Class Assignment 4/8- Issue Story

Citizens Debate Future of Biddeford Airport

A referendum question on the ballot in June’s general election will let Biddeford voters decide on the future of the Biddeford airport.
The question will read: “Shall the city authorize the Airport Authority to close the Biddeford City Airport at a cost of about $3 million, to be taken from general operating funds?”
The main argument against the airport is the cost of maintaining it. The airport currently takes in about $56,000 annually from sales of gas, property taxes, and land leases, according to John Bubier, Biddeford city manager. However, records in Bubier’s office show that the cost of the airport in 2008 was $60,000, spent primarily on maintenance, utilities, and recent improvements. The airport property is worth $1.6 million, according to records in the City Assessor’s office.
Bubier himself, however, doesn’t want to be the one making the decisions on the airport’s future.
“The City Council really hasn’t come down on one side of the issue or the other,” he said. I think they’d prefer to have the voters settle this one.”
And city residents clearly have their opinion on the matter. Paul Archambault, Chairman of Get Ride of Our Little Airport (GROLA), supports closing the airport.
“Once we started looking at the airport, we came to the conclusion that there is no financial benefit at its existing size and capacity,” said Archambault. “It continues to be a tax burden.”
Rolland Pelletier, who has lived next to the airport for 25 years, agrees.
“Times are tough in this economy,” he said. “We can’t afford to support operations that don’t support themselves.”
But Phyllis Landry, a private pilot who keeps a single-engine Cessna Sky Pilot 180 at the airport, feels that there are things other than costs that should be considered when deciding the airport’s fate.
“Maybe it’s expensive to run the airport,” he said. “But it’s a great resource. I know business people who fly in here all the time.”
There are 47 planes based at the airport, about half of which are owned by corporations, according to Tom Bryand, Airport Manager.
This is not the first time the airport has been controversial. For some, the airport lost their support a few years ago when they cut down trees on the border of the property and enforced no-trespassing rules. The changes were federal safety regulations that were undertaken because the airport was at risk of losing Federal Aviation Administration funding.
Pelletier felt the trees were necessary to keep the airport’s neighbors safe.
“NTSB has a report of a pilot, who was also an instructor pilot, who hit the trees at the end of the runway,” he said. “Some residents no longer have trees to protect them- this bothers me.”
But Bryand says the changes have made the airport safer.
“We had pedestrians, motorcycles, four-wheelers (and) ATVs all using it,” said Bryand. “They just used it as a backyard and that’s against regulations.”
Ultimately though, cost is most likely to be what’s on the minds of most when they head to the polls.
“Sure this started out as a fight about trees and public access,” said Archambault. “But it’s not just about that any more. Now it’s about money too.”