— from Joseph Murphy —
Thirty six! That’s the number of comments appended to the recent reprint in Orcas Issues of the article by Matthew Gilbert “Port of Orcas to Expand But Where and How?” No doubt a record number. It is a good question and so all but one of the commenters took exception to the poorly laid plans of the Port.
Expand the runways? No way. Take out boat slips at Brandt’s Landing? Nope. Imminent domain requisition of private property? Fahgettaboudit! Bigger airplanes, more traffic, more noise, reroute Mt Baker Road? None of the above was the overwhelming voice of those commenting on this mad affair.
At a certain point you have to throw your body on the cogs of the machinery that keep grinding away at personal sovereignty, the right to a peaceful existence, a sense of communal solidarity and say, “Basta!” No more, this is quite enough and no we won’t take no for an answer.
As Mr. Phalan put it well, “A line has been crossed.” If Mary Hatten was still around I am sure the old girl would be apoplectic at this massive disturbance of the peace so we must carry the fight in her name as well as our own.
No Build! Period. Less debarquements, fewer flights, less hegemony.
In thirty years of watching the airport there have been maybe two accidents and zero fatalities.
One, caused by deer on the runway, resulted in a regular extermination routine, Then the fencing, then the tree cutting, then the subterfuge of process, then the arrogance of claiming these are ‘safety issues that account for continued encroachment on the major population center for the island.
Some old timers might remember the bumper sticker, “We don’t give a s**t how you do it on the mainland.” Nice sentiment, if a bit naive for, unfortunately, mainland values have long conquered our shores by way of the banks and Bezos, the Internet, and our endless devices. However, in regard to these values some choice is possible. With the abdication to community responsibility, hegemony in the face of overwhelming opposition and the degradation of anything like democracy our choices are far fewer,
Whether you line up with donkeys or elephants, left or right, libertarian or your garden variety anarcho syndicalists most of us would prefer the Garbo like politics of being left alone to live our lives according to our best intentions. Our best intentions in the face of capitalist predation are where the rubber meets the road.
Yet the right of refusal is still ours regardless of outcome. Leave the ‘opiated candy” of Federal money on the table, No militarization of the airport.
I say it again; Option One – No Build!
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Well said. Sign the petition going around and let’s give a message to the Port Commissioners at the July 26th meeting at the Fire Station @ 3:30
No to expansion ! Go fly a kite !
Good points, Joe.
As I was reading your comments my gut took center stage and ended up controlling.
My partner and I use Kenmore Air regularly. We fly into Rosario during good weather and leave from
Eastsound airport on the very Cessna Caravan that is supposed to be problematic given the airport’s existing infrastructure.
In fact, we flew out of Eastsound within the last 10 days. Never a problem. I’m grateful for the airport; it certainly makes getting on and off the island convenient; it adds another level of experience as well. Like having a small boat to get in and around cays, nearby islands and inlets, experiencing the islands from the air has the power to make dreamers out of men (and women).
Still, that being said, when flying out of Eastsound we always sense the same fear just below the excitement: will this lead to the end of Orcas’ rural character down the road?
As it stands now, the service provided in and out of Eastsound airport would seem to be at the limit of that necessary to retain the island’s small town rural character.
What could be next? Larger planes? Small or mid-size jets? That’s the concern.
As New Yorkers we come off the assembly line a bit cynical and jaded. We also think being direct (even forward) is an admirable trait. After all, what’s there to hide if it’s all good. Of course, privacy has its benefits, too, but not if its purpose is to deceive in the name of greed.
So, I have to be direct and ask the all-too-obvious question?
What are the real reasons for the renovations?
Is it merely to accommodate existing use? That’s it? Really?
Or is it a disguised attempt to turn the island into a Nantucket-like destination for small lear jets and all the excess that comes with its “theme park” lifestyle?
I hope I’m not being too direct but that would be my real concern above all else.
There have been some recent large scale investments on the Island; movement is afoot. Is this simply part of some larger conversion to what many would consider a regression in Orcas’s rural character?
My gut says the airport works just fine as is.
The airport works just fine, and has done for the ten years we’ve been using it to take Caravans. I’d love to hear Kenmore’s position on the proposal.
To the wonderful, lyrical writing of Joseph Murphy, I can only add what many others of different political stripes and leanings are saying. The airport works just fine. Please leave it as is.
Or, more colloquially, “If it ain’t broken, don’t try to fix it.”
Well said, Joe – every word! Agree that your writing is lyrical – and spot-on. Supposedly, the Port Commissioners will make this decision – I want to know for sure who makes the decision because it should not be made FOR us when we so clearly oppose expansion.
The argument is “safety.” Here are a few counter-arguments:
1) the “obstruction”(tree) removal project in Eastsound Swale has made conditions for pilots MORE dangerous, since those pesky birds and waterfowl moved into the standing-water canal that they are not allowed to fill in, as far as I know. Tree removal does NOT a non-wetland make!**
2) living at Lavender Hollow on the Enchanted Road (North) side, we get the brunt of takeoff noise, are losing our hearing from it, and regularly wonder if a low-flying plane taking off is going to crash into our roofs one day – there have been many close-calls where a plane barely clears our roofs; at times it is harrowing for us. Many times, the noise is so deafening that you cannot speak or hear until the plane has passed. How will extending the runway south make it any safer for us, or the pilots? Won’t the opposite be true? I’m sure the residents on the North end of the airort can say the same, when the winds are out of the north.
*Incidentally, the “mitigation” plan for that “obstruction” removal was never done – so why should the Port or its manager be allowed by the County or the FAA to proceed with yet more plans to destroy Eastound Swale? Erika Shook ok’d that permit – someone who doesn’t live here, has not understood anything about our island or its tiny land mass in our UGA.
The “mitigation” plan to the north was proposed on land that was not even a wetland (you cannot make a wetland from a non-wetland; the soil hydrology has to be there.)
The only way the UGA can grow now is East-west. BUT the airport, being on land only a mile wide between Fishing Bay and President’s Channel – should not be allowed to expand because the land will not bear it and it is contrary and incompatible with surrounding land uses and dense housing projects to the south and west.
I’m just speaking to a few of the local “safety” issues today; the greater issues of concern are the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems(NPIAS) and its “Airport Improvement Program” (AIP) – and the implications of taking their money for this expansion.
I hope we will be able to speak at the meeting on the 26th, ask our questions, get answers, say our concerns – and not just have this be Tony and the commissioners telling us what they want to do – we’ve heard and read it enough, that the Port will present ITS “preferred plan” in September – it darn well better be the PEOPLE’s preferred plan as well.
“Safety” issues don’t fly when, so far, the Port’s actions in Eastsound Swale have done the opposite. YOUR tax dollars will be paying for that very expensive “mitigation” because the Public knew nothing about the tree removal project or its implications and unwanted consequences – now and down the line.
The Public is supposed to own the Port. If we don’t want expansion, we better be sure we “elect” commissioners who represent the Public interest and don’t run unopposed anymore. And from now on, we need a representative of our Public interests at every Port meeting.
Don’t go back to sleep, people. Please. Big changes are afoot and we need to be awake and investigating, demanding transparency and much more public outreach so we don’t get blindsided anymore “after the fact.”
The ridiculousness of the “Mt. Baker Road re-route through Eastsound Swale and its traffic/environmental nightmares, and “closure” of a small Port-owned section of Mt. Baker Road on Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – see close-up Map Figure 9 – takes out the rest of the trees to the East of the walking trail, on private property. Look it up. The “roundabout” on Lovers Lane cutting through the Swale on alternative 2 is laughable. On Alternative 3 & 4, Mt. Baker Rd runs south-north to Orion Lane, which would force our SAFE dead-end street between Lavender Hollow and the Christian School to become a through-road to A-Street (something Rick Hughes has assured us won’t happen) for Mt. Baker Rd traffic – endangering Lavender Hollow’s and Christian School’s children, residents, and pets, and the walkers and bikers who use the trails.
Can we be absolutely SURE that the County holds sway over the Port in not allowing this road closure and re-route if the money is there? We need to be absolutely sure – not just by words but by statutes.
If we don’t want increased amazon and fed ex planes, we can buy local or make it ourselves, or buy online from a ‘mom and pop’ business… just sayin.’ How do these businesses get to an island without airports? By boat. Perhaps that land use can be considered in the Brandt’s Landing expansion, already funded and awaiting approval.
If the Orcas airstrip was funded by FAA loans over the years, as I believe is the case, the Port of Orcas is facing a truly draconian situation wholly unrelated to what anyone wants. In my experience, if the FAA has loaned or granted money to an airport, and then raises the standards to which the airport operator objects, the FAA can call the loans and perhaps even the grants as immediately repayable. In such cases, this Rubicon was crossed when the first federal (FAA) loan was made. It’s in the fine print or regulations, but it’s there.
Sometimes the price of freedom is to say “no” to what looks like a good deal. In the long run, everything has a cost. In this case, I don’t think the port commission has the choice to do nothing.
Bill, good points. If it is as you say, exercising discretion still remains the FAA’s prerogative. Also, there are usually public policy grounds that may allow legal end runs around such a predicament. Further, it may help to dig behind this initiative for any invisible, non-governmental hands of influence. This, too, may cause a re-think by the FAA. It’s important that the groundswell against the proposals be loud and clear and that it formally asks that its input to be respected. Finally, it helps to learn how to ask like a Bach fugue.
Sadie–
I’m not aware of Amazon planes, and Fed Ex has a pretty well-organized system, one flight a day (plus trucks coming on the ferry). We depend on FedEx for some of our work.
Peg
Agreed. Important points, Peg.
“They paved Paradise, put up a parking lot.” – Joni Mitchell
@Chris Graham – excellent points, and I’m sure that some of these can, and will, be presented to the FAA for their reasonable consideration.
@Peg Manning, I didn’t mean to make it sound, by my bad wording, that Amazon had its own planes. Thanks for pointing that out.
I’ve read up on the proposals.
No substantial change means no substantial impact. We can live much happier as island residents without the proposed expansions.
Honestly, the costs to the community, the destruction of remaining Eastsound wetlands, a creeping sprawl each inch of which is hostile to human habitation—none of this makes any sense. Again, who is this for? Surely, not the current residents of Orcas. And, surely, not a future projection of “need” that relies on erroneous assumptions right out of the box.
Let the need arise first. It won’t. The future is one with less human-based employment. Current projections nationally are, generally, very poorly informed. Further, the overall “decreasing”
need for an increase in this type of infrastructure build-out, the island’s limited physical size, its zoning laws, and its lack of mainland-level resources make it a very poor magnet for job seekers and those looking for career advancement. Let’s not “create” a need that doesn’t and won’t exist and goes against the defining rural qualities of Orcas Island. That’s the textbook definition of poor planning or shooting oneself in the foot.
Coupled with a reality that the next twenty years will see a rapid acceleration in automation and AI replacement of human labor, this proposed increase in size and functionality of the airport is actually quite gross in its excess.
Intelligent progress today is defined by doing more with less. It’s not simply a “carbon” footprint issue (though this is the greatest threat before us realistically), improving technology challenges the very notion that “bigger is better!” On so many tangible levels, “bigger IS NOT better.”
Again, there is no “need” for the expansion(s) proposed. I ask again: Who is this for?
The island can make do with its existing airport— “maintained” as necessary without substantial changes that would redefine its “limited purpose and the role” it plays in our lives.
We can proactively take and make decisions to shape the island’s future, one that conforms both in terms of our future “realistic” needs and our “explicit” well-defined desire for a quality and type of living not found on the mainland.
This expansion may be a “want” of a few people but it is in direct conflict with common sense and the very reasons that define Orcas’ rural character. There is little to zero “need” for the expansions as proposed.
Legal and non-legal actions can be taken to prevent the expansions and their impact on the island and the community immediately effected.
We can and should say No!
Are Sadie and I the only ones talking about the noise?! Wake up, folks! It’s the elephant in the room! Planes are only supposed to take off over Eastsound if the south wind is over 5 knots. Maybe I and others would be a little more receptive if that were enforced.