— from Margaret M. Manning —
August 3, 2018 To the Commissioners of the Port of Orcas:
Please consider the following comments for the Port of Orcas Airport Master Plan:
I am a full-time resident of Orcas Island who has owned property here since 2000 and who has lived here for more than 10 years. My husband and I practice health care regulatory law.
We use the airport frequently, both for business and vacation connections on Kenmore Air. I use Kenmore Air to commute to medical appointments in Seattle, where I receive all my medical care. Our firm depends on UPS/Aeronautical Services and FedEx for business correspondence and for items purchased online.
To date, we have been fortunate enough not to have required medical air evacuation for ourselves, our family, or our guests, but we subscribe to both services available and consider them critically important to island residents.
I was aware of the initial meeting but was out of town for it. I sought information on the Port website and found nothing helpful, and certainly nothing to indicate that the Port might be considering radical changes in the airport and the neighborhoods affected by it. I was unavailable for the next two meetings but reviewed the alternatives when they finally became available. I have fundamental concerns about the public communications used by the Port in this process, and about most of the changes that are being proposed for your consideration.
I have extensive experience in federal regulation and in both defending and opposing actions supposedly mandated by law. My initial question in any such action is WHY is this action being proposed? I have heard several conflicting and unpersuasive claims in this respect: That the airport is not compliant with FAA standards, (“In its present configuration, Orcas Island Airport does not meet the safety standards required to service aircraft currently using the airport such as the Cessna 208B Caravan.”) and specifically that the taxiway and runway are too close together, presenting the prospect of two Caravan-type planes’ wingtips colliding and that Mount Baker Road presents a threat to vehicles (usually, a school bus full of innocent children) passing under landing planes.
My first thought was, how can our Port operate an airport that is noncompliant with federal mandates? Is our airport unsafe? Should I stop flying on Kenmore? And what has changed over the past ten years to suddenly put us all in terrible jeopardy? The answer seems to be nothing much. Orcas Island Airport OBVIOUSLY meets safety standards require to service aircraft like the Caravan. It is doing so this very day. Are we supposed to believe that Kenmore sends its planes into mortal danger daily? It appears to me that the airport has operated without an incident that could be put down to airport safety defects for decades. The service by Kenmore, San Juan Airlines and FedEx doesn’t seem to have changed markedly for as long as I’ve been here.
The reason everyone is speaking in terms of “noncompliance with safety standards” (which is, of course, a fairly easy “scare” sell to concerned citizens) is that the FAA generally requires compliance with ITS standards if the airport wants FAA grant money. We are all to assume that the availability of grant money (soon a possible $1 million a year) is non- negotiable, and that our island must change to insure an uninterrupted flow of said grant money. (We’ve seen this phenomenon all too often: bureaucrats see grant money and go chasing it without serious consideration of the strings attached. That’s why we have an almost $3 million Interstate style concrete bridge in Deer Harbor, replacing a simple wooden bridge that was sufficient in the opinion of the residents there and the first responders asked about it.)
The bottom line appears to be that our airport is safe as it is. We might have to shell out some money to maintain it in the future without FAA help, but that discussion apparently wasn’t even considered by the consultants because their marching orders were to provide plans that would allow the Port to provide the requisite FAA grant assurances. (How much would it cost? How much per taxed parcel? Are there waivers for grant assurances?)
Is there a safety issue? On the field, we have a handful of Caravan flights a day. (I was told that there are no data about commercial or general aviation use, now or over the past ten years, which I find incredible.) It seems that, on average, Kenmore air runs three flights in here on Caravans a day and FedEx, one or two (I only have ever seen an afternoon FedEx.) I’m told there are now two locals who own Caravan-class aircraft. We are supposed to believe that four or five planes might collide on taxi and takeoff. I find that proposition almost ludicrous. First, they land on a regular schedule, perhaps two a morning, one at midday, and two in the afternoon.
Three of the flights are operated by the SAME company, and surely they are aware of each other and of Fed Ex’s schedule. I think we have more risk from earthquake and liquefaction at the field during an operation than of two Caravans “swapping paint.” Yet we are presented as feasible options major realignment of the airport, including taking land of adjacent property owners and moving our iconic terminal. Once again, we seem more motivated by the opportunity to “get grant money” and build a shiny new facility that no one I have spoken to wants.
Is there a safety issue with Mount Baker Road? Has there ever been a reportable incident? Where is the report? Vehicles spend mere seconds in the runway zone. Pilots are trained to land carefully, and following the instruments will never crash into the roadway. Despite these facts, we are being told that we must move the major highway on the island, and divert it through a roundabout (!) and several turns to save ourselves? Sorry, but that makes no sense. Nor does having traffic pour into Enchanted Forest Road near the schools. Our County has a longstanding commitment to rural character, and to avoiding suburban or big city infrastructure. It is a conscious trade-off from technical perfection.
Do we need new facilities at the airport? Not to my knowledge. I have heard that Aeronautical would like a bigger facility. And perhaps FedEx wants an indoor facility. So build one in the existing parking lot and rearrange parking. The de-icing facility seems particularly odd. Who flies in that weather?? And how have they managed it in the past?
I thought I also saw an alternative proposal to shorten the runway to make the Mount Baker Road issue disappear. But that would seem to threaten the availability of Caravan traffic. A bit spiteful, that seems. We need Caravans. Caravans have flown here safely for decades.
Perhaps I misunderstand the law and the facts. It would be good to have the populace educated about them then. The recent meeting supposedly designed to do so was a disaster. I recommend that the Port call another meeting and have it in a building that accommodates 200-300 people, because that will be the number who have questions and comments. And have the meeting after regular working hours so the people with regular jobs can attend. Also, have someone with better public relations skills chair the meeting. Be prepared to hear every person out, and be prepared to provide hard data about utilization or explain why it does not exist.
Either way, you should hold the September meeting already scheduled in a very large facility. The fire hall room is insufficient. The Port conference room is certainly too small. Perhaps Orcas Center or Odd Fellows Hall would suffice.
And you should make all the public comments available on the Port website right away. This is the least that the consultants could do to assist public participation.
Thank you for listening.
P.S. Doesn’t the Port have responsibility for other forms of access such as boat? Why is the Port website focused solely on the airport?
Margaret Manning’s comments are right on. We were told at the meeting on July 26th that the Port has $750,000. In reserve so I do not understand why they want a million $ from the FAA ?
An excellent recap of the inconsistencies in the Port’s proposals.
After so many attempts at getting straightforward answers to very simple questions relating to why these so-called allegations of dangerous airport conditions are now being raised after 10-plus “empirical” years of incident-free history with no other factors having substantially changed, it is quite obvious that this effort by the Port can be reasonably and rationally reduced to a case of “chasing federal dollars” —despite the harm to be caused to the local community and to the island itself.
“Our County has a longstanding commitment to rural character, and to avoiding suburban or big city infrastructure. It is a conscious trade-off from technical perfection.”—People of all backgrounds, income levels, ages and job skills (sorry if I left anyone out but you get the point—in other words, any and everyone) can relate to and understand the author’s poignant point highlighted above in quotes.
Aside from the very specific harm the Port’s proposals will have on residents living in and around the airport and the highly disruptive and permanent alteration of a beautifully functioning Mt Baker Road, there is the very real piece by piece harm caused to the island by a “sterile” understanding of the term “improvement“ that not only fails to capture the meaning of bucolic, rustic, and rural, but seek to erase them. Why? Very typical reasons: lack of vision, too obssessed and bureaucratically focused on money even when the trade-off is far too harmful, etc. We see this every day on the mainland and occasionally on Orcas Island. There’s no mystery here—only another example of possible failure.
The “rural” qualities of Orcas Island attract the “any and everyone“ listed above. They are what make Orcas Island, Orcas Island. They are backed up by real and tangible physical attributes of the island. They are not emotional if not physical. But they can be erased if we sit back and do nothing.
Too many questions posed remain unanswered.
Too many obvious answers proffered by concerned citizens remain uncontested.
Folks, we have a problem here.
Chris- “Too many questions unanswered…” Have you gone to talk to Tony or the commissioners? Emailed them? Asked on the Port website as they have requested? Or are your questions unanswered here? They cannot possibly answer all the questions here. Most people that go in and talk to Tony come away feeling much better and with a greater understanding of the big picture and process. So many say they want to keep the airport “as is”, but that is not a viable option, unless someone would like to fund the upkeep and possibly pay back the FAA for previous grants. Right now you have a manager and commissioners that are extremely knowledgeable, fiscally responsible, and frugal. Something this community is often critical of not having. Yes, $750,000 in reserve is a good number but not nearly enough for a 5-year plan. How did they get to that number? From being fiscally responsible and trying to plan for the future. Want exact numbers? Ask Tony directly. He’s a number guy and takes a lot of care with tax payer money. He also understands how to work with the FAA. It would not be responsible (or honest) to take alternative #1 when previous “plans” have accepted monies with promise to work towards compliance. It seems to me that many of these demands upon the port are asking to tie their hands from any FAA support. There have been “waivers” as Tony said and it might be possible to get some in the future, but a waiver is usually temporary to give you time to comply.
Again, keeping everything “as is” because it seems just fine and safe is not responsible (fiscally or with honesty and integrity). If the FAA backs out and wants their monies repaid won’t the port be blamed for not doing their job?
We shouldn’t be in the dark about whether or not we would have to repay the FAA. It would be extremely rare and quite difficult to believe this situation is a matter of first impression.
In other words, this situation has occurred in other communities many times over the years. In most situations where one is dealing with the federal government there is laxity and understanding not often found at the State level; if a small community is unable to comply and was given time to do so temporarily, I find it very difficult to believe that the federal government would punish it instead of simply letting it go its own way.
And where is it written that this penalty would be applied?
Is it a code section under federal regulatory law whereunder the FAR’s are found?
Is it under Title 14 of the CFR’s? Is it under Part 139 or Part 121?
Is there an FAA Advisory Circular that you can refer us to?
Are we looking to be designated as a class II or class III airport?
Can you point us to the Part and Section under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations that addresses the topic of repayment of FAA funds by small community airports?
If said fear of possible repayment to the FAA is codified, there’s Regulatory Advisory Circular’s and specific Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR’s) under the Code of Federal Regulations to which we can look for guidance; there’s administrative case law and federal appellate review decisions that can show where exceptions exist and how the Regs are applied in cases similar to ours, and what the limits and/or exceptions are.
Or is all of this uninformed conjecture on the part of the Port?
The cost to the local community and to the island?
The “why” this is being insisted upon now?
Whether or not we have been passengers in a dangerous situation for the last many years?
Whether or not this is a matter of discretion at some level and the dangers modifiable by the degree of traffic that is allowed to happen via controlling the flows in and out of the airport?
What is the actual cost or the average cost of maintaining the airport in its present configuration?
All of these questions and more continue to go on addressed.
—and I’ve made many of them clear in my comments to the port via email and to its website, as I’m sure have many others.
Alternative 1, or perhaps a better drafted or configured Alternative 1, in the event these Alternatives are self-generated, would appear to be the best option when weighed against the costs and harm to be realized by the local community in and around the airport and by the island— should Alternatives 2-4 be adopted.
chris, email questions to orcasairport@rockisland.com
Many of your questions are way off where this is at.
If our questions are way off topic, it’s because we haven’t received information in a rational format. The “come in and talk to Tony” response hardly works for people with jobs and lives. It also fails to get any information out to the rest of the island, especially on the record.
Having worked with the federal government for 40 years, I can tell you that we need to know exactly what the big bad FAA actually requires, and what it will actually do, including what waivers or grandfathering provisions exist.
When I say equipment, I don’t mean IFR. I mean the landing lights.
Tony-
For purposes of clarity, all FAA rules and regulations are promulgated under Title 14 of the CFR. Understandably, it may not be “your” first reference, but it’s the legal foundation for everything they do and say and its the starting and ending point for legal analysis.
Thank you Peg Manning!
A well written overview of this port mess. You make good sense in your arguments. The port expansion does not make good sense and violates the character of our rural island and the desires of its residents.
I wish to thank the Port Commissioners and Port Manager for the excellent job they have done communicating about the options for the airport. With very little online search, I found a wealth of information that answers all of the questions that others seem to have trouble with.
It is a shame that some people need to make inflammatory statements when they obviously haven’t researched the issue. The Port is not trying to do anything extreme, but rather is faced with some management issues, is studying the matter, forming options, and giving all of us ample opportunity to learn and contribute. And implementation of a change, if any, is not immediate.
I suggest people calm down, read the material, attend a meeting, and inform your opinions.
Chris,
Your statement about 14 CFR is fundamentally incorrect. Rulemaking authority of the FAA springs from USC.
CFRs are “Rulemaking” undertaken by executive agencies. USC is written by lawmaking by the process familiar from High School Civics. The basis for the AIP program and for penalties is contained in USC. There are many USC citations that amalgamate into the AIP program. Transportation is 49 USC.
See first reference below for list of relevant current and historical code (some basis for AIP predates 49 USC and comes from laws not codified in 49 USC)
https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/
https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/
https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/overview/
To the Port of Orcas:
All of this back-and-forth has revealed where we might want to go from here; but first, the mission, followed by some “apparent” facts, followed by a possible redirect and modified course of action:
The Mission—
The orcas island airport exists to:
-safely serve the needs of its residents;
-do no irreparable harm to the island; and
-provide additional benefits that fit within the above parameters.
The facts (as we know them):
—The port of orcas petitioned and received federal dollars to build the airport to where it is today, which has reached its maximum usefulness for the island’s needs in keeping with the island’s rural character, essential defining qualities and in reaching its maximum sustainable ecological footprint;
—However, to maintain our same level of dependency on federal dollars to keep the airport at its current level and configuration, we’re told that we must now exceed the needs of the island, exceed its ecologically sustainable footprint, and damage its rural character and essential defining qualities;
The Redirect (a suggestion for where we might go from here):
Modify Alternative 1, as follows:
—No additional capital construction that significantly alters the airport’s current footprint;
—Maintain the current infrastructure so as to be legally compliant;
—Take a microscope and surgical knife to the budget to cut without losing essential services, Kenmore, FedEx, etc.
—Explore outside funding sources that do not come with strings attached as in requiring the airport to harm its host, the island.
—Employ time and energy in developing a climb down from our federal ladder of funding that does not trigger penalties all so that the Port does not exceed the island’s needs in maintaining a serviceable airport that does no further harm to the island’s ecology or character (assuming as fact that federal dollars will not be forthcoming if we do not do x,y & z);
—Explore self-financing options by developing a new budget that calls for additional sources of airport revenue, taxes and other benign sources of funding.
This is at least the start of a re-think and a reminder of how and where the airport fits in our “island” lives. The airport is a piece not the whole. It need do no harm to the body, that is, orcas island.
I think we can keep this fairly simple.
Most residents of Orcas Island know “rural.”
It’s an adjective defined by very tangible and real physical attributes of the island.
Simply drive around the island and see these attributes. Or better yet slip in and out of the inlets and shorline, or see it from the air.
This is clear to a majority of residents and shouldn’t serve as deflection or distraction.
You’ll witness this clarity and honed result in person at the next gathering to discuss the Port’s “alternatives,” if you attend.
Conclusion: I’m sure most people don’t have difficulty with the definition.
Given the above, the following is applicable:
Modify Alternative 1, as follows:
—No additional capital construction that significantly alters the airport’s current footprint;
—Maintain the current infrastructure so as to be legally compliant;
—Take a microscope and surgical knife to the budget to cut without losing essential services, Kenmore, FedEx, etc.
—Explore outside funding sources that do not come with strings attached as in requiring the airport to harm its host, the island.
—Employ time and energy in developing a climb down from our federal ladder of funding that does not trigger penalties all so that the Port does not exceed the island’s needs in maintaining a serviceable airport that does no further harm to the island’s ecology or character (assuming as fact that federal dollars will not be forthcoming if we do not do x,y & z);
—Explore self-financing options by developing a new budget that calls for additional sources of airport revenue, taxes and other benign sources of funding.
P.S.
I probably indulge and enjoy theory and philosophy more than most. I enjoy considering the dilemma that knowledge and understanding are relative, that language is representational and an imperfect transmitter of meaning.
But when “action” is called-for, “theory” may inform but must finally merge into an imperfect but open-to-improvement “practice”— that is, if we are to survive and sustain the ecological order that makes surviving possible—that’s science, not fuzzy.
But, alas, I don’t want a discussion on existentialim to deflect or distract from what has surfaced as a very specific set of criticisms and other options …if anyone has kept up with the many many OI comments on this topic, he/she would quickly realize that the many have coalesced quite clearly in understanding. A good form of practicing a “good” reality, if not perfection.
Therefore, the following expression is apropos:
“let not perfection be the enemy of the good.”
Did some research on runway length in Washington State and found lots of runway under 3000 feet, there is so many small airports all over the world, the famous Carribean Island Bart’s is 2133 feet, Saba is 1299 feet ! Started my 35 yr career as a flight attendant flying DC-3 in a lot of small airports !
So, the recent meetings seemed to me to go downhill pretty quickly with Tony more-or-less unable to control the crowd (so-to-speak). People speaking out of turn and under-the-table from all sides degraded the atmosphere immensely. I was saddened to be one of the 48 people on the speaker’s list sign-up sheet, (and patiently waiting to do so) only to not be able to give my comment and ask my questions. There was the mention of another public meeting before the commissioners made up their minds (although as per Tony’s comments they’re more-or-less already made up). I hope so on the former and I pry not on the latter. Further, I hope that everybody’s comments will be given equal weight. Whether it’s a numbers person doing the math, or an environmentalist worried about the local wetlands, or those concerned about quality of life issues such as increasing aircraft related noise, or growth… we all deserve to be heard equally.
IMO–
1. The meeting was poorly run so none of those who signed up had an opportunity to speak. To the extent that there was no opportunity for those who complied by signing up to speak, the meeting was legally defective. They need another meeting that is properly managed as the shouters were given control of the meeting; and
2. What many people are trying (but were not given the opportunity) to say is that too much money is spent on infrastructure that those here do not need or want, but must pay the price in lowered quality of life (and inverse condemnation from noise- look it up) for those expected to move to the island after those improvements are in place; and
3. The County Council’s consent to moving Mt. Baker Road will be required. If the Port hopes for the support of its neighbors and avoid legal entanglements in that endeavor, it should not turn its back on its own community seeking comfort in the illusion that more is better.
Great points all. I’m left wondering, however, given the argument thrust before us– why does everyone, why does anyone feel that we absolutely need to have the caravan class aircraft here? Yeah, I know… because you own one right (rhetorical question)? You can take your hummer back to the city for all I care. Arguments that support the character and rural appeal of the island seem out of place while arguing at the same time in support of the continuing use of a size of aircraft that is out of compliance with the design of the airport… which would mean that increasing the parameters of the airport to suit the size of the aircraft would in itself be supporting an action that is also out of compliance with the character of the island. Are we thinking correctly or are we simply falling into the false choices lay’d before us.. believing that there is only way forward? I’d rather hear twice the number of commercial flights in smaller (quieter) aircraft that conform to the size of the airport as it is now (that is within the scope of the original airport design that reflects the small-town, rural appeal of the island), than to see future major airport renovations that will change the scope of the airport and the island far beyond the parameters of it’s original conception… and simply because, as we all know now, because those in the past that we trusted to protect the common good have allowed “Mission Creep” to occur over time. Mission Creep = Slippery Slope. Nothing but Option 1 (NO EXPANSION) is acceptable to me.
It was stated at the meeting that we were due a runway resurfacing in a few years… if we have to have caravans then perhaps we could at that time possibly add a couple of feet to the existing sides (to the opposing outside areas) of each runway and also to the taxiway (if needed & possible)… instead of selling our souls to the Feds?
No one I know owns a Caravan class aircraft. The Airport Manager reported that there are two private ones on the island, but I doubt that they are driving the discussion. Caravans are the workhorse of Kenmore and FedEx. They have been flying in and out of here for 10 years without incident. There is nothing unsafe about the Caravans using the airport as it is.
I don’t believe I know anyone who owns one either, but yes, “The Airport Manager reported that there are two private ones (Caravans) on the island.” Though one might agree that there may really be no current safety issues regarding continued Caravans using the airport as is, and I hope you are correct, I’m just saying that in view of the fact that safely accommodating Caravan-class aircraft is one of the main arguments being promulgated by proponents of the current airport growth issue my contention is I’d rather do with smaller aircraft if need be… than a larger runway (if it comes down to this). I have a problem with any option except for the No Build option. I think that any alternative that creates big money with strings attached that leads to a cycle of future growth down the road is simply using the same mainland one-size-fits-all thinking that got us into this quandry in the first place… it’s dysfunctional thinking, and does not echo the common good in my opinion.
I appreciate that the Port is listening to us and making a few small concessions to hear us. However, I need to counter the idea the the Port is fiscally responsible and transparent. We need the financials to prove fiscal responsibility. I hope that the Port’s transparency issues are changing, at Public insistence – and I hope the public is committed to holding the Port accountable for a win-win situation for all.
I for one am uncomfortable with the idea of just going and talking to Tony in his office or on the phone; unless all is recorded and goes onto a Public- access archived database. Same goes with the Port commissioners – with nothing recorded or documented for the Public record. Call me suspicious, but it’s all too easy to say conflicting things to different people and then deny having ever said it. We’ve all seen the results of that tactic, too many times. This seems to be a divide-and-conquer strategy – intentional or not. We will continue to request even and consistent transparency, as is our right in a Publicly owned Port.
Thus far, there has been no effort by Port officials to seriously consider our ideas of potential solutions that could help us avoid expansion. As far as I know, there’s been no attempt on the Port’s part to convince the FAA that we need a nuanced and tailored approach to our particular situation – for geography/geology reasons alone; let alone all the others.
This process should be transparent. That it wasn’t until people understood in June (July for me) that expansion plans were part of the Port Master Plan and insisted in transparency – damages Public trust. How can this be rectified? Inclusivity – and not scoffing at our money-saving ideas or community desires to not wreck the place with some heavy-handed life-changing rigid idea of only one way to reach “compliance.”
As for fiscal responsibility: The last 2 projects, to my knowledge, are/ were over-budget. The “vegetation removal” project has not yet been mitigated. Mitigation would likely require fencing and close monitoring for several years to ensure success. Nor was it disclosed how much more $$$ it will cost (and who will pay) to install and maintain the proper mitigation, after destroying a forested wetland that now needs to be re-planted back into itself.
The drainage project on the east side of the runway also went over-budget. Without financials, it’s hard to know exactly how much. The Port has spent $250,000 with DOWL already. All this spending of federal monies with conditions, warrants scrutiny, and leads to more unanswered questions.
Now that people are paying attention and demanding that the Port be transparent with us and work with us, we the citizens also have the responsibility to be willing to show up, put in the time, and hold firm to effect what we want- not roll over and let happen again and again what we don’t want. This means being a proactive citizenry – but I for one am tired of the citizenry being blamed for what appear to be a series of coups where, after many people giving their time, energy, and their best, we get ignored and officials do what they want – at our expense.
I don’t contend that the Port manager and commissioners’ knowing how to work with the FAA is helpful, or enough, IF the only way explored is to go for the AIP grants and not even try to keep us as a B-1 airport and be open to more creative and collaborative solutions.
The FAA has been portrayed as some rigid, punitive, scary entity – and we are given all these reasons of why we have to expand in order to be in compliance. What if it’s not that black and white? The Public is finally demanding that the grey areas be considered, and more two-way dialogue and problem-solving happen that includes us for a change. To be told that this is not a democratic process, underestimates how strongly many of us feel about this place and how much protecting it means to us.
Cessna Caravans have been flying daily operations in and out of the airport for over 10 years. This couldn’t have happened if doing so violated federal law; the airport would have been shut down long ago and the carriers themselves would not have been complicit in facilitating such illegal behavior. Reason strongly questions whether a waiver (if any is alleged to exist or to have existed) to violate federal law and endanger the lives of passengers could remain valid 10+ years to explain the disconnect that our airport has been adequate for servicing B-2 equipment all these many years but now isn’t. Who uses the Caravan? FedEx, Island Air medical evac and Kenmore to name but just a few carriers. Gray areas? You bet!
Tony,
Yes, everything legal and federal gets their legs from the Constitution or the United States Code; but for practical purposes 14 CFR runs and governs the FAA via its regs on a day to day basis. USC and CFR are required to be consistent, that is, not in conflict…that’s the working assumption as both are federally sourced.
Did you obtain a legal opinion about the penalties of going it alone? If so, who is the Commission’s attorney? Where are these legal opinions coming from?
… and while we’re at it, could you please point us to where we may find the Port’s fiscal year budget going back five years as it pertains to the airport?
Re: Airport Improvement Grants—
“The FAA must be able to determine that the projects are justified based on civil aeronautical demand. The projects must also meet Federal environmental and procurement requirements.”
There’s no need! My sense is that a majority of residents do not want a significant increase in airport activity.
We do not want to provide what would promise to be “rich” capital improvement contracts to a few when such lucrative business opportunities will negatively impact the Island and its residents, and take us further down the road of diminishing the island’s core rural qualities.
Living within our means is a great way not to have to look for excuses to spend unneeded AIP grants, or other peoples money, which generally means a “bigger is better” mindset.
It’s mainland thinking that has come to be understood my most on Orcas as a gross failure of imagination and the very reasons why so many “peoples and communities” have been degraded.
We need to recognize this all too common mainland tendency and explicitly reject the thinking and assumptions behind it —as they’re in direct conflict with Orca’s rural qualities and our deliberately “simpler” ways of living where we exist much more in harmony with one another and on a decidedly much more human scale.
Orcas is what it is by design, by intention, and a dose of wisdom for good measure.
Know it! Understand it! —in order to defend it!
These AIP grants with strings attached are very much the wrong path for us—they are so very shortsighted—so very much a bad trade off, indeed.