Martin County Defender: Issue 42
February 4th, 2008
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 42
Airport poll results:
· RESIDENTS PREFER COMMUNITY AIRPORT
· RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT TO SUE THE FAA
· RESIDENTS APPROVE OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH THE FAA
· RESIDENTS ARE SPLIT ON SHORTENING RUNWAY VS. WHETHER OTHER SAFEGUARDS ARE OK
I’m dissatisfied with how Witham Field is run. It would be better with a shorter runway, no construction expansion, and legal certainty that the public golf course and YMCA land are not part of the airport. The County leases with Fixed Base Operators are too generous, too. I’ve written and spoken these views before.
There is a major obstacle. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exercises control over the airport, based on federal law and the millions it has contributed. There are certain decisions FAA may defer to Martin County. However, FAA adamantly opposes shortening runways, and will fight aggressively against such attempts by local governments.
Most residents want Witham to be a community airport, not a scheduled commercial airport. So the Martin County Commission authorized Commissioner Sarah Heard to go to Washington with counsel to negotiate the controversy with the FAA. She brought back a proposed compromise, which the Commission will consider on Feb. 5, 2008. [See Heard letter below.]
As in most negotiations, neither party gets everything it wants. The compromise offers concrete pad buffers at the runway ends, paid by Federal funds. It will continue to pay for house buyouts, and agree that airport boundaries don’t include the public golf course or YMCA land.
However, the FAA will not agree to shorten the runway. It’s their national policy. The longer runway could someday accommodate larger aircraft.
The Commission can accept or reject the proposed FAA agreement. If the County rejects, it can either live with the status quo and its risks, or sue the FAA to shorten the runway. If the County sues, it may cost millions of dollars, and drag on for years, with the outcome uncertain at best.
Left out of the equation is what residents think, especially those who have not spoken up on the issue. So we conducted a pilot survey of a randomly chosen sampling of regular Defender readers. 700 were selected, plus 300 from a secondary list of occasional business readers. We ignore the latter here because of the inadequate 2.3% returns, which did favor a commercial airport. The 700 sample of regular readers, whose responses of 16.4% are presented here, represent mostly slow-growth residents, not necessarily a scientific population cross-section.
A few people have disparaged this survey because they claim that final contract details are not yet stated. This is nonsense because the Commission will be considering the highlights of a proposed agreement – explained in Commissioner Heard’s letter below - not a final contract that attorneys would work out.
With my lifetime belief as an editor that the public has a right to know, and that zealotry is no substitute for the truth, here are the responses to the four questions we posed. Please don’t shoot the messenger.
115 of 700 readers (16.4%) returned questionnaire forms.
If your word were law, would you decree that Witham Field be a community airport or grow to be a scheduled commercial airport?
88.7% prefer community airport
6.1% prefer commercial airport
5.2% not sure
For Witham Field to remain a community airport, do you believe the runway must be shortened, or can other safeguards keep the airport from going commercial?
45.0% say other safeguards can be OK
40.5% say must shorten runway
14.4% not sure
Should the County approve or reject the proposed agreement with the FAA?
50.0% say approve
35.2% say reject
14.8% not sure
If the Commission rejects the agreement, should the County sue the FAA?
54.7% say do not sue
23.6% say sue
21.7% not sure
A sworn affidavit has been filed attesting to the truth and accuracy of these poll results.
The poll results suggest that most residents, in this case people who have generally been critical of airport operations, want to put the quixotic battle with the FAA behind us. We should be realists and take the worthwhile concessions offered so we can concentrate on exercising the powers that the County does have to keep Witham Field a community airport.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: A concerted and irresponsible effort has been made by some “friends” of the editor to suppress the results of this survey – called “spiking the piece” in journalistic lingo – without their having seen its contents. The presidents of WAAM and the Consensus have colluded in their unsuccessful effort to bury this objective poll report. We take seriously the public’s right to learn the facts, so we are not deterred by arm twisting to prevent publication. The poll results are as stated above. Disregarding the pressure from friends was instilled many years ago by the advice of a mentor to this young editor. He said: “Make as many friends as you can, but always remember who your best friend is: Your Typewriter.”]
A couple of follow-up questions, if you please
Here is an invitation to readers to contribute wise and viable suggestions. We now pose these questions to two response segments of the survey groups, and to those who agree with their views.
To those who believe that the agreement should be rejected if shortening the runway is not included:
What plan do you propose Martin County implement to get the FAA ever to change its no-shortening position?
To those who would sue the FAA:
With public funds already being reduced, what other county services would you propose to cut in order to pay for a costly lawsuit against the FAA?
To advocates of continuing a near-hopeless conflict with the FAA, we commend last week’s words by the brilliant columnist, Peggy Noonan: “It’s not human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn’t work.”
Heard’s letter to newspaper clarifies airport stance
I do have a settlement proposal ready for our February 5 meeting. I’m very pleased with it. I don’t like to be ambushed any more than anyone else does, so I think it’s important to get this proposal out as far as possible in advance of our Board discussion so that the public and my Board have lots of time to debate, discuss, contemplate my proposal.
Last week the FAA released one letter concerning the runway issue. That is only part of the story.
The BCC appointed me last October to work with staff to negotiate the best possible settlement with the FAA on two key issues:
The property map. The FAA and the County have been disputing for several years the appropriate boundary of the airport. At issue is whether the golf course, the YMCA, Monterey Road, Monterey Commons and several other properties are part of the airport and can be used for airport purposes. The FAA has insisted that these properties ae part of the airport. We disagreed.
The Runway. The FAA directed the County to prepare a plan to improve the safety areas at the ends of Runways 12/ 30. The current safety areas (RPZ and RSA) do not comply with FAA design standards. The BCC approved a proposal to resolve the safety areas last summer. Local FAA officials rejected our proposal.
I have led intense negotiations with the FAA at all levels. I have completed these negotiations. I am prepared to present to the BCC a comprehensive package that resolves the outstanding problems. The result improves the safety of Runways 12/ 30. And, it sets a certain limit on the boundary of the airport which will, once and for all, prevent the threat of expansion of the airport.
Here is the proposed comprehensive settlement.
The FAA rejected our request to shorten the runway (ANAC 3) to bring the safety areas into compliance with FAA design standards. Instead, the FAA has agreed to pay for the installation of an EMAS (Engineered Materials Arresting System) bed at both ends of this runway. This is a new technology that is being used very effectively at many airports throughout the country.
(How EMAS works. It’s a system of interlinked engineered materials in an area covering the width of the runway by 450 feet. If an aircraft should skid or roll off either runway end, the EMAS will stop it, embed it in its tracks.)
I believe this is a reasonable compromise. The FAA originally refused to pay for the EMAS (which is expensive: $ 8 to 10 million for our project) and insisted that we extend the safety area into the golf course. This was unacceptable to me and to the BCC. It always begged the question, if the FAA can force us to expand into our golf course now, what of the future? What might they force into our golf course? Which leads to….
The second, and most important, component of the deal is that the FAA has agreed on a permanent boundary for the airport. Essentially, the boundary will be the existing airport boundary. This is exactly what the County proposed in our negotiations. The FAA has agreed that the golf course, YMCA, and all the other areas where jurisdiction was absolutely unknown will not be part of the airport, and will not be subject to federal law that limits how airport property can be used. This is a huge victory for the county. Most importantly, the County property outside the agreed upon boundary will not be available for airport expansion. Not now. Not ever. I believe that this is a critically important insurance policy for Martin County.
This comprehensive settlement achieves the two critically important goals of this whole effort.
It improves the safety of Runways 12/ 30 at no cost to Martin County taxpayers. In my view, and in that of aviation technical experts, EMAS is a tremendous safety enhancement. Improved safety for our residents was a top goal. This settlement crafts a better solution for safety than our proposal dubbed ANAC 3.
Most important, this guarantees that the airport will not be expanded beyond its present boundaries. Though this component didn’t receive the public attention that the runway part did, this was the issue that kept negotiators up at night. The map had to be part of the settlement. It is the key to peace. The titles to the land underneath the golf course, YMCA, etc. were so clouded no one had any idea who had jurisdiction. This was the issue that goaded us all. Given the uncertainty of the clouded titles, could and might the FAA at some future date try to force us to expand the airport? This settlement makes that impossible. It puts the County in control.
I’m hoping for my Board’s support on Feb 5.
The alternatives - litigation with the FAA, users, or property owners - would have been very expensive and uncertain. It would have required the use of tax revenues to defend or pursue litigation, an approach that I found highly undesirable.
Once the BCC approves the deal, we will make it an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan and thereby make it law.
I think we’re done here. I hope that this proposal makes clear and certain that we have regained the safety for our residents and ownership of this County asset.
Naturally, we will continue to work to improve noise impacts at the airport, and we, along with the FAA, agree to continue the home acquisition program. Thanks!
Sarah Heard
+++
Commissioner Heard has consistently shown her devotion to the welfare of all Martin residents – unlike special interests with their self-serving agendas. She deserves our support now!
+++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 2/4/08
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
•••NO MORE 2004•••
