could climb higher if Johnnycake's western edge, which is
owned by Frederick Pesce, is added.

As much as 95 percent of the cost could be covered by the FAA, with the
DOT paying another 3.75 percent, said Richard Jaworski, a DOT
transportation engineer. The FAA, however, spends only $2 million to $3
million a year on municipal airports in Connecticut, and that's usually
for improvements, not acquisitions.

Scarano acknowledged that the FAA hasn't subsidized the purchase of an
airport in New England for as long as he can remember, and that a
potential $5 million to $6 million price tag would be double the
agency's yearly budget for municipal airport work in the state.

"We seldom buy an airport. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything,"
he said. "It might be that the location would make it interesting to
us."

The prospect of federal funding worries some neighbors, who fear the FAA
and DOT would extend the 3,400-foot runway to accommodate corporate jets
and even cargo service. Jaworski said those concerns are baseless. The
state-owned Waterbury-Oxford Airport has a 5,000-foot runway, and is
Connecticut's focus for small jets, he said.

"Municipally owned means municipally owned," said Jaworski, who cites
Meriden, New Haven, Danbury and Bridgeport as cities that receive
federal funds for locally controlled airports.

Bill Thomas, president of the Simsbury Flying Club, said saving
Johnnycake would benefit the state as a whole. "As Bradley is growing,
they'd prefer not to also have an influx of aircraft," he said.
"Aviation has an infrastructure - the fewer airports, the more planes
will squeeze into the ones left."

Miller, however, said he can't see the FAA paying millions for an
airfield for propeller planes. He predicts a municipally owned
Johnnycake would end up much larger - and he's not alone.

"The people who like Johnnycake want a nice little country airport,"
said Jim Gillespie, a neighbor who is happy with Johnnycake closed. "But
when you pay $4 million or $5 million and add money for new firetrucks,
protection, other costs, then it can't be a small airport."


   Post your opinion on this story in the CAA General Aviation Forum
http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php

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

Current CAA news channel:


Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you have any queries regarding this issue, please Email us at stepheni@cwnet.com