Airport misconceptions and The Black FAQ
Is the FAA requiring more development at the airport? City Manager Marty Black says "Yes;" the correct answer, though, would be "No"
-- John Patten, 04/22/07
-- jpatten@veniceflorida.com

Got a comment? Make it here.

So, these two urban planners walk into a bar...
The Gondo and the city, particularly City Manager Marty Black, are promoting The Black FAQ as a way to clear up what they say are misconceptions. Yet the FAQ itself creates a whopper of a misconception, right in its opening lines.

The FAQ itself is an attempt to shoot over the heads of the media and reach the public directly. It's a tactic used when unfavorable media causes frustration in politicians. Reagan used the tactic amazingly well, but few other politicos have managed to use the tactic successfully for a very good reason -- it has a tendency to backfire, and when it does backfire, it is ugly.

Such is the case here, with a very media un-savvy city hall. The Herald-Tribune had asked in writing some 20 specific questions to Black about the airport and the airport development process (those 20 questions can found about midway down on this page). Black has so far refused to respond in any way that the H-T considers satisfactory. Instead, he opted to write his own questions and answer those questions only.

Things get off to a rocky start right at the beginning with what can only be described as deceptive wordplay.

Black asks himself to answer this compound question:

"Is the city required to lease property for development at the airport?"

It doesn't look like a compound question, but it is. Leasing property and leasing property for development are two entirely different questions. Then there is the undefined term, "development," which becomes problematic as it means something different to the FAA than what Black means when using the term in this current political context.

Black's opening sentence in response to his own question:

"Yes, the Federal Aviation Administration requires the city obtain fair market rents for available property at the airport."

Which is a true standalone statement, but it is an answer to a totally different question. As an answer to the question that Black actually asked himself, it is not true.

Black never actually answers the question that he has asked, to wit -- "Is the city required to lease property for development at the airport?"

Because if he did actually answer the question the answer would be this: "No."

But surely city hall wouldn't lie to us...
The FAA has no requirement that land be leased for development, at least not the kind of development that is being considered here and now. Period. We put the development option into our airport master plan revisions, and the FAA would very much like us to adhere to the master plan. We can still change the master plan and take those options back out and the FAA would likely approve those changes.

Then there is the ever-changing definition of development. Is a hangar considered a development? Yes. The airport may, at its own option, lease land under certain conditions (hangars or even a golf course, for example) and those conditions require that the leases, if existent, be profitable to the airport, so in a sense what Black is saying is sort of true. However, the FAA has no requirement that the land be leased for the kind of development that Black and the city's Planning Department are presently considering.

So right off the bat, we're being lied to. Right in the opening sentence of the first answer in The Black FAQ.

What Black is implying is that a possible hotel, marina, etc., are all driven by the FAA and not by Black, the city's planning department or any other interested parties. However, in the absence of any such requirement (as posited by Black as real), we are left the realization that those are the only sources left for the push for development. If the requirement were true, we'd hardly be having a hard time trying to raise federal subsidy dollars to fulfill a federal requirement. So far, we have had no luck in obtaining a federal subsidy after numerous tries and for a good reason: there is no such federal requirement as Black implies with the switched answer.

As for profit motives, the argument for development based on the requirement that the city make the airport profitable falls on its face due to past experience. Profit has never been the motive, at least by the city. The contested and notorious VGA lease is a prime example of sweetheart deals, but it is hardly unique. Agape Air, a missionary flight service, was reported as raking in major bucks on sublet deals. Hangar rents are notoriously low, which has spawned a rumor that if pilots support the development, their hangar rents will remain low (and if the pilots are dumb enough to believe this dangled carrot, I would like to interest them in purchasing the Circus Bridge as an alternate runway).

John Patten is the editor and publisher of Venice Florida! dot com and had previously worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He can also be incredibly rude at times.