The County is putting up $500,000 this year and $1.5 million next year for
the purchase of the field from the present owners. One of the attractions
of the airport is that it is flat and they feel all
they have to do is put lines down and put up goal posts.
We are pushing the idea of keeping the airport for educational as well as
recreational use. Things like the Young Eagles program ( we just flew 42
kids) and Boy Scout merit badges.
Adults also need recreation and the airport would serve that purpose,
especially for Sport pilots. I have been told that Charles Lindberg used
the airport, so there are historical reasons to keep the airport. It is
only 8 miles from where he lived in Hopewell, NJ. (The same town as the
airport) There are a lot of good reasons, but it will be a lot of work.
Thanks for writing.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:07 PM
Subject: Europa-List: Re: Airport survival
> <n3eu@comcast.net>
>
>
> eckel1@comcast.net wrote:
>> A proposal has been made to the town to make the property a combination
>> airport and playing fields. They have agreed to look into this option
>> so we are hopeful. What I would like to know is if anyone has ever seen
>> such a combination and how successfully they have operated together.
>
> We have such an airport -- with an indoor sports setup (tennis,
> basketball, etc) and an outdoor soccer field, all private-sector
> investment and operation. It must be losing big time, I think for obvious
> reasons. There?Ts no compatibility problem, but a fence is needed for
> liability reasons, if that?Ts your question. Plus, I wouldn?Tt want to
> be landing there just on the off-chance something could happen. I?Td
> rather crash into the fence than hurt anybody.
>
> Ain?Tt Google quick and cool, ?~cause I found that the County will front
> $1.5 million for this. But with a fence, and depending upon size, that
> $1.5 mil may not stretch far enough. You also didn?Tt say if gov?Tt
> intends to charge the public fees, to be as self-sustaining as possible.
> With fees it won?Tt be. Apparently 4 small towns would be involved in
> this, and voters there usually set the $$ limits. There could be
> organized opposition, which should be headed off now, if feared. In our
> nice suburb of 75,000, voters once approved an indoor skating rink, roller
> and ice. Very popular. City recently proposed another rink. 70/30 to
> defeat, even as a bond issue; taxes are high enough. Voters are actually
> smart. The first rink in a pretty brick building in a pretty City Park
> was about property values -- a town to live in. The second rink was just
> about skaters, a small % of voters.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75069#75069
>
>
>
|