It is my understanding that when the airport property was deeded to the city that it was to remain an airport “in perpetuity.” What part of “in perpetuity” is so hard to understand?
The recently completed study had three options that did away with the runway because the runway would require the approach to the proposed South Bridge to be tunneled under it. These options would replace the runway with much housing (property taxes coming in), and the only option keeping the runway was inflated with a lot of maybe unneeded expensive improvements plus the underpass (much taxpayer expense going out).
What ever happened to “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” How about an option for doing minor needed aviation improvements and the underpass and continuing to have an airport and the much-needed medical helipad?
I would like this newspaper to ask city officials to have their lawyers explain how they intend to redefine the term “in perpetuity” and weasel out of it.
Rick Warner
Carbondale
