Maybe so, although an extra strip mall and a couple of fast food joints seems like a poor trade for watching the occasional blimp land or take-off.

So, we allow blimp landings on the strip mall parking lots. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

You wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this idea (moving Airpark, not the blimp thing) if it was a Joe's Crab Shack that was moving in. ;-)

Make it a Cheesecake Factory and I'll help clear the land. ;-D

This post and its bias surprises me. Not something I would expect from you.

Kelly, I'll bring the shovels.

Gregg, I'd be interested in knowing the lines you read between to discern my "bias." Regardless, I'm a big fan of general aviation, and I'm not suggesting that Airpark needs to be eliminated, just relocated. I'm simply convinced that the land could serve more people in better ways than it's now doing. For example, I'd much rather see Midland College have room for unimpeded growth.

As a pilot, and having flown out of Airpark many times, I have mixed emotions. Possibly the land could be better used, but who will pay for acquiring new land and building a new airpark, and where? An idea was floated some years ago about relocating to the north of town but nothing ever came of it. And of course I have little sympathy for those who move next to an airport, and then complain about the noise when aircraft actually dare to use it.
A couple other brief thoughts...we need affordable housing. Is this proposed develpment another high end complex, or something that will help working folk find a place to live?
And Eric...did you notice, in the article you linked to, that the discussion on another zoning issue involved a "main artillery street"? Now, if you want to complain about a noisy neighborhood...

Darrell, you've raised some good questions, which is pretty much what I hoped for with this post. I don't think it's a good thing when issues like this one are considered taboo, for whatever reason, and therefore don't get discussed in an open forum.

Anyway, as to who would pay for the new location, perhaps a search for the answer begins with who owns the current facilities and land (I guess it's the city, but that's just an assumption), and what the fair market value of that land would be if sold to private developers. I suspect the cost of acquiring a rural location might be significantly less than the sales price of the current one, although the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure might more than offset it.

I share your disdain for those who knowingly move next to an airport -- regardless of location -- and then complain about the noise.

Regarding the new apartment complex, I suggest looking at it from a different perspective. Any new apartments will help the lower-end housing market. Just as the building of high-end single family dwellings permits folks to "trade up" and thereby free up lower-priced homes, so will bringing on new apartment complex serve to either open up more apartments in the lower end of the market, or lower rent on those same apartments due to competitive pressures. That's how it should work in theory, anyway; I guess we'll see if it actually turns out that way. But I have a hard time believing that bringing on a hundreds of new apartments over the next couple of years won't ease the lower end crunch to some extent.

Nevertheless, it remains a huge problem. Whereas in past years most of the folks we saw at our church's benevolence ministry were seeking help with utilities, the overwhelming majority are now needing assistance with rent.

The city already owns land north of town, with ROWs already secured. The plans were in place to go with a bond issue to build it, also using federal funds, when the last bust hit and all the plans were put on hold...Ospurt knows a lot about this.

Yeah, I vaguely remember the last time this got any serious public discussion. There wasn't a lot of emotion on the pro-relocation side, but the other side reacted pretty strongly, as I recall.

I doubt that it would be much different this time around, although the economic incentives for relocation might be more compelling now.

Oh, my Lord! Forget the Airpark and the new apartments - what would happen to the poor little groundhogs?

(Where's my shotgun?)

Oh, look! A baby squirrel!

Is a groundhog like a prairie dog? ;-)

"There's no doubt that the airstrip is an asset to certain people in Midland, certain influential people whose business interests are often – but not always – aligned with the best interests of the city in general. "

Eric,
Forgive me if I misinterpreted your meaning and missed your subtle humour in the lines above, but scroll down and look at the usage statistics for Air Park and the resident aircraft population. This is a convenient airport for Midland Business and for Midland pilots. Darrell and Old Timer brought out the points regarding the proposed relocation to Martin County and current KMDD operation. Air Park is also being used by Midland College in their pilot training program which is a feeder for some of the regional airlines.

Airport Operational Statistics

Aircraft based on the field: 89
Single engine airplanes: 72
Multi engine airplanes: 16
Jet airplanes: 1

Aircraft operations: avg 79/day *

62% local general aviation
31% transient general aviation
7% air taxi

Groundhogs...ummmm, yeah. I meant prairie dogs. Whatever, vermin they are.

If I were a pilot landing at Airpark, I'd worry that one day, the runway's going to sink with a "thwumpppp!" what with all the underground tunnels around there.

If the Airpark is relocated, the new builders will have to bring in tons of dirt to strengthen the ground prior to building....anything!

Gregg, thanks for researching and providing the statistics. I must confess that I don't find them very compelling. If an "operation" is defined as a landing or a takeoff, and one assumes an average of two passengers per plane, Airpark is serving only 80 people per day. Even if it's double, triple or quadruple that number, it pales in significance to the population of Midland.

But, I never contended that the issue was the usefulness or value of Airpark, just its location. I do not want to see it eliminated, and I don't even want to see it moved if there's a compelling economic reason for leaving it where it is. I'm just waiting to hear that reason.

My clumsy reference that you quoted was directed at those whom I perceive have come to view a minutes-away municipal airstrip as a personal perk, and who react to any suggestion that it's not in the same way they'd respond to a personal attack on their family or business. You may well be technically accurate to refer to that as a bias, as it's derived via perception and not measurable statistics. For that reason, I'll withdraw it for purposes of this discussion, as I'd rather stick to facts – on both sides of the issue.

Another reason Airpark has stayed where it is, is that the Feds require it to be a reliever for MAF...federal money is involved here, but I must confess, I do not know the details. I do remember that a new airport must be in place before AirPark can be closed.