"Scottsdale Airport an Asset That Should Remain Open"

["Stephen Irwin" <stepheni@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Opinion
SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT AN ASSET THAT SHOULD REMAIN OPEN
The Arizona Republic


The airport critics are at it again, trying to convince you, the citizens of
Scottsdale, that your airport is a bad thing and should be restricted or
closed.

First, they complained that Scottsdale Municipal Airport and local
air-traffic controllers were routing flights in ways that made aircraft
noise worse. That effort failed in federal court, and in the court of public
opinion, because the fact is that the city and the controllers are making
every reasonable and legal effort to minimize the airport's impact on
Scottsdale neighborhoods.

Their next claim was that you, the taxpayers, are subsidizing Scottsdale
Airport. We subsidize many things in Scottsdale (too many for my taste), but
our airport is not one of them. Scottsdale Airport's capital costs are paid
for by fees collected from aviation users, such as aviation fuel taxes and
registration fees on aircraft. The airport's operating costs are paid for by
the fees that the city charges airport users, such as landing fees for
business jets and fees paid by companies for the privilege of doing business
at Scottsdale Airport.

The bottom line is the airport pays for itself.

On top of that, the airport has a $100 million positive impact on the local
economy. Scottsdale taxpayers should be so fortunate as to have all of our
municipal facilities be so lucrative.

Now critics are claiming the airport is a terrorist threat. Like their
previous claims, this one is not supported by facts.

The most obvious of these facts is that private and corporate aircraft are
not the tempting targets for terrorists that airliners are.

Even so, general aviation airports (airports that serve private and
corporate aircraft) such as Scottsdale's are not complacent.

After Sept. 11, 2001, the general aviation community proactively partnered
with the Transportation Security Administration to develop programs for
observing and reporting suspicious activity. In his testimony before the
Senate, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission cited general aviation's
adoption of voluntary security measures as one reason that the commission
did not make any specific general aviation recommendations.

Just a few weeks ago, two NBC employees from New York were arrested trying
to breach security at a general aviation airport in St. Louis. Their
assignment: Do a story on how "easy" it was to get information and
directions to a helicopter and then hijack it. Like our local airport
critics, they believed that security at general aviation airports was lax.
They were mistaken and spent time in jail as a result.

What is most ironic about this is that Scottsdale Airport is recognized as a
leader in all the areas that the airport critics are complaining about.

Our airport has been among the most aggressive and proactive in the region
when it comes to noise-abatement programs, rules for making the airport
financially self-supporting and security policies. Other airports look to
ours for advice and examples of how things should be done.

One thing other cities definitely envy about our airport is the millions of
dollars in revenue that it brings into the local economy and city coffers.
If we would ever be so foolish as to restrict or close Scottsdale Airport,
our neighbors would be happy to take that business away from us.

How strange that our local papers editorialize about the need for economic
development and then pander to those who would close a city facility that
not only pays for itself but also generates millions of dollars of tourism
and other business revenue. Even stranger that some of my fellow city
officials do the same.

Bob Littlefield is vice mayor of Scottsdale. The views expressed are those
of the author.


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

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