Legal question about public airport access

[Duster1]

I have a legal question about access to a public use airport.

This is a small airport where several businesses and private individuals base their aircraft on private lots adjacent to the airport. The owners of the airport have decided to comply with the FAA NPIAS program (I assume to gain federal funding for future upgrades) and are putting fencing up around the perimeter of the airport. They are putting fencing up across the property lines of adjacent private property that previously had access to the taxiway/runway. There is nothing in the deeds of the properties that guarantees runway access but the properties have had runway access for the last decade since the airport was built.

The airport is installing large sliding gates and selling "clickers" that open the gates for a monthly fee to locals. They are not installing man gates where previous access by individuals was common.

What are the legalities of allowing access to public-use airports? Do the owners of the airport have the right to get federal funding for a public-use airport but put up a fence and charge to access the gate?

Thanks.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Sounds like someone should have bought their own playground.

 

[Matthew]

Is this what FAA calls "through the fence operations"?

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/residential_through_the_fence/

 

[Duster1]

Greg, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Of course we would all go buy a private airstrip if we could. But that is out of the question for many of the local small businesses that rely on access to this public use airport. These businesses were built on adjacent private property to the airport assuming they would have access to this public-use airport to run their aviation related businesses (like repair shop, paint shop, private instruction, scenic rides, etc).

Matthew, thanks for the link. I don't think this is related to "through the fence operations". My understanding is through the fence operations are guidelines that provide private properties adjacent to an airport, but not at the main entry point, a way to access to the runway. In this case the airport owner is shutting off all access to the runway with a fence and gate across the main access point, and charging people to access the runway through this gate. My question is regarding the legalities of charging to access a "public-use" general aviation airport.

 

[Tom-D]

Who owns the airport?

Private? County? State?

Does this airport have grant assurances?

What verbiage is in the leases?

Are those who will use the gates be entering from their land, or are they leasing the land next to the airport?

 

[HighFlyingA380]

What are the legalities of allowing access to public-use airports? Do the owners of the airport have the right to get federal funding for a public-use airport but put up a fence and charge to access the gate?

I don't know the answer to your question, but it closely parallels a question I've had for a while, but never bothered to look up: how are landing fees legal? As with your situation, it's a fee to access a public use facility...

 

[N801BH]

This is clearly a "through the fence" issue...

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Basically, the FAA doesn't want to fund an airport that adjacent land owners get to use for free - they want everyone to pay the equivalent to hangar and/or tie down fees.

The fact that more restrictions result in less airport use and ultimately fewer airports and the end of general aviation is just a bonus.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I can't park a hotdog truck on the side of a public highway, and no one has any pity about it. Same for folks tying their fortune to an adjacent airport. Bunch of parasites that either need to play with the piles of rules, bribe someone, or buy their own sandbox.

 

[Tom-D]

This is clearly a "through the fence" issue...

That really depends upon where the fence is.

If they are leasing airport property, the fence could go in front of their homes. or in back really depends upon what the agreement says.

 

[Duster1]

Who owns the airport?

Private? County? State?

It was previously owned by either the city or county, but recently (in the last several years) was sold to a private organization.

Does this airport have grant assurances?

Are you talking about federal grants for improvements? According to airport management not yet, but the general thought is they are putting up the fence in order to qualify for grants for future improvements.

What verbiage is in the leases?

There is nothing that guarantees access to the airport in the deeds of the adjacent private properties.

Are those who will use the gates be entering from their land, or are they leasing the land next to the airport?

Both. The main access point to the runway is a public road that goes through the middle of a group of private hangars and then onto the airport property. The businesses in these hangers have used this public road as a taxiway to access the runway. There is also private land adjacent to the airport that directly accessed the runway across the property line.

I can see that the private property adjacent to the airport might be fenced off and if there is nothing in the deed that guarantees access, so they may be out of luck, unfortunate but understandable. However my question is can the airport legally put a gate across the main access point at the end of the public road, completely shutting off the runway to public access, and then charge people to use the gate?

 

[Norman]

I have a legal question about access to a public use airport.

This is a small airport where several businesses and private individuals base their aircraft on private lots adjacent to the airport. The owners of the airport have decided to comply with the FAA NPIAS program (I assume to gain federal funding for future upgrades) and are putting fencing up around the perimeter of the airport. They are putting fencing up across the property lines of adjacent private property that previously had access to the taxiway/runway. There is nothing in the deeds of the properties that guarantees runway access but the properties have had runway access for the last decade since the airport was built.

The airport is installing large sliding gates and selling "clickers" that open the gates for a monthly fee to locals. They are not installing man gates where previous access by individuals was common.

What are the legalities of allowing access to public-use airports? Do the owners of the airport have the right to get federal funding for a public-use airport but put up a fence and charge to access the gate?

Thanks.

You don't need us. You need a lawyer familiar with what you describe.

 

[N801BH]

Who owns the airport?

Private? County? State?

Does this airport have grant assurances?

What verbiage is in the leases?

Are those who will use the gates be entering from their land, or are they leasing the land next to the airport?

The OP needs to Google Driggs Idaho KDIJ airport for the lowdown on a good "through the fence" fight.....

 

[Duster1]

I can't park a hotdog truck on the side of a public highway, and no one has any pity about it. Same for folks tying their fortune to an adjacent airport. Bunch of parasites that either need to play with the piles of rules, bribe someone, or buy their own sandbox.

Greg, again I fail to follow your logic, and find your parasite comments a little insulting.

If you put your hotdog truck on private land along side a public road, and then that road was fenced off and you were charged to access it through a gate, would that be okay? It is your tax money that funded the road. Does that make you a parasite because you built a business that relied on access to a public road?

In this case the reason this airport is "public-use" is most likely to qualify for grants for future improvements. That means your tax money is funding this runway. Are you okay with having to pay to access this airport that is partially funded by your tax money?

 

[JeffDG]

These businesses were built on adjacent private property to the airport assuming they would have access to this public-use airport to run their aviation related businesses (like repair shop, paint shop, private instruction, scenic rides, etc).

And there's the problem. You said there was nothing on the deeds that guaranteed such access. They assumed, and the airport was thus free to terminate such access whenever they deemed it appropriate.

Lesson: If it ain't written down, it never happened.

 

[poadeleted20]

You don't need us. You need a lawyer familiar with what you describe.

Concur -- and that lawyer needs to be proficient in both this area of aviation law and the particular state's property rights laws, and also must have all the deeds and other documents involved to review.

 

[N801BH]

Greg, again I fail to follow your logic, and find your parasite comments a little insulting.

If you put your hotdog truck on private land along side a public road, and then that road was fenced off and you were charged to access it through a gate, would that be okay? It is your tax money that funded the road. Does that make you a parasite because you built a business that relied on access to a public road?

In this case the reason this airport is "public-use" is most likely to qualify for grants for future improvements. That means your tax money is funding this runway. Is it legal that you have to pay to access this runway that you are partially funding?

I guess we can look at it like this, is a "public use" airport more like a government funded road or highway, or more like a privately owned tollway?

I live in Jackson Hole and own a ranch outside of Pinedale 2WY3....

it is PRIVATE OWNED and public use... I can charge anything I want to people who want to use it...

 

[ClimbnSink]

We can all land on public funded runways, access from adjacent private property is an inappropriate taking of a public good. They are parasites. Watch them hire lawyers to prove it.

 

[Duster1]

And there's the problem. You said there was nothing on the deeds that guaranteed such access. They assumed, and the airport was thus free to terminate such access whenever they deemed it appropriate.

Lesson: If it ain't written down, it never happened.

This issue isn't about access directly from private land to the airport. Read above.

 

[frfly172]

If you don't have deeded rights to the airport,you are probably out of luck. At least the airport is making access to the property through gates. Seems they are making an accomidation. Check with the local FSDO with the question on fees.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Right that is the other thing if it is privately owned dang right they should fence the parasites off and charge whatever the market will bear. But alas the parasites are going to sue to get someone else's stuff.

 

[Duster1]

We can all land on public funded runways, access from adjacent private property is an inappropriate taking of a public good. They are parasites. Watch them hire lawyers to prove it.

Still not following your logic. By your reasoning if you place your business (hotdog stand) on private land adjacent to a public road, then are you a parasite that is inappropriately taking of public goods by accessing the public road. We all pay taxes for the road and expect access to it for our businesses. How is it different from an public-use runway? We are paying for the runway in the form of federal grants so shouldn't we have access to it.

You say we can land there, but can't taxi our planes through their gates on public roads (used as taxiways).

 

[Palmpilot]

Greg, again I fail to follow your logic, and find your parasite comments a little insulting.

Well, it didn't take you long to figure HIM out.

Don't take it personally - he insults everyone.

 

[Duster1]

I live in Jackson Hole and own a ranch outside of Pinedale 2WY3....

it is PRIVATE OWNED and public use... I can charge anything I want to people who want to use it...

What exactly does "public-use" mean?

Again, just to be clear, I'm not only questioning the legalities of accessing the airport from private property, but in this case all access is being restricted.

There is an existing public road that accesses the runway. The local hangars use this public road as a taxiway to the airport. The owners of the airport are putting a gate across this public road access point and charging to go through the gate, essentially shutting off ALL ground based public access to the runway.

 

[N801BH]

What exactly does "public-use" even mean then?

That is a "double edged sword" question...

 

[Palmpilot]

What exactly does "public-use" even mean then?

I think it means that you're not trespassing if you use the airport. Given how ubiquitous fees of various types are at public use airports, I infer that it does not mean that you can't be charged for using it. Now, exactly what kind of fees are allowable and which are not, I don't know.

 

[Duster1]

Concur -- and that lawyer needs to be proficient in both this area of aviation law and the particular state's property rights laws, and also must have all the deeds and other documents involved to review.

I agree completely. However I'm trying to research the subject on my own to see if we can come to a fair agreement between the airport owners and the local land owners before lawyers need to be involved.

 

[Duster1]

I think it means that you're not trespassing if you use the airport. Given how ubiquitous fees of various types are at public use airports, I infer that it does not mean that you can't be charged for using it. Now, exactly what kind of fees are allowable and which are not, I don't know.

Thank you, that does make more sense and would explain why some "public-use" airports can charge a landing fee.

I feel that if the airport accepts federal funding of any kind then they should be open to the public without fees, including access from the air or from the ground on a public roadway or easement. It appears this is not the case which I assume the majority of tax payers don't realize and wouldn't agree with either.

 

[N801BH]

Thank you, that does make more sense and would explain why some "public-use" airports can charge a landing fee.

I feel that if the airport accepts federal funding of any kind then they should be open to the public without fees, including access from the air or from the ground on a public roadway or easement. It appears this is not the case which I assume the majority of tax payers don't realize and wouldn't agree with either.

I feel your pain... Teterboro NJ is a public owned and public use airport... Last I heard the landing fee for a small single engine was 500 bucks..

 

[docmirror]

I agree completely. However I'm trying to research the subject on my own to see if we can come to a fair agreement between the airport owners and the local land owners before lawyers need to be involved.

That ship sailed when the first fence post was driven.

I"m not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. If you are representing the side of the landowners who had access to the airport, then you'll want to look into land use cases, grandfathered access, how the land was first sold(was it promoted as 'airport' property, et al?), easements, public right of way just like your driveway to the public street and most important - was there EVER a fee, charge, tax, of any kind related to the ownership of the property adjacent to a runway. I think, if there was ever a promotion of the land as being 'airport access' or if there was any kind of fee/charge/tax structure associated with adjacent property use rights you might have a decent case.

However, if it was all an informal deal, where the access was ad-hoc, and no documentation existed, the landowners are likely out of luck unless you get a judge who's a GA advocate, which is about 1:100,000 chance.

YMMV, don't try this at home, pro driver close course, objects in mirror, and may cause anal leakage.

 

[Duster1]

That ship sailed when the first fence post was driven.

I"m not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. If you are representing the side of the landowners who had access to the airport, then you'll want to look into land use cases, grandfathered access, how the land was first sold(was it promoted as 'airport' property, et al?), easements, public right of way just like your driveway to the public street and most important - was there EVER a fee, charge, tax, of any kind related to the ownership of the property adjacent to a runway. I think, if there was ever a promotion of the land as being 'airport access' or if there was any kind of fee/charge/tax structure associated with adjacent property use rights you might have a decent case.

However, if it was all an informal deal, where the access was ad-hoc, and no documentation existed, the landowners are likely out of luck unless you get a judge who's a GA advocate, which is about 1:100,000 chance.

YMMV, don't try this at home, pro driver close course, objects in mirror, and may cause anal leakage.

Thanks for the comments.

This issue is mostly about ALL public access to the runway being restricted. I'm not talking about private land access for private individuals to access the airport across their private/airport property line, but I'm talking about ALL public access being shut down in the form of a gate being placed across the public road that is the main access to the airport (this road happens to be also be used as a taxiway for local private land owners).

 

[Duster1]

I feel your pain... Teterboro NJ is a public owned and public use airport... Last I heard the landing fee for a small single engine was 500 bucks..

Wow! I guess I completely mis-understood what "public use" meant.

Thanks for the conversation. It is eye opening to me. I'm positive many if not most pilots and the general public don't realize that our tax money is going to fund airports that we have to pay to access (whether from the ground or the air)!

I think if it were up to Gary we'd have to pay to access the publicly funded roads too, unless we want to be considered parasites and suck off the government tit.

 

[docmirror]

Thanks for the comments.

This issue is mostly about ALL public access to the runway being restricted. I'm not talking about private land access for private individuals to access the airport across their private/airport property line, but I'm talking about ALL public access being shut down in the form of a gate being placed across the public road that is the main access to the airport (this road happens to be also be used as a taxiway for local private land owners).

Then I don't know. Blocking access on a public road, paid for by taxpayers is a real corner case in law. All I can say, if there is some legacy use which can be shown, then blocking it would seem to be against common use.

Maybe an example would help.

Turkey road leads from main street to the Piggly-Wiggly food mart. They sell the store to Nuke Materials Corp who is concerned about security, and they put up said fence including a gate on Turkey road. People have been using Turkey road for 20 years to shop at the Piggly-Wiggly. The store is no longer there, so the reasoning for access is removed. Should the Nuke Materials be allowed to block access now that it's not a Piggly-Wiggly? I would say no, but I"m a strict libertarian where the public has access to everything, all the time. Others will have a different take.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm wondering if adverse possession rules could play a role in the situation described in the opening post.

 

[Duster1]

Then I don't know. Blocking access on a public road, paid for by taxpayers is a real corner case in law. All I can say, if there is some legacy use which can be shown, then blocking it would seem to be against common use.

Maybe an example would help.

Turkey road leads from main street to the Piggly-Wiggly food mart. They sell the store to Nuke Materials Corp who is concerned about security, and they put up said fence including a gate on Turkey road. People have been using Turkey road for 20 years to shop at the Piggly-Wiggly. The store is no longer there, so the reasoning for access is removed. Should the Nuke Materials be allowed to block access now that it's not a Piggly-Wiggly? I would say no, but I"m a strict libertarian where the public has access to everything, all the time. Others will have a different take.

I'm following you. But lets change your scenario a little:

In this case the Piggly-Wiggly store is still in existence, and for some reason the store is eligible for government grants for upkeep because it is considered "public use" (maybe the store is located in a historically significant building or something).

But the new owners of the store want to gate off Turkey road and charge access to anyone wanting to even step foot in the Piggly-Wiggly.

The question is do the new owners have the right to charge for access to a [partially] public funded store by blocking access from the public road?

Okay that is kind of silly but I think it gets the point across.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Wow! I guess I completely mis-understood what "public use" meant.

Thanks for the conversation. It is eye opening to me. I'm positive many if not most pilots and the general public don't realize that our tax money is going to fund airports that we have to pay to access (whether from the ground or the air)!

I think if it were up to Gary we'd have to pay to access the publicly funded roads too, unless we want to be considered parasites and suck off the government tit.

You mean like toll roads? Good thing we don't have those in America. Name the airport and we'll straighten this out.

 

[Duster1]

You mean like toll roads? Good thing we don't have those in America. Name the airport and we'll straighten this out.

Freeways and tollways, I don't think it's the same comparison as private and public runways, but lets try to make it work in your scenario:

You built your hotdog stand on your private land that is accessed via a public funded road built by the local city government (a freeway).

Later the road is sold to private owners (who still get government funding for upkeep and improvements of the road because it is considered "public use"). But they also put up a tollbooth and charge you and your customers to use it.

As the hotdog stand owner, are you being a "parasite" for expecting to have continued free access to this privately owned publicly funded road that you built your business around?

 

[Gsxrpilot]

UserCP > Edit Ignore List > Add member to ignore list > climbnsink > ok.

Solved.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Did the airport owners buy it off the govt? From what has been posted I gather this is a privately owned public use airport that has not taken govt money. If so it is private property and suing for access to it is parasitical. Blocking a public road is not cool, I wonder if the road is public or was just assumed public. And if the adjacent landowners don't have an access deal then they were/are playing parasite games.

 

[Duster1]

Did the airport owners buy it off the govt? From what has been posted I gather this is a privately owned public use airport that has not taken govt money. If so it is private property and suing for access to it is parasitical. Blocking a public road is not cool, I wonder if the road is public or was just assumed public. And if the adjacent landowners don't have an access deal then they were/are playing parasite games.

The airport was originally built by the city.

There is a short road that connects an adjacent major 2 lane road to the airport. Both of these roads are public (I'm sure of it).

Over time owners of private land adjacent to the short road have built hangars and use the short road as a taxiway to access the runway. Most of the land is zoned commercial/industrial and businesses have been established based on access to the runway.

The city sold the airport to private owners several years ago.

Technically the new owners have not yet received government funding, but in order to qualify for future government funding (in the form of grants through the NPIAS program) the new owners are erecting a fence around the entire airport property with a gate on the airport side of this short road.

The new airport owners are charging the existing business owners to have access through this gate (the main and only entrance to the airport) through a business airport access agreement.

You can see this is a mess. I was hoping someone had previous experience with this so we can get some ideas before we get lawyer$ involved.