It would be a gigantic tax windfall to subdivide a suburban airport, no?Very tempting for local governments - no matter what their constituents want.I think it's a lot like suburban/interface farms.They have to be part of a vision of land use planning, because the benefits aren't directly economic.It get's into a lot of touchy-feely ideas about what makes a livable city/region.If general expenses were lower I

Airports create a nuisance. If they didn't there wouldn't be any complaints from people living nearby.One of the effects of the nuisance is to depress land values adjacent to the airport. This imposes costs on other people. The airport doesn't pay these costs - expecting other to bear them on its behalf.Another effect is that the nuisance restricts the type of development near the airport which in turn reduces the amount of local tax that could be collected for the benefit of the community as whole.Democratically-elected local government can quite reasonably decide that the community as a whole would be better off without the airport when then gains to the large majority of the inhabitants by closing it outweigh the losses to the (very?) small minority of airport users. My point still remains that too few people actually use these airports to justify their continuing existence.

Airports create a nuisance. If they didn't there wouldn't be any complaints from people living nearby.One of the effects of the nuisance is to depress land values adjacent to the airport. This imposes costs on other people. The airport doesn't pay these costs - expecting other to bear them on its behalf.Another effect is that the nuisance restricts the type of development near the airport which in turn reduces the amount of local tax that could be collected for the benefit of the community as whole.Democratically-elected local government can quite reasonably decide that the community as a whole would be better off without the airport when then gains to the large majority of the inhabitants by closing it outweigh the losses to the (very?) small minority of airport users. My point still remains that too few people actually use these airports to justify their continuing existence.

Well I'll just give you more facts.The airports are there way before the developments. The developments come in, people willingly move in knowing an airport is there, and suddenly the airports are a nuisance?As far as usage-the closed Berz/Macomb airport I refererenced above which was forced out in my area had:" had about 68,200 take-offs & landings in 2001."That is a big number making it a very busy airport. Local police and hospital craft also flew out of there.Meigs field which I was lucky to fly to before the Mayor there illegally closed it was so busy that you needed a reservation in advanced in the air for parking. The one time I flew there I was lucky to get the last spot. Guess what happened after they closed it..http://www.friendsofmeigs.org/html/chicago...arket_share.htmThere are airports in the Los Angeles Basin that literally fight for their lives every year despite being busy....and yes they are very well used and were there long before the houses around them.Here is an example:Note-400-500 operations a day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Airport"Around 2005, City of Santa Monica Airport Commission voted a proposal to take away airport land to restore the safety perimeter around the runways that has been eroded by nearby residential development, to protect residences in the event of an aircraft accident." That is rather an oxymoron isn't it? Encourage developers to build right next to the airport, and then take the airport away to protect them!This scenerio is the most typical one for closing airports in the US. The wikipedia article does a very good job of describing it.As an aviator it strikes me as wrong that developers buy the land around an airport that has been there for years, build houses right next to it-people willingly move in, and then there is concern about a "safety perimeter", and noise, causing the local government to move in and try to close it. It has in most cases nothing to do with usage but all to do with valuable property for developers and increased tax revenue for the local governments.Luckily we have AOPA which spends a good part of their time fighting these closures. Unfortunately, the residents rarely understand the benefits to the economy, health, and safety that these airports provide.

Well I'll just give you more facts.The airports are there way before the developments. The developments come in, people willingly move in knowing an airport is there, and suddenly the airports are a nuisance?...As an aviator it strikes me as wrong that developers buy the land around an airport that has been there for years, build houses right next to it-people willingly move in, and then there is concern about a "safety perimeter", and noise, causing the local government to move in and try to close it

Yes, because times change. Santa Monica was opened in the 1920s and used by aircraft of that era with less noise and fewer movements and totally different safety requirements. According to the Wikipedia article you reference:Jet air traffic has increased substantially in recent years - 18,000 annually, from 1,000 in 1984I doubt any local inhabitants were asked if they objected before the movements were increased by 1800%

Unfortunately, the residents rarely understand the benefits to the economy, health, and safety that these airports provide.

But they understand only too well the disadvantages - they experience those daily.

Yes, because times change. Santa Monica was opened in the 1920s and used by aircraft of that era with less noise and fewer movements and totally different safety requirements. According to the Wikipedia article you reference:Jet air traffic has increased substantially in recent years - 18,000 annually, from 1,000 in 1984I doubt any local inhabitants were asked if they objected before the movements were increased by 1800%But they understand only too well the disadvantages - they experience those daily.

Well again-your point was that these airports close due to decreased innactivity and now you are saying they close due to increased activity?!Most airports were opened around the 1920's-that really has nothing to do with anything. Detroit Metro airport was opened in 1927, has been expanded numerous times, and is the world's 24rth busiest airport. I don't see anyone trying to shut it down for the same reasons, and yes-if you live next to it, it is like a continual earthquake in your house. Most people that chose to live there know that.As far as noise-sure no one wants that. People do seem to want to travel on airplanes though-as long as it isn't in their backyard. So who is at fault here-the airports that were there first-or the people who chose to live next to one-regardless of whether the traffic increased or decreased. I know personal responsibility is out now days-but they didn't have to move next to an airport! My dream is to live next to one when I retire!

The original discussion was about small airports and I agree now seems to have drifted into larger ones.You make the point that if people chose to buy next to an airport they shouldn't complain - the airport was there first.I make the point that if people chose to buy next to an airport with, say, 1000 jet movements a year they have every right to complain if that number increases by 1800% That wasn't what they bought into.Let's go back to the smaller airports such as Mt. Pleasant-Scottdale Airport that began this discussion. According to the link in the original post, it's likely to close because the family wants to sell it and no one wants to buy it. Only 14 aircraft are based there and it has an average of 75 movements a month. http://www.airnav.com/airport/P45 I suggest that there are no buyers because it isn't really financially viable at that level of activity, and that the family would do better by selling for other purposes. This seems to be borne out by another quote from that link:"Culmerville owner Fred Eiler said he opted to go private because the airport, which once had 35 planes, no longer met commercial requirements and declining use didn't generate enough revenue to warrant making the necessary changes."As I originally said - "use it or lose it" I'd also suggest that the the benefits to the economy, health, and safety from such airports are probably negligible.

The original discussion was about small airports and I agree now seems to have drifted into larger ones.You make the point that if people chose to buy next to an airport they shouldn't complain - the airport was there first.I make the point that if people chose to buy next to an airport with, say, 1000 jet movements a year they have every right to complain if that number increases by 1800% That wasn't what they bought into.Let's go back to the smaller airports such as Mt. Pleasant-Scottdale Airport that began this discussion. According to the link in the original post, it's likely to close because the family wants to sell it and no one wants to buy it. Only 14 aircraft are based there and it has an average of 75 movements a month. http://www.airnav.com/airport/P45 I suggest that there are no buyers because it isn't really financially viable at that level of activity, and that the family would do better by selling for other purposes. This seems to be borne out by another quote from that link:"Culmerville owner Fred Eiler said he opted to go private because the airport, which once had 35 planes, no longer met commercial requirements and declining use didn't generate enough revenue to warrant making the necessary changes."As I originally said - "use it or lose it" I'd also suggest that the the benefits to the economy, health, and safety from such airports are probably negligible.

I'd like to address your last sentence:"I'd also suggest that the the benefits to the economy, health, and safety from such airports are probably negligible."- along with the perception that small planes are noisy , annoying, and a safety hazard.Let's talk about health.I fly for an organization that provide free air transportation for patients with limited incomes needing treatment at medical centers. Besides the fact of low income-many of these patients are unable to fly commercially or be transported for long time periods due to health.I flew a patient who had a rare form of cancer, and needed to be on constant O2 a few months ago. To go to Rochester, Mn. required not only a 1 hour car trip to our major airport for this patient-but in addition to the now hours long check in/security process, a change of aircraft with a several hour layover in Chicago and a trip on a commuter. One problem though-the commuter airline doesn't allow O2 to be onboard. Catch 22-can't fly commercially! A drive there would be probably 14 hours-and when this patient has to go every couple weeks for chemo treatments we have a horrible problem.This person instead was transported to my "small" airport which was a 15 minute drive from their house-placed on my aircraft with the O2, and flown in a little over 2 hours to Rochester.I just happened to get the stats from this organization for this year only: 2010

It would have been helpful if you had adressed the earlier part of my post which dealt with the fact that Mt Pleasant-Scottdale and Culmerville airports both are/were financially unviable. Many other businesses have become financially unviable and ceased operating. That's the way of the world and there's nothing special about airports. You ask what will happen to the mechanic and his aids that provide the annuals for those 14 aircraft, the fuel provider, and airport maintenence people, and the local restaurants next to the airport. Unless the owners of those aircraft scrap them they will be maintained and fuelled elsewhere. As for the restaurants if people don't eat there they'll eat somewhere else. In both cases there would be no net loss. This applies to your other point about spending your money elsewhere than at Meigs. Chicago may have lost your money but Cleveland has gained. Your example of Berz-Macombe states that "For four years, Farmington Hills-based developer Grand Sakwa has had an option on the family's 330 acres, which are between 22 Mile & 23 Mile & Hayes & Romeo Plank. That means Grand Sakwa has the first option to buy the land. In exchange, Grand Sakwa pays a yearly fee & pays the airport's property taxes. The township assessed the land at about $9 million. The Berz family said Grand Sakwa offered more than that." How did Grand Sakwa get an option unless the owners gave them it? If Grand Sakwa offered the owners a good price why shouldn't they accept it?My point remains that if an airport becomes financially unviable for whatever reasons it will close. Unless you believe that it should be subsidised, either by its owners or by local government. There obviously could be a case for local government to support financially an air ambulance service, but that doesn't necessarily mean subsidising an airport and all its facilities. There are helicopter air ambulances in the UK which, of course, can land almost anywhere without the any need for airport facilities other than at their home bases.http://www.airambulanceassociation.co.uk/f...r_ambulance.php

It would have been helpful if you had adressed the earlier part of my post which dealt with the fact that Mt Pleasant-Scottdale and Culmerville airports both are/were financially unviable. Many other businesses have become financially unviable and ceased operating. That's the way of the world and there's nothing special about airports. You ask what will happen to the mechanic and his aids that provide the annuals for those 14 aircraft, the fuel provider, and airport maintenence people, and the local restaurants next to the airport. Unless the owners of those aircraft scrap them they will be maintained and fuelled elsewhere. As for the restaurants if people don't eat there they'll eat somewhere else. In both cases there would be no net loss. This applies to your other point about spending your money elsewhere than at Meigs. Chicago may have lost your money but Cleveland has gained. Your example of Berz-Macombe states that "For four years, Farmington Hills-based developer Grand Sakwa has had an option on the family's 330 acres, which are between 22 Mile & 23 Mile & Hayes & Romeo Plank. That means Grand Sakwa has the first option to buy the land. In exchange, Grand Sakwa pays a yearly fee & pays the airport's property taxes. The township assessed the land at about $9 million. The Berz family said Grand Sakwa offered more than that." How did Grand Sakwa get an option unless the owners gave them it? If Grand Sakwa offered the owners a good price why shouldn't they accept it?My point remains that if an airport becomes financially unviable for whatever reasons it will close. Unless you believe that it should be subsidised, either by its owners or by local government. There obviously could be a case for local government to support financially an air ambulance service, but that doesn't necessarily mean subsidising an airport and all its facilities. There are helicopter air ambulances in the UK which, of course, can land almost anywhere without the any need for airport facilities other than at their home bases.http://www.airambulanceassociation.co.uk/f...r_ambulance.php

I did address the financially unviable and explained why in fact airports become financially unviable. I think I detailed quite clearly what happens but will do it again .1) an airport exists2) developers develop the land around the airport3) the land prices go up4) the developers now desire the land the airport is on5) the city also decides they want the future tax revenues on a future developed airport land6) people start complaining about noise and safety even though they decided to buy a house next to the airport.The developers and city officials welcome this7) the city takes this as an exuse to squeeze the airport owner, and sites noise and safety issues8) the developer finally gives an offer that can't be refused by the airport owner9) the airport owner reluctantly sellsIt does not have to do with the number of aircraft that use the airport which was at least earlier your contention.As for everyone just going elsewhere for work-just doesn't work that way-especially in today's environment.My point about air ambulance service was less about the service itself and more in reference to the thought that closing a small airport doesn't really effect anyone-it does.

Thank you for what I feel is the obvious Geofa!The scenario is not unique to airports, but this is one of my number one pieves.Shopping centers, Chemical /Petrolium plants, and many other industries suffer this injustice IMHO.Developers quickly jump on the band wagon, then residents complain because of what was there first. At least one industry identity for whom I worked many years past bridges that gap and bought up all the real estate that was arround it, but that sure sounds like an unfair soultion to me.Sounds like the opposition to me are those that jumped on the band wagon thinking they had stuck a fat pig and now want to kill it. (No flame intended or trolling intended, just my opinion).Respectfully:RTHe\

More often it is a case that development erupts around the airport which may have once been in a rural area. Once that happens-people complain about the noise from the airport (duh-they built next to it), and the land values go way up-making it more financially profitable to sell the airport for its land. Often the original airport owner dies, and its family sells it off at that point. We have had two in my area go that way in the past 10 years.

The link in the orginal post dealt with two airports: Mt Pleasant-Scottdale Airport and Culmerville. The owner of the former is reported to have died and his family cannot find a buyer to continue to operate it. The owner of the latter explicitly said the airport no longer met commercial requirements and declining use didn't generate enough revenue. In neither case is there any suggestion of developer involvement. Culmerville closed because of insufficient demand and I suspect the underlying reason a buyer can't be found for Mt Pleasant-Scottdale is the same. That justified my comment "use them or lose them". Other businesses close because of lack of demand - airports are no different.On the wider subject, I'll make two points: First, People subject to a nuisance are entitled do everything they can to alleviate it, providing they stay within the law. It is naive to think otherwise.Second, if as a result of the 9 steps the additional benefits to the city from increased tax revenue etc outweigh the losses to to the city from the closure of the airport etc then closure is justified. A city has to consider the interests of all its citizens, not just special interest groups.

It's eastern PA, but I just found out that Kutztown (N31) is closed... bummer, used to ride by there as a kid and was hoping to fly in soon. Looks like they're building a mall.

It's eastern PA, but I just found out that Kutztown (N31) is closed... bummer, used to ride by there as a kid and was hoping to fly in soon. Looks like they're building a mall.

Closing an Airport to build a Mall - Tragic.........

Closing an Airport to build a Mall - Tragic.........

Why? If selling an airport to develop a mall gives the best return to the owners why not? Are you really suggesting that the owners should subsidise their users by keeping the airport open?