sbbuilder

Wed, Mar 31, 2010 : 7:16 p.m.

Well, I guess nobody has 1) any examples of transportation projects funded in part by the Fed. that they would turn down funding for, and 2) any hard data as to the potential deleterious effect to the surrounding neighborhood re safety. I seriously hope this project takes place, and look forward to the increased benefit to Ann Arbor at large for improving its transportation infrastructure.

Al

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 10:42 a.m.

"And last. No, I would not like this part of town to look like Romulus. But I'm having a real hard time doing the mental gymnastics imagining that that would happen if a few hundred feet were added to the runway." So you admit you would not like to see any urban decay in this area. That's a good start. Here is a beauty of this situation: We don't have to take a risk of whether or not this project will cause such decay or not, because the harsh reality is that this project is neither needed nor justified with the existence of Willow Run just 10 minutes away. Saving you 5 min driving time, is just not worth it Mr. sbbuilder. No matter which way you are going to try and slic/spin it.

sbbuilder

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 10:20 a.m.

Mick52.2 1. The reason for purchasing the property immediately south of Metro was primarily for noise abatement, not safety concerns. 2. Only businesses? I suppose there are no people occupying those businesses? And, last I checked, many of those businesses are hotels. If there was a safety concern, they wouldn't allow flights over those properties. 3. I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China. And last. No, I would not like this part of town to look like Romulus. But I'm having a real hard time doing the mental gymnastics imagining that that would happen if a few hundred feet were added to the runway. This type of tit-for-tat does not necessarily engender good debate. I will, however, respond to any who have hard, factual data that suggests a decline in safety for the neighborhood should the runway expansion take place. Likewise, I would also like to see if anybody can enumerate any Federally funded projects that they would turn down. Those two points seem to me to be the crux of the matter.

Mick52.5

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:10 p.m.

sbbuilder. "One has only to think of Metro. Ever see jets screaming overhead on final?" 1. South of Metro there are no homes (But one near the gas station on Eureka). The airport bought them out. I wonder why... 2. North of the airport there are only business. 3. Unlike like twins weighing less than 12500 lbs, transport category aircraft can climb if lost an engine on departure. And last: Would you really like an area so close to downtown AA to look like DTW Metro? Declining millage will be the least of you problems.

sbbuilder

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.

Mick52.5 Thank you for your paucity of supporting data.

Mick52.5

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:09 p.m.

sb builder. I have already stated why I object this project. It is clearly not about safety. "Safety" was the stated goal. I understand you have an airplane on the field. Great! You want few extra feet, 1000s other area residents do not have this luxury and your extra feet pose extra threat to their safety. See my response to Packman in ref to area fatalities. BTW, most folks have no problem with the airport as is. Also lets try and remember little forgotten fact: The city of AA, did not purchase this land to operate an airport. It is their water source. One other little often neglected fact is the city of AA is a lot owner within Pittsfield township. Just as I can not risk lives outside my lot within AA city limit, the same applies to AA land ownership. I hope this helps to refocus.

sbbuilder

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:49 p.m.

Mick52.5 What is your main objection to the proposed expansion? Is it the use of Federal monies? If so, could you enumerate other objectionable projects that you would deem unworthy of spending those monies on? Is it safety? If so, could you provide data which suggests that adding a minimal expansion to an existing runway increases safety risks to surrounding communities? You see, from a pilot's perspective, every additional inch of runway is always welcome. There are countless reasons why a longer runway is preferrable. As to your mention of air traffic below 1000' AGL; apart from a very few rural airports, nearly every final approach to any airport will bring you well below 500' AGL from man made obstructions. One has only to think of Metro. Ever see jets screaming overhead on final? I'd have to check my approach charts, but I believe that aircraft are about 180' AGL as they pass over I94. But that is only one example. For extreme examples, you could look at Downtown Holman Field in St. Paul, or Burbank in LA, or Detroit City right here in our own back yard. I've flown into and out of each of those airports, and they bare no comparison to the situation we have here at ARB. Also, others have suggested, rather authoritatively, that if we don't like ARB, we should take our business elsewhere. Firstly, we do very much like ARB, and secondly, you won't find us telling you where to shop, or which house to buy, or where to send your kids to school. So if I like using ARB, and like the idea of improvements being made, that is my right. Mr Olson I would really like to know of other Federally funded transportation projects that you would decline funding for, and the reasons why.

Mick52.5

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:09 p.m.

>>I am also aware of all of the things that were certain that I was aware of.>I am not the Airport Manager and I have never taken such an exam and I am having an enjoyable day.

packman

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 3:57 p.m.

@Mick52.5 I am certain that you are not reading all of the posts. If you had you would not have said the following: I am sure you are well aware of the fact that a longer runway which supports close to four times (!!!) of today's weight limit, will allow much heavier traffic in the area. From an earlier post. "As a result of the overslabbing of the entire runway several years ago, the weight bearing capacity of the Runway for a single wheel is in fact 45,000lbs and for a dual wheel it is 70,000lbs. There are no plans to increase the weight bearing capacity of the entire airport. The taxiways, ramps, and terminal areas are still the limiting factors." I am also aware of all of the things that were certain that I was aware of. I am not the Airport Manager and I have never taken such an exam and I am having an enjoyable day.

Mick52.5

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:53 p.m.

Packman. "I do favor airport expansion for safety of flight reasons. " So we are back to the "safety" argument. As one who is very connected to airport expansion I am sure you are well aware that all of the so called "overruns" combined did not cause a single scratch of a pilots fingernail. As one who is very connected to the spin of this expansion I am sure you realize that the percentage of so called "overruns" is below any statistical relevance of.000(fill in whatever number you like). As one who is probably behind this expansion push, I am certain you are well aware of all fatal crashes around the airport. I am certain you are well aware that not even one of these fatalities had anything to do whatsoever with the runway. I am also certain you are well aware they all crashed in areas that are very densely populated today. I am certain you are well aware that one of the crashes was in a residential neighborhood very close to Bryant school about 15 minutes after school was out. I am sure you are well aware of the fact that a longer runway which supports close to four times (!!!) of today's weight limit, will allow much heavier traffic in the area. I am certain you know that more complex aircraft carry more fuel and are not as maneuverable as a small single engine aircraft. I am also certain you are familiar with the low altitude aircraft fly over houses today. Almost exclusively below 500' AGL. Since at one point of your career you must have passed an airport manager's exam in Michigan, you must also be fully aware that Michigan law as well as Federal law regards 1000' Above Ground Level as the minimum (!) safe altitude over densely populated areas. (Yes there is an exclusion for takeoff and landings, yet the fact remains as to what the law views as safe). Since you are well aware of all the above your public "concern" with "safety" is disingenuous at best. Have a great day Mr. Packman.

packman

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 1:06 p.m.

@Mick52.5 I asked for examples...you did not provide any, but instead you directed me to read a chapter of a book titled "Appraising Residential Properties" Property values may be the driving force here for those opposed to the airport safety expansion. I am not a real estate expert (playing dumb again I guess) but I think that the airport's effect on property values was already predetermined when nearby houses were planned and built. I do favor airport expansion for safety of flight reasons.

Mick52.5

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 11:35 a.m.

Packman. It is obvious you are involved in the push for expansion. Playing dumb does not enhance your credibility. Read the chapter about 'External obsolescence' Pg. 359 Just to help you make the leap; a portion of these property taxes goes to area schools. That includes AA schools. http://books.google.com/books?id=EKipnYo3Me4C&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=neighborhood+decline+near+airports&source=bl&ots=e4nGuEsvmY&sig=8bCHyCAq-6JWh1BSWO6Bp16bzyA&hl=en&ei=z9OwS4ycL5DENvyS6ZkF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CBwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

packman

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:58 a.m.

@Mick52.5 The last thing the area "needs" is a larger airport. May I suggest you take a look where expanded airports exist and see the area decline? I will "take a look" if you will provide examples of where this happened please? More recently on a local basis Adrian and Howell both lengthened their runways and nothing bad happened.

Rick Olson

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 6:47 p.m.

sbbuilder: How does one take 27 courses in one subject? Well, there was undergraduate school, 2 Ph.D. programs, and Stanfor Law School. Microeconomics, macroeconomics, agricultural economics, monetary economics, international economics, land economics, econometrics, antitrust economics, economic policy, Economics of education, etc. etc. Yea, I know, another nerd.

Mick52.5

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 3:23 p.m.

Mick52. Ignorance is bliss and when all else fails lets resort to : "But hey, NIMBY works." Now lets get back to reality... "This is not the first time that airport expansion has been brought up." True. You forgot to finish your sentence however. Let me help you out: "...and failed!" Why did it fail? Because in the past, just like today, this does not pass the common sense test. "Its a NIMBY." WOW! How creative... "Mr. Olson's decision does nothing to sway me to vote for him. His decision is what is good for him, not necessarily good for the area." The last thing the area "needs" is a larger airport. May I suggest you take a look where expanded airports exist and see the area decline? Do you think AA and AA schools can take another decline in revenues? Think again! "He says expansion will not, "sufficiently enhance the operations of the airport to justify spending taxpayers money on the proposed changes now." What I would wonder, if I cared, is the "now." No justification now, but perhaps in the future?" Obviously you do care, as you are trying to spin reality. Airport's operations have been on a continuous decline. That is a fact. I am willing to bet your annual salary that gas is not going back to its heydays of $ 30 a pb. In fact it looks more as if the $ 3 at the pump is here to stay. Are you telling us more folks are likely to rent / purchase aircraft? Think again. "I would base my opinion on whether or not this project could enhance development, now or later." In the unlikely event that traffic will improve...read my next response to your fantasy below. "Maybe Google has its own airplanes it cannot land in A2 now? " Google, does have an airplane. It's a B-767. Google and/or any other safety minded pilots will be insane to fly their corporate jets into ARB even after the expansion. Do you know why? Because they don't have to. There is a perfectly good airport, much safer and with more services right next door. I am sure I don't have to tell which airport it is. In closing...Can you please remind me why are we talking about this expansion? I though it was "safety". Not to generate few more bucks. At least that was the initial story line. It is safety of the community we should care about. All else are trivial matters.

sbbuilder

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 2:52 p.m.

Al I'm not sure how you know how obnoxious your comments were. Are you a pilot? Have you flown in and out of ARB? How well do you know the airspace surrounding Ann Arbor? Have you ever flown into airports that are in densely populated areas? Have you ever declared an in-flight emergency? Are you rated to fly complex aircraft? Are you rated to fly multi-engined aircraft? Have you supported the local airport for years by using the services offered, including buying gas, hangaring aircraft, flying businessmen etc.? No? Well, I can answer yes to all of the above. So your giving me advice on flying is both ignorant and highly presumptuous. Additionally, typing 'enough said' on your keyboard does not engender a healthy debate. Mr Olson Thankyou for your response. (As an aside, I wonder how does one possibly take 27 separate courses in one subject?) When taken in aggregate, the monies proposed to be spent on the Ann Arbor airport improvement are a tiny drop in the bucket. Compared with, for example, the many tens of millions that have been spent on AATA, this current proposal pales. You could argue the efficacy of each of the transportation modes available 'till the cows come home. Here we will simply have to disagree. Lately, however, much has been said and written about the need for Ann Arbor to present to potential businessess re-locating or start-ups a viable transportation system. We think nothing of allocating multiple millions every year for AATA. We drool over the notion of a light rail system (costing many millions more). We delight in the idea of expanding a bike trail passing, of all things, the west side of the airport, and costing several hundred thousand. The point is, I see precious little argument over the use of funds for any other transportation project in Washtenaw County. For some reason, the airport seems singled out. Vociferously. For that reason, I believe that the newfound penny pinching, which only applies to the airport, is not genuine. Provide examples of other projects in our area that you would not accept Federal monies for. I'd be interested to know.

packman

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 2:29 p.m.

@HeWeGo "Had airport management and the Airport Advisory Committee been honest with the AA Council, and disclosed that the *real* reason *IS* to allow heavier traffic (See ALP which allows weight increase from 20,000 to 70,000 lbs!!!), I am certain the AA Council would have had enough sense to kill this pig prior to any of our tax Dollars being wasted." As a result of the overslabbing of the entire runway several years ago, the weight bearing capacity of the Runway for a single wheel is in fact 45,000lbs and for a dual wheel it is 70,000lbs. There are no plans to increase the weight bearing capacity of the entire airport. The taxiways, ramps, and terminal areas are still the limiting factors. You imply dishonesty on the part of Airport Management and the Airport Advisory Council. Pease explain further as Pittsfield and Lodi Township both have seats on the Airport Advisory Council.

Mick52

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 1:25 p.m.

This is not the first time that airport expansion has been brought up. Its a NIMBY. Mr. Olson's decision does nothing to sway me to vote for him. His decision is what is good for him, not necessarily good for the area. He says expansion will not, "sufficiently enhance the operations of the airport to justify spending taxpayers money on the proposed changes now." What I would wonder, if I cared, is the "now." No justification now, but perhaps in the future? I would base my opinion on whether or not this project could enhance development, now or later. Maybe Google has its own airplanes it cannot land in A2 now? Or some other company looking to expand? If an expanded airport might enhance development, it should be done, especially if generous funding is being offered by the feds. But hey, NIMBY works.

HeWeGo

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 12:36 p.m.

@TheAnnouncerMan007. Nice try. You can try avoiding the real issues and divert public attention but the fact remains that this expansion issue has absolutely no reason to exist. 1. Safety of pilots, is not an issue. Not even remotely. 2. State St. will not expand. 3. Tower has operated for the last 30 years with that bogus "line of sight" problem. 4.Not even one pilot had received a scratch due to "short runway" yet 9 folks crashed and died in the vicinity of the airport. This *clearly* brings the issue of *safety*...Safety of the community! Had airport management and the Airport Advisory Committee been honest with the AA Council, and disclosed that the *real* reason *IS* to allow heavier traffic (See ALP which allows weight increase from 20,000 to 70,000 lbs!!!), I am certain the AA Council would have had enough sense to kill this pig prior to any of our tax Dollars being wasted. Since those mentioned above were not as honest and laced the story with "safety", here we are today facing increased weight, clearly increasing the risk for hundreds of folks, wasting tax dollars this country does not have, while this insanity keeps on moving forward. Unlike you, I am not a Republican. Yet I *will* vote for Mr. Olson. As Mr. Olson who BTW learned to fly at ARB and got his license in 1975 (Per his bio), can tell a pig when he sees one. This one not only walks like one, but smells like one as well.

packman

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 12:16 p.m.

@Al Mr. Packman is not the airport manager. Mr. Packman does not need another job...thank you. Mr. Packman is having a great day..thanks very much! Mr. Packman erred...you're right that the airport is in Pittsfield Twp...sorry. The Twp does in fact get property taxes paid by individuals who own real property on the airport even though the city owns the land. For questions about the safety improvement, I will say again to all. Read the FAQs and the Environmental Assessment conducted in accordance with EPA and FAA and MDOT guidelines.

Rick Olson

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 12:07 p.m.

Thanks for all of the responses I have received here on AnnArbor.com as well as through e-mail messages. I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue, especially with those who have taken the time to become informed on the issue and/or read my entire comment sent in for the draft EA so that you are not misinterpreting the parts AA.com was nice enough to include. I will try to respond to several of the points that have been brought up. Q: The project would be paid from user fees paid into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Why are we worried about the cost? A: The fact that the cost of the project would come from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund actually creates less of an objection than ordinary Congressional earmarks in that the users of the airport contribute into the fund through their aviation fuel tax. Airplane owners can say that they have already paid for the project through their user fees. For me, the bottom line is that if a project does not generate more benefits than its cost, it does not make economic sense to do the project, no matter what the source is. The fact that the money is free does not increase the projects benefits nor decrease its cost. Q: Doesnt this endanger the survival of the airport? A: I support the continued operation of the airport. Nowhere in this discussion have I heard that the proposed improvements are needed to ensure the survival of the airport. The proposed improvement would be nice, but not required by any current FAA regulation for continued operation. The Ann Arbor Municipal Airport serves a useful function, especially for student pilots (which I was one back in 1975 flying out of a grass strip near Mason, MI) which you really want to keep away from the busier airports. If you read the full analysis, you will also see that I would support the shift of the runway 150 to the SW at such time as State Road is widened, but doing so now with no widening of State Road imminent would not be necessary now. I would also work to receive funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund if the airport ever became in danger of closing due to lack of funds for necessary improvements. While little argument can be made that expansion of the airport would create measurable economic benefit, closure would clearly entail significant economic loss which should be avoided. Q: If Ann Arbor does not get these funds, someone else will, so why not get our share? A: That is an argument for every project in the United States, and for every earmark. My best response is to suggest you Google tragedy of the commons, which in short, means that when each individual pursues his or her own personal best interest in the use of a common resource, the common resource gets overused to the point that all lose. I know, this is a philosophical argument, but we need to start somewhere. I understand the need for jobs in this area, and having taken 27 courses in economics over the course of my lifetime, I understand the multiplier effect of expenditures in an area (although one can argue just what the multiplier is, from 3 to whatever, depending on the leakage from the area economy). So, balancing a principles approach vs. a purely whats in it for me (or us) get tough. On this issue, I have chosen the principled approach. We will not agree on every issue in the future, but what I pledge is to be willing to take positions based on research of the facts and analyses, listen and consider alternate points of view. Q: You say you are taking a principled view on this issue. Would your stance change if the amount of the project were $10 billion to be spent in our area, instead of the much smaller projected cost of $1.3 million for the proposed expansion? A: This, like many questions that State Representatives face, is not a question subject to an easy Yes or No answer. Taking a principled view does not mean we should never take federal money. If the hypothetical case would show significant benefits in excess of the costs, then my answer might well be different. A $10 billion investment into our area would obviously result in a substantial positive economic impact for us, and would be extremely hard to not want. What many people would miss in their thinking about the costs and benefits in this hypothetical (as well as most other well-meaning government programs) is that the taxes necessary to pay for these free projects also destroy as many jobs as they create, in very diffused secondary or indirect effects. Most tax and spend programs are zero sum games, in that there are winners and losers, with no net positive impact. The reason they are so popular among people (and their elected representatives) is that the winners are easily identified and vocal, while the losers are harder to identify because the costs are indirect, usually more in number, but each hurt only a little bit and therefore not as vocal. The issues we face as a community today are often complex and not subject to easy answers. We need to have good dialogue on these important issues. Politics is, after all, conversations about important topics leading to ultimate decisions that affect virtually every aspect of our lives. (Although many people say it means "poly" (or many) and "ticks" (or many bloodsucking parasites). :) To enhance that public dialogue, I also moderate forums for the National Issues Forum and have created a website regarding that: http://comingtogether.us.com/ I will be next moderating at the Gerald Ford Presidential Library a new deliberative forum on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - America's Role in the World: What does national security mean in the 21st century? The event will start at 5:00 p.m. with light refreshments, and the actual forum will begin at 5:30 p.m., ending at 7:30 p.m. I would be delighted if you joined us. We have gotten rave reviews on prior forums. The subject matter of this one is outside the area that state representatives ordinarily deal with, but an important subject nonetheless Feel free to contact me if you have any issues or concerns that you wish to discuss. Cheers! Rick Olson, Candidate for State Representative - Ready to Serve as Your Voice for Jobs 55th Legislative District 525 Judd Road, Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0794, 517-673-6846 cell olson48176@comcast.net http://voiceforthepeople.net

Jay Allen

Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 10:29 a.m.

I am a Republican (very much right wing) and I was happy to see rick olson running. He was at my door and placed a truck with signage on it in our sub. I was happy.......Then I read this. To all of you that "think" he is opposing special interest, you are fooling yourself. He is opposing expansion NOT because of funds, that is smoke & mirrors. He opposes it because the yuppies in Stonebridge oppose it. That sub votes democrat as a general rule and he needs to turn that sub to his side. His interests are political, nothing new here. This is extremely disappointing as politics from the left are nauseating. The FACTS are residents of Stonebridge bought their over priced homes knowing there was an airport in place. It is 100% naive to think that an older airport would not upgrade/expand at some point. These are things you consider when buying/building a home. Instead of using your brain when making a life changing purchase, you guys use your checkbook and throw money at it. Typical.......Very Typical.

Al

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 8:04 p.m.

Saline Doe. Listening to statements such as the one saying the airport is not in Pittsfield, makes one wonder if Mr. Packman is not delusional and is starting to believe his own version of "reality". It is sad that his actions and stories told to the city council are resulting in tax Dollars waste, for no good reason. Lets hope someone has enough sense, to stop this snowball from getting any larger.

Al

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 7:57 p.m.

Mr. Packman. Or is it Mr. airport manager. "This safety improvement for the Ann Arbor Airport is a much needed project that will provide more decision making time for all pilots." You can fool some of the people some of the time... But you can not fool all the people all the time! Your statement above, is as ignorant as it gets when it comes to Aviation and even common sense. In aviation there is V1: "Takeoff decision speed". A split second to make a go-no go decision. That is what pilots train for. You can not train a pilot who will move on to larger aircraft with such negative training of ample decision time. Larger aircraft performance are calculated as I said, on v1. Nothing more! If a driver can not handle driving within the a single lane road, no one will contemplate expanding that road using such "logic" as yours. Yet you have the audacity to repeat such ignorant nonsense over and over with the hope it will stick. Mr. Packman. Let me make it very clear to you, the only safety issue in this discussion is the safety of hundreds of families living in the surrounding communities. We are not about to trade our safety for your job security. Have a nice day Mr. Packman.

SalineDoe

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 5:41 p.m.

@Inside: Their are state legislative committees in both chambers with direct oversight over MDOT, including budgets and activities. Do your homework. Since you appear to have connections to Mr. Olsen's opponents, your negativity implies that these other candidates have the opposite opinion as does Mr. Olsen. Will we soon see their press releases endorsing the ridiculous airport expansion? @Packman: Get out a map before making your comments. The airport is indeed within Pittsfield Twp. Reading some old news articles may help you as well. Land ownership does not change geography and land borders.

a2doc

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 5:30 p.m.

@Packman I am sure Ian can answer for himself, however, your answers themselves are misleading. I think you have even started to believe your own half truths! 35% of the time aircraft take off towards State Street and by moving the runway closer towards the Residential Subdivisions on Lohr, yes, planes taking off in that direction will be higher above the light industrial, buildings that are there. Agreed. By that logic... 65% of the time, you will be taking off closer and lower (around 50 foot lower, by your own "calculations") to the completely residential neighborhoods adjoining Lohr Road. The "environmental" study reads like you wrote yourself. Spending $300,000 dollars of tax payers money to scratch around the end of the runway and tell me that there will be no unusual mosses etc. destroyed by an extra 950 ft of concrete is a complete waste of money. Shame on Ann Arbor City Council for agreeing to play along with you.

packman

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 4:41 p.m.

@ian Which residents will be jeopardized? Please define "heavier, faster, and larger jets." Actually the residents of the area under the departure end of Runway 06 will be safer...aircraft departing on Rwy 06 (used about 35% of the time due to prevailing winds) will be at a higher altitude because of the runway offset. Aircraft landing on Runway 06 will only be 49' lower on thier approach path (check the FAQs and the EA) because of the offset. Tell everyone which of the my statements or the statements at the FAQs are misleading and why.

Ian

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.

@packman, "This safety improvement for the Ann Arbor Airport is a much needed project that will provide more decision making time for all pilots." There are NO safety issues at the airport. It is absolutely safe. The only safety issue will be faced by the residents if heavier, faster and larger jets are allowed to fly out of ARB. Just like the FAQs on the ARB website, your claims about safety is very misleading.

packman

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 12:30 p.m.

First of all the airport is not in Pittsfield Township...the property is owned by Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor City Council will eventually make a decision on whether the project should go forward. The money is not "earmarked" like many pork projects. The project will be funded by money that is in the AATF (Airways and Airport Trust Fund). That money is generated by a fee on all airplane tickets, and a tax on aircraft fuel purchased by airlines and aircraft owners. It is spent to improve airports and to help run FAA. If it is not spent on those items, it cannot be spent to fix roads or other admittedly needed projects. If you need answers go to the Ann Arbor Airport web site, there you will FAQs that will answer many of your questions, if not all of them. Would Mr. Olson, or any of you for that matter, vote to send government subsidies back to DC on AATA, Amtrack, etc.? This safety improvement for the Ann Arbor Airport is a much needed project that will provide more decision making time for all pilots.

Ian

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 11:46 a.m.

@Inside, I believe the state is directly involved because the money to expand the airport come through MDOT. MDOT stands for Michigan Department of Transportation. MDOT is pushing this expansion since they need to use/spend our money. Therefore, Mr. Olson has every right to speak out against this useless expansion and to represent his future constituents. Any more questions?

InsideTheHall

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.

SalineDoe: Please explain how the state was involved with this issue. I anxiously await your detailed and linked response. Thank you.

Bogie

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 10:46 a.m.

This is the new America. Local municipalities waiting (pleading)for funds to expand an airport, that seems to be a "hobby airport." I truly miss the days, when local taxes took care of local issues; not a red tape jungle, where bureaucrats decide for us, what we need. I truly hope, that this country does wake up, and stops it dependence on an "out of control" Washington. I say, "Good for you!" Mr. Olson. It is pork, and you have my vote.

SalineDoe

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 9:14 a.m.

This guy has my support merely for stepping out and taking a stand on the issue. The fact that the other candidates have not said anything implies they don't have a clue about local issues in this region (or worse, they don't care). That isn't surprising when you look at who the others are and what they have (or more accurately have not) accomplished. And folks are wrong when they say the state had no role in this process. Anyone closely involved knows full well that the state did play a role - the state legislature at that. Just goes to show that the naysayers posting here on behalf of the other 55th candidates are clueless. More reason to appreciate this guy's willingness to take a stand on local issues.

jondhall

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 7:34 a.m.

He has my vote and that counts as two!

InsideTheHall

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 6:43 a.m.

Rick Olson is grasping at straws to get a sputtering campaign off the ground. Perhaps Mr. Stanton should also have told us that Olson has had issues with his camapaign finance statements filing incorrect or the wrong forms. Reality is this is not a STATE issue and Olson is running for STATE REP.

a2doc

Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 6:42 a.m.

If we accept federal money, Ann Arbor tax payers will have to keep subsidizing this loss making enterprise for another 20 years. This "resource" is a remnant of bygone days; when fuel was cheap, and flyers came back from war wanting to keep their skills with a fun hobby. Question: Do you think the price of aviation fuel will drop over the next 20 years? Do you think private jet travel is going to be a growth industry over the coming years? Get real. Keep the airport as it is. Perfectly safe and perfectly sized. Let old guys enjoy their hobby.

Al

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 11:47 p.m.

SBBUILER. >>I'm still holding out my offer to any of the anti-expansion folks to go for a short ride to view for themselves the situation from a different perspective.

Al

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 11:41 p.m.

Rick. Although I am not a republican I will vote for you! Enough of this special interest pork, ala Ann Arbor airport! It is refreshing to see someone such as yourself, taking on the NONSENSE. Good luck Rick!

ann_arbor_guy

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 10:40 p.m.

"If State Road is widened in the future, then a shift of the runway to the southwest would be appropriate." How can it be widened if the runway is not moved first, move it now while we have the money so that the inevitable widening of State Street can hopefully happen in the near future. The road is very dangerous and should be reason enough to move the runway.

Lifelong A2

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 8:44 p.m.

If elected to the legislature, Mr. Olson will have no say in whether the airport is expanded. This is political pandering at its worst.

sbbuilder

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 8:36 p.m.

For all the reasons the anti-expansion proponents put forward, the real reason they don't want the airport expanded is just that; they can't stand the idea of changing 'their' quaint little suburban airport. One has only to read the last fifteen or twenty posts at the end of the last article on this issue. The arguments changed from 'safety', or 'noise', or, can you believe, 'pollution', to 'let's turn this airport land into a theme park'. It took a little prodding, but he truth eventually came out. I find it curious to see the sudden, inexplicable distain for Federal funds. Whenever a politician refuses Federal funds, I become very wary. First, because it virtually never happens, and second, because of the reasons they give for refusing it. In this case, candidate Olsen says that we need to take a 'principled view' and that the project is not (inferred) a 'good expenditure'. To be very candid, I would challenge Mr Olson to come clean with his 'principled view' and declare his real reasons for objecting to an expansion. Second, I would argue that this would be a very efficient use of Federal monies, and that that particular debate is far from over. I'm still holding out my offer to any of the anti-expansion folks to go for a short ride to view for themselves the situation from a different perspective.

Ian

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 7:55 p.m.

I'm a democrat/independent but I think I will vote for Mr. Olson. We need people who are not afraid to take firm stands on controversial issues.

Basic Bob

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 7:51 p.m.

Great point about the 'free money' - just because it is earmarked, doesn't mean the money exists. The federal government just borrows more money from powerful manufacturing economies such as China. Now if they would just give MDOT our fair share of federal highway funds.

voiceofreason

Fri, Mar 26, 2010 : 6:11 p.m.

Nothing like a Friday afternoon news release.......