During the past few weeks, two airplane crashes at homes near the airport reminded us that the Danbury Municipal Airport is a safety threat. One person died, and a house occupied by 91-year-old Jennie Valerie was clipped by a plane. According to this newspaper, the area around the airport has suffered six fatal crashes since 1983. That's not good.
Noise is another issue: Airport neighbors have been complaining about it for years. When the airport was built, there weren't many homes in the area and there weren't many flights. Now the neighborhood is densely populated and noise from planes, jets, and helicopters degrades the quality of life, day after day, for thousands of people.
So Danbury's airport, like any airport, comes with some high costs. What's the benefit?
Danbury's leaders claim it's good for the local economy, but they haven't produced the data to prove it.
Recently, Mayor Boughton convened a task force to study how the city-owned airport might generate more money. That's a great question. After costs are deducted from total airport revenues of $528,000, the facility contributes about $40,000 annually to the city. That's not a lot of money to compensate for all the risk and vexation this airport causes.
And in the context of a city budget of $260 million a year, $40,000 is an insignificant contribution. If Danbury's airport were a business, it might have been out of business long ago.
The financial picture looks worse when you consider that nearly 40 percent of the airport's revenues came from lease payments by just two restaurants, Olive Garden and Red Lobster. They pay about $200,000 every year to lease a tiny fraction of the airport's land.
The payments from those two restaurants alone amount to five times more than the net revenues of the entire airport. Look at it another way: without the money it gets from businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with aviation, the airport would be deep in the red.
The obvious conclusion: The real problem with the airport... is that it's an airport.
The airport property -- 200 acres in a prime location across from the Danbury mall and at the intersection of two highways -- might be a lot more valuable if put to other uses.
If just two restaurants can contribute five times more than the airport as a whole, how about 10 restaurants? Imagine a movie theater, athletic fields, stores, housing, medical facilities, a park?
Instead of being a public nuisance, the property might become a valuable asset.
I don't pretend to have the specific answers. But is the city bothering to talk to people who might be able to contribute good ideas -- such as developers who might put this land to better use? Why not think about alternatives to keeping an outdated, dangerous, and essentially unprofitable airport alive? Why not consider such questions?
The problem with Mayor Boughton's airport task force is that it isn't charged with asking the right questions.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking about how to generate more money from airport operations. There's plenty wrong with not thinking about alternatives -- such as closing the airport and putting all that valuable real estate to some better use.
Maybe it's time to shut this airport down. For sure, the time has come to consider that possibility.
Strat Sherman
Danbury
Noise is another issue: Airport neighbors have been complaining about it for years. When the airport was built, there weren't many homes in the area and there weren't many flights. Now the neighborhood is densely populated and noise from planes, jets, and helicopters degrades the quality of life, day after day, for thousands of people.
So Danbury's airport, like any airport, comes with some high costs. What's the benefit?
Danbury's leaders claim it's good for the local economy, but they haven't produced the data to prove it.
Recently, Mayor Boughton convened a task force to study how the city-owned airport might generate more money. That's a great question. After costs are deducted from total airport revenues of $528,000, the facility contributes about $40,000 annually to the city. That's not a lot of money to compensate for all the risk and vexation this airport causes.
And in the context of a city budget of $260 million a year, $40,000 is an insignificant contribution. If Danbury's airport were a business, it might have been out of business long ago.
The financial picture looks worse when you consider that nearly 40 percent of the airport's revenues came from lease payments by just two restaurants, Olive Garden and Red Lobster. They pay about $200,000 every year to lease a tiny fraction of the airport's land.
The payments from those two restaurants alone amount to five times more than the net revenues of the entire airport. Look at it another way: without the money it gets from businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with aviation, the airport would be deep in the red.
The obvious conclusion: The real problem with the airport... is that it's an airport.
The airport property -- 200 acres in a prime location across from the Danbury mall and at the intersection of two highways -- might be a lot more valuable if put to other uses.
If just two restaurants can contribute five times more than the airport as a whole, how about 10 restaurants? Imagine a movie theater, athletic fields, stores, housing, medical facilities, a park?
Instead of being a public nuisance, the property might become a valuable asset.
I don't pretend to have the specific answers. But is the city bothering to talk to people who might be able to contribute good ideas -- such as developers who might put this land to better use? Why not think about alternatives to keeping an outdated, dangerous, and essentially unprofitable airport alive? Why not consider such questions?
The problem with Mayor Boughton's airport task force is that it isn't charged with asking the right questions.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking about how to generate more money from airport operations. There's plenty wrong with not thinking about alternatives -- such as closing the airport and putting all that valuable real estate to some better use.
Maybe it's time to shut this airport down. For sure, the time has come to consider that possibility.
Strat Sherman
Danbury
No comments:
Post a Comment