Chris Gordon

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 5:44 p.m.

You dont have to read between the lines on the FAA or MDOT web sites to determine what kinds of projects are eligible for AIP funding; runway improvements are on the top of the list of eligible projects. Construction or renovation of hangars and installation of fuel facilities are examples of revenue-generating projects that are not usually eligible for AIP funding. Projects related to operation of the airport would be a better choice of words to describe items such as airport vehicles (except snow plows and fire trucks), mowing equipment, and administration buildings that are also not usually eligible for AIP funding. Runway improvements are clearly not considered related to airport operations or revenue-generating in the context of AIP grant eligibility. Capacity and safety are both relevant criteria for establishing eligibility of the ARB runway expansion proposal for AIP funding. The length of the current primary runway does not meet FAA and MDOT design standards based on the types of aircraft and number of operations documented at ARB in the user survey. This imposes range and payload penalties for some of the aircraft that choose to use ARB on a regular basis, and these penalties are more severe for jet aircraft and charter operators that must comply with balanced field length requirements and operational specifications that reduce the effective length of the runway to only 60% of the current 3500 feet for some these aircraft. The proximity of State Rd, the restricted line of sight from the control tower, and the number of runway overrun incidents are all valid safety issues that would also be addressed by the proposed runway expansion. I am familiar with arguments on both sides of the issue, but airplanes in the grass beyond the end of the runway are not fiction, and at least one of these ended up on the wrong side of State Rd. On a lighter note, as somebody who is very accustomed to dealing with federal agencies and the associated bureaucracy, I can fully understand the elation displayed by the airport manager in his comments to the FAA representative cited above. Mr. Kulhanek should not be impugned for conveying his appreciation when an employee of this public agency was responsive to a customer request.

Chris Gordon

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 5:36 p.m.

A2doc, the link you provided above points to the response from the special interest group to MDOT, not the Pittsfield Township response. But I understand how you could be confused; both responses prepared by the California law firm are nearly identical.

a2doc

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 11:04 a.m.

Thanks Chris for taking the time to read through the FAA Airport Improvement Plan FAQ and pasting some of it into this thread. Interestingly, you chose not to paste the following phrase that may be helpful... "Projects related to airport operations and revenue-generating improvements are typically not eligible for funding." As you can see from the your pasted text the overall intention appears to promote "safety, noise abatement, security and environmental concerns" - not necessarily capacity, especially if the primary goal is "revenue generating improvements." Now, obviously I am not trying to help you argue this point, but if the primary goal of the expansion was to improve on (as it turns out)fictitious safety concerns - this is a clear misuse of federal money. Indeed, if the goal was primarily to increase the capacity of the airport, as a "revenue generating improvement" this should never have got the money either. At this point I am reminded of the emails (obtained by FOI) from Matt Kulhanek (Airport Manager ARB) to Cheri Walter (Airspace Program Manager of the FAA). On the day she began her review she received the following from Matt:... "Wow! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your timely response to our review. I was happy to just hear that you were moving it to the top of the pile. For you to be that responsive to our local concerns reflects someone with a good heart who truly wants to serve her customers. I can honesty say that I have never received such a high level of service from the FAA. I would be honored to share that with your supervisor if you want to provide me with the contact information. Again, thank you so much. I hope that at some point in the near future, this action assists us in providing a longer and safer runway for the aviation community. Have a great day!" (Kulhanek, 2008) Matt knew the guidance regarding the AIP funding, that is why the focus was on safety (not "revenue generating improvement"). And that would be great, apart from the fact that the safety concerns were fictitious and non-existent. See page 16 of the response from Pittsfield to MDOT for details: http://a2runway.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/comments-on-er-part-one-cpcq4.pdf

Chris Gordon

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 10:31 p.m.

The federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides grants to public agencies for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS identifies more than 3,400 existing and proposed airports that are significant to national air transportation, including Ann Arbor Municipal Airport (ARB). According to http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview/ projects eligible for AIP grants include those improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. In general, sponsors can use AIP funds on most airfield capital improvements or repairs and in some specific situations, for terminals, hangars, and nonaviation development. The proposed ARB capital improvement project will enhance both safety and capacity, and is clearly eligible for AIP funding under both criteria.

Chris Gordon

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 10:17 p.m.

The total economic impact from an airport is the sum of direct impacts due to provision of aviation services at the airport (maintenance and fuel for the airplanes), indirect impacts due to people and businesses who use the airport (pilot buying a burger or renting a hotel room), and induced impacts as the direct and indirect expenditures circulate through the economic region (restaurant and hotel employ and serve other people). The Ann Arbor Municipal Airport (ARB) enterprise fund derives income primarily from activities on the airport related to aircraft operations (hangar rentals, fuel flowage fees) and the total number of operations at ARB has decreased from 102,321 in 2001 to 57,004 in 2009 according to FAA data, which is indicative of a general decline in US aviation activity since 2001. However, from reviewing the City of Ann Arbor Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports at http://www.a2gov.org/government/financeadminservices/accounting/Pages/Home.aspx for fiscal years 2002 through 2009, there is only 1 year out of 8 where the airport enterprise fund received a transfer from the general fund. In FY09 the airport fund received $127,000 from the general fund, but this was apparently due to an IRS ruling that changed the accounting practices for pension benefits resulting in a significant one-time charge. I have not been able to find any more details about this specific situation, but the fact remains that according to city financial records the airport only received a general fund subsidy once in the last 8 years, and this was due to a change in accounting rules.

A2Realilty

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 7:41 p.m.

Chris Gordon - If the economic impact of the plane operator that you described is such a windfall, then why is the airport unable to support itself financially, and must, instead draw funds from the City of Ann Arbor's tax base to stay alive? This scenario has occurred a majority of the years within the last decade.

a2doc

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 2:48 p.m.

In response to the above few posts Jets land at Ann Arbor Airport, Jets will continue to land at Ann Arbor Airport. In the opinion of Williams Aviation Consultants (the Aeronautical Consultancy Company asked to review the flawed Envirnmental Assessment) an runway expansion to 4300ft would operationally benefit the Category CI Lear jet 35, but would provide no operational benefit to the Category BII Small Citation Jet, or any other Category BII Small Aircraft... If the runway is lengthened to 4300ft, other jets such as the Lear 25 (Cat C-I), Cessna Citation III (Category CII) and Cessna Citation Sovereigh (Cat CII) may be able to operate out of ARB with minor reductions in takeoff weight. This will impact the community as it could reasonably be expected that the longer runway will attract more of the larger, higher performance jet aircraft to the airport. This, I suggest, has been the whole reason this loss-making, small, airport has tried to secure federal, state and Ann Arbor City Council money all along. The Lions share of this money is Federal and the only way they could secure money from the FAA was with Safety improvement or noise reduction. I see they never pursued the noise reduction route (that would hardly support the goal of increasing larger jet traffic!). Hence, the fictitious claims of aircraft over-runs which on closer analysis are self-reported and due to pilot error. Here are the links to the response to the Environmental assessment containing the information from Williams Aviation. It is on page 6 of part two. http://a2runway.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/comments-on-er-part-one-cpcq4.pdf http://a2runway.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/comments-on-er-part-two-cpcq1.pdf http://a2runway.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/comments-on-er-part-three-cpcq1.pdf

Mark Caswell

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 1:47 p.m.

Mr. Scott Johnson: As a pilot, could you please clarify your comment, "Currently you can only use A2 airport for rotor wing and all but the smallest, lightly loaded air ambulance flights." Do you have a source to reference, or is this just common knowledge? In this a standard for BII class airports? How is this enforced when the control tower is closed? I am not a pilot, but rotor wing to me would NOT include jets. Is this correct? If so, you are invited over to my house as I am in the flight path of ARB airport. Jets do and have landed at ARB. Occasionally we get a large jet (light blue/white) that clearly should be going another 6.5 nautical miles to Willow Run. My concern is that a longer runway will only attract larger aircraft to an airport that lacks the infrastructure and safety equipment required, thus negating any safety gains. Read my post for further details and supportive references. My best friend is a Delta Captain on the A320. Thanks Mark Caswell

Chris Gordon

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 7 a.m.

My point about understanding the value of the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport (ARB) is reinforced by the shortsighted perception that a C-152 flying touch and goes brings close to ZERO economic value to the community. The airplane likely belongs to a flying club or fixed base operator, which pays business taxes based on products and services delivered on the airport. The airplane is likely housed in a city-owned hangar, and the monthly rental charge provides income to the airport enterprise fund. The flight instructor is an employee of the flight school, making all or part of his/her livelihood from activities on the airport. The mechanic that works on the airplane is also an employee of a local business. Every gallon of fuel pumped into the airplane is taxed by the airport, providing revenue to the airport enterprise fund and state and federal funds that support airport improvements. By extension the fuel is supplied and distributed by a business based in Pittsfield Township that employs hundreds of people. Yes, hundreds. Maybe the C-152 pilot grabbed a burger or a coffee on his way to/from the airport at another business in Pittsfield Township. And 10 touch and goes may be a fraction of the total annual operations, but they help justify the existence and staffing of the air traffic control tower and the training role this facility provides for new FAA controllers. Would these FAA employees live in the Ann Arbor area if not for the airport? All this economic activity from a C-152 (small single engine airplane!) Just imagine the direct and indirect economic impact from a business or corporate airplane. A 1992 MDOT Economic Benefit Study estimated ARB to have an impact on its service area of $32.9 million annually in total economic activity. Clearly this study should be updated to provide a current assessment, but the study serves to illustrate the benefits of the airport extend well beyond the direct users.

Polska

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 7:27 p.m.

Puhleeeezzzz!!! Enough of this nonsense: "The community at large should recognize the value of this facility and the potential contributions a runway expansion will make to the future economic development of the region, while improving the safety of airport operations." If you read the FAQs you will realize that 4 Charter outfits have already gone out of business at ARB. The last left for Willow Run. You can dump hundreds of millions into ARB it can not, will not be able to offer what Willow Run can. 24/7 FAA tower. 24/7 crash and rescue. Precision instrument approaches and plenty of long runways. Best of all it is not in the midst of a densely populated area and as such is not a safety risk. So spare us this worthless spin. A C-152 flying touch and goes brings close to ZERO economic value to the community. It is that simple. Besides, the 'reasoning' behind this fiasco was "safety", remember?

Chris Gordon

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 10:22 a.m.

The map discussion is an interesting distraction, but after searching the US Geological Survey web site at http://store.usgs.gov it appears the 1983 Saline and Ypsilanti West maps are the most recent official USGS topographic maps of the area, which seems to be a reasonable explanation for why these were used in Section 2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The more relevant point to be made about maps is that Sections 3 and 4 of the EA use numerous recent overhead photos and diagrams that clearly depict the medium density residential development adjacent to the airport to illustrate specific discussions of compatible land use, noise contours and water resources. The EA is clearly not trying to depict the surrounding area as rural when addressing the potential impacts of the proposed expansion. Perhaps we should thank the conspiracy theorists for raising this issue because reviewing the 1983 map clearly shows the extent of development and evolution of related commerce around the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport over the years, while the runway configuration has remained static since well before this map was published. The community at large should recognize the value of this facility and the potential contributions a runway expansion will make to the future economic development of the region, while improving the safety of airport operations.

packman

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.

The altitude of an aircraft arriving over one of the houses on Lohr Rd Stonebridge while flying a 3 degree approach is now 143 feet. The runway offset that is proposed will decrease that altitude by only 49 feet to 94 feet. Correspondingly, the residents who live at the other end of the runway will be "safer" if you buy into the doomsday scenarios that are being created. But then I repeat myself. Most pilots I know usually stay out of these emotional appeals and arguments simply regarding them for what they are. But if you were to ask any pilot, military, commercial, or private, if a longer runway is better, safer, and will allow more decision time...I personally would like them wider...the answer should always be yes. Mr. Johnson's comments are right on the mark and generally reflect the attitudes and experience of people who know aviation best.

Scott Johnson

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 6:31 a.m.

I have been kicking this around for some time and I cant find a good reason not to do this expansion. If you want to keep airplanes out of your yards, it makes good sense to have more runway to get back to. It also makes sense that you would be higher over State st. on takeoff with the longer runway, which in a word is good. I am a Captain for a major airline, I have flown freight, air ambulance and on demand charters as well as still currently flying light aircraft. I also work as an aircraft mechanic and inspector on my days off from the airline. One thing that has not been considered in all of this is U of M hospital. A longer runway may mean a few more turboprop business class airplanes use the airport. Many of those same airplanes do not have fat cat business execs on board but patients. Currently you can only use A2 airport for rotor wing and all but the smallest, lightly loaded air ambulance flights. While Willow Run is indeed nearby it is not as close and the fact is that with transplants, infants on the way to one of the premier neo natal ICU units in the country or whatever the need may be, minutes matter. Willow may only be ten minutes extra transport time but there are many cases where that is ten minutes too long. Sol (I think that is the name) commented that he owned a 402 Cessna. Nice airplane (well out of my budget), the question I have is would you rather operate that airplane out of 3500 feet or 4300? I think you are a 747 Captain; would you rather take off from Willow Run or DTW? Both will handle 747s depending on weight and other considerations. As far as overruns, crashes etc., there is a good safety record at A2 Airport but that does not mean that we cant do better. I did not get into a car accident last week but I still wear my seat belt. We replaced my wifes Camry because it did not have side airbags. No accident but it is just safer to have them and hopefully we will never need them. The same can be said of the runway, it just makes the operations safer. If you are worried about the height over the houses, why arent you working on creating a displaced threshold? This would allow for a portion of the runway to be used for takeoff and not for landing. This extension of the runway is a way for Ann Arbor to increase the utilization of its airport, improving the infrastructure and to do it for a paltry sum. The claims of no increased safety margin and no need are just plain false. There is an old saying that one of the most useless things in aviation is the runway behind you. I think we may have to change that to the runway that was never built.

Al

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 9:19 a.m.

A2Doc. "If he then goes on to explain that acceptance of the federal money condemns Ann Arbor City council to supporting this loss-making enterprise for the next 20 years, I would, perhaps have more respect. And please, don't bother reminding me that the airport has already accepted federal grants and loans thereby already committing us to future operations. It might be the right time to stop this wasteful folly." I was waiting for them come back with the "federal money" canned answer. I hear there are other professions where they give you the first dose for "free"...just to get you hooked. What troubles me is the obvious fact that decisions about our community's safety are at the hands of armatures and special interest groups. This should end. The AA Council should get "second opinion" prior to approval in the future so not to fall into the same embarrassing trap.

a2doc

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.

Thanks Mr Vielmetti for the info pinpointing the maps. The question is:- Why would an Environmental assessment, performed by JJR civil engineering, paid for by The Tax Payers of Ann Arbor use a 28 year old map to illustrate the area around the airport? a. it was the only one they had to hand b. they are keen collectors of antique maps c. they were trying to mislead FAA / MDOT / City of AA into thinking the airport is in a pure rural environment Answers on a postcard please to Michigan Department of Transportation. This is unbelievable. What did Ann Arbor tax payers get for their investment?? @Packman makes the same tired point... yes, the funding is mostly federal - but if the means by which that funding is obtained is inaccurate, tainted, flawed - what then?? Indeed why should we waste a mixture of federal, state AND Ann Arbor money on this project when it is based on false safety concerns and will (in the opinion of the respected global aviation consulting firm, Williams Aviation Consultants) inevitably lead to increased use of the airport by larger, fully loaded and fueled jets? If he then goes on to explain that acceptance of the federal money condemns Ann Arbor City council to supporting this loss-making enterprise for the next 20 years, I would, perhaps have more respect. And please, don't bother reminding me that the airport has already accepted federal grants and loans thereby already committing us to future operations. It might be the right time to stop this wasteful folly.

John Q

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 4 p.m.

"Funding for the project is 95% Fed, 2.5% State and 2.5% local. The local money spent on the project might pay one firefighter for maybe 6 months." Only if it's General Fund money. If it's paid for funds for the airport, the comments about paying for police and firefighters is nothing more than a red herring.

packman

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 3:37 p.m.

@Blueyes "The Ann Arbor City Council was poised to approve funding..." We don't NEED airport expansion, we do NEED police and firefighters. It's not rocket science, put the $ where they're NEEDED! Funding for the project is 95% Fed, 2.5% State and 2.5% local. The local money spent on the project might pay one firefighter for maybe 6 months.

Al

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 2:23 p.m.

The map they used to show the "rural" setting is at least 30 years old. The "standard" they used for the air quality is about 15 years old and irrelevant for this area. Is this just negligence, incompetence, ignorance or was it intentional? Make you wonder...

JustTheFactsPlz

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.

A2Doc. Excellent summery! This : "As for those emails from Matt Kulhanek (Airport Manager) to Cheri Walter (Airspace Program Manager of the FAA) puuurleease! Absolutely nauseating." Appears to be their Modus Oprandi. Have you seen where delivered the notice to Pittsfield more or less in the last moment, thus not allowing Pittsfield any time to respond? The thought that our safety is in the hands of such slick and incompetent operators is absolutely appalling!

a2doc

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 1:36 p.m.

not sure why the post with the link to the site with response to the Environmental Assessment (read: Expansion Support Document) was removed. I think this has everything to do with this topic. I followed the link and read through the response and was astonished... The quote Pittsfield Citizens would be subject to a perfect storm of potential risks from low-flying aircraft in heavily populated neighborhoods that are also occupied by wildlife, including many Canada geese, during much of the year. is remarkably precise. As for those emails from Matt Kulhanek (Airport Manager) to Cheri Walter (Airspace Program Manager of the FAA) puuurleease! Absolutely nauseating. To summarize.. 1. The safety arguament is fictitious and was used to secure federal funding for expansion. Any runway extension will not improve safety as there is no current safety issue. 2.The airport used innacurate and unrepresentative data to justify runway expansion. 3.All B II small aircraft are currently capable of operating on the existing 3,505 ft runway without weight restriction. 4.Any extension to the runway will not change the operation of B II classification aircraft, but will allow larger aircraft (jets in the C I and C-II categories) to land and operate out of the airport with full weight and fuel. 5.The growth inducing impact of runway expansion is ignored by the EA. Jets in the CI and CII categories will be able to use the airport fully loaded and fueled. It is ignorant and nave to think that expansion will not encourage them to use ARB. 6.The Environmental Assessment (EA) used an old map to falsely show the area as rural when in actual fact more than 2,000 homes now exist in the immediate area. 7.The EA failed to address the environmental clean air impact. 8.The impact on ground water was incorrect and flawed. 9.Noise modelling failed to include increased jet aircraft and subsequant nightime operations. 10.Hazardous wildlife close to the airport has been ignored, and no plans made for mitigating measures in the multiple water habitats in the local area. 11.Political jurisdictions were ignored by the Ann Arbor City councils EA. Any accident or inverse condemnation class action would be taken against Ann Arbor City Council, which would be unable to afford any judgement served. Pittsfield victims would be left without effective remedy at law. 12.There has been prolonged and sequential procedural injustice in the pursuit of this proposed expansion. How much did Ann Arbor tax payers pay JJR for this "Environmental Assessment"? Do they think this was money well spent? I can only hope that they can get the money back. I know some firefighters, police officers and teachers who sure could do with that money right now...

InsideTheHall

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 1:04 p.m.

Mr. Gordon you remind me of the Harry Chapin song verse: "I going flyyyyyyyyyyyyying so high....when I'm stoned."

S. Castell

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:12 p.m.

Mr. Gordon. "The light twins and experimental aircraft that are vilified by Castell " Reality check. I like airplanes. I am a pilot as well. I owned a C-402 (Twin). I know what I am talking about. I am trying to find the common sense balance around here. My common sense and professional knowledge tells me that expanding an airport in the middle of densely populated area, is not a smart move. Remember, we have had SEVEN crashes around here when the area was much less populated. Not even one of these crashes had anything to do with runway length.

Mark Caswell

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:12 p.m.

Follow the money. The reason there is a push to expand the runway another 800 feet is to allow for current and future larger aircraft with heavier loads of fuel, thus expanding their range of service and revenue. Although the current proponents of expanding the runway say it will make the airport safer, this is mostly about allowing bigger aircraft to take off with more fuel over heavily populated areas near Lohr and Ellsworth roads, thus negating any "safety" claims. If the runway needs to be moved 150 feet from State street, then add 150 feet on the other end, not 800. The Facts: The control tower is only operated from 8AM to 8PM. Thus, it cannot and does not control the types or size of aircraft that use the airport during off hours. This is left to the discretion of the pilot. According to their own environmental assessment report, ARB's FAA control tower opens at 8:00 a.m. and closes 8:00 p.m. During nontowered hours there is no official FAA record of any overrun other than what pilots learn while talking with other pilots. Translation: when the control tower is open, there are no (zero) overruns. This sounds like a darned good safety record. When the tower is closed the other 12 hours out of the day, we don't control what happens. This is not comforting. For the record, I live in Stonebridge and bought our home knowing the airport was next door. I like planes and enjoy seeing small planes use the airport, and the occasional Goodyear blimp during UM football games. However, large jets that should not be using the airport currently do so during non-working hours to avoid detection. Willow Run is only 10 minutes away, and is designed to handle large planes. Making the ARB runway longer will only invite more and larger aircraft. Pilot to co-pilot: "Longer runway? Why not land here? The control tower is closed." From the ARB airport's own environmental assessment report, the following statement says it all: "OPS 6: Will there be additional airplanes operating from ARB as a result of adding the 800? While the airport reference classification (BII) will not change because of the runway improvement, it is unknown if additional planes will actually operate at ARB as a result of the 800." http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/fleetandfacility/Airport/Documents/publicservices_fleetandfacility_Airport_Documents_EAP_FAQs_2009_04_10.pdf Remember, follow the money. Their own Environment Assessment Study states how the "Willow Run Airport is an excellent nearby facility" and "encourages" large airplanes to use that facility. It also states that the ARB airport "does not have the infrastructure to accommodate large planes." This statement is meaningless because large planes ALREADY use the ARB airport. And they admit that the runway overruns occur only when the control tower is closed. In contrast, Willow Run airport offers five runways, 24-hour FAA Tower and U.S. Customs operations, and occupies 2,600 acres. The follow statement from their own report demonstrates how the airport is not equipped to handle large planes, yet it happens more often then they would like to admit. "OPS 15: Does the City have any plans to attract air traffic from Willow Run Airport? No. The City of Ann Arbor has not nor will it ever have plans of attracting any air traffic from Willow Run Airport. Willow Run Airport offers many advantages to larger aircraft that ARB cannot offer such as: customs, deicing services, long runways and precision ILS approaches. The City of Ann Arbor understands and agrees Willow Run Airport is an excellent nearby facility and encourages large airplanes to use that facility. The City has determined Willow Run possesses the ideal runway lengths and airport environment better suited for its many large plane users. ARB does not have the infrastructure to accommodate large planes already served by Willow Run Airport and has no plans to create this infrastructure." Lastly, is there a business need? According to their own Environment Assessment Study the number of flight operations has decreased by more than 50% over the past 9 years. OPS 11: "Operations at Ann Arbor have been as high as 134,554 (1999) and as low as 64,910 (2008), all utilizing the existing 3,500 runway." In closing, everyone is for more safety. Who could argue with that? But this is more about money than safety. When there is an excellent nearby facility only 10 minutes away, does it make sense to expand the ARB airport when traffic is down over 50%? Perhaps these dollars could be better spent fixing our roads and bridges, or paying for teachers and ancillary staff who are being cut from our schools despite relatively high taxation rates.

John Q

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:53 a.m.

"I don't live near the airport, but anyone who is claiming that a homeowner in the region needs to just shut up and take it because there was already an airport present when their home was built is being an idiot." I never said people should "shut up". They can protest as long and as loud as they want. I questioned why anyone would want to live in close proximity of an airport. I also questioned why people didn't consider the possibility of an airport expansion when they moved into the flight path for the runways of the airport. Was there some ironclad declaration that the airport would never expand? And why did the Township stupidly allow residential development be built in those areas?

Polska

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.

Thick Candy (Or brain). I hate to inform you that Stonebridge and many other communities are here to stay. Since Ann Arbor does not own the land outside the airport fence, it can not dictate the development outside the airport fence. Yet Ann Arbor can not place people lives at risk just because they failed to do their due diligence in regards to this project. The citizens have taken care of proper due diligence.

Polska

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:42 a.m.

Mr. Gordon. What do you fly?

Thick Candy Shell

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.

Anyone who claims the Ann Arbor was not "supposed" to expand obviously did zero research. The expansion plans for the run way and an additional paved run way have been around since the early 70's, long before there was a Stonebridge Subdivision. Get over it and realize, it is only a matter of time. Right now it is a low priority for the FAA. When the FAA decides it is a priority, it will be done.

Polska

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:32 a.m.

What difference does it make who / how much was paid? The only thing that matters is that the AA Council reached a decision based on less than professional, faulty and extremely biased information. Citizens from Ann Arbor and Pittsfield got together and paid for real professionals to help the AA Council reach the logical outcome in this fiasco: There is no need and no purpose for this project. What should we learn from this? You can not rely on a single source of unprofessional single minded biased group to provide you with objective and reliable facts. Lets fix it and move on.

Blue Eyes

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:22 a.m.

"The Ann Arbor City Council was poised to approve funding..." We don't NEED airport expansion, we do NEED police and firefighters. It's not rocket science, put the $ where they're NEEDED!

Chris Gordon

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.

Concerning the $25,000 legal expenditure by Pittsfield Township, can somebody point me to a public record that shows deposit of $12,500 by the Committee for Preserving Community Quality into a township account? Perhaps Mr. Aisner and AnnArbor.com could look into this further for the interest of all readers?

Chris Gordon

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.

I am a licensed pilot (neither fat nor corporate) but I have no business interest at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, nor is there currently a business there named Gordon Aviation. I do support the preferred expansion alternative identified in the environmental assessment because I believe the development of the airport has not kept pace with the development of the business climate in the surrounding area over the years, thereby limiting the viability and utility of the public-use facility. The expansion will also provide increased safety for operations at the airport as described in the EA. The majority of land use in the vicinity of the airport is consistent with the types and number of operations conducted at the airport, and the residential developments along Lohr Road were conceived, built, sold and occupied with full knowledge and acceptance of these operations. The light twins and experimental aircraft that are vilified by Castell above already fly over these homes at perfectly legal and appropriate altitudes per the cited FARs. Jet aircraft already operate at the airport within constraints of the current runway, but suffer range and payload penalties as a result. These "large" turbojet airplanes are certified to higher standards than light planes, they must demonstrate redundancy of systems and adequate climb performance with engine failures, and they are operated by professional pilots with type specific initial and recurrent training. As a result these corporate aircraft have a safety record nearly identical to commercial airlines, and therefore the modest number of operations you could reasonably expect at Ann Arbor with an extended runway brings no statistically significant additional risk of accidents. The challenge of this proposal is to reconcile the concerns of citizens that chose to live near the airport with the interests of airport users and the broader community that derives economic benefit from an appropriately sized facility that encourages commerce. This is challenging because there seems to be little willingness to compromise on the part of the opposing special interest group that advocates status quo at any cost. At a time when state and local governments are focused on ways to encourage economic development in Michigan, this is a myopic stance.

kathe

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 10:47 a.m.

Anyone who would like to read a respected national aviation consultant firm's conclusions about the very flawed and erroneous draft Environmental Assessment can do so at www.stopa2runwayextension.com. Click on the Facts page. The Washtenaw Water Resources Commissioner response faulting the Asssessment is also available here.

S. Castell

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.

Packman. "People need to know that the average person would not ever notice a 49 foot difference. " Excellent illustration of the total disregard to resident's safety! You do understand the difference between what the FAA regards as safe: 1000' And whatever number you like to use... Now if you pay more attention to the URS diagram you will also notice that for ALL AIRCRAFT URS used, the GROUND ROLL, is FAR less than the EXISTING RUNWAY LENGTH. Hence, no "NEED" and no "PURPOSE". One other point, URS did not present an aircraft getting airborne at the end of the extended runway... That will be an extremely interesting sight. Last point. Your assertion that pilots fly a steeper approach and thus will not be as close to homes, may be true when it comes to single engine aircraft and actually reaffirms the fact that the existing runway is plenty long for such traffic. It is however absolutely not the case with more complex aircraft. They fly a much "flatter" approach and I am willing to bet even below the the future 3 deg. future glide slope. Just ask your buddy at AvFuel... And that is with both engines running and no emergencies. Have a nice day.

a2scio

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.

I agree - buy a house by an airport and know that it might expand. FYI - McGill & Wunderlich are a married couple

a2doc

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:36 a.m.

It sounds like Chris Gordon, and his fellow fat cat corporate aviators feel like they may not get their own way. Why blame an elected body trying to look after it's citizens? That's actually their job. Far be it from me to correct his factual inaccuracy regarding the funding for legal advice, but half the funding came from the grass-roots organization that formed in response to the ludicrous proposal of sticking a runway 950 ft closer to homes, families and lives. This is what happens when something stupid is proposed by people who want to land bigger planes at a small airport. Get over it. You do your thing: i.e. innacurately represent safety issues to a federal body to gain funding, artificially inflate aircraft activity at the airport to justify the same, ask for hand-outs and loans from the city council to maintain your loss-making operation. They do theirs: trying to protect local citizens due to valid safety and environmental concerns of that airport expansion. If they need legal advice to counter a flawed, inaccurate environmental assessment - so be it. The environmental assessment was primarily there to support your ends anyway, wasn't it? I refer to a previous posting "Garbage in, Garbage out". Stop the proposed Ann Arbor Airport Expansion.

S. Castell

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.

David and InsideTheHall. You hit the nail right on the head. This project is pushed by select few special interest operators, laced with "safety". While the real issue: The SAFETY of thousands area residents, was not even a consideration, not even remotely, in the "Environmental Assessment". Let me put another spin on this obscene reality: While using YOUR tax Dollars, YOUR safety was not taken into consideration. In fact allowing more complex aircraft in a densely populated area will greatly reduce the margin of safety for ALL area residents, while NOT increasing the safety for pilots even one bit. Regards

packman

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.

@Mr. Castell: Your quote from the FARs below has been changed to emphasize a key point (in caps). EXCEPT WHEN NECESSARY FOR TAKEOFF OR LANDING, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. As per URS (Airport designers and EA participants) and after multiple requests by me during the EA process, (This diagram was NOT made part of the final product!) the altitude aircraft will be passing over densely populated area is...***NINETY THREE FEET*** (93'). The number that you quote from the diagram is actually 94 feet. In any case, aircraft, under the current runway environment pass over the last house on the runway centerline on Lohr Rd at 143 feet only if they adhere to a 3 degree glide path and most do not, but approach at a much higher angle. This 143 feet height above the last house that is in line with the runway centerline is the same height above the ground that existed when Stonebridge was built. As the approach slope on the diagram moves to the SW, it gets progressively higher to a height over the house on Stonebridge Dr. S of 310 feet. You are painting a biased picture based on the lowest point at the end of the slope. This difference between what exists now on the entire approach slope and what is proposed is exactly 49 feet. So, let's agree that the proposed change is less than 50 feet. People need to know that the average person would not ever notice a 49 foot difference.

HRH

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.

Sorry Chris Gordon, I repeat - 50% of the funds were private donations. Pittsfield township may have issued the check BUT did not provide all of the money, of this I can assure you.

InsideTheHall

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.

Get over it Chris Gordon. The Pittsfield Township administration is doing one thing and one thing only.....responding to what the people want. Call it a special interest group if you like but this adminstration at least listens to the people. The previous DINO administration (pssst they were the Green Party) never listened to the people and was content sponsoring mustard pulls on land they bought to protect their little Green Acres.

David Cahill

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.

I believe Chris Gordon is with Gordon Aviation. Am I right? If so, his interest in airport expansion is plain. (Pun intended.)

S. Castell

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 7:58 a.m.

>> 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. (b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it is shown that (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features. (c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in air commerce. (d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall (1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the aircraft; (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator; and (3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with operating control towers. (e) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.

Chris Gordon

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.

Ann Arbor Municipal Airport (ARB) is indeed a general aviation airport, but this means much more than a hobby type airport. General aviation includes all flying activities except military and scheduled airline service. ARB specifically serves corporate (professional flight crew), business (owner flown), non-scheduled charter, medical, aerial advertising, aerial photography, airplane and helicopter professional pilot training, and personal flying activities, among others. ARB is the only public use airport in Washtenaw County that provides access to the national airspace system, both for Ann Arbor and surrounding communities and for many out-of-state locations with a need to travel to Ann Arbor for business or pleasure. This usage is documented in the environmental assessment study. As an analogy, 3500 (or 4300) feet of roadway will only take you that distance towards your destination. The same length of runway offers access to more than 5000 other public-use community airports in America, and the type of aircraft and length of the runway limits how many of these airports can be reached without stopping for fuel. Based on the types of aircraft that currently use ARB as compiled in the environmental assessment and MDOT and FAA airport design criteria, 4300 feet is the appropriate runway length for ARB. The safety concerns addressed by this preferred runway expansion/offset alternative are also included in the environmental assessment study. Yes Willow Run is a larger facility located nearby in Wayne County, but has anybody that keeps citing this as an excuse for curtailing expansion at ARB actually been to Willow Run Airport? Take a drive over there and see if you can find where you would meet a client or friend flying in for a meeting or visit. Then come back here and let me know what you thought about the experience. I bet you would prefer to drive down State St to ARB any day of the week, and so do many of the aircraft operators that make the same choice every day.

S. Castell

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.

>>Federal Aviation Regulation. Sec. 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

Chris Gordon

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 6:45 a.m.

HRH, I stand by my research that Pittsfield Township spent $25,000 of public funds to hire the same specialist law firm contracted by the special interest group. If you review page 39 of the packet for the May 12 Pittsfield Township Board Meeting at http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/bot-packet-5-12-2010.pdf, you will see check 69622 issued on 05/07/2010 to Chevalier, Allen & Lichman for $25,000. The Committee for Preserving Community Quality conducted a separate fundraising campaign described in the story above to raise money for their legal challenge to the environmental assessment, which was prepared and submitted by the same law firm. I also applaud the commitment of local residents to research the issues and contribute in a meaningful way to the environmental assessment (EA), but there was ample opportunity to provide these inputs over the last year of the process through representation on the Airport Advisory Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee to the EA. I think it is a shame that the inputs waited until the last minute and were submitted by a California law firm at significant cost to the concerned citizens and other Pittsfield Township residents that may not agree with their zealous opposition to the airport expansion. I also find some irony in the circumstances of the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees Special Meeting held at 10 AM on April 2 where the decision was taken to contract the law firm. Notice of this meeting was apparently posted at 5 PM on March 31, and the attendance at the meeting constituted a private audience between McGill of the Committee for Preserving Community Quality and the Board. I find this ironic because the members of this group continue to accuse the Ann Arbor City Council of approving the Airport Layout Plan in some kind of secret conspiracy. As stated by a previous contributor, both Pittsfield and Lodi Townships had representatives on the Airport Advisory Committee throughout the entire process.

Basic Bob

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 4:53 a.m.

@Thorny, at least they didn't pull out the stock photo of Mandy Grewal for this story. I'm getting tired of that one. The Pittsfield filed a lawsuit, then dropped it and took credit for how *cooperative* they could be with Ann Arbor. Now they take money from the same people they threw under the bus to file an objection. There seems to be no consistency in their actions.

HRH

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 11:02 p.m.

@ Chris Gordon: You are somewhat aware but sadly very misinformed...... Pittsfield township did not spend $25,000 of taxpayer's money entering into a last minute contract with the specialist law firm. Over 50% of this money came from private donations from Ann Arbor & Pittsfield township residents. Don't try and make this into something it is not. I applaud the local residents who are prepared to dig deep into their pockets and spend time researching the underhand steps that the Ann Arbor Airport took in trying to deceive Council members into extending this runway dangerously close to adjacent homes. Yes the airport was there first BUT the homes were there second......a third place runway extension does NOT have an automatic right to happen.

A2Realilty

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 10:48 p.m.

There is NO DATA that supports that an increased length of runway would improve any safety aspects of the airport. If you feel that the longer runway would make the airport safer, please cite the specific accidents that have occurred in the last 40 years at the Ann Arbor Airport that a longer runway would have prevented. I can save you some time: the answer is that there aren't any. Because there isn't any valid safety concerns is why the effort to increase the length of the runway is being referred to as secretive. To imply that this is necessary for safety reasons is ridiculous. There are no safety incidents that a longer runway would have prevented. If it is all about safety, then lets have the planes use the longer runway and far superior facilities at Willow Run. If safety is the concern, then the whopping 10 minute drive is well worth the increased safety that the superior facility of Willow Run brings. I don't live near the airport, but anyone who is claiming that a homeowner in the region needs to just shut up and take it because there was already an airport present when their home was built is being an idiot. The airport wasn't supposed to be expanded, as was determined the last time that this issue was reviewed by the city council. If a homeowner wants the existing airport demolished or reduced, then that is not fair. If, however, a homeowner in that region doesn't want to see the airport EXPANDED, then that is a perfectly legitimate right. Lastly, this expansion will generate ZERO jobs of any significance for Ann Arbor and is a waste of money. In fact, the airport has lost money 7 of the last 10 years and has had to be supplemented by Ann Arbor tax dollars. Most business models that lose money in 7 out of 10 years aren't deemed as worthwhile and certainly aren't viewed as great opportunities at which to throw additional dollars. The expansion is an unjustified, terrible idea that is a waste of taxpayer money. I fully support Pittsfield Township's objections.

Polska

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 10:34 p.m.

Thorny. "To even a casual observer of articles found within the site's search engine, annarbor.com's infatuation with Pittsfield Township's administration is curious indeed. " Could it be because the AA Airport just happen to be in Pittsfield? But I agree! Why don't you move the AA Airport inside the AA city limit and by all means, expand it as much as you like! Lets see how well it will fly inside the city limits.

Al

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 10:24 p.m.

OK People. Enough of this same old nonsense: "The airport was here first". If you want it the way it used to be how about we bulldoze Rwy 06-24 and demolish the tower? Because as you know in the beginning when AA bought the property for WATER rights (And not to operate an airport!)The only runway was the grass strip. When most of us moved here we were willing to live and actually like what has become of this grass strip : a 3500' runway. NOT 4300'. Your problem as airport management and Airport Advisory Committee was two folds. First you fail to understand that every airport has a specific purpose. The purpose of ARB is nothing more than general aviation hobby type airport. Second you were less that forthcoming with the AA Council and the community. The "safety" claims you used to push this expansion through the AA council are more or less on the level of fairytale and no wonder they were not made part of the final "Environmental Assessment". You know what they say about "Garbage in"? And garbage is what you told the council, the media and fed into the EA. Thanks God for those citizens who worked hard to provide all parties with more than your half truths and innuendos.

thorny

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 6:04 p.m.

I agree with Chris Gordon's well framed observations. To even a casual observer of articles found within the site's search engine, annarbor.com's infatuation with Pittsfield Township's administration is curious indeed. Editorial decisions are made in big and small ways, consciously and subconsciously, in every published article. The preferences and likings of editors can be unmasked from the patterns that emerge. Words and images carefully selected and repeated over time help form public opinion.

DrBob

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 4:45 p.m.

Thank goodness we have the airport over one of our clean groundwater sources. Almost any other use... including the Stonebridge neighborhood... creates greater risk of pollution to the groundwater. An airport is primarily a large, fallow field with one strip of runway on it. If it weren't for the airport, all of the NIMBYs in Pittsfield Township would be screaming bloody murder when Ann Arbor sold the land for a new shopping mall and industrial park. The township was told at the time that Stonebridge was proposed that it was incompatible zoning for that area. They were warned by both the city and by the FAA, but they went and did it anyway. The short runway expansion improves safety for the township and its residents, without changing the amount or type of airport traffic. Only someone dumb enough to build a house at the approach end of a runway would oppose it.

Mike

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.

The airport has been in its location many years, and as towns grow, so do airports. I wonder why folks buy homes next to airports when at some time in the future, the airport will expand? Years ago I was quite surprised when Stonebridge was built, along with the North side of Ellsworth? I agree with John.

Vivienne Armentrout

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 3:46 p.m.

The airport is located near one of our few remaining clean groundwater resources. Since we had to close one well because of Pall-Gelman contamination of our water supply with 1,4-dioxane, the Steere Farm wells are (if I am correct) our only remaining source of groundwater for drinking water purposes. This supplements the Huron River, and Pall is also releasing dioxane into the river. We should not do anything to endanger the remaining water supply. BTW, cities in Michigan cannot just arbitrarily annex township land. If Pittsfield Township opposes the extension, I would expect that this opposition carries some weight. We have had a number of issues that had to be resolved with Pittsfield Township because we located our solid waste facilities there. I wouldn't just dismiss their concerns.

packman

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 3:44 p.m.

This was such a secretive process and, fortunately, you got some warning here in Pittsfield so you could fight this, long-time Ann Arbor resident Barbara Perkins told board members. Perkins said she has actively fought expansion plans four times before, and it had never gotten this close to approval." In response to Ms. Perkins assertion that the process was "secretive" both Pittsfield and Lodi townships have seats on the Ann Arbor Airport Advisory Committees and knew about this project from day one. In addition, the planned safety expansion and runway offset will actually increase the altitudes over Ms. Perkins neighborhood.

Chris Gordon

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 3:18 p.m.

The story fails to mention that Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees conducted a special meeting on April 2 to discuss the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport runway expansion proposal. At this meeting the Board of Trustees authorized Pittsfield Township officials to enter into a $25,000 contract with Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP (an aviation law firm in California) to represent the township in matters related to the proposed Ann Arbor Municipal Airport runway expansion, including presenting a formal response to the Environmental Assessment and potentially filing an objection with the U.S. Secretary of Transportation if Ann Arbor City Council approves the expansion. According to the minutes of the April 2 meeting, Andy McGill of the Committee for Preserving Community Quality addressed the Board of Trustees during their deliberations on April 2 (not during either of the periods provided for public comment.) It also appears that no City or airport officials attended this meeting, nor was the Pittsfield Township Representative to the Airport Advisory Committee in attendance. See pages 53-59 of http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/bot-packet-4-28-2010.pdf It is disappointing for me to note the apparent undue influence and privileged relationship this single special interest group enjoys with Pittsfield Township. Although fiscal responsibility with public funds is one of the rallying cries used by opponents of the runway expansion, the Committee for Preserving Community Quality doesnt seem to mind Pittsfield Township spending $25,000 of taxpayer money to subsidize their last minute legal challenges to an environmental assessment process that has been ongoing since February 2009 and has been published in draft form since February 2010. The same law firm contracted by Pittsfield Township submitted a 50 page response to MDOT on behalf of the Committee for Preserving Community Quality, which I suspect is substantially identical to the response the firm submitted on behalf of the Township. It is also disappointing that Ann Arbor.com seems to be inviting readers to contribute to this group by nature of this article. Pittsfield Township is the location of a number of aviation-related businesses both on and off the airport that provide hundreds of local jobs, in addition to welcoming other businesses large and small that use airplanes as productivity tools enhanced by the proximity of Ann Arbor Municipal Airport. I suspect these businesses would find it ironic that Pittsfield Township welcomes them with open arms, and then turns around and spends $25,000 to curtail development of the airport at the behest of a special interest group.

a2junkie

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 3:04 p.m.

Ann arbor is using federal grant money for the expansion. they were there way before the homes at the end of the runway and why would anyone buy a home or allow one to be built at the end of a runway is beyond me. I personally feel for both the homeowners and think ann arbor is not to blame but pittsfield for allowing the homes to be built there in the first place

Jake C

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 2:33 p.m.

@jondhall: "Why does Ann Arbor need an airport when there's a perfectly fine one at Willow Run?" Why does Ann Arbor need another grocery store when there's a perfectly good store in Ypsilanti? Why do we need a gas station when there's a perfectly good one in Saline? Why do we need a city park when you could just drive to Dexter? Why does Ann Arbor need a University when there's a decent one in East Lansing? This expansion would cost $37.5k, a drop in the bucket in the overall city budget. Ann Arbor needs an expanded airport because it's good for business, it's good for the community, it doesn't present an increased safety hazard, and people who buy homes right next to airports or train tracks or highways should realize that these things can produce noise, and stop complaining about it.

Steve Bean

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.

Art, please consider using "environmental assessment" instead of the non-specific term, "environmental study", in order to avoid potential confusion. An environmental assessment is quite different from an environmental impact statement (EIS), and from the comments on past articles on the proposed runway expansion, it appears that some of your readers aren't clear on that distinction.

aamom

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.

For the record I do not live in Stonebridge but I live nearby and I knew the airport was there when I bought my house. I don't understand why people think we don't like the airport just because we don't want to see it expand the runway. I like watching the little planes fly around in the summer and when the Michigan flyers host their pancake breakfast fundraiser it's like a neighborhood reunion in there with everyone out supporting our "neighbor". Please don't confuse the issue of people not wanting more jet traffic, which comes with runway expansion (which we were told could not happen when we bought) with not loving our little airport.

aamom

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.

For the record I do not live in Stonebridge but I live nearby and I knew the airport was there when I bought my house. I don't understand why people think we don't like the airport just because we don't want to see it expand the runway. I like watching the little planes fly around in the summer and when the Michigan flyers host their pancake breakfast fundraiser it's like a neighborhood reunion in there with everyone out supporting our "neighbor". Please don't confuse the issue of people not wanting more jet traffic, which comes with runway expansion (which we were told could not happen when we bought) with not loving our little airport.

Salinemary

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 12:53 p.m.

The airport was there before the Stonebridge subdivision was. Why did you buy in Stonebridge if the airport was an issue for you?

jondhall

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 12:49 p.m.

Here is a great idea, We Don not need an airport or an expansion! We have Willow Run, the City of Ann Arbor, can not pay their bills as it is!If it is good enough for the "blimp" it is good enough for all!

sellers

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 12:20 p.m.

I to wonder why people would build near any airport. I do warn - Ann Arbor could annex land and effectively squash any chance of cooperation. Sometimes if you fight too hard - you may end up a complete looser versus working with and coming out not as bad off. I too would be upset if I lived there, but caveat emptor. When I bought I looked into plats, road plans, and open space to see who owned it to determine what could happen there. Things change, you need to plan again. Best to work with them then try to fight it.

John Q

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 12:09 p.m.

I've never understood why people would want to live in close proximity of an airport. Bad planning on the Township's part by allowing residential development along the flight paths to the airport too. Too bad the city didn't acquire more land around the airport before the developers came into town. Too bad the people moving into those areas didn't think about the impact that comes from living next to an airport.