Letters to the Editor: Airport 01.12.17

Vote Against Rehiring

East Hampton

January 9, 2017

Dear David,

I write to applaud Councilwoman Sylvia Overby’s thoughtful statement in her vote against the rehiring of Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell as the town’s aviation attorneys at last Thursday s town board meeting.

Time and again, K.K.R. has failed to act in the best interests of our town during its many contract periods, as has been detailed in letters to The Star in previous issues.

It took courage for Councilwoman Overby to follow her instincts and her moral compass to vote against the majority. This demonstration of independent thinking and analysis is the kind of leadership we expect from our elected officials.

I thank her on behalf of the countless numbers of aircraft noise-affected citizens all over Long Island who support Quiet Skies initiatives, which include replacing KKR with different legal representation. 

Brava, Councilwoman Overby!

KATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM

Quiet Skies Coalition

Close the Airport

Noyac

January 1, 2017

Dear Editor,

Ten reasons why East Hampton Airport should close immediately:

•The Nov. 4, 2016, decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stripped the town of local control of its airport. The airport is now ruled by the Federal Aviation Administration, whose mandate is to support the aviation industry. The airport is now open to aircraft of any kind that are able to land on its runways, any time, day or night, 365 days per year.

•Although the town-owned airport property is worth at least $300 million, more than the total town debt, it generates no revenue at all for the town or its people. For as long as the property is used as an airport, the F.A.A. prohibits any airport revenue from being transferred from the airport fund to the town general fund. Instead, all money generated by the airport property, including from commercial nonaviation leases, must be used exclusively to pay for aviation. 

•Airport operations, including both airport management and aviation service companies (fixed-base operators), generate only about 25 jobs. This is a tiny number for over 600 acres of highly valuable, commercially zoned property. Other environmentally friendly uses could generate hundreds of local jobs.

•The town general fund could earn $10 million to $15 million per year, perhaps more, if the property were put to other uses. Overwhelmingly, profits from the airport flow to nonresidents of East Hampton, from Southampton all the way to New Jersey. Little or none of the profits from the airport stay in East Hampton to support the local economy.

•It’s bad for business — especially bad for real estate business. For every owner or renter who uses the airport, only about 300 local households in total, there are thousands more people the length of Long Island, from Manhattan to East Hampton, disturbed by aircraft noise and concerned about toxic fuel emissions from airport operations over their homes.

•Just 100 acres of solar panels, a smaller area than has already been cleared for aviation use at the airport, can power many thousands of homes. PSEG-LI predicts there will be energy deficits in 2017, with brownouts anticipated, and the energy shortage is expected to grow over the next decade.

•The airport is directly above our sole-source aquifer. Yet volatile organic compounds are in constant use there. These chemicals are an ever-present danger of contamination to our air, soil, and water.

•Leaded fuel, used in small piston-propelled planes, is stored at the fuel farm and sold by the town to the fixed-base operators. There is no safe level of lead. Lead is toxic to all life — especially to children under 5.

•The World Health Organization, among others, has documented health concerns due to aviation activity, including cardiovascular and respiratory problems, learning disabilities in children, sleep disturbances, and other health issues.

•The cost of the airport to the community — in lost revenues, lost jobs, lost real estate value, noise, air, soil, and water pollution, damage to health, and loss of the peaceful enjoyment of our homes — is enormous, all for the vanity of a tiny number of people, 300 local households. 

In effect, the town has dedicated $1 million of town property for the exclusive use and enjoyment of each of those 300 elite households. For every family in East Hampton, rather than an elite handful, to enjoy such a boon, town-owned property would have to be worth $20 billion. 

Shouldn’t the whole community benefit from this valuable property rather than being burdened by it? Yes! Close the airport.

PATRICIA CURRIE

No Time to Waste

East Hampton

January 9, 2017

Dear David:

I write today as chairman of the Airport Noise Citizens Advisory Committee, composed principally of the mem bers of the former town board-appointed Airport Planning Committee’s noise subcommittee.  

Airport noise is profoundly discordant with the otherwise bucolic and beautiful character of our town. It is part and parcel of the urban ills from which East Hampton should be a refuge.

Due to the ever-worsening problem of commuting to the South Fork by helicopter and seaplane, the number of once-peaceful homes burdened by little East Hampton Airport has grown tremendously. Our airport now adversely affects Southampton, the North Fork, and communities the length of Long Island. Areas of East Hampton that never suffered from airport noise now do.

Despite the growing burden of noise, the leadership of those who suffer from this scourge, myself included, has long sought solutions that would preserve the airport, both financially and functionally, for use by local and recreational pilots.

That effort suffered a huge setback in November when the New Jersey helicopter companies who sued the town to prevent the East Hampton Town Board from exercising local control over the airport won their appeal to the federal Court of Appeals. The town is in turn appealing that decision to the United States Supreme Court. But that’s a long shot, because the Supreme Court accepts only a tiny percentage of the cases brought to it.   

The Airport Noise Citizens Advisory Committee has been meeting and talking since early November to consider next steps in the face of the loss in the Court of Appeals. This past week we presented to the town board our recommendations for next steps.

In ruling against the town, the Court of Appeals did not prohibit local control of the airport. Rather, it ruled that the town cannot exercise local control without first complying with the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act. The most important recommendation of the Airport Noise Citizens Advisory Committee is that the town proceed immediately to do just that. This requires preparing a so-called Part 161 study under Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

A successful Part 161 study is very difficult to achieve, because the F.A.A. is hostile to any local control of airports. But we believe it can be done with the right legal assistance and the active participation of the members of our community who have become deeply knowledgeable about aviation law and airport noise in the course of the long struggle for relief. The summer of 2017 is already lost to us. There is no time to waste if the summer of 2018 is not to be lost as well.

Other recommendations include replacing the legal counsel, Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell, who lost the case, obtaining an appraisal of the value of the airport property, conducting a study of the economic contribution the airport makes to the town and what it would contribute to the town if not dedicated to aviation use, testing the air, soil, and water in the airport vicinity for aviation contamination detrimental to health and safety, and commencing the steps necessary for the town to acquire Montauk Airport using the community preservation fund.

The final recommendation is that the town reconvene the Airport Planning Committee’s noise subcommittee to help supervise closely the work on all of the above. The town does not have, and cannot be expected to have, on staff or on the town board, the expertise necessary to supervise these technical undertakings, including the supervision of outside professionals such as lawyers and engineers, without assistance. Fortunately, we have within the community people who collectively do have the necessary expertise.

It is our view that it is simply good practice in matters of local governance to rely on community knowledge and expertise. In the case of the airport, and in the absence of the means to hire staff with the requisite expertise, there is no choice but to rely on the community if the problems entailed by the airport are ever to be solved.

The clock is ticking. Waiting for the Supreme Court to ride to the rescue is not a plan but the lack of a plan. East Hampton must be proactive in reasserting its right to control its own municipally owned airport for the good of the whole community.

DAVID GRUBER