 |
Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team
Our commitment is to community and quality-of-life... |
 |
||||||||||
|
Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team
Our commitment is to community and quality-of-life... |
|
||||||||||
|
MAC Violates TSA Security to Save MoneyStatement to KSTP From GSSC-Security Company Responds to the KSTP investigation into MAC's Backdoor Problem MAC Reliever Task Force Report 2006-First Indication of a need to reclassify the relievers for separate uses- This report is referenced in Bell's letter. Met Council Response to Scott NealThe fact is that Anoka and FCM are proposed to be included in the new Minor II designation. That means the potential is there to lengthen the runway. Notice Peter Bell of the Met Council does not say that FCM will not be expanded further. Reliever Airport Redesignations Based on Faulty Economic Premiseview word docZero Expansion's Recommendations for Eden Prairie City Council April 2009
Aircraft and Airport-Related Hazardous Air Pollutants: Research Needs and Analysis (2.41MB)view pdf FAA Incursion Report 12-2002 (5.20MB)view pdf MN Department of Health on FC Landfill 4-18-96 (107KB)view pdf Eden Prairie Residents to MAC: Safety, Security First -- view word doc Concerned Citizens of the North Metro (CCNM) website www.ccnm6.comThe CCNM is working closely with the ZeroExpansion group from Eden Prairie (Flying Cloud Airport) and we are happy that we are becoming a "metro-wide" group working on the MINOR airport "threat" from MAC, the Met Council, Anoka County, Key Air, etc. of changing the existing law that states that minor airports with runways NOT TO EXCEED 5,000 feet in length (these other entities are looking at changing runways for minor airports to 6,000 feet long). What is key to our effort is that whenever multiple communities oppose something so strongly, you need to come up with an alternative.We want to ask the Legislature to concentrate on long-term aviation/airport planning on a statewide basis; to stop saturating the Twin City area with Intermediate airport (runways 5,001 to 8,000 feet in length) and to look toward the NW (St. Cloud) the north (Duluth) or the south (Rochester) and designate those airports as the state's Intermediate airports (the same designation MAC has for the Metro area's Holman Field in Downtown St. Paul). We will have more information on our "Alternative Suggestion" on our website soon. Right now we are all very thankful to the cities that have minor airports in their midst for passing their City Resolutions opposing ANY change in current MINOR airport law (MS473.641 Subd.4).
Eden Prairie City Council votes unanimously to adopt Resolution opposing the Met Council's proposed change in Reliever Minor designation from 5,000ft for Minor Relievers to a Minor I and Minor II designation of which Anoka and Flying Cloud would be designated as Minor II airports with up to 6,000ft runways.
How Many Feet Will Flying Cloud's Longest Runway Be?Some facts about a potential change in the Minor designation for Anoka and Flying Cloud Airport1.Chauncey Case said in a phone conversation to Barb Haake that:A Minor I airport would have runway lengths up to 4,000 feet: A Minor II airport would have runway lengths of 4,000 feet to 6,000 feet. 2. Chauncey Case said in a phone conversation to Barb Haake that: the larger airports would be the more “sophisticated” airports in the system – Flying Clouds and AC/B as “Minor II” airports and of course, Holman Field (Downtown St. Paul) as the Intermediate airport. The other ones have less traffic and physically would never get 5,000 foot runways and part of the argument is how do you fund them over the long term? (Flying Clouds and AC/B (Anoka) are being considered as "Minor II" airports) 3. In a document from the Met Council it is clear that Scott Kipp, Eden Prairie planner and Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission representative is on the Met Council Task Force that has already met and knew about the plans to change the reliever designation in February. Scott Kipp is on the Task Force that is working with out-of-state consultants and MET Council's evaluation committee who are considering the recommendation of two minor airport definitions - Minor I and Minor II, instead of only one designation as it is now. The latter designation could have runways up to 6,000ft. 4. Mayor Phil Young only went public with this on March 3rd at the City Council Meeting. It is important to note the Met Council sends out regular correspondences/updates to cities on the Met Council agenda, meetings and topics. 5. The critical thing is the Met Council is looking at what the "role" of the relievers might be in the future. If they see FCM and Anoka's "role changing," what might that change be? Realistically they are going to give themselves growing room and leave the longer runway option open for these two airports. Double Threats-5. Concerned Citizens of the North Metro who live near the Anoka airport reported to the Sun Focus that Key Air (an Anoka FBO) has hired the best lobbyist in Minnesota to get legislation to change the runway designation of the relievers to 6,000ft. 6. The Met Council Task Force was created to look at the developing aviation plan and the minor I and II designation change. They have indicated Anoka and Flying Cloud would be considered Minor II airports. That would mean under law, if the law is changed, Flying Cloud could be expanded to 6,000 ft, or more than 5,000ft under the new designation. The point is if they change the designation under law, they can lengthen the runway at FCM beyond 5,000ft whether they say they are or not. It will be the law. 7. Why would the Met Council think of changing the designation of the relievers? The smaller airports are inconsequential to the change; their role has already been defined. The reliever designation change in the late nineties was to accomodate jets which would not be able to use the smaller facilities. The "role" change they are looking at now isn't for the smaller relievers it's soley for Anoka and Flying Cloud as Chauncey Case stated in a phone conversation with Barbara Haake. The question is what is the "role change" beyond 5,000ft? For now until the process plays out, we know citizens can't be reactive. Any "role change" contemplated for these two relievers beyond the 5,000ft is a serious matter for residents impacted by aviation operations. The important thing to keep in mind: if there is a change in the law than the new law will dictate what operational changes may occur at Flying Cloud, which could include lengthening the runway beyond 5,000ft. view pdf Runway To Nowhere
Yes, we have government PORK right here in Eden Prairie. Why is the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) spending millions of our tax dollars to extend the Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) runway from 3900' to 5000'? The main reason is to allow larger business jets to land and take off at FCM. Only a very few of these large jets need the 5000' runway. The smaller jets that currently use FCM do NOT need the extension! This is not about the current noise and safety at the airport. It is about the future increased noise and congestion at FCM to accommodate the larger jets owned mainly by large corporations. These larger jets can now safely use the main MSP airport. In fact, a lot of the larger business jet operators much prefer the longer runways and facilities currently at MSP. Why do the citizens of Eden Prairie need to pay extra taxes for the millions in PORK spending dollars that are needed for these few big aircraft? After completion, a 5000' runway at FCM would attract more and more of these larger aircraft. This would require more and more tax dollars to build larger and more hangers and a relocation of the existing control tower. Folks, you haven't seen anything yet. We are not talking about now, but about the future increase of noise, number and size of aircraft, an endless increase in our tax dollars for PORK. All of this at the expense of a significant decrease in real estate and home property values for a large area around the airport, due mainly to the increased noise and congestion at FCM. This significant lowering of collectable taxes for property near FCM will increase real estate taxes and decrease quality of life for all other Eden Prairie residents and businesses. A benefit for only several large corporations will be at the expense of the great majority of E.P. residents. All residents need to contact our federal senators and representatives to tell them NOT to spend millions of taxpayer dollars, to stop subsidizing aviation to the tune of millions every year. These legislators also read our letters to the Editor of the Eden Prairie News. Your letters are urgently needed to oppose the 5000' expansion. The time is now! Our federal legislators are now voting new funding for 2009. Tell them to STOP the Flying Cloud Airport expansion project. 
Contact Our National Legislators and tell them no more Pork for FCM Expansion Amy Klobuchar- kelly_scanlan@klobuchar.senate.gov Currently, neither Al Franken nor Norm Coleman provide any contact information. Why We Oppose Proposed Expansion at Flying CloudIt is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Conclusion: 82.9 million dollars for 3% of Flying Cloud users for a return of 0.5% at a subsidized, diminishingly used airport is a waste. A better alternative is to use financial incentives for stopovers from Flying Cloud to use Holman Field instead of MSP. MAC predicts huge increases in noise and aircraft emissions only 3 years after completion, which will decrease property values in Eden Prairie
To stop proposed expansion at Flying Cloud, you should:
To All Pork Of The Month Club Members (Taxpayers)Here were our dues In 2008.In September we all bailed out AIG with $85 billion and the financial and banking industry asked for trillions more of our dollars. In October the FAA released a $2 million installment of taxpayer funds; more is needed to complete the 5,000ft runway at Flying Cloud Airport which will result in higher decibel noise disturbances from larger aircraft, more run-ups, take-offs and landings, more jet fuel exhaust, and decreased property values. In December automotive industry CEOs, who flew into D.C. in their own private jets, pleaded for billions more of our tax dollars. Add it all up and every American will fork over $23,000; that’s more than half of U.S. annual gross domestic product. (CNN) From January to November there were over 2500 noise complaints at Flying Cloud Airport compared to 800 total in 2007. In November Eden Prairie residents, you and me, and thousands more tax payers and airport neighbors like us sent a strong message to the new council leadership and the city by re-electing a previous council member back to the council, who has not only worked directly with MAC, but is well versed on matters related to the airport agreement. The federal government uses taxpayer dollars to fund projects like Flying Cloud. In 2007, on behalf of the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) the Eden Prairie city manager (with the current City Council's approval) lobbied Congress for your tax-dollars for Flying Cloud Airport. Have you all had enough yet? Are you ready to cancel your Pork of the Month Club membership? Without our tax dollars there won't be a 5,000ft runway. Contact your elected federal officials NOW. Funding decisions are being made NOW. The final funding decision is made at the Federal level! No taxpayer dollars to fund a 5,000ft runway for a handful of corporations who can use existing alternatives. Stop your membership NOW; you can't afford the dues. Email or Fax to: --Floyd Hagen on behalf of Zero Expansion Members Data Practices Request for Information Related to City's Actions in 2007Form: view pdf 
Letter: view pdf
Newly Disclosed City E-mails Contradict Statements by Neal, Young, and Aho about Airport ExpansionState law requires our government to operate with full disclosure, unless such information is privileged or protected. Anyone can request the government to disclose its data, and the government must provide it, unless the data is of a kind specifically excluded because it needs to be protected. An Eden Prairie resident recently made a request for data related to the City of Eden Prairie’s communications with MAC and the Federal Government about the proposed expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. The request for documents to the City stated: "I would like to get copies of all correspondence between the City of Eden Prairie . . . and the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce . . . FAA . . . and MAC concerning advocacy for the development and/or expansion of Flying Cloud Airport." In response to that request, the City provided copies of e-mails from January to March 2007 in which it clearly states the City was supportive of the expansion plans at Flying Cloud Airport, asked MAC what the City could do to help the expansion along, including meeting with Federal Legislators to request money for the expansion. These e-mails confirm the paper trail disclosed by concerned residents in the Spring of 2007 that the City had adopted a new pro-expansion position. Remember, City Manager Scott Neal sent a letter to Oberstar in March 2007 asking for money for the airport expansion just days after Mayor Phil Young and other City employees attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting where MAC said it was hard to get money from Washington DC. The new disclosed e-mails reiterate that MAC wanted the City’s help in getting federal money for the expansion. In Spring 2007, the City denied it had taken any pro-expansion steps. After residents complained, Neal tried to split hairs saying that the term "expansion" in his lobbying letter was a mistake; it should have been “improvements.” However, Neal’s letter stated the City had a “new position on the airport expansion [] supported by the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce and many members of the Eden Prairie corporate business community.” (emphasis added) Neal also attached a Chamber of Commerce Resolution in support of expansion to his lobbying letter bolstering the new position. Significantly, only the 5000-foot runway extension is funded by the Federal money that Neal asked for; no other "improvements" were sought or paid for with federal money. 1. Water and Sewer and Shorter Runway extension were allocated before the March 6, 2007 Chamber Meeting. 2. At the Chamber meeting on March 6, 2007 what was discussed was the $22M they didn't have. 3. They didn't have money for the longer runway or the hangars. That constituted the $22M. That means when the city mangager responded back to the Anderson email on March 7, 2007, saying (referred to Anderson's email from Feb) that's the message that the city would carry to the national legislators, support the expansion and federal funding for the expansion, he was talking about money for the 5,000ft runway extension. It was not for cosmetic improvements, water and sewer, the shorter runway, the funding was primarily for the longer runway and hangars. Statements by Phil Young and Brad Aho, made after residents discovered the Neal letter, were misleading. Because the funding the MAC wanted the city to help secure was not for "sprucing up the facilities" as Brad Aho stated, but for the 5,000ft runway which is first and then new hangars. ----------------------------------------------------- Taken all together, the newly disclosed e-mails and letters, the Neal lobbying letter with the Chamber Resolution, and meeting minutes show that behind the scenes, the City was secretly supportive of the airport expansion and agreed with MAC to lobby and ask for Federal funding to make the expansion happen. MAC needed help from the City to make the expansion happen, and the City lobbied Oberstar, Ramstad, Coleman, Kline, and Klobuchar to push the expansion forward after it had been stalled for years. These newly disclosed e-mails are in direct contradiction to statements made by Neal, Young and Aho that the City had not adopted a pro-expansion position. In 2007, Young, Aho and Duckstad refused to sign a resolution requiring the City to be “neutral” to the expansion instead of pro-expansion. Butcher and Nelson supported a declaration of neutrality. See Zeroexpansion.com. Why is this information important now? Given the City’s long history of opposition to the expansion, $750,000 investment against it, and ethical obligation to represent residents’ concerns, not council members own personal agenda, (Section 2.40 of the City Code), it’s outrageous that the City secretly lobbied for the expansion and then denied it! The airport expansion will have negative impacts to thousands of people in Eden Prairie. Over 300 homes will have noise levels “incompatible with residential living” if expansion occurs, and may require noise insulation (Table Q-7 of FEIS). According to the City, Eden Prairie lost over $ 126 million in lost revenue over the life of the property for the expansion, including revenue from 500 homes and over 1 million square feet of office and industrial space. The County lost significant property taxes from the loss of 500 new homes. Are these statements made by Phil Young and Brad Aho in 2007 believable? "The Memorandum of Understanding still stands and the city supports improvements and sprucing up the facilities. " "There was no discussion at the council about encouraging or lobbying or spending money to secure federal financing for the runway….We don’t do things behind closed doors. It’s not right. It’s not legal and we certainly haven’t done it on this issue." PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE THE FLYER BELOW TO COMMUNITY NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS-
Was there a "change in direction" by the city of Eden Prairie in regard to the Flying Cloud Expansion?
The question is who should be held responsible for this change in direction? City Managers are hired by the city council and accountable to them. Here are the evidentiary documents: Email Page 1Email Page 2Email Order: Eden Prairie City Council MinutesEden Prairie Chamber of Commerce MinutesEMAILS OBTAINED THROUGH FOIA PROCESS/TIMELINE 1. February 1, 2007 Email from Anderson Timothy to Scott Neal (obtained through the FOIA process) To: Scott Neal RE: Lobbying for Airport Improvements at Flying Cloud Airport Scott, Mitch is still waiting for some input on this issue from our DC lobbyist, but so far has suggested it would be nice if you get the chance to let Ramstad know (and the Senators, too, for that matter, although they will be less informed and will need more education) that the city is now OK with the FCM expansion (And maybe even supportive?!). We know he [Ramstad] has been reluctant to step out on the issue given the past differences between MAC and EP, and could use some comfort that it's OK, for example, if he supports Federal funding of the project. That would help us. I'll get back to you with more if we hear more from DC. Tim 2. February 20, 2007 Council Workshop- Postive New Attitude on behalf of the city council: "Chamber of Commerce Government Committee, representing the Commission. The chair of the Committee, Dick Ward, was extremely happy that there seems to be such a positive new attitude on the part of the City Council and new Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission with regard to talking about Flying Cloud Airport." 3. In Eden Prairie City Council Meeting minutes from March 8th which included EP Chamber of Commerce Meeting minutes from March 6, 2007; this meeting was attended by MAC, Phil Young, an EPAAC member and Eden Prairie Staff; it was stated that MAC didn't have the money for the longer runway. The suggestion was that the city partner to help raise the required funding necessary. 4. March Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Email from Scott Neal to Timothy Anderson Thanks Tim. This is the message that we'll communicate to Jim [Ramstad] about Flying Cloud. Call your local elected officials, state and national legislators and tell them no taxpayer dollars for an unecessary expansion that was funded through the deceptive efforts of Eden Prairie's council leadership.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Making Sense out of the Non-sense the Council Majority has been doling out- The agreement does not allow the city or council members acting in official capacity to OPPOSE the expansion. But, it says nothing about requiring them to go out and actively lobby for federal funds. Before Young took office, there were no funds. After Young took office there were no funds. Several months into his tenure, the city lobbied for the funds. That's a 180o change in direction from the neutral position the city adopted after the Final Agreement. 1. The city manager does not make policy and serves the elected officials who hire them. 2. The council with new leadership went beyond their required obligation to the Final Agreement’s stipulations and actively sought federal funding on behalf of MAC. 3. The emails obtained through the FOIA process to the city proved that the city manager acted on that CHANGE one day after the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce held a meeting March 6, 2008 that was attended by Mayor Young, MAC and city employees in which the discussion was focused on partnering to obtain funding for the longer runway, because there was no MONEY for this project. It's evident from Tim Anderson's email and the Chamber meeting minutes that MAC did not have funding for the longer runway and was not going to be able to obtain the funding without city support. Summary Scott Neal rescinded his original letter to legislatures in summer of 2007. But the damage had been done. The city council majority voted against a Resolution of Neutrality, brought up by Sherry Butcher, which would have confirmed the city's neutral position to the expansion. The city didn't violate the agreement by asking our legislators for federal funding, they violated the public's trust and changed a long standing position of neutrality toward the expansion. Further, the Mayor and Brad Aho made statements that are contrary to the events that took place. How could that be? Butcher and Nelson both stated that there was a perceived change of direction. Neither Phil Young, nor Aho or Duckstad felt that there was a change of direction. Both Young and Aho made statements which did not support the action that was taken by the city manager. How could this be? Young stated Neal's letter was a "ministerial action" and that the "city and council had not taken a leadership role." 5-10-07 On March 29, 2007 EPSUN- Young states that "no one is advocating changing the agreement which he says represents a spirit of cooperation between city and MAC that did not previously exist and that relationship needs to be preserved." March 29, 2007 EPN, Aho said he didn’t have a problem with the letter that was sent to legislators, "I don’t see that the council or the city has preformed or done anything that would be contrary to the agreement that we have and that should be viewed as negative by the citizens, either people that are for or against the airport. It’s not something that needs retraction," he said. It is clear that both Young and Aho side-stepped any direct response to the question of whether the city actively lobbied for federal funding, thus changing the direction of the council from one of neutrality toward the expansion to one of support for the expansion. Mayor Young called the action, the city manager’s mistake. None of us are that gullible that we’d ever believe that Neal acted alone without some direction from the Mayor and or the council. The agreement doesn't include a stipulation requiring the city or the council to lobby for federal funds. Remaining neutral toward the expansion was the city's posture until Young took office. Remember the city spent $750,000 to fight the expansion on behalf of residents, not the Chamber, not MAC. And after the agreement was signed council members were allowed to fight it on their own, but not as representatives of the city. So, whether there was an agreement in place really had no bearing on whether there would ever be an expansion. There had to be money and there wasn’t for the longer runway, which was the most contentious aspect of the project. Until Young became Mayor, council members maintained a neutral position toward the expansion; no one would have dreamt of writing letters to Legislators for federal funding because the old council fought against the expansion and supported residents in staying neutral. The city and council were neutral till Phil Young became Mayor. Supported by Brad Aho and Jon Duckstad there was now a profound change in attitude toward the airport and Scott Neal only reflected that change. Analysis Of Events-Chamber Of Commerce 051907 (doc)Recent Summary Of Events 2007 (pdf)If the 5,000ft runway goes through we can all thank the new council leadership. Call your local elected officials, state and national legislators and tell them no taxpayer dollars for an unecessary expansion that was funded through the deceptive efforts of Eden Prairie's council leadership. City Manager Statement from 2004-- Eden Prairie City Manager's Online Blog
Wednesday, September 15, 2004 Flying Cloud Airport "The airline industry is not flush right now, so all this discussion of expansion may just be for naught." Scott Neal
Explanation of FAA Public Comment Period on AIP Funding grants for airports like FCM Read and write or call the FAA by 10-8-08Contact these FAA personnel and tell them NO EXPANSION, NO TAX PAYER DOLLARS FOR THE RUNWAY FOR NO ONE.Here's a LETTER you can send to the FAA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
09/29/1996 |
03/18/1999 |
August 2001 |
 |
 |
 |
04/21/2005 |
12/28/2005 |
02/17/2008 |
 |
 |
 |
Zero Expansion was scheduled to make a short video presentation at the July 15th Council meeting. We canceled our presentation because the city protested our use of their system to show our videos. Why? Because they don't want it in the public realm.
Now the entire nation/ world can view the videos of noise violators at Flying Cloud Airport because they're up at YOUTUBE. The Eden Prairie City Council can't stop the videos from being shown. We heard that all five on the council voted against Zero Expansion showing the video Tuesday night., July 15th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C89ApPI8qWA |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsdONiOoNws |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ezzy4JsEcw&feature=userJuly 1, 2008 6:11AM approx |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK6xgbOQ_Qc |
Airport neighbors have been complaining about night time noise for years. We don’t feel it’s a coincidence that the presentation Zero Expansions made in January 2008 to the FCAAC provided the impetus for a recent change in the way MAC will monitor noise in the future. Zero Expansion has argued that noise has not been accurately assessed. At the FCAAC meeting this July, MAC announced that they were going to install a radar system of monitoring which could catch as much as 95% of the noise disturbances. At this same FCAAC meeting it was announced that there were 605 reported disturbances, by residents, in a 2 month time span this year. How many letters went out to those violators? We believe if you don't have a commensurate penalty for the violation, than the numbers of violations will not go down just because you've measured them more accurately. The city needs to find out the ratio of letters to violators, and repeat violators, and than work with MAC to actualize a penalty that will make all this extra paper and leg work unnecessary.
You can find Zero Expansion’s presentation on the inadequacy of the noise monitoring from January 2008 at http://www.zeroexpansion.com/home.html#noise.
The videos we were going to present at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday are a reminder that residents are still impacted on a daily basis by violators of the voluntary curfew. What makes the voluntary curfew unfeasible is the fact that users of the system don’t have to self report their violations; the onus is on the recipients of the noise. No wonder the voluntary system hasn’t worked. Hopefully the radar system will accurately measure the violations.
As to refusing to allow a public viewing of the videos, the city says their in-house technology will be taxed by four other presentations which were scheduled for Tuesday night and our presentation will interfere. We’re not sure whether the Chamber or the MAC would be given that same response. At least we know they would be rescheduled. No such offer was made to Zero Expansion. It's apparent to us that our elected officials want to keep this issue out of the public realm; they have also made it quite clear they have neither the time to give us, nor the interest, nor the will, to continue to address one of the most significant issues in Eden Prairie.
The recent video of aircraft taking off during the voluntary nighttime curfew can also be found at our blog at http://wwwzeroexpansion.blogspot.com/ or on YOUTUBE at the URLs listed above. Groups of airport neighbors have been measuring noise violations during the summer months and discovered frequent abuse of the voluntary curfew between the hours of 5, 6 and 7 AM. The videos show four different flights taking off within minutes of each other from approximately 5:49 AM to around approximately 6:11 AM. We've argued repeatedly that the system of measuring noise and penalizing violators with a letter is not working.
High Flyers - How Private Jet Travel Is Straining the System, Warming the Planet, and Costing You Money
A Report by the Institute for Policy Studies
As Americans prepare to pay extra for checked bags, wait in long lines, and endure increasingly crowded commercial flights, super-wealthy private jet owners are enjoying tax breaks and luxury at the public’s expense. “High Flyers: How Private Jet Travel Is Straining the System, Warming the Planet, and Costing You Money,” a report from the Institute for Policy Studies and Essential Action, exposes the impacts of private aviation on the air traffic system, carbon emissions, and everyday travelers. The report criticizes government inaction to rein in gas-guzzling, sky-crowding private jets, and the super-wealthy High Flyers who dodge security restrictions, carbon costs, and taxes.
FAA Budget, AATF and General Aviation
Presented to the FCAAC on March 13, 2008 by Mark Michelson, Zero Expansion Member And Member of the FCAAC Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission
Zero Expansion Presentation to the Eden Prairie Airport Advisory Commission January 2008
Laura Neuman presenting and Mark Michelson, Eden Prairie Airport Advisory Commission Member
Click here and save file 
to view Powerpoint presentation.
Complaint Redux: Eden Prairie is no different than other small airport communities against airport noise and pollution
Here's a recent article from Martin Rubin, who lives near Santa Monica airport and is the director of a local organization like Zero Expansion. Santa Monica Airport is a General Aviation airport similar to ours. Though Santa Monica's operations are down, like ours, their jet operations increased by twenty-fold: our future?
Santa Monica Daily Press
Friday, Decemver 14, 2007
Guest Commentary
by Martin Rubin regarding proposed Santa Monica Airport ordinance
What's really up with the airport?
A buzz is going around among aviation enthusiasts as well as residents who feel they have had to endure much more than their share of aviation impacts. The City of Santa Monica has made a move in the right direction by unanimously passing the first-reading of an ordinance that limits what size and speed aircraft can be used at its airport. The City's arguments are clear and valid to all who read them; all but the FAA and affected users of the airport.
Santa Monica Airport (SMO) has changed so much since the short-sighted agreement in 1984 that the City and the FAA contracted into. Piston aircraft annual operations are down approximately 125,000 while jet operations have increased twenty-fold. The Big Brother Orwellian images brought to mind by the date 1984 are very appropriate today as the FAA flexes its muscle with threats of challenging this proposed ordinance on behalf of some airport users.
Although the 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement was designed to address the concerns of the surrounding communities regarding noise, jets account for 90% of the measured noise violations. The agreement was a raw deal dealt to the community but quite a sweet deal for the jet operators. Disregard to the air quality changes that 20,000 jet operations a year would have was like rubbing salt into that raw wound. The question that concerns many who are negatively impacted by present day airport operations is: How well will this new ordinance really address all community-related safety concerns at and near SMO?
Let us assume the ordinance is adopted and goes unchallenged. We will be left with at least 10,000 annual jet operations. These smaller, slower jets are not necessarily less noisy or less air polluting than the other 10,000 which could no longer use SMO, and so we should not think air and noise pollution will be cut by 50% or more. A 1999 risk assessment by Bill Piazza from the Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety concluded that 10,000 annual jet operations significantly increased the cancer risks to the communities east, south and north of the airport. Feeling good about reducing jet operations from 20,000 to 10,000, and believing that it will be an adequate solution to jet air pollution, would be like bragging about cutting back on smoking cigarettes from four packs to just two packs a day. For years, impacted residents have been suffering from these jet emissions. They are real and they occur on a daily basis. Some families are so concerned for the safety of their children that they move away. In recent European studies, noise pollution has also been shown to adversely affect human health. It is crucial that air and noise pollution are also considered when determining airport safety. The definition of safety according to the Microsoft Encarta Reference Library is, "freedom from danger: protection from or nonexposure to the risk of harm or injury".
The ordinance the City passed is long overdue and was greatly influenced by community pressure. Therefore, it is important for everyone, especially those concerned about their family's health and safety, including their pets, to speak out every chance they can.
It is time for the City to aggressively address the pollution problem that has cast an ominous shadow over Santa Monica's environmentally- friendly reputation.
Martin Rubin - Director of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution
Mark Michelson of Eden Prairie speaks on behalf of Zero Expansion
One after another, neighboring airport communities, residents and city officials, talked the same talk in front of a panel of legislators and MAC officials at a hearing on MAC Governance, Wednesday, Sept 19th, 2007 at the Egan Community Center. We heard the old same lingo; it’s been the same for years: MAC has failed to provide accessible public venues where residents can air their complaints; MAC has failed to legally comply with requests for information; MAC has failed to comply with legal protocol in doing business; MAC has failed to keep their promises; MAC has been less than honest in their dealings with the public. One resident after another with another version of the same complaints. You could see the expressions on the legislators’ faces. Finally Representative Linda Slocum (DFL) and Mark Buesgens ( R) echoed the audience: MAC needs to be reconstituted; something dramatic needs to be done... Legislative Hearings on MAC Governance will begin soon...
Start Thinking About Tomorrow: MAC tunes out the reality of an unsustainable industry that uses an unsustainable fuel.
MAC's CIP for runway 10R/28L to 5,000 ft, to the tune of $11M, set for 2009 expansion
It wasn't too long ago, pre-Mayor Young, that Scott Neal told us our worry over the airport expansion was for naught, because there were no funds. Enter Phil Young and a first ever Legislative Agenda requesting federal funds for the airport; enter the letter delivered to Federal Legislators requesting funding for the expansion on behalf of businesses and Chamber of Commerce; enter Chamber of Commerce meetings with MAC, the Mayor and a representative from the FCM Advisory Airports Commission which included a discussion of airport funding and private business involvement in securing funding; enter the Airports Advisory Commission plans to align with the Chamber in business development and marketing the airport: the result is funds that weren't even imaginable to MAC are on their CIP for 2009.
MAC's CIP, Capital Improvement Program for Flying Cloud Airport as of September 2007
Preliminary 2008-20014 MAC CIP- pgs 52-70
2008-Runway 10L/28R Extention- $900,000.00 -
2009-Runway 10R28L Exention- $11,200,000.00- (5,000ft runway)
Hangar Buidling Removal
Alleyway Rehabilitation
Pavement Rehabilitation
Runway 18/36 Reconstruction Seg 3/Lighting
South Building Area Development- 2009-2010
(Note: there is no mention of where the funds are coming from)
$84M on an expansion for an airport that's not self-sufficient, and is experiencing its lowest number of operations and just think the community doesn't even have representation on the MAC commission....
Take action now and tell our representatives transportation funds should be spent where they're needed most for public use, not on an expansion of a runway for a handful of wealthy corporate aircraft owners:
Governor Tim Pawlenty-tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
Erik Paulsen-rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn
David Hann-651-296-1749 or http://www.davidhann.org/contact.htm
Maria Ruud-rep.maria.ruud@house.mn
Phil Young-pyoung@edenprairie.org
Brad Aho- baho@edenprairie.org
Sherry Butcher- sbutcher@edenprairie.org
Kathy Nelson- knelson@edenprairie.org
Tim Anderson of MAC- TAnderso@mspmac.org
Chauncey Case of Met Council- Chauncey.case@metc.state.mn.usa
Public Hearing September 19th, 2007 on Metropolitan Airports Commission Governance Issues at 7:00 PM, Eagan Community Center.
Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Rep. Debra Hilstrom, Chair and the and Transportation Working Group, Rep Frank Hornstein, Chair
Statement from Zero Expansion, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
WHY BUILD NEW HANGARS WHEN
THERE'S ENOUGH EXISTING HANGAR SPACE?
TELL JIM OBERSTAR ENOUGH WITH THE PORK-PH:(202) 225-6211
TAKE ACTION! NO CHAMBER INVOLVEMENT IN ADVISORY COMMISSION. NO PROMOTION OF IMPROVEMENTS BY CITY THAT INVOLVE EXPANSION PLANS. KEEP CONTACTING YOUR CITY REPRESENTATIVES AND REMIND THEM THEY PLEDGED TO BE NEUTRAL!
The Noise Myth: Jets aren't quieter than Pistons
A warning to Eden Prairie airport neighbors, Santa Monica Airport neighbors, like so many others, have been ripped off regarding noise impact measurements. Aside from the Db difference, do to the distance differential from noise monitors, there are noise impacts from jet-specific operations that go unmeasured. Ignored is the noise from reverse thrusters, often much louder than the approach. We hear reverse thrusters ½ mile to the east of the airport when they are applying the reverse thrusters to stop their aircraft far down the runway to the west. This same noise is perceived much louder by the Santa Monica residents on the west side of the airport. All this very loud noise is not part of any measurements. Also, there is the ongoing noise of jets holding and idling sometimes more than 30 minutes at a time and often backed up. It sounds like having a commercial vacuum cleaner running across the street many hours, each day, seven days a week. Again, this jet-related noise is not measured. Another very important consideration that goes to the heart of the difference is that jet-blasts noise, on take offs especially and carry very much farther than even loud piston aircraft noise. I do not know of any studies to measure and quantify what the differences are, but there should be. A jet take-off is always heard, loud and clear, for two or more miles from the aircraft’s location. I do not ever hear a piston plane when it's taking off. This is clear, simple science using anecdotal evidence, of a tremendous difference in how jet aircraft impacts a much, much larger area with relation to noise than piston aircraft.
-- Martin Rubin, Director of jetairpollution.com, a group fighting against the public health dangers at Santa Monica Airport www.jetairpollution.com
Eden Prairie and Zero Expansion Documents
CONTACT, FLYER AND MEETING INFORMATION
For Eden Prairie Residents Only: for further updates please email us to register on our mailing list. transportationtalk@yahoo.com
Meeting Flyer PDFs: Print and Distribute to Neighbors
EVERY NOISE COMPLAINT GOES ON RECORD AND MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
Contact the Airport Noise Complaint Line: Phone in your noise complaints or other airport complaints to: 612-726-9411 or macapps@macnoise.com
FILE NOISE COMPLAINT ONLINE AT THIS URL: http://www.macnoise.com/complaint
COMPLAINT GUIDELINES: http://www.macnoise.com/pdfs/community-outreach/complaint_guidelines_2006.pdf
|
Contact Talktrans/Zero Expansion |
