Tayer: Ground the red herring and save our airport
What initially began as complaints about airport noise suddenly has become a pitched battle over saving one of Boulder’s most valuable transportation, public safety, scientific research and economic vitality resources … all in pursuit of a red herring.
A few years back, the city began updating the Boulder Municipal Airport master plan. During the public process phase, some residents shared the vision of an airport facility that ushered in the latest technology developments, including unleaded fuels and electric planes, along with other business and recreational flight services.
Other strong voices argued for curtailing airport operations due to the noise it created and perceived environmental impacts. Concerns about inappropriate airplane noise and pollution are legitimate issues to address in a master planning process, as we should always work to limit the negative impacts of municipal facility operations.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Soon, though, those isolated neighborhood voice grew louder and more aggressive, calling for closure of the airport — a nearly 100-year community resource and a $94 million annual economic asset. The change in tone corresponded with a new notion of seceding the airport land to affordable housing development. This new alignment of interests grew the posse of voices attacking the airport … thus leading to this fall’s ballot initiative that calls for closing the Boulder Municipal Airport.
Do you smell a rotten fish?
In approaching this fall ballot question, let’s start by asking ourselves why we would take such drastic action in pursuit of affordable workforce housing. The Boulder Chamber is proud of the near-term plans it helped secure for nearly 9,000 housing units in east Boulder, the Transit Village and CU South. Looking just a bit further down the road, the city has begun exploring the potential annexation of Area 3 property in North Boulder, which could accommodate up to 6,700 additional residences under strictly regulated price controls.
And what about the vaunted “affordability” of housing we could build on the airport land? Please do the rough math with me:
First, there is the claim we can secure the airport property in 18 years by suing the Federal Aviation Administration over their interpretation of federal law that gives them the right to permanent control of the airport land. As a benchmark for such claims, and with the city lawsuit already underway, let’s recall the $25 million unsuccessful legal fight with Xcel over municipalizing our electric system.
Then, during whatever period the city is forced to operate the Boulder Municipal Airport absent the usual federal grants the city has long received, we will be on the hook for ongoing operations and management costs for the airport that city staff estimate will run about $41 million. During a period when we face a much-restrained municipal budget due to flat tax revenue, what city programs and services would you cut to cover those airport maintenance costs? But wait, our prize for decommissioning the airport isn’t “free” land. We will be required to compensate the FAA, at fair market value, for any airport land we purchased with their funds. The City staff estimated that the price tag for this property is more than $100 million.
Oh, and there’s more. An airport that has been operating since 1928 probably didn’t comply with today’s environment standards. The airport property likely is a Pandora’s box of ecological challenges that the City of Boulder would be on the hook for remediating. The current staff estimate is a $7 million hit, while some question if the property will ever be suitable for housing.
But forget the acquisition costs, the biggest red herring of all is a recent finding that the City of Boulder will reap enormous compensation for the sale of its airport property — on the order of $400 million. Yet those in the development field believe that the land will be virtually worthless under affordable-housing restraints, let alone the roughly $3 million per acre site preparation cost of roads, sewers, and other infrastructure.
That’s rough math, as in, hard to swallow … like smelly fish, and certainly doesn’t add up to “affordable” housing. Even as Boulder Chamber begrudgingly supports the separate companion ballot measure mandating use of the airport land for “permanently affordable units” only if voters approve the airport closure measure, in an effort to garner some benefit from such a misadventure, it certainly doesn’t add up to “affordable” housing to Boulder taxpayers.
And what do we get in return for decommissioning the airport? We lose our airspace, which paradoxically means all of Boulder will then be subject to additional noisy overflights from Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport in Broomfield. We lose a critical public safety facility for launching disaster-response missions. It means we send valuable scientific research and businesses packing. And we will forgo our chance to be a center of sustainable aviation technology development.
Don’t buy the red herring of “affordable” housing. Decommissioning the Boulder Municipal Airport will be an expensive fool’s errand and will leave us with nothing but that dead fish smell. Vote “No” in November to Save the Boulder Municipal Airport!
John Tayer is president and CEO of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce. He can be reached at 303-442-1044, ext 110 or john.tayer@boulderchamber.com.
What initially began as complaints about airport noise suddenly has become a pitched battle over saving one of Boulder’s most valuable transportation, public safety, scientific research and economic vitality resources … all in pursuit of a red herring.
A few years back, the city began updating the Boulder Municipal Airport master plan. During the public process phase, some residents shared the vision of an airport facility that ushered in the latest technology developments, including unleaded fuels and electric planes, along with other business and recreational flight services.
Other strong voices argued for curtailing airport operations due to the noise it created and…
