Letter: Tahoe airport needs to be accountable to all
To the community,
I was pleasantly surprised at the turnout for the city’s first workshop on updating the airport master plan last week on Feb. 13 at City Hall. I want to thank city officials for holding it. There was a large crowd present who came to the meeting with different views and perspectives about the airport. Several people voiced support for it, while others want it to be closed. Some people were there just to listen and find out more.
We were told that the city’s existing airport master plan expired in 2012 so the Federal Aviation Administration gave the city a 90 percent grant to pay for the $350,000 consultant study that is expected to take one year to complete. More public meetings will be held during the study period.
The South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors supports a viable airport and the board asked me to participate in the update process and keep them advised. I am also one who supports having a viable airport in town because I believe that it can be an alternative travel option for visitors to using their auto. I support commercial service as long as the planes are state-of-the-art technologies, noise standards are enforced, and the people of South Lake Tahoe do not have to subsidize commercial flights as they did in the past. The airport is a public safety resource in times of emergency as was demonstrated during the Angora Fire. The airport is one of a few locations in town where non-aviation lands can be used to grow environmentally friendly businesses and grow and diversify the local economy, something we desperately need if we are going to have more than minimum wage jobs. Finally, a viable airport may attract ecologically minded business men and women to live and work in South Tahoe who want easy access to other regions to do offsite work and can conduct business here via the Internet.
However, I recognize that a few community members want the airport closed down and the land restored to a natural condition, and they want to know the cost to close the airport. They point out that the airport built in 1959 took away valuable environmental lands. Some people want to know the specific benefit the airport provides to residents and businesses in South Lake Tahoe? To these requests, the consultant doing the study stated that master planning process did not cover the cost to answer these questions.
Although I am an airport supporter, a way must be found to answer the questions about the cost of airport closure, the impact of airport closure (good and bad), and the specific benefits South Lake Tahoe residents derive or can derive from it. In addition, I think the study needs to be examining how the airport master plan implementation can be coupled with needed environmental improvements in the community just as city government officials did a few years ago when the airport runways were rebuilt but narrowed and improvements were made to the Upper Truckee River adjacent to the runways to reduce sedimentation discharge into the Lake.
We need continued civic engagement on the airport master plan, involvement by supporters and critics, and answers to questions being posed by the public. I believe that we can find common ground between supporters and critics by the participation of all concerned parties and clear and concise answers to questions posed by the public.
Thank you for your assistance in regard to this matter.
David Jinkens, South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs liaison volunteer
A very fair and reasonable position.
If the rather expensive study does not cover a cost analysis of use and abandonment, what good is it?
The Airport Master Plan which the FAA is paying 90% of is for the development of a Master Plan and not for a study or a report to address community members’ questions on the benefits or detriments of the airport. That type of report would need to be commissioned by the City and the City would need to pay an independent, impartial, outside consultant for an unbiased report, or perhaps the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce could pay for such or they could arrange for the financing.
Either way it won’t be cheap but having such prepared by an independent, impartial, outside consultant would provide an accurate, unbiased report while ensuring the report’s integrity.
Well written commentary about the airport Mr. Jinkens. Thank you for your perspective.
I can still remember the sight and sound of Air California flights diving over Flag Pole Peak and right over the roof tops of our residences daily.
None of the surrounding home owners want that kind of nuisance again. It didn’t serve us as a community then and it wouldn’t in the future. It took away a peaceful enjoyment of our properties. It was also dangerous.
That being said, in recent years there have only been occasional nuisance fly-overs by CalStar and some private jets. I think this is something local residents have generally been tolerating.
But if the airport begins trying commercial flights again some of us aren’t going to sit quietly and let it destroy our rights and enjoyment of our properties.
Commercial flights will never put a dent in vehicle travel through Tahoe and only service the casinos.
The discussion of closing the airport is truly a moot point. The cost to reimburse the grant funding was said to be $25,000,000+
The prior use of the airport was a dairy pasture for cattle. Hardly an environmentally sound use.
The airport’s greater problem is mis-management, which over many years has taken it’s toll on the place. This planning process won’t address the root of the problem, and it won’t go away. We need a manager at the airport who will promote the place.
Doesn’t the airport property revert back to the original owner, per the grant deed? if it is not used for aviation use? Hmmmmmmm perhaps some more research is needed?
A fairly stated evaluation of the process by Mr. Jinkens. Any study should at least attempt to address varying sides of the issue.
Maybe that same study can count the number of folks who purchased adjacent property before the airport was built vs. after. That would at least lend some rationality to their self-absorbed “nuisance fly-over” complaints. In other words, you did notice that big long piece of striped concrete in the field over there, right?
Mr Jenkins, First. Didn’t you and the city counsel forget to get the surety bond for the hole years ago? Second. How much city, county, state, federal money (subsidies/grants/runway repairs/tower/etc) has been given to the airport since we purchased it from the county for $1? Do you think the city could sell it outright for the $25 million owned to FAA to a private party?
An independent, disinterested, unrelated third-party (or the FAA itself) needs to ascertain whether or not ownership and operation of the airport could be turned over to the FAA in lieu of payback of the $25 or $30 million or whatever is owed for past federal improvements and grants. Based on their historical behavior, the City and its representatives are simply not trustworthy or credible to the extent that they can be believed whenever they leap forward to answer this question.
It is safe to say that most of the homes in or near the airport traffic patterns were constructed after the airport was built. I have no, none, zip sympathy for people who now complain.
Hey Toxic….air ambulance “fly-overs” are a nuisance? In that case, so would be air tanker/firefighting endeavors, and I am so surprised you did not mention these events too.
What is wrong with you?
The FAA is not going to participate in a study for what it would cost to reclaim the airport. Why should they? They are engaged in maximizing the safety and appropriate planning and management of airports.
In most situations, properly located airports, well managed, have become the focus of business and industry, both aviation related and non aviation related, as Mr. Jinkins pointed out.
If anyone wishes to see good examples of this, they only have to go to Stead airport in Reno, or closer yet, the airport in Minden. There are hundreds more around the country that show similar results.
I believe that the City needs to avoid the tendency to see potential tenants at airport related sites as the solution to their economic issues, as has been the past practice.
It is a common misconception that people associated with aviation have unlimited funds and spend them without much thought. This is somehow ignoring the fact that if aviation associated people were like this, they would not have control of significant funds in the first place.
Definitely, the airport is an asset that has been badly managed, with unrealistic expectations and goals set for it.
Tahoe is not what it was in 1978.
Begin at the beginning, ignore the history of the airport, which is unlikely to repeat itself in Tahoe, work out a reasonable business model and the airport likely can be successful and profitable again. It can generate additional small businesses and additional employment.
Observer. People may or may not have built their homes after the “airport” was built. The point is that not one 737 has taken off or landed at the “airport” in like 20 years. Have you heard a 737 take off or land over the Tahoe Keys lately? How about 4 flights or 8 times a day?
Its hard to have a business model when the city uses most of the space at the airport. Hangers are also full of city stuff. I think private development would buy it if they could build time shares around the air strip. Win Win!
Buck, you have perhaps saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars with your profound comment.
The underlying issue is that the city doesn’t belong in the airport business. It didn’t belong in the ice arena business either, and it got out. Let private enterprise run the place. It’s done in Minden, successfully. It can be done here.
Mr.Jinkens, Thank you for your continued involvement with city affairs. Many city managers or elected city council people run away after or even BEFORE their term is up, i.e. City manager Tony O’Rourke, Mayor Claire Fortiere and many others. They just packed up and split!!! You’re still here and for that I give you a big thumbs up!
Yes, the airport is a viable asset to So. Lake Tahoe! Does it need work and improvement? Hell yes! But with community input and a long hard look at priorities and cost, we can make it happen.
Thanks for your letter to LTN and your continued interest in all things South Lake Tahoe.
By the power vested in me, you are hereby put on an exclusive list of dignitaries, roustabouts, rabble rouseres, and selected guests, to one of the campfire weenie roasts at the grand promenade on Knox street.
Your esteemed host and humble ambassador of Knox ave. , Old Long Skiis
Buck:
“Hangers are also full of city stuff.”
If there are sweetheart deals for hangar rentals at the airport because of an individual’s association with the City those agreements need to be changed so that everyone is paying fair market value to the City. And if hangar renters are sub-leasing those hangars at a tidy profit to themselves, their agreements also need to be changed so that renting must be directly from the City only. There’s a lot of money to be made from sub-leasing someone else’s assets and I can’t help but wonder if there are some people in our community who would use either of the above two scenarios to their advantage while cheating the taxpayers.
This City has a fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers to get the greatest amount possible for the use/rent/lease of all City assets and the same should apply to Lakeview Commons. The freebie use of that venue just so some members of the community can have free Thursday night concerts doesn’t seem right to me and it appears that the local mantra of some is “don’t charge if it’s something that I want–give it to me for free”. It’s just like wanting free parking in “valet parking space equivalents” right next to the beach or Lakeview Commons. This City needs to make money off their assets and the only fair way is to charge everyone the same fair market value amount that wants the use of a specific asset and show no favoritism. Nobody can afford to give it away anymore.
4-mer: thanks for the spell check.
4-mer,
We agree!! That first sentence in your 2nd Paragraph is exactly what I have been saying, as it’s something the City has failed to do!
And further shame on our City Govt. if something like that is going on with any Airport Facilities!
Parker, Tom Davis has a hangar at the airport but no plane. Wonder what kind of deal he has????
“Hangars” are where you park airplanes. Hangers are what most people have in their closets. Small detail, but small details are what are missing in government, IMHO.
Buck:
Not intended as spell check. Whether hangars or hangers it was your reference to “city stuff” that got my thought processes going. Thank you for provoking some brainpower–that doesn’t always come easy for me these days.
Says Mr. Redundant… sorry all.
Observer, It doesn’t surprise me that you and some others care only about revenue and the business model.
And having no, none, zip sympathy for residents around the airport portrays an example of purely profit driven mentality that we need to boot out of Tahoe.
Actually it doesn’t matter if you live directly in the proximity of the airport – often enough cowboy pilots take any direction they want over roof tops in any neighborhood they choose. And that’s right- we too built after the airport.
You may think aircraft have a right to buzz neighborhoods in the name of progress but I assure you it doesn’t out weigh citizens rights to enjoy the peaceful use of their properties.
What a tremendous waste of time and energy this airport has been over the many years of it’s existence.
What possibly could be a worthy enough business model to finally make this airport a viable asset for the community after decades of repetitive business venture flops ?
““Hangars” are where you park airplanes. Hangers are what most people have in their closets. Small detail, but small details are what are missing in government, IMHO.”
You seem myopic, perhaps you should start sending out resumes.
“The right to buzz neighborhoods…” That statement is absolutely absurd. Pilots are hardly “cowboys”. Most are highly trained and dedicated to safety. I have flown out of this airport since 1972 and I have never “buzzed” anyone. Of course there are exceptions. Just like there are exceptions to honest and tolerant citizens, most are not so selfish that they want every else excluded.
And, cosa, what is the deal? You can be so accurate in your comments but always seem to have to be vaguely offensive. I made a mistake, apologized for it and you respond with some bizarre comment about myopia. I just don’t understand. Is it because of the angry sky man? My days of needing a resume are long gone. Peace, man.
New management
New Ownership. Larry Ellison spent $10 million on his boat for the last America’s Cup. Hey Larry! How about $30 Million and the airport is yours for your private Lear Jet?!