Alert: Airport meeting Thu Oct 20, Concord

[AlanM]

Well the Kelo 7 got all the way to the Supreme Court and as a result everyone has lost their right to own private property.?

But technically didn't the SC just say' let the states determine it'.? And CT is such a bumch of wimps that they talk about protecting property rights but they won't change any laws.

True. That is what they said, but they could have said the taking of private property, for private purposes was unconstitutional.

[polyanarch]

Don't try and fix government

-you just might!

[Kat Kanning]

I think government should be fixed...so it can't reproduce anymore.

[polyanarch]

oh....

FIXED!

Like cutting their NUTS off!

[aworldnervelink]

Here's my report, for any who are interested.

The first 45 minutes of the meeting were taken up by members of the development team working on the proposed hanger construction. We heard from a surveyor (who also spoke for the civil engineer who was absent), a soil specialist, and a hydrogeologist. There were a lot of little details but the big picture is that this proposal goes to extreme lengths to minimize the environmental impact. The hanger foundations will be raised 1.2", thus being able to contain 5500 gallons of spilled fluid (your average Cessna 172 has 43 gallon tanks). There will be storm drains running underneath the hangers and the new taxiways, with oil-separating filters. A row of thick plants will be installed between the hangers and an existing aquifer, providing additional filtering capability. The amount of impacted wetland is 5500 square feet; they already have a permit from the state to fill it in and it is low-value wetland, barely even meeting the standards to qualify for protection. In short, there is no environmental impact and the facility will actually be greatly improved by these additions.

The floor was then opened up for comments. For 1/2 an hour a steady stream of people went up to the mike. They were ALL pilots and they were ALL in favor of the hanger construction. The lone dissenter was a member of the town zoning commission, who sniffled that he objected to the state overruling the town's power. He claimed that the townspeople "value their quality of life" yet made no statement as to why the town objected to the hangers or what impact the hangers might have on said quality.

After the official list of speakers was exhausted the chairperson opened it up for ad-hoc comments. At this point a few of the townspeople spoke. In general they were not as eloquent, and one gentleman in particular ranted about all sorts of things of dubious relevance. Again there were no factual statements about why the town objected to the development.

At this point the attorney for the state stepped forward and clarified a few things. The most interesting thing he said was that by statute the NHDOT is granted authority over airport development. Airports are considered to be part of the air navigation system, as highways are part of the road network. He said it was not the state's intent to step on the town's toes and apologized if that was the perception. However, he seemed to be making it clear that the state was not superseding anything as this was an existing authority. I guess that answers the questions that some had on this topic.

As the commentary wound down we got the first and only break in decorum, which was naturally the most interesting part of the meeting. Someone directly asked the town representatives to make a factual statement about why they objected to the proposal. One of the Deering representatives waved a file folder around and grumbled that there had been hours of meetings and hundreds of depositions taken. He insisted that the proper place for this discussion was in Deering. The questioner persisted and asked him for examples (at this point it was getting a little heated). Nothing. "Just one example?" At this point the town rep crossed his arms and stared straight ahead, refusing to answer.

After the close of the meeting I wandered around a bit and sampled the conversations. Several people were making the point that this is not a real zoning issue but more of a personal dispute between the owner and the townspeople. There is also apparently a debate about whether the owner is "expanding" or "improving" the property. Anyway, if this was a trial and I was the judge it would be a quick decision for the project to move forward. The town of Deering simply did not state any factual grounds why this proposal would negatively impact the community, the environment or the surrounding landowners.

[Russell Kanning]

"At this point the town rep crossed his arms and stared straight ahead, refusing to answer."

These little tyrants are unbelievable aren't they. Thanks for the report.
So what is going to happen?

[aworldnervelink]

They didn't make it clear at the meeting what the next step in the process was going to be. It seemed clear from what the attorney said that the state believes it has the statuatory authority to approve or deny the permit. Based on what I saw at the meeting it would appear to be a slam-dunk for the property owner...