Pfft. Wait till they trade a huge economic engine for a debt to be paid by tax payers. Then it won't be so inexpensive
Adam:
As they drive aircraft away, the airport becomes less of an economic engine. The resulting economics get compared to the amount of tax money collected from office buildings, stores, and residences built on the property. In the accounting models that folks use, the land development would likely look more attractive financially compared to the airport.
I would venture a guess, knowing a little about the area, that mose of the economic benefits claimed by airport proponents are benefits derived from businesses in Century City and surrounding jurisdictions. Yes, SM gets some, but when you total up the benefits (in many cases tied to corporate jets and operations), those go outside. The airport employs a certain number of folks for the operations - those will be replace by jobs at businesses that would occupy the airfield property. Hangar/tiedown fees get replaced by property taxes on houses/condos/apartments. The denser the development, the higher the value.
From the political standpoint, the politicians have to respond to the residents of property tax-paying residences nearby the airport. The airport & services on the airport don't vote, unless they live in SM. You gonna tell someone that has a $800,000+ house that they should just put up with noise 'cause they bought after the airport was built? And still expect to get re-elected? Not in MY back yard.
A regional and national approach is needed - airports are infrastructure, like roads. LAX, BUR, ONT, LGB benefit the entire region, but the negatives (noise, valuation, etc) are borne by the local community. LAWA's management of the airports is a benefit because it's a regional plan. Local airports are generally not. There simply is not a "cachet" these days to having an airport.
In my area, once upon a time there was an airport at Bailey's Crossroads in Alexandria. It closed, was sold, and several high-rise buildings were built on the land (Skyline Towers). The city reaps huge economic (tax, businesses, residential) benefits from the towers, far more than would ever be gained from the airport. When there's scarcity of buildable property, the value of land rises to a level that it's uneconomic to keep it for runways (that was the case at Bailey's, I believe it's also the case in Santa Monica).
Mmmm yes and no. AOPA may fill and Amicus role but they bring a lot to the table, They bring the "How To" to assist the local pilots and residents who understand the importance of the airport. They also have the resources to bring statistics and information to the table that are more than just anecdotal.
That's correct. In the end, though, the local government has to be convinced of the value of the airport vs what they might do with the money from the sale & the ongoing tax revenue if it's within the city boundaries. (In the case of ISZ, the city council got fixated on a streetcar that they thought would be a better use of the cash from sale of the land - the land at ISZ, besides being outside the city limits, was much more valuable for development than Sunken Lunken).
