Guest column

There are two sides to airport story

Since the Times believes in the importance of an informed citizenry, some points for consideration are necessary regarding the use of St. Petersburg taxpayer dollars for Albert Whitted Airport.

Contrary to your editorial (The people's land, Feb. 2), I am interested in the effect of increased taxes on them because I am an airport user. I want the airport to receive Federal Aviation Administration funds, but the single-runway plan will cause their taxes to increase because the FAA has said there is no money in the future for the "new" airport.

Congress has long required that owners of an airport, like the city of St. Petersburg, assure the federal government that aviation trust funds will be used for aviation purposes for at least 20 years. Congress wants assurance that airport owners do not "take the money and run" or divert it to unauthorized uses. Besides the FAA, other governmental agencies require local governments to commit that government funds will be used as required by their rules. The FAA is not involved in leasing anything from the citizens. The grant assurance is a contract between the city and the FAA. The difficulty is that the city's charter is not clear enough for some lawyers on the difference between a contract and a lease. After all, who writes the charter?

As for your contention that airport supporters promote the two-runway master plan, the Times is right. The single-runway concept will not satisfy regulatory requirements for airport operations. The FAA establishes airport design requirements by thorough and deliberate evaluation with knowledgeable public input. The FAA requires that an airport's runway orientation provide crosswind protection for aircraft and their operating modes at least 95 percent of the time. For aircraft such as those that operate at Albert Whitted to attain the 95 percent criterion, the winds cannot blow more than 10.5 miles per hour at an angle of 90 degrees from the runway landing direction. Mayor Baker's plan will not satisfy this criterion unless he has figured out a way to change the direction of the surface winds around Albert Whitted.

Mayor Baker proposes to sell 22 acres of airport land for $33-million to pay for the "new" airport. The city's estimate to develop the single-runway concept is $38-million. In the November workshop, the FAA said it will not provide any funds to build the "new" airport. The financial burden of removing the "old" airport and building the "new" one will be squarely on the backs of St. Petersburg taxpayers.

The FAA will not approve releasing the city from its current grant assurance until 2021 unless the city can show two things: that aviation would benefit from closing Runway 6-24 and that the aviation users support the airport change. I can tell you the city does not have the support of the aviation users.

Finally, the City Council is not malleable, nor can it be intimidated. Was the editorial writer listening when Mr. Bryan and I had our exchange over his nonsense about most airports in Florida having single runways? The fact is that 70 percent of the airports in Florida have more than one runway.

We fully expect the Times to continue to publish its own version of the truth about the future of the people's land.

You can expect airport supporters like me to be right there telling the public the correct and factual side of the story.

-- Jack W. Tunstill is vice chairman of the Albert Whitted Airport advisory committee and the local representative for the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Airport Support Network.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright