[Peetwo]

While we're waiting to see where the Heff (& Senator Fawcett) heads with the dodgy deals inquiry & Secondary Airports campaign, I came across a topical & inspirational article from popular US Pilot publication AvWeb, that IMO show some remarkable parallels...  -  A Tale of Two Aviation Lawsuits

The following is the first part of the AvWeb article:

The month of May brought verdicts in two lawsuits, providing some good news to those who care about aviation, users of airports and the value of small, general aviation airports to our country as a whole.

By Rick Durden | June 7, 2015



“Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky. It is the prohibition that makes anything precious.” Mark Twain

The month of May brought some good news to those who care about aviation, users of airports and the value of small, general aviation airports to our country as a whole. The trials of two lawsuits due to, in my opinion, some of Mark Twain’s fanatics, seeking prohibition of an airport long recognized as a regional asset, in one case, and a popular, long-established commercial skydiving operation, in the other, concluded with resounding written verdicts by the trial judges in favor of the airport and the skydiving operator.

While trial court verdicts, even if written, have far less value as legal precedent than those from courts of appeal and Supreme Courts, the written opinions in each case included clear explanations of the sometimes esoteric law affecting flyover noise and airports as well as a ringing affirmation of the value of general aviation airports to the general public.

Solberg-Hunterdon Airport, New Jersey (N51)

Following a 48-day bench trial (trial before a judge, no jury, so the judge makes findings of fact and law) over the issue of whether the Township of Readington, New Jersey’s attempt to take over the Solberg Airport via eminent domain, the judge ruled against the Township and in favor of the airport owners in one of the most harshly-worded opinions that has ever been my pleasure to read.

Judge Armstrong opened with a finding that the Township’s condemnation plan “was orchestrated to prevent airport expansion under the pretexutal banner of open space policy amounting to a manifest abuse of the power of eminent domain. Moreover, the resulting lack of transparency in the Township’s action subverted the political process and weakened private property rights protection.”

Powerful stuff—but the judge was only firing an opening salvo in his exposure of the tactics used by Township personnel to destroy the commercial viability of an historic general aviation airport and wipe out the livelihood of its private owners/operators. The tactics included, but were not limited to, hiring a public relations firm to actively spread disinformation about the airport and its owners to inflame community fears about the airport and using the subterfuge of open space acquisition to condemn and take over the airport through eminent domain proceedings.

Judge Armstrong related some of the history of the airport in his Opinion as part of his findings of the value of the airport to the community and State of New Jersey. Founded as an intermodal transportation facility for the region’s general aviation needs by aviation pioneer Thor Solberg, Sr. in 1939, Solberg-Hunterdon is a 726-acre, privately owned airport open to the public. It was later designated as a reliever airport for Newark’s Liberty Airport. The National Air Transport Association designated it as one of the nation’s 100 most-needed airports.



As time went by, population increased and use of the airport increased—as did use of roads in the area. The Airport owners planned for growth to handle the increased need for its service to the public.

Anti-airport forces in the Township of Readington blocked all attempts for extensions of the two runways, including approving paving of one runway to a length of just under 4000 feet and then reneging on the deal and physically stopping the paving when 3000 feet had been completed—creating a potential safety hazard as most general aviation piston-powered twins have an accelerate-stop distance of over 3000 feet on a standard day.

After the airport published its Master Plan calling for a paved, 5600-foot runway, the Township began a complicated series of actions to condemn and acquire much of the land around the airport to prevent any runway extension. The actions would destroy the commercial viability of the airport and put the Solberg family out of business. The eminent domain actions evolved into a complete taking of the Airport under a claim by the Township that it would preserve open space while the Township would continue to run the airport as a recreational facility.

In the meantime, the Township’s PR firm was actively carrying out a campaign against the Solbergs and the Airport. Websites and flyers played on public fears of “jets” at the Airport—without mentioning that the jets that could use the airport were usually quieter than many of the airplanes currently capable of using it.

Much of the verdict reached by Judge Armstrong was based on New Jersey law, although much of it is consistent with the law of other states. The judge explained that when a Township takes action to acquire property for public use under eminent domain, there is a presumption that its action is proper—which can only be “reversed on improper motives, bad faith, or some other consideration amounting to manifest abuse of the power of eminent domain.” That erected a very high hurdle for the Solbergs to clear to prevent the Airport from being taken from them.

After hearing the testimony and examining hundreds of pieces of evidence, the judge ruled that the Solbergs had not only cleared the legal hurdle, they had provided enough objective evidence to enter low earth orbit.


Solberg-Hunterdon Airport


Judge Armstrong ruled that, “objective evidence depicts nothing less than deliberate subterfuge on the part of Readington Township in its efforts to obfuscate the desire to preclude airport expansion under the auspice of environmental policy solely in response to community fears regarding the proposed use of the airport.”

The judge went on to rule that “Township officials testimony was un-forthright, evasive, nonresponsive, untrustworthy, argumentative, lacking credibility and therefore unworthy of belief.” The judge said that the Township used a “sophisticated PR process that demonized the Airport by disseminating a catalogue of fears and appeals to mistrust which characterized Airport operations and a 5600-foot runway as much like the jets used by Continental out of Newark.”

I couldn’t help but wonder whether New Jersey law allows a private right of action against Township officials, personally, when thy act in egregious violation of their fiduciary duties and obligations.

Value of General Aviation

What struck me as important to our national airspace system and network and the aviation community beyond the arguably criminal actions of the Township officials, was the trial judge’s express recognition of the value of Solberg and other, small general aviation airports to the State of New Jersey and the United States.

In response to the Township’s incredible assertion that Solberg Airport provided no public benefit, the judge started by saying that it has long been the law that land may be taken through eminent domain to build an airport because an airport serves a public benefit.

The judge went on to say that general aviation provides services that airlines cannot and enumerated a list of such benefits, including emergency medical services, fire fighting, time-sensitive air cargo and flight instruction. There is a national system of general aviation airports that are interconnected and interdependent, involved in a national plan of an integrated airport system that is open to the public. General aviation airports support commerce and provide a safety net for emergency aircraft services. The judge referenced a New Jersey general aviation study that said that general aviation airports provide benefits to the surrounding community without providing economic rewards to the airport owners—general aviation airports contribute to the quality of life of the community as well as positively impacting the local economy.

The judge went beyond hard economics in describing the benefits of general aviation airports by ruling that they are the “cradle of aviation” for our country, essential to its economic vitality and national security by providing “the laboratories of flight where future airline and military pilots are born.” On page 37 of the Opinion, Judge Armstrong touched on some of the intangibles: “Finally, there is a certain freedom that defines general aviation. Men and women throughout history gazed longingly at the soaring effortless freedom of birds, pondering release from the symbolic bondage of gravity. Only here can a man or woman walk onto some old farmer’s field and turn dreams into reality.

As Charles Lindbergh once said: ‘What freedom lies in flying, what Godlike power it gives to men . . . I lose all consciousness in this strong unmortal space crowded with beauty, pierced with danger.’”


Santa arrives at Solberg-Hunterdon Airport

Judge Armstrong went on to rule, “Thus, general aviation airports serve a myriad of public purposes. The record substantiates the importance of general aviation and Solberg Airport’s role in particular. The Defendant (Solbergs) offered documentary and testimonial evidence, which this Court found persuasive in its determination of public purpose. The objective evidence demonstrated that general aviation generates over a billion dollars in revenue and creates thousands of jobs across the state. It has a substantial economic impact on communities and contributes directly to local business transportation capability.

The evidence also demonstrated that New Jersey’s general aviation infrastructure provides many health, welfare, and social benefits: emergency medical services, schools, fire and emergency services, law enforcement, tour operators, and traffic surveillance directly benefit from general aviation airports.

Judge Armstrong’s words are moving and inspiring to those of us who have fought what sometimes feels like a rearguard action to keep airports open. The ruling provides powerful ammunition when we explain the value of general aviation airports to those who do not understand the worth of the little airport at the edge of town and seek to close it. I recommend reading the Opinion and keeping it close for reference in the future.   

And this was the AvWeb (feel good) conclusion for both cases...

Conclusion

As one who has worked on airport access and noise matters, I’ve interviewed a number of people who have complained bitterly about aircraft noise—at least one time in circumstances where the noise around us was well in excess of aircraft flyover noise. In many instances, the complainers were not offended by a motorcycle going by at over 60 dB or by a loud lawnmower next door. However, if they could see an airplane, they would object to the noise—even if others couldn’t hear it. Irrational people? Perhaps. Desiring to prohibit something enjoyed lawfully by others? Absolutely.

The two recent cases demonstrated that there are some good laws for aviation in existence, and there is significant evidence supporting the value of general aviation in the U.S. I hope the cases will provide ammunition for those who are trying to support airports and aviation against those who are committed to preventing general aviation from existing—reforming other people’s habits. The two cases also demonstrated that a determined minority who sadly, appear to believe what they believe against objective evidence to the contrary, can make life terrible and hideously expensive for those who are pursing the dreams of legitimate, legal aeronautical activities such as running little airports and skydiving.

That these lawsuits happened is a sad commentary on empowering the, in my opinion, irrational. For all of us who care about aviation and our national airspace system, the massive costs borne by those who successfully defended general aviation has meant two rulings that should prove helpful in the battles to come.

MTF...P2