HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.b. Airport DiscussionTHOUGHTS ON THE AIRPORT ISSUE
JUNE 2, 1988
As one follows the consultants' reports and minutes of the Met
Airport Adequacy Study, it would be naive to conclude that a new
airport is improbable. The overriding force that initiated the
airport study in the first place is economics (not sound abatement).
Airport adequacy is an indispensable requirement for regional economic
stability and growth. While the recent Olympic bid decision may have
been impacted by many factors, there is no doubt that Atlanta's
reputation as an -international city with a "real" international
airport served their cause. For Rosemount to come off as unconcerned
about the potential inadequacy of our air traffic facilities would be
truly parochial and frankly irresponsible.
The charge at hand is to insure that the quality of life in
Rosemount (however that might be defined) is not negatively impacted
by future airport siting! It is my contention that to reach the goal
of minimizing the negative impact of a possible airport siting in our
community, we need to continue to approach this issue with credibility
and vision rather than emotion and reaction.
While the public press statements by Senator Waldorf and Mayor
Fraser tend to focus public perception on the siting part of the
process, I still believe that the process is being honored by those
who may be charged with setting up any future site selection criteria
and study. After talking with Mayor Fraser, it seems to me that this
statement was based on his concern for the economic health of the
region and his political reaction to the South Metro Airport Action
Council who have been lobbying for sound abatement. Sound abatement,
however_, was not and is not the driving force behind future airport
needs; economics is. What
t the south Minneapolis sound abatement
forces did assure is that MET will not want to repeat the problems of
the current airport, thereby placing even greater emphasis on the site
search and evaluation process. It is our responsibility as a credible
participant of this siting phase of the process to assure that the
siting criteria selected will protect the quality of life of citizens
at whatever sites are chosen for evaluation. I would expect the
siting scenario to go something like this. Met Council staff,
consultants and other representatives with a vested self-interest,
would come up with an inventory matrix whereby each potential site is
evaluated by let's say a dozen criteria. Three or four general sites
would surface. At this point economic, environmental and perhaps
political issues would begin to surface. If we are to remain
effective during this part of the process (when it really counts), we
must stay credible. It would be more effective to spend our time and,
if we deem necessary, our funds to look at quality of life issues
during the site criteria and evaluation process rather than mobilize
citizens to support a reactive and emotional "not in my backyard"
position now. If and when we want to hire a consultant to assure that
the site evaluation process is fully credible, scientific and
environmentally sound, the siting phase of the process is the
appropriate time.
One of the assumptions I am basing my position on is that the
process is being honored by those who are implementing it. I can only
refer to the documented statements of members of MAC and MET on
various occasions.
2
Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director of MAC, reiterated on
WCCO TV that "the siting topic at this time is premature; and when and
if it does start, it will take several years."
In a May 20th newspaper article Finney repeated, "It has not been
determined that a new airport is necessary, neither is any site
selection process under way."
May 18th, Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director of MAC, said, "The
airport's emission staff does not regard Rosemount as the ideal
solution that some observers portray it; we don't think it's
appropriate; we'd find ourselves in noise litigation there within a
few months of opening."
Steve Keefe, Chairman of MET - "The Council and MSP Adequacy Task
Force is committed to an open and forthright study. I can assure you
there is no hidden agenda. It is too early in the study to determine
the merits or demerits of the Richter-Serrin plan."
MET and MAC, charged with assuring the future security of air
travel in our region, are not going to abdicate their responsibility
nor abandon their process because of the emotional reactions of South
Minneapolis, Highland Park and Rosemount, nor because of the political
grandstanding of politicians.
The credibility of MET Council can be measured against the
criteria of a fair public hearing. When we are trying to make a
decision about siting, rezoning or new infrastructure, our decisions
are supposed to be based on inferences derived from evidence and facts
presented. Evidence taken in testimony are to be applied to the
regulations or ordinances (i.e. siting criteria) we are working with.
9
We are not to base our decision on neighborhood opposition or emotion,
rather the facts that are behind that opposition. If the only
argument behind our opposition is "not in my backyard", MET and MAC
will not be moved by a "no airport in Rosemount" resolution at this
time. Most importantly, such a resolution would not only preclude our
credible involvement in the site evaluation and selection process, but
would also undermine our involvement with the University of
Minnesota's long range planning and management process.
We will be formally recommending to Interim President Sauer and
the Board of Regents that a formal process be set up whereby someone
on staff would work directly with the University as it revises its
long range plan, and we update our own comprehensive guide plan. We
are trying to convince the University that is in both of our self
interests to dream together and to develop the University lands to its
full potential. We may find that success in this endeavor may help
resolve other U of M land use problems including a potential airport
siting.
I reiterate, the decision-making process is going to be
influenced by vision and credibility; let's not allow emotion and
reaction to get in the way.
By:
Rollan Hoke, Mayor
4