2 groups now fighting airport

If the economic projections are sound, the financing reasonable and the burden for infrastructure improvements are not shifted wholly to local taxpayers, the case for the new airport should be made. 

If a suitable site can be found that has minimal impacts on the environment - watershed protected, critical habitat protected, air, light and noise pollution accounted for and dealt with - then the case should be made. 

If UNC will solidify what kind of facility they require - AHEC with their two new planes requiring a footprint larger than HWA, AHEC plus associated University and private traffic (like HWA), a small general aviation facility or something closer to a regional airport - then we can understand the scope of the initial development and begin to anticipate the impacts of  secondary development around the facility.  Similarly, UNC needs to be clear if Authority will be chartered to take or purchase land to support secondary, maybe supplementary, facilities around the airport.

It's not clear if Rep. Faison, UNC or Talbert/Bright compared their projections at the proposed facility to Burlington's historical economic, environmental and social impacts.  If this facility is going to be similar to Burlington's in size and surrounding scope - similar support services, access to transportation, site quality, etc. - you would think that a quick comparison/contrast would either shore up the case for a new airport or not.  In a sense, a quick sniff test to see if the proposal smelled minty fresh.  That appears not to have been done.

The Talbert/Bright 2005 economic impact report was full of holes and made some rather extraordinary claims that were easy to counter.  From what we have heard of the 2008 report (which I'm getting the full copy for further analysis), the justifications and assumptions are just as shaky.  UNC officials now claim that the 2008 report is just a draft but Rep. Faison, as reported in today's CHN, said that it not only formed the basis for his claims of economic benefit but also was part of the sales job on passing the bill granting the Authority extraordinary power. 

We've seen the results of using "bad intelligence" to justify a proposal - we don't need to make a costly mistake built on shifting sands.

If the new airport is proposed, the wider footprint needed for commercial development adequately considered, the County still needs time to create adequate zones to maintain sensible growth.  If this facility is going to be a hopefully more successful Transpark-lite, considerations for surrounding neighborhoods will have to be built into these new zoning principles.  That will all take time. 

At this point it is difficult to see if the economic ROI, necessary local taxpayer support and environmental costs are justified. 

Finally, the precedent of granting UNC or any of our other public education institutions this level of power has to be addressed. 

From my perspective, this was a backdoor approach to granting UNC the kind of power they have wanted for developing UNC's main campus and Carolina North.  When UNC's Chancellor  Moeser and Sen. Tony Rand attempted this granting - in an effort to subvert Chapel Hill's zoning authority - there was an uproar.  Yet, the Airport Authority has been granted what Moeser wanted plus more, all wedged into a middle of a bill without adequate public participation. Why? Probably because too much sunshine would've disinfected this provision.

Are local officials in Asheville, Greenville, Charlotte, Greensboro or any of the other community's hosting UNC system facilities aware of this situation?  Are they concerned?