Supporters of Albert Whitted Airport are building their case on two assertions that just aren't true.
Published October 10, 2003
Advocates of Albert Whitted Airport must think St. Petersburg residents are fools. How else to explain why the advocates would build their pro-airport campaign on two blatant lies.
The false information was repeated again this week in a debate at the Suncoast Tiger Bay Club. The airport makes a profit, one advocate said. And the proposal that would replace the airport with a park is just a front for condo development, another advocate said.
Those might be compelling arguments in favor of choosing an airport over a park on the public waterfront. Except, those statements are not true.
The airport loses money on its operations, and that loss has to be subsidized by city taxpayers. Under no legitimate accounting principles could the loss be mistaken for a profit. Here are the relevant figures from the most recent airport budget: Albert Whitted has $758,000 in revenues and $1.039-million in expenses, for an operating loss of $281,000. So the city has shifted $325,000 from the general fund (which is where the city keeps the taxes it collects from residents) to the airport to cover the loss and any additional, unexpected expenses.
City taxpayers will have to decide for themselves whether they are getting their money's worth out of the airport. Certainly there are other city needs that could be met with that $325,000, such as more police officers, road repairs or library books. And annual airport losses in the future could be even larger, especially if the city borrows more money to spend on airport enhancements.
The claim that condos will be built on the property if voters choose a park over an airport is also erroneous. In fact, the park proposal would do just the opposite: It would make it more difficult to build condos or anything else on the public waterfront by strengthening the right of city residents to approve leases.
Currently, the charter says that airport property can be leased by the city for up to 10 years without seeking voter approval of the deal. If the park proposal (Question 3 on the ballot) succeeds, it would shrink that threshold to five years, thereby encouraging more citizen participation in lease decisions. So, for example, a nine-year lease that is currently allowed at the airport without a referendum, would not be valid without public approval under the park proposal. Condos are even less likely with a five-year lease restriction than they are with the current 10-year lease restriction.
Airport advocates must be hoping that residents aren't paying close attention to the real issue in this debate - which is that Albert Whitted takes up valuable space on the downtown waterfront, soaking up tax dollars for the benefit of 177 airplane owners. The advocates must think that if they repeat their lies enough times, voters will believe them. That could be a mistake.
It is more likely that once St. Petersburg voters realize they are being fed false information about airport revenues and protection of the public waterfront, they will find the pro-airport arguments invalid.
