Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 6:54 AM

New compost plan riles Palo Alto Airport fans
Task force proposal to move composting operation to 'vacant' airport site draws criticism from aviators

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 8:52 am

I think the Palo Alto Airport is destined to become a memory just like the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. The County doesn't want it and the City can't afford it. I don't think the City wants to run it either.

Time to move your planes to San Carlos!

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 9:54 am

Composting benefits practically everyone. Private aviation benefits a very few.

Posted by mouse, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:22 am

And the airport said, "don't move my cheese."

Posted by R, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:24 am

Composting on Palo Alto lands is a ridiculously stupid use of valuable real estate. Ship the compost out somewhere else.

Posted by rem, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:53 am

Why don’t we have a honest City Council that will honestly say “Developer (Contractors) Lobby, Developer (Contractors) donate and we will approve!!!!”

It would be great if the City Council and all the other “Councils” and “Work Shops” learned a new word – NO or new phase – DISAPPROVED….

There is no sane reason for this “Redevelopment” except MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and not caring about the people of Palo Alto or ANY of the other communities …..

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:54 am

The PA airport will be gone when the lease and management contracts are up. It is well known that the county does not want to operate the airport any longer - and has already tried to get someone else (City of PA) to take over. It is a money loser and administrative drain.

The CPA should not even consider taking over airport responsibilities:

- documented money loser

- CPA has no airport management experience

- CPA will be running a deficit already

- CPA does not need to add a new department and/or headcount to an already troubled staff level and/or payroll/benefits situation.

The county is responsible for airports. It's their job to either keep it going or shut it down, not the CPA.

Posted by sheesh, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 12:41 pm

"As far as we're concerned, this location is a nonstarter."

And you wonder why you weren't included in the discussions....?

Posted by Samuel, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 12:53 pm

The composting operation should be kept right where it is now, the dump. It is time that we stand up to the greedy preservationists. There is a lot of land at the dump, and a small fraction used for composting should be a no-brainer, period. We could save all sorts of money, too. Why is Emily Renzel running this town?

Posted by heli, a resident of Los Altos, on Jul 21, 2009 at 1:04 pm

The airport is not a money loser per CPA auditor.

Posted by heli, a resident of Los Altos, on Jul 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm

We don't all have access to private aircraft but we are happy with our capitalist economy which permits more valued members to own them. What kind of plane does Oprah have? A very expensive one.

Posted by No Fly Zone, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm

The posters who say we should close the PA Airport have it exactly right. It's a subsidized money loser that benefits the well off. Moreover, most of users of the Airport are not even Palo Alto residents.

Why we should even think of subsidizing the wealthy residents of Atherton and Los Altos Hills as they pursue their expensive hobbies when we have plenty of productive uses for the land that would benefit ALL residents is a total mystery.

You have to give the Airport Association kudos for Chutzpah as they make demands and "non-starter" ultimata quotes to the newspapers. However bold their spokesmen are, however, they deserve to lose this debate without much discussion.

Posted by just curious, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 1:38 pm

What percentage of the airport users are Palo Alto residents vs. outsiders? Seems to me that outsiders have no right to complain, but if should at least listen to complaints from residents.

Posted by heli, a resident of Los Altos, on Jul 21, 2009 at 3:04 pm

What percentage of SFO, OAK and SJC airport users are residents vs outsiders?

The US is unique in having such a wonderful air transportation system. At least Palo Alto's airport is next to the bay, allowing the vast majority of small planes and helicopters to take-off and land without overflying residences.

Come to PAO airport day on Sept 12, 2009 and learn about this wonderful resource!

Posted by SteveU, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 3:17 pm
SteveU is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

What is a big pile of stuff going to do to cross wind turbulence on the runway?

PA is one of the few small airports left at this end of the bay where housing has not crept up around it.

Keep the airport open. Keep it safe. Change the plan for the park if needed. It is only INK on paper at this time.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 3:39 pm

"What is a big pile of stuff going to do to cross wind turbulence on the runway?"

Excellent point: Not only does the airport benefit only a very few, but those very few need excessive pampering. Close the blinking thing and use the land for everyone's benefit.

Posted by R, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 4:35 pm

It is sad to see neighbors with so much venom towards people who can afford airplanes or people who live in neighboring cities. It makes me ashamed to be from Palo Alto, and thus be associated with such small-minded vileness.

-----

Yes, the airport should be evaluated to see if it can be put on solid financial grounding. I'm not sure why people assume that would be impossible. I don't have a plane, and am unable to clearly remember if I've ridden a plane, maybe once, out of Palo Alto airport during my 23 years here. Nevertheless, it is clearly a valuable asset/service. Having it close by (vs far away) is clearly a benefit. Having a compost pile close by (vs far away) has no clear benefit.

-----

In evaluating the land, one should note that the alternative uses are limited. This land is very prone to flooding.

Posted by Andrew, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 4:43 pm

As a pilot who flys out of Palo Alto Airport as a resident of Palo Alto I have to think there's room for both interests. The Palo Alto airport financial situation is not the question here, its the real estate. It is unlikely that one of the business single runway airports in the country will not find a way to stay viable.

The dump/waste processing facility/recycling center future compost plans can work out a plan that allows for the airport, and the golf course for that matter, to remain open. As SteveU notes, a compost next to an airport should cause no concern.

Posted by Samuel, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 4:54 pm

Has there been a study of the people who hike in the existing baylands park? What percentage are from Palo Alto? Same thing for the golf course. Same thing for public parks, except Foothills.

I am not a pilot, and have no particular interest in PAO, but I find it unfair to pick on this public asset.

Posted by No Fly Zone, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 4:57 pm

"What percentage of the airport users are Palo Alto residents vs. outsiders? Seems to me that outsiders have no right to complain, but if should at least listen to complaints from residents."

Last time a survey was done (I think about 3 years ago), 70% of planes berthed at Palo Alto Airport were owned by non-residents. The percentage of users - including student pilots, etc. - who are outsiders is slightly more than 70%.

I don't know if a survey ever has been done to determine how many residents ever have used the airport, but it is very small. (And if this thread goes on very long, virtually all of them will be posting here with their individual stories of how wonderful the airport is and why it should be kept open. THere is something mystical about flying to its adherents. I just don't see why we should have to cater to their religion.)

I disagree with the implication of one poster above that the absence of a compost pile allows planes to avoid residential areas. Anyone who's lived in PA long enough can't help but have noticed how, especially on weekends, residential areas are buzzed by small planes going in and out of the airport. It's an unavoidable problem of living next to an operating airport.

I don't see why the city should be subsidizing an expensive hobby for wealthy out of towners when many of those resident non-users who are bothered by the noise (however few or many they may be) are paying taxes to support it.

And to R: the PA airport has been evaluated over and over by the county, which actually has extensive experience in operating airports (unlike the city). They determined that it was doomed to money losing operations, which is why it's being returned to city control. There is no reasonable way the city can operate the airport profitably when the county couldn't.

(And the report issued by desperate local pilots a while back pretending to put forth a scheme for profitable operation was nothing but smoke and mirrors from the same wealthy people mentioned above who want the rest of us to subsidize their expensive hobby.)

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 5:12 pm

The airport has been there longer than most residents and it has always been busy with planes landing and taking off. This is stuff we should have been aware of when deciding to live here.

The only 2 pilots I know who use the airport are both PA residents and both work as pilots for PA businesses based at the airport (different businesses). These are not wealthy residents but are average people doing their jobs, just like the rest of us. If the airport closed, they would both be out of jobs and/or have to move to wherever they could find work.

Posted by No Fly Zone, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 5:22 pm

"The only 2 pilots I know who use the airport are both PA residents and both work as pilots for PA businesses based at the airport (different businesses). These are not wealthy residents but are average people doing their jobs, just like the rest of us. If the airport closed, they would both be out of jobs and/or have to move to wherever they could find work."

Thank you for your anecdotal recitement of the cases of two of the 30% minority of users of the airport who happen to be city residents.

If the businesses your acquaintences work for are profitable at the Palo Alto Airport, there is no reason that they couldn't also be successful at one of the non-subsidized local airports in the area like San Carlos, Reid-Hillview or Hayward. Your friends might have to commute - like many of the rest of us - but there is no reason to suppose that they will be out of jobs if the airport closes.

And besides, with the city having budget problems of its own, many residents strapped for tax money because of the economy, and with budget cuts coming for many programs that many more residents than are airport users enjoy, should the city be in the business of favoring your two pilot friends with other people's money?

Posted by William, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 5:45 pm

I think No Fly Zone sums up the various considerations very well. In particular that the County couldn't make a profit so how could PA do so when it has no airport operating experience. Go out and hire experience? Another cost burden for a revenue short city.

Posted by embarassed, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Brief comment; as a card carrying wealthy and liberal Palo Alto resident, who is also a recent student pilot and looking forward to using our airport I have to say how embarrassed I am over the community I live in. I tend to watch the comments in the PA Weekly to see how my community zeitgeist is doing. I also sometimes read Fox News comments to see how the other side views my world. Lately I'm not sure which is more hateful which is surprising and embarrassing.

The entire idea of someone from Palo Alto (myself included) calling anyone from another community elitist is amazing and embarrassing when looked at from outside our bubble.

Likewise, the entire idea of criticizing the activities of others for any small cost or inconvenience reminds me of any of the classic arguments of the radical right on subjects that really have no real impact on their lives.

I don't ride the train enough to justify my payments to it or the noise it creates, but I happy pay for the development. I don't get my portion of the $50,000 of satisfaction from a fountain but I am happy that it exists. Same goes with lawn bowling, dog parks, the booms of Stanford fireworks, and all the services that special interests in our community enjoys.

Should the airport be profitable. Yes, and I don't understand why it would not be. There is enough money flowing in terms of gas and value that somehow it should be a money maker, but that is not what this debate is about.

In short the vileness of the arguments and the selfish interests just make me wonder why an environment that most people would kill to live in is so filled with hate and jealousy. Its a sad condition.

All I would expect from my neighbors is to enjoy what good items they have in life and stop trying so hard to destroy the happiness of others when their personal benefit is slightly less then neutral.

But I guess we have as much hatred as the other guys... oh well.

Posted by Toady, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 5:51 pm

I have no skin in this game, but I'm laughing at the logic -- just because the airport benefits a few, we shouldn't have it. If we're consistently logical, then we should get rid of all homeless benefits, because the majority don't benefit either.

Ridiculous.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 6:23 pm

"The airport has been there longer than most residents and it has always been busy with planes landing and taking off. This is stuff we should have been aware of when deciding to live here."

Now that's typical aviators arrogance.

Sorry, but I don't buy that "logic." The airport does not have the God-given right to blight a huge area of land around it just because it occupied a small part of that land first. My neighbor has lived in Palo Alto far longer than I have, but being a well mannered guy he does not feel entitled to use my property. If he wants to use it, he can buy it or pay rent. And that's the pilots' option - buy Palo Alto, pay a realistic rent for their intrusions, or stay away. Making them pay the real cost of their hobby or business could solve the whole problem. This is America: if you can't afford it you don't do it.

Had the airport been a feedlot bestowing its exquisite fragrances on our city, it would have been zoned out of business and put to a more appropriate use long ago. Same with the airport. It costs too much.

Posted by Bob Wenzlau, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Bob Wenzlau is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

While the Compost Task Force has presented an interest to use undeveloped land at the airport, this discussion in this forum has grown far out of proportion to the contemplated impact or intent. The Task Force recommended use of about 4 acres of what appeared undeveloped land, and now through discussions at the study session with Council we are learning about the perceived impact by airport advocates. I anticipate further discussions with the airport advocates, and will discover through hard work whether we can develop an innovative approach. I am heartened by airport advocates interest in sustainability - an initial starting point. Given that we already created one remarkable collaboration between the park and local compost advocates, I am eager to see if we can extend a sustainable vision to advocates for the airport. Our progress can be foiled if this planning gets framed as a litmus test on commitment to our airport, local composting or parks. Just to be clear, the remarks are my own, and don't represent a position of the Task Force.

Posted by red baron, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:29 pm

For a group of mostly recreational pilots whose facility is subsidized by Palo Alto, digging in around a few acres is not exactly the beginning of end for the airport. Get real flyboys, you can still indulge your touch and go's without the 4 acres that are proposed to be used for a compost operation.

The proposed composting operation will offset some of the CO2 that your hobby spews into the air.

Posted by A neighbor, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 12:37 am

To Bob Wenzlau: Hear, hear! I wonder how many people posting here read the latest Compost Task Force report to the City Council and listened to *all* the airport speakers said at Council on Monday night.

To all wanting to shut down the Palo Alto Airport: If so, do you also want to shut down Highways 101 and 280 through town? Take away all the cars and bring back horses (and their poop, too)? Stop all Stanford Lifeflight helicopters anywhere over urban areas the day you or your family needs one and while doing that by re-routing them in a zigzag over the hills, make Stanford build a big Jet A full tank to gas them by the hospital instead of the airport? And have you read the latest report from the County about the Palo Alto Airport wherein they now are "rethinking" their earlier statements that the airport does not make money because the County "suddenly" now realizes they have been skimming profits from the airport for years to pay for other "things" than the 2 - count 'em 2@!! - County airport workers there are at the airport....

Let's all get the real and full facts... and then work with those.

Posted by No Fly Zone, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:20 am

As predicted, the local aviation lobby got going quickly here, as they always do when any perceived threat to their subsidized hobby - no matter how insignificant that threat may be - arises.

You have to admire their organization. Less praiseworthy is their self righteous sense of entitlement and abject lack of objectivity.

Do they really think they are in the same position as the homeless when it comes to a moral right to public assistance? If wealthy private airplane owners are victims, we've lost any sense of balance here in town.

Is it really "vile" to suggest that wealthy aircraft owners from Atherton should not be subsidized by a city that's cutting in every area of the budget. Are these pilots really so enraptured by their private little thrills, and so insulated from any sense of the common good and basic propriety, that they can call others who are bothered by their widespread noise pollution "selfish" with no sense of irony whatsoever?

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by SteveU, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 7:21 am
SteveU is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

I like the idea that Palo Alto get rid of any program they fund that

I

Do not do. NIMBY to the max!

I don't fly planes.

I don't hike in the mountains OR Bay lands.

I don't play field sports.

I,

I,

I.

I pay taxes, just like others.Get real.

The people and companies that airport serves have just as many rights as you do. Maybe more, they paid for airport services.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 9:33 am

"To all wanting to shut down the Palo Alto Airport: If so, do you also want to shut down Highways 101 and 280 through town? etc. ..."

You left out SFO, BTW

No. Those are public resources that benefit everyone. The PA airport benefits only a few.

Close 101 or 280 or SFO and the local economy hurts. Close the airport and what you get is quieter skies, plus additional acres for the general benefit.

Posted by Nancy Teater, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 9:47 am

The County wants to terminate operation of the airport when its lease expires in 2017, apparently because it operates at a loss. I have difficulty imagining Palo Alto taking over a money-losing operation. So talk of expanding the current operation and using the vacant eight-acre parcel for airport operations doesn't make economic sense. In any case, we have eight years to fight about this (maybe more).

I think the co-location of composting with the water treatment plant is an excellent idea. I support it.

Nancy Teater

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 9:52 am

Too bad we didn't have a forum like this when the Yacht Harbor was slated for closure. Why didn't we save the Yacht Harbor? Boats are much more affordable and accessible to average people than planes. I recently talked about the airport to a friend who still laments the Harbor closure. Ironically, he didn't give a damn if the airport was closed. He didn't even see the similarity of the situation. As such, I think the airport is doomed.

Posted by surly-bonds, a resident of another community, on Jul 22, 2009 at 10:57 am

..as a long-time small-plane pilot ( see 'high flight' for the

reference above ) - i am deeply saddened by the venom that non-pilots seem to spew at the slightest provocation.

- flying does indeed uplift you in ways previously thought unimaginable ( and if you don't believe me, I suggest you try it)

- The airport -is- indeed profitable and city does indeed take

the profits for their own uses !

- I am certainly not 'rich' - heck, my car is 18 years old ( but fully functional and gets me 32 miles per gallon - and since this is

crazy Palo Alto, my Nx0/Cx emissions on each smog test are 0.1% (!) of what is allowed..). Likewise, your lawn mower or automobile has a

-much- larger carbon footprint compared to small planes that burn primarily kerosene derivatives. If you'd taken the time to do your research , o whacked-out palo alto'ers - you'd see that flying -commercial- has a larger footprint due to compounds being injected high in the atmosphere where they are subject to more intense UV radiation and are not sequestered ( a technical term, look it up..)

- And yes, I am a card carrying member of the Sierra Club, the Monterey bay aquarium, the Cal academy of Sciences and most every other environmental organization you can think of.

- So, whackos out there, get a life and try contribute to the improvement of society -- instead of your own contributions to global warming by spewing out even more hot air !!

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 11:06 am

Wow. Some really extreme opinions out there. Let's not get personal - it really takes us away from a meaningful debate.

Bottom line - my opinion is that CPA should have nothing to do with managing or maintaining PAO. CPA has no expertise in airports, nor should it endeavor to become an expert. It is the county's charter to handle such a things.

Now - I will say that all of us have to realize that airports, just like county parks, are regional assets for the larger community - not just for the residents of the host city. There's no reason to get into residency issues.

Also - I don't care if someone is wealthy or not. Whether they fly for a hobby or run a business out of PAO. That is not the issue. The issue is PAO financial viability and keeping CPA tax dollars out of the mix. PAO is a county funded facility and it should stay that way or become independently solvent itself.

If and when the PAO lease and management agreements come up (someone said 2017?), then it is the county's business as to what to do.

If we stay focused towards making sure that the airport does not require subsidized funding from CPA or require CPA personnel resources, then there's no need to argue about anything else. The airport has been there for decades - as long as it pays its own way, its fine with me if it stays (but does not expand BTW).

Posted by Chairman Mao, a resident of another community, on Jul 22, 2009 at 11:31 am

"Lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own feet" is a Chinese folk saying to describe the behaviour of certain fools. Airport supporter Larry Klein wanted to put the composting operation on dedicated parkland. So did airport supporter Jack Morton. They joined with their City Council colleagues to create a Composting Task Force with only one park advocate (Emily Renzel) out of nine task force members. The Composting Task Force has recommended that the composting operation be moved to land adjacent to the airport. Now the airport supporters are upset. They should never have picked up that rock.

Posted by Julian, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 2:19 pm

"Private aviation benefits a very few."

Tell that to the medical patients going in and out of the airport every day (or search for yourself using "Angel Flight")

As for the county's so called studies - bear in mind that they used all their skills in Creative Accounting and Double Bookkeeping. If you look into the county's accounting, you'll find, for example, diverting airport income into the general fund while paying airport expenses out of the airport fund. Of course they show a loss! The county airport department is not interesting in anything besides San Jose Airport, which by the way is a facility in another city used by residents of Palo Alto.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 4:36 pm

""Private aviation benefits a very few." ... "Tell that to the medical patients going in and out of the airport every day (or search for yourself using "Angel Flight")"

OK, let's restrict PAO to Angel Flights.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 5:34 pm

"The county airport department is not interesting in anything besides San Jose Airport"

Last time I checked, the City of San Jose runs San Jose Airport. The County doesn't run that one.

Posted by Samuel, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Palo Alto is an interesting place, because we have a variety of opportunities. We are very generous with people outside our town, both rich and poor. The airport is one example. The current park at the old dump site, and the new one proposed, is another example. However, we do not need to sacrifice other valuable uses, like compsoting or recyling, to the whims and desires of various preservationist elites. What is the average income of those who walk in the current baylands park? Are they Palo Alto citizens? It can get pretty ridiculous.

Palo Alto has one selfish park, and that is Foothills. Personally, I hope it stays that way, because there is a long history of very selfish interests in neighboring towns, who refused to help pay for that park when it counted.

The airport, PAO, has a long and storied history. We should keep it, and use part of the dump for composting and recycling.

Posted by Julian, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2009 at 11:48 pm

"Last time I checked, the City of San Jose runs San Jose Airport. The County doesn't run that one."

OK, I should have known better than to try to make a subtle crack in plaintext. Think twice about the statement - my point was that the county airports division doesn't want to take care of the small airports at all.

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 1:19 am

Mark Dean and Bob Lennox should have chosen their words more carefully. Shifting Embarcadero to free four acres that are mostly unused will not endanger the airport -- unless they anger the community with an arrogant attitude. Expanding the water treatment plant to accomodate compost has many upsides, including eventually generating energy from waste. The airport can continue just fine with the footprint they currently use.

Posted by PatrickD, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 8:51 am

"OK, let's restrict PAO to Angel Flights."

What about the Civil Air Patrol? Also, it serves as a good reliever airport for SFO and SJC. Would you rather be held up by a Cessna next time you're trying to fly out of one of those airports?

It's really easy to lose valuable infrastructure like this to development and really hard to get it back again once its gone. The Southern Pacific railway line to Los Gatos and on to Santa Cruz is a good example of that. It's amazing that we used to have such comprehensive railway service and now we just wish we had it back.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 9:45 am

"It's really easy to lose valuable infrastructure like this to development and really hard to get it back again once its gone. The Southern Pacific railway line to Los Gatos and on to Santa Cruz is a good example of that."

That railroad was lost to a series of mudslides in 1940, not to development. The railroad decided economics wouldn't support rebuilding it. Speaking of hydro issues, how much will it cost to rebuild and re-rebuild the dikes to keep tidewater away from those expensive toys parked at the airport, and who pays? I watched the bay come almost to the runway a few Januarys ago.

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 10:41 am

@Julian and other PAO supporters: I'm sure the land-use issue will be figured out so that all will survive and thrive. But, I reiterate again, the financial and operational management of PAO is a county affair. Don't look to CPA to take it over - it will be fought by just about every resident. The city does not need the headache or the financial responsibility...especially since PAO is really a regional concern, not a city concern.

If you're truly convinced that PAO is financially viable, then I suggest that you organize a non-profit company (with no subsidies from city funds) to take over all-things PAO.

Posted by Julian, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Clarification here - the City of Palo Alto owns the airport, as it always has. It is operated by the county for the city. I don't remember when the current operating agreement ends.

The determination that the airport is financially viable has already been done. Suggesting that a resident's group operate it isn't useful - residents shouldn't spend their time operating city owned property; that's what the city government is for. Same goes for fire, police, utilities, etc.

Posted by Samuel, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Crescednt Park Dad,

I tend to agree with you. PAO should be self sustaining, financailly. Part of this equation should be that PAO can build more hangers. The county got out of the contract, becasue the preservationist elites prohibited more hangers, so that they could then make the argument that the airport is not financially viable. To put it simply, the preservationists are driving a circular argument, in order to take over the land at the airport, and turn it into park land.

PAO is a huge potential asset to Palo Alto, but it needs to be allowed to prosper according to the market value of its underlying assets, without elitist preservationist interests killing it off.

In terms of the arguments about CPA subsidies, do our current parks, including those at the dump site, get subsidies, or do all those out of town hikers pay for the upkeep? PAO is in a much better position to pay for itself, and to continue to add value to Palo Alto, compared to all the subsidzied parks, and other public services in PA.

The composting facility should be kept where it currently is. It makes imminent sense.

Posted by No Fly Zone, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 5:27 pm

"PAO is a huge potential asset to Palo Alto, but it needs to be allowed to prosper according to the market value of its underlying assets, without elitist preservationist interests killing it off. "

This is the general conclusion of the Airport Working Group (i.e, local airport lobbying interests)"report" issued a couple of years ago.

The problem with this is that it is all pie-in-the-sky nonsense. There is no financially viable plan to make the airport self sustaining, and any city involvement will only be a money sucking tar baby.

If Samuel and other aviation enthusiasts are so sure that the airport can be operated without subsidy, then why don't they take Crescent Park Dad's challenge up: get your group of investors together, Samuel. Buy or lease the airport land from the city when the county gives it up. Pony up and run the airport with your own dough. If you can afford to own or lease airplanes, you can afford the inevitable losses. The city can't.

And all the comparisons to parks, fountains libraries are inapt. Anyone who has the desire to do so can easily partake of these amenities. It's only a few who have enough money to own or even rent a plane. The number of local townspeople who have the desire to do so is much smaller still.... which is why rich people from Atherton, Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley and Woodside own 70 per cent of the planes berthed at PAO.

Why should we be subsidizing the hobbies of this tiny slice of moneyed elites, mostly from out of town, when we're desperately looking for ways to minimize cuts to amenities that have broader appeal and are available to the vast majority of residents?

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 5:58 pm

"And all the comparisons to parks, fountains libraries are inapt. Anyone who has the desire to do so can easily partake of these amenities. It's only a few who have enough money to own or even rent a plane."

Eligibility to fly is even more restricted - you have to meet certain medical thresholds. That's for good objective reasons, but it makes the club even more exclusive.

Posted by surly-bonds, a resident of another community, on Jul 24, 2009 at 10:54 am

Ok, people:

1. PAO has been profitable a long time. Again, the city skims off

the money into its general fund ( see the note above about airport fund and general fund)

2. I find the fulminations on the 'rich elite' amusing - given

that -at least- 20 pilots I know ( and PA residents ) are working

stiffs just like myself.

3. I know of -at least- 5 Palo Alto kids that have recently gone

on to careers in aviation and in the airlines - thanks to the start

they got at the airport.

4. Heck, I think of myself as (very) liberal when it comes to politics. But the ranting of the eco-terrorist-liberals on this board proves that prejudice and xenophobia are as rampant and as despicable on the extreme left-wing as they are on the right.

I can go on for a while - but I suggest you take a deep breath ( you know who you are..) - go outside and enjoy the sunshine and blue sky -it might even rescue you from you desire to flame everything in the name of political righteousness !

Posted by No Fly Zone, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2009 at 12:10 pm

"...given that -at least- 20 pilots I know ( and PA residents ) are working stiffs just like myself."

As the estimates for the cost of owning and/or renting a small plane start at $100 per hour and go steeply upward, it appears that some people have a very elastic definition of "working stiff". And so what if some fortunates in Palo Alto are able to pursue what, under any definition, is a rich person's hobby and even pamper their kids with private flying lessons. This does not negate the fact that 70+ per cent of PAO users are out of towners, mostly from Atherton, Woodside and similar environs, which - again under any reasonable definition are havens for "rich elites".

That some have a quasi-religious relationship with flying - even to the extent of culling their screen names from a bathetic poetic paean to the mystical magic of flight - does not justify them trying to impose the financial and environmental costs of their hobbies on the rest of us.

There are many uses for the land the PAO sits on that will benefit the broad majority of residents without further burdening our budget. The city should stay out of the airport business. Local fliers can easily conduct their celestial meditations in San Carlos, Reid-Hillview or Hayward (all of which actually make money for their operating authorities.)

I would think the righteousness label would be more properly applied to those who seek to impose the costs of their activities on others in the name of a putatively higher spiritual calling (as some seem to want to apply to flying) than to those who defend the broader public good....but then I don't fly.

Posted by surly-bonds, a resident of another community, on Jul 24, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Hello Mr (or Ms.) No-Fly - it is a pleasure to make your acquaintence (Not !)

- Yes, costs -are- an issue, thanks to run-away taxes and other madness inflicted on small-plane flying. That is why we often fly

3-4 to a 'plane for quite a while now ( heard of car-pooling.. ? ) --

the $100 often becomes $33 or $25/hr. Or is that too 'rich' for

the proletariat masses ( of which we are a striving segment too..) ?

- I'd -love- to meet all these Woodside/Atherton/PV mega-millionaires

you keep ranting about. I see airplane owners that run a local laundry, teach at Stanford, work in hi-tech, work as an insurance agent, a former police-officer etc etc.

- "Bathetic" ?! What is this, Literature 101 ?! I should tell that

to the kids and parents I often see standing by the airport fence, or

watching airplanes land and take-off -- remember what I said about

those kids that are gripped by aviation and go on to careers ? Or, is some-one's happiness too much for you to stomach and so you resort to these whacked-out maunderings ?!

This will be my last posting on this subject, you, dude are sad !

Posted by Samuel, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2009 at 4:48 pm

Let's just play a mind game here:

Take away all CPA subsidies for PA public amenities (parks, libraries, etc.). Assume that the airport, PAO, is no longer run by the county, but by CPA. Which amenity would cost CPA the least amount of money?

If PAO was allowed to expand, according to market forces, would PAO become a profit center for PAO?

What is the cost of keeping the composting system at the dump? What is the cost of moving it onto current PAO land?

What is the potential dollar cost of keeping the current dump site locked up for perservationist demands? Why is our city council and parks commission afraid to take on Emily Renzel?

Posted by No Fly Zone, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm

It's interesting to me that rather than address the arguments against subsidizing what under any definition is a hobby of comparatively well off people, some posters feel compelled to mount personal attacks on the messenger.

I take it as a given that fliers enjoy their hobby immensely - some would say to excess, even if that were not obvious from the mesmerized and enraptured tone of those who post about the joys of flying. But there's no schadenfreude involved in asking why we should be subsidizing people's semi-religious devotions, whether flying or praying.

It seems to me that the arguments against the city running an airport - something which it has NO experience doing and something which the county, which does have the experience) says it cannot do profitably - are very strong. It also seems to me that given the financial limitations the city is burdened with, that an amenity that is used by only a few well off residents who have alternatives in San Carlos, etc. should be first on the chopping block. It also seems to me that the city has alternative uses for the PAO land that would benefit many more residents than the airport.

If the fliers think that the airport is such a good financial deal, let them come up with the money for these mythical hangers that will make the operation pay off. Let them run the whole show - with their own money. And let them reap the profits - or losses.

If aviation enthusiasts would spend more time thinking rationally, and less time name calling, perhaps their posts would be more persuasive.

Posted by Bryan Long, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2009 at 3:24 pm

I am a member of the composting task force, but my comments here are my own, and do not necessarily represent the views of other task force members.

Whether the airport should continue to operate or not is a legitimate debate, which hopefully can be based on reasoned arguments and polite discourse. I once took some flying lessons there and enjoyed it, and have friends who utilize the airport -- on the other hand I don't like the noise of small aircraft overhead all the time. Obviously the question of cost versus profitability is a big part of the debate as well. But I want to echo fellow task force member Wenzlau's comments above: the composting task force recommendation was not to close the airport, just to utilize a few acres we thought were currently unused.

The presentation to City Council was a "status report" and preliminary recommendation -- not a final report and recommendation. The purpose of the status report was get feedback that could be used to improve the final report. The feedback we got from airport advocates and members of the Council was very appropriate, and useful.

Lost in the discussion in this forum are what I think are the more significant findings of the task force. In my own words, I would summarize them as:

* by moving in the short-term to covered "aerated static piles" Palo Alto could reduce the dust and odor nuisances of current composting operations, and incorporate food waste and other compostables

* by moving, in the longer term, beyond composting to multi-source organic waste-to-energy conversion, Palo Alto could significantly advance our zero-waste and green-energy goals, while lowering the total long-term costs.

* by co-locating with the Water Quality Control Plant, wastewater sludge could be shifted from energy-consuming incineration to energy-creating "digestion".

* the use of non-local, for-profit contractors will provide less control over methods and costs, and will likely cost more as those contractors will seek to maximize profits.

Once it is seen that co-location with the WQCP is highly advantageous, the next step is finding some adjacent land. That could be achieved by "resculpting" part of the landfill that will become Byxbee park and planting a new line of screening trees, OR by eminent domain appropriation of business park properties next to the WQCP, OR by moving Embarcadero road and taking a bit of land that is currently part of the airport. The task force's consideration in our preliminary report was that the latter option was the best, but in the end it will be up to the City Council, and/or the citizens if a vote is required.

Posted by John, a resident of the Triple El neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2009 at 9:35 pm

I come late to this discussion, but today i believe we have another reason to wonder whether or not Palo Alto really needs an airport.

Web Link

Collision over Hudson interrupts idyllic day

By VERENA DOBNIK (AP) – 2 hours ago

The story documents the crash of a helicopter and a light plane over open water.

Here in Palo Alto we have frequent helicopter flights between San Jose airport and Stanford Hospital. It is clear that the path that these aircraft are following does not involve the Palo Alto Airport.

We also have frequent overflights of light fixed wing aircraft.

I, for one, fail to see the reason why we should risk such a crash over our city, endangering those who live below as well as those dependent on the helicopter flights.

1) It would be a major improvement if all flights out of the Palo Alto Airport were restricted to the area above the Bay in the local vicinity.

2) Someone on City staff should request a list of flights to and from Stanford Hospital, detailing how many use the Palo Alto Airport and how many go directly to the San Jose Airport or other facilities to the south. My casual observations suggest that most follow the latter path.

There would be lots of room for a composting facility and a golf course expansion if the airport were closed. The yacht harbor closed because of the dredging silt that filled the harbor once San Francisquito Creek was relocated to its present course. The north end of the airport runway abuts a dike between the creek and the airport. Perhaps a self-dredging yacht harbor could be recreated out of the north end of the airport. At least we would not be endangered by sailboats falling from the sky above our homes.