Saturday, December 31, 2016

Letter: Clearing up Corvallis Municipal Airport misconceptions

Kirk Nevin, who wrote a recent letter to the editor, has some misconceptions about the Corvallis airport. Oregon State University athletic teams do not use the Corvallis airport. The runways are too short. Athletic teams fly into the Eugene airport and then take buses to Corvallis.

There is a fuel tax on aviation and jet fuel. Proceeds from this tax are to be spent only on aviation runways and taxiways. The money is not spent on airport parking, terminals, etc. The Federal Aviation Administration watches this closely. We get an allotment about every 10 years.


Mr. Nevin could attend the meetings of the airport's advisory board on the first Tuesday of every month at 7 a.m. We could quickly clear up misconceptions about the airport.


Source:   http://www.gazettetimes.com 


Letter: A modest proposal for our airport

I find it hard to believe that Corvallis is about to spend $6.4 million to improve the Corvallis Municipal Airport (this news is reported by James Day in the Dec. 1 NewsTrackers column).

Corvallis has an airport? Who uses this airport? Is it just the private jets that disturb our peaceful homes on Oregon State University home-game days?

The news is perplexing because we read about the city making an effort to reduce carbon dioxide pollution in an attempt to cut our contributions to the climate-change challenge. How is spending a small fortune to upgrade our airport going to help reduce the pollution generated by airplanes?

I'd suggest that, if the only users of the airport are OSU football fans, that those (rich) folks should pick up the bill for the upgrade. A user fee would be perfect: Borrow the money to make the changes, then charge every incoming flight a reasonable fee (maybe $10,000?) for the use of the airport. If you own a jet, you're not likely to balk at such a paltry fee.

I'd also like to see a carbon-footprint audit of the current airport, and an estimated carbon audit of the post-improvement facility. The city needs to get serious about reducing the carbon footprint of local activities. Maybe the airport would be a good place to begin that process?

Another thought: $6.4 million would build a nice shelter for our homeless population. Or put food on the tables of those kids who go to bed hungry. Is an improved airport really the best use of those taxpayer dollars?

Source:   http://www.gazettetimes.com

No comments: