Update: June 8, 2006

Citizen Representation: A Double Standard for Airports

The manner by which the Port of Portland approaches citizen involvement at the Hillsboro Airport reflects a glaring disparity when juxtaposed with how the Port has historically addressed this same issue at Portland International Airport (PDX). Please note that the Port of Portland owns and operates a network of four airports - PDX, Hillsboro, Troutdale, and Mulino - all of which are located within 20 miles of downtown Portland. The total number of take-offs and landings at these four sites combined exceeds 600,000 operations annually, an average of 1643 daily.

Hillsboro Airport Lacks Adequate Citizen Representation

The Port refers to the recently formed Hillsboro Airport Issues Roundtable (HAIR) as "the official forum for discussions about operational issues related to Oregon's second busiest airport." What they don't mention is that no citizen participation organization, homeowners group, or neighborhood association was offered an opportunity to appoint a representative. Though there are several citizen representatives on this committee, they were all hand picked by the Port. Membership of HAIR's predecessor, the Hillsboro Airport Master Planning Committee, was also decided almost exclusively by the Port. A few of HAIR's appointed members are livability advocates but sadly they are a small minority. The majority of people chosen to serve are decidedly pro-aviation.

Hillsboro Airport Lacks a Citizen Noise Advisory Committee

In the formation of the 15-member PDX Citizen Noise Advisory Committee (CNAC) which was established in 1998, Multnomah, Clark, Washington, and Clackamas Counties each appointed one representative. In addition the City of Portland appointed 3 reps, Vancouver 2, and Gresham 1. The cities of Wood Village, Troutdale and Fairview, combined, also appointed 1 representative. The remaining four slots are filled by the Port which on almost every occasion has chosen representatives who reside in either Multnomah or Clark County. By contrast, even though the annual operational count at Hillsboro Airport (250,000) almost equals that of PDX (260,000) there is no Citizen Noise Advisory Committee whatsoever at Hillsboro.

Substantive Citizen Input Excluded from Hillsboro Master Planning Process

Regarding the PDX 2000 Master Planning process, the Port gave a number of Portland neighborhood organizations, including the Alameda and Bridgeton neighborhoods as well as the Central Northeast Neighbors and the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, an opportunity to appoint citizen representatives. Though many of these areas did not directly border the airport, the Port acknowledged that they were subjected to substantial amounts of PDX air traffic noise and pollution. While both urban and rural residents of Washington County are negatively impacted on a routine basis by air traffic noise and pollution resulting from Hillsboro Airport operations, no citizen participation organization, homeowners group, or neighborhood association was offered an opportunity to choose a representative.

PDX Air Traffic Shifted to Hillsboro

Given this difference in committee composition at the two airports it should come as no great surprise that while the operational count at Hillsboro Airport is steadily increasing, PDX has dropped to 1989 levels with close to a 75,000 decrease in annual operations (arrivals and departures) over the past 8 years. Indeed, in July and August of last year Hillsboro Airport logged more monthly operations than PDX did. A glance at the Port of Portland website www.portofportland.com (click on aviation then statistics) reveals that general aviation activity at PDX is steadily declining - a result of a covert move to relocate these operations at Hillsboro Airport. The Port can then say Hillsboro Airport needs a new runway due to congestion, even though there is plenty of capacity available at other Port of Portland owned and operated airports including PDX, Troutdale, and Mulino.

The Port refers to Hillsboro Airport which is situated on 933 acres as a reliever airport. PDX by contrast which is billed as a primary airport is located on 3300 acres, more than three times as much land as Hillsboro Airport occupies. It is striking to note that at Hillsboro Airport there are 267 annual operations per acre of land while at PDX that figure drops to 78 per acre. It is also noteworthy that PDX currently has the capacity to accommodate close to 500,000 annual operations: 240,000 more than they are currently handling. In addition Troutdale Airport has an abundance of excess capacity.

Need for an Independent Citizen Oversight Committee

By engaging in the undemocratic practice of actively suppressing and undermining citizen involvement related to the excessive air traffic over Washington County, the Port of Portland Board of Commissioners and the Governor who appointed them have demonstrated their obvious indifference to the livability concerns of Washington County residents. Additionally they have made it abundantly clear that they are more than willing to squander public monies in their efforts to pander to aviation and corporate interests. The Washington County Board of Commissioners along with the City of Hillsboro Mayor, City Council, and Planning Department should also be held fully accountable to the extent that they align with the Port and aviation interests over the common good of the people they are called upon to serve.

The oft-touted assertion that growth is inevitable at the Hillsboro Airport is based on spurious pork barrel thinking. Port of Portland officials and commissioners, their paid consultants, and the Port-appointed Hillsboro Master Planning committee intentionally fail to factor in excess capacity currently available at other Port of Portland facilities. Additionally they neglect to consider ways in which air traffic can be reduced throughout the region to protect the environment and livability for current residents and generations to come.

To remedy this situation, an independent citizen oversight advisory committee, composed of both urban and rural Washington County residents, should be formed and charged with the task of determining whether current and future uses planned for this facility serve the greater good. Full consideration of noise, pollution, safety, security, and property devaluation impacts should be thoroughly researched then presented to the public in an open and forthright manner.

Airports: Important Economic Engines?

The American Working Group For National Policy, 847-506-0670

The local airport has announced their expansion plans. They want longer or more runways to attract more business (incidentally longer runways will reduce the insurance rates for the aircraft owners). They want more hangers for the expected boom in business (and hanger space is the cheapest space in town so its great for storing your cars and boats). The local airport is such a powerful economic engine that it has to be updated and upgraded or your community will lose out on this valuable economic resource.

Really? Is your local airport an important, economic engine?

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is a part of the federal government that is suppose to serve the public interests but is more intent on only serving the interest of the aviation industry. Over the years, the FAA has developed a huge number of procedures and policies for airports to use in various situations. One of these procedures is what they call a "cost-benefit analysis". This is the approved FAA procedure to downgrade any costs or negative implications of an airport and to multiply any possible benefits from a point just above ludicrous to a place where anyone would gasp for some reality. Any kidding aside, the FAA cost-benefit process allows the primary beneficiaries to unaccountably inflate their financial figures and projections, allows ambiguous phone surveys for projection data, does not account for local loss in property values or the other negative problems, does not include all subsidies and grants and uses a multiplier effect of between 1.5 and 2 to augment any of the inflated values they've already received from airport businesses ­ the prime beneficiaries of any expansion. It is a procedure designed to produce a positive cost-benefit analysis for almost any airport.

So when your local airport comes to you claiming to be the proverbial goose that lays golden eggs, the part you can believe is that someone is getting goosed and someone else is getting egged.

The FAA also has the unique and unreal ability to retain every penny and nickel that it collects through fees, surtaxes and licensing. Any other governmental unit is subject to legislative whims that raid their budget. Who hasn't heard of your gas taxes going to pay for some governmental white elephant and cigarette taxes that certainly don't go to offset health expenses? Yet strangely enough, while every other means of transportation has consistently been raided for funds outside the realm of transportation, the FAA never gives ­ but always receives. It seems a bit inconsistent with the times. The transportation system for the richest amongst us constantly and consistently needs to be funded from the taxpayer ­ under-taxed on the local level, subsidized and low-interest loans from the state and outright grants from the federal level. The transportation system that guzzles the most fuel and spews the most pollution also proportionally chugs most of the taxpayer dollar.

Take a good, hard look at the average local airport with a 3 to 5,000-foot runway sitting on about 500 to 750 acres of prime real estate. As an airport, that land is developed land ­ nobody else can build there ­ but as far as property taxes go, only the areas that are actually occupied by a business pay anything in property taxes. So, if you look into it, you'll find that although the airport utilizes that entire acreage and without it, their business would be less than useless, all the businesses at the local 500 ­ 750 acre airport are probably paying less in property taxes than a 25-acre residential sub-division. Nationally, taxpayers support most all airports.

There are hundreds of hangers at a local airport. Airport hangers at most airports are usually rented at less than half the rate of the storage facility all the non-airport users pay down the street, because, well, there really is no good reason why airplane owners don't pay market rates, it's just an extra benefit of being part of the aviation industry.

Would you like to purchase a cheap home? It doesn't take a real estate expert to figure out you'll get more housing square foot per dollar near an airport versus being "out-of-range" of an airport. How will all the neighboring homeowners get reimbursed for the detrimental effects on their home value and quality-of-life of an expanding airport? Well ­ they won't ­ they're just supposed to grin and bear it.

Take a look at the contrails produced by a jet as it flies overhead. Imagine the fuel a jet burns and the harmful pollution it causes. Some people will tell you that if you could just take away all the jet traffic, greenhouse pollution could be turned around. Aircraft do more damage to our environment than any other form of transportation by burning fuel and producing pollution at an extraordinary rate, directly into our upper atmosphere ­ yet the State and Federal aircraft fuel tax per gallon is less than half of the State and Federal taxes you pay at your local gasoline pump. Why is that? Could it be that the people who own aircraft, that can cost anything from $85,000 for a small prop plane to multi-millions for a jet, just can't afford to pay the same fuel tax? It is like buying a big boat that you can't afford, so you get someone else to pay your fuel bill.

Remember the stadium that the local municipality just had to have ­ to compete with every other stadium? The story was that a stadium generates revenue and is an economic powerhouse for the entire community. How much of an economic boom was that for you? Did you really make a lot of money on that deal ­ or did your property taxes just go up? An airport deal is like a stadium deal without any benefits ­ just the downside of noise and harmful pollution in your backyard ­ every day and every night.

A community really needs to look at airport expansions very critically. The current airport users obviously don't need an expansion. The new technologically improved and smaller very light jets require runways of only about 3,000 feet ­ so why is the FAA pushing for more runways in the 5,000-foot plus range? Why is the FAA trying to ban any pavement based weight restrictions? Is there a "build it and they will come" mentality at work? Just how big, noisy and polluting are the aircraft that will use this new nationwide system of 5,000-foot plus runways the FAA is intent on building? What does the FAA have planned to impose upon the nation?

For the average homeowner there are no benefits to expanding the local airport. More tax dollars will go to the airport, but the people who benefit the most from an expansion won't be paying more for using an improved facility ­ in fact ­ they'll probably pay less. The average airport community can expect more noise and pollution from an expanded airport, but unless a business is directly involved with aviation there are few tangible benefits for anyone.

"AIRPORTS ARE NOT ECONOMIC ENGINES, THEY ARE THE RESULT OF ECONOMIC ENGINES."

Hillsboro Airport: The Facts

• The Hillsboro Airport, which is owned and operated by the Port of Portland, is the second largest airport in the entire state of Oregon. The Port also owns and manages Portland International (PDX), Troutdale and Mulino Airports.
• There are more than a quarter of a million landings and take-offs at the Hillsboro Airport annually - an average of nearly 700 daily operations.
• The Port projects that take-offs and landing at Hillsboro will increase by 70,000 to 323,000 annual operations over the next 10 to 20 years.
• In some months there are actually more landings and take-offs at Hillsboro than at PDX in part because the Port of Portland has been shifting general aviation operations from PDX to Hillsboro on a routine basis.
• In its new Hillsboro Airport Master Plan, the Port states its intent to add a third runway at the Hillsboro Airport in an effort to preserve capacity at PDX. It is worth noting that PDX, which in 2005 logged approximately 260,000 operations has the capacity to handle 500,000 take-offs and landings per year. Clearly there is plenty of capacity at PDX. Troutdale Airport also has an excess of capacity at the present time.
• The total cost for the implementation of the Port's expansion plans, including the proposed addition of a third runway, totals $126,989,000 over the next 20 years.
• Hillsboro Airport is categorized as General Aviation (GA), which includes corporate business jets, aviation hobbyists, and flight students - many of whom are recruited from outside of the country and out of state. In the state of Oregon, GA pilots constitute about 1/3 of one-percent of the population.
• The majority of aircraft using this airport use lead based fuel. Lead is known to be toxic even in very low doses. According to the Environmental Protection Agency: "Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death."
• No Citizen Participation Organization, homeowners group, or neighborhood association was offered an opportunity to choose a representative for the recently formed Hillsboro Airport Issues Roundtable or the Hillsboro Airport Master Planning Committee. In fact the decision as to who would serve on this committee was made almost exclusively by the Port. This contrasts sharply with the methods employed in forming the PDX Master Planning committee wherein 5 neighborhood groups were given an opportunity to appoint representatives.
• PDX has a Citizen Noise Advisory Committee (CNAC), most of whose members are appointed by counties and cities impacted by PDX air traffic. By contrast there is no citizen appointed advisory committee of any kind at Hillsboro.