After a fire in the Apollo 1 capsule took the lives of Gus Grisson, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee, NASA undertook an investigation. Not so much to lay blame as to understand why the fire happened. With a clear understanding of why, it would be plausible to assume similar tragedies could be prevented in the future.
Frank Borman testified before Congress with the results of that investigation. Frank is no slouch. He would ultimately go on to command Apollo 8, the first mission to leave earth orbit, travel to another celestial body, orbit it, and return. That’s big stuff.
In his testimony he referred to a failure of imagination. The accident wasn’t caused by negligence or malice. It was simply the failure of engineers, technicians, administrators, and the astronauts themselves to imagine what the ramifications might be of a long series of variables.
Thanks to that investigation, to that dedication to professionalism, the Apollo program suffered no additional loss of life. Considering the complexity of their task, that’s amazing.
Here on earth, specifically, here in my adopted home of Winter Haven, Florida, there is a failure of imagination that is far less understandable, and considerably less excusable. I suspect the story will not be totally foreign to you, either. As unfortunate as that might be.
There is an abandoned orange grove immediately across a two-lane blacktop from Gilbert Field. It’s a fine piece of land, bordering the road and the airport on the north and west sides, and Lake Hartridge to the west. The lake will one day soon become the new home of the Seaplane Pilots Association.
It’s a beautiful piece of land in a very aviation-centric location. If you’re interested, intrigued, or involved with the industry in some way, it would be harder to find a more perfect spot to launch a business, establish a school of aeronautics, or expand the existing airport to the waterfront for the benefit of seaplane operations.
Conversely, if you are not interested, intrigued, or involved in the industry, it would be a very challenging place to settle in with something like…oh, I don’t know…private homes. And yet that is exactly what is happening.
With all the administrative levels the government operates, allegedly to serve and protect the public, the abandoned grove is slated to become a neighborhood of more than 100 single-family homes.
There is nothing about building a residential neighborhood next to an active airport that challenges the imagination. It’s been done before. Many times. And with the exception of a few cases where those developments have been marketed specifically as a fly-in community, the results hardly vary.
The new homeowners begin to complain. They don’t like the noise. The don’t like the pollutants. They don’t like the risk of imminent death they perceive to be an ever-present danger when situated near an airport. Ultimately, there are lawsuits.
It certainly can get ugly out there when the folks in charge of land use are asleep at the switch.
Add to all that built-in angst and paranoia that this particular piece of land will put private homes within a few hundred feet of a runway threshold, and a slightly shorter distance to an active fuel farm, and it’s hard to see how anyone could be so myopic as to say, “Sure, let’s rezone that piece of land from agricultural to residential. Who could have a problem with that?”
The answer to that question is, of course, anyone with a lick of sense.
We can reasonably theorize that nobody involved at the county level of government cared to give the thought much consideration, since they gave a green light to the rezoning. And the city officials who approved expansion of the city limits to include the development.
And to the amazement of people with fully functioning brains, the city is preparing to double-down on this lunacy by allowing an increase from 90 units to a significantly higher number of private dwellings.
It was explained to me only last week, by a high-ranking city official, the builder can fit more houses onto the land than originally planned because people don’t want big yards anymore. It seems they want small yards, big houses, and ostensibly, close proximity to large fuel tanks, running engines, whirring propellers, and the occasional turbine zipping overhead.
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder how it could be possible that none of those officials saw any problem with the plan? They have given a clear signal to residents and business owners alike – high-density residential housing and airport fuel farms are a good fit. Putting a few dozen kitchens and living rooms within a few hundred feet of a runway is okey-dokey.
I can only wonder how many of those officials will be beating a path to the developer’s door to buy one of those homes? How many of them will take personal responsibility when the noise complaints come rolling in?
I’m trying to imagine exactly how many of those who gave a thumbs up to the development will show up in court to take a bow and explain the benefits of their vote when the homeowner’s lawsuits begin to show up on the court docket?
I’m betting that number is very low. Something in the neighborhood of zero.
Perhaps there should be mandatory vision testing for people who are in a position to make decisions that affect the rest of us. Not with an eye chart, but with a map, a handful of artists renderings, and a detailed description of what they think the outcome might be.
Give ‘em the same tools NASA used to take us to the moon and back. Imagination. Accept that errors will occur. But require that improvements be made as new information becomes available.
Sheesh. When will these folks stop shooting themselves in the foot? The fallout from their lack of vision is getting to be truly painful for the rest of us.
Good job, Jamie. These are the kinds of issues that need to be talked about.
Thank you, Roy. I agree entirely, of course.
After running airports for nearly 40 years I would like to comment…. but it won’t fix this problem. What will is a requirement to disclose the location of an airport and it’s likely impacts during a real estate transaction. The real estate industry (lobby) won’t have it… it’s been tried. This kind of thing would devalue the property and likely kill the sale. Rats there goes my commission. Can’t have that!!
Airports could buy the land surrounding their airports… but how far? And that’s called inverse condemnation… you think running an airport is expensive??? Land owners would actually benefit $$$$ from this approach.
You see the only common sense approach is not to put residential in any area found to be impacted by aircraft overflights….. uh what?? That’s a big area! Here we go again…
Jamie, i agree with you. But, my guess is that vacant land was vacant for quite some time. It is incimbent on airport authorities to take action to protect their interests buy perchasing sufficient property in the first place to protect the airport. They had their chance and blew it.
We can’t depend on local government (politicians) to protect the airport because they (politicians) will ALWAYS vote where the money is.
The local government will receive way more revenue from property taxes on high end homes and income taxes on the residents than the airport. In fact, often the airport is tax exempt. The whole “community benefits” of the airport argument will fall on deaf ears that complain about airport noise.
Always follow the money.
My old hometown (Indianapolis) had the answer…If you bought a home in certain areas you had to sign a document that said you were aware of the noise. No signature, no move-in. Simple.
Maybe a law is needed at Federal, state, county and city levels that requires a net-worth accounting before any elected or appointed person begins an office and another then they leave office. Any increased wealth above 8% per year of service must be returned to the registered voters.
It may not improve vision, but foresight will increase.
I LIKE it, Jim !! 🙂
Next time I address the City Council, I’ll remember it.
I started writing this much earlier, and got interrupted. So I read all the other posts and many are typically making the same points. So I curtailed some of what I was writing but you might want to notice that this is not just a Aviation problem….
Farmers have taken to posting signs about dust, noise, foul odors, late night operations and other things required of a working farm. These signs get posted around the housing developments close to operating farms.
This is to make sure that farms that are annexed by some town are protected from being put out of existence because of the costs of law suits. So far it seems to be working.
Perhaps airports need to start using FAA funds to put up the same kind of signage to warn people of what they are about to get into. Now the Builders will get irate about this, but facts are facts. The airport was here LONG before you bought that land to develop it.
And one could go meet with all the Realtors in the area to let them know that they need to disclose to people buying those homes that noise suits are going to be expensive and may even be considered as nuisance suits subject to having to pay the winner for their legal expenses — and even the lawyers that file those get to share in the pain as I understand it — so they aren’t too willing to get into one of these.
It would make sense that airport funds should be used to put up billboards and the like around the airport approaches, and the like to make sure people know what they are getting into.
Oh, here were I live in IN, they have to put in a disclosure about how far one is from an airport and if one is in the approach areas for that airport — This may have been caused by KIND wanting to be pro-active (but I don’t know, I only moved here 5 years ago now).
I live in Palm Coast but I’m intimately familiar with that particular piece of property as I have a good aviation friend who winters there. I’ve spent time right in that vicinity in the cloistered community sandwiched between Lake Pansy and Lake Hartridge. Even I found the airplane noise to be quite noticeable and incessant on nice days. Doesn’t bother ME but I can’t imagine any non aviator either liking the noise OR putting up with it for long … before starting the complaining. Get ready! SMO indeed.
My town was slow to develop and only became a City in 2000. Almost immediately, the drunken sailors who got elected decided they needed a $22 million GLASS City Hall (in hurricane country). The City Managers office was going to be larger than my home! Well — fortunately — major expenditures were required to be put to the voters and almost 85% of them said, “HELL NO!” So what do the ‘sailors’ do … they get creative with financing by borrowing money they don’t have from a fund that might have money in the future. Of course the ‘insiders’ who would benefit from moving the City Hall away from the center of Palm Coast to a location that STILL (sic) hasn’t developed had a hand in it, too. The only saving grace is that the building was substantially downsized and changed to a more sane design. Still … they went around the voters to find the money. I became VERY outspoken and vociferous over the idea and a former City Councilman actually addressed me by name in an OpEd in the local paper telling me that “it’s a representative Government!” so “shut up.” Just like Al says, below.
There MAY be a way to become proactive against future complaints IF the airport wants to enter the foray. I lived and worked at Edwards AFB in SoCal for almost 30 years. Just off Base to the west was a sleepy little town of Rosamond. There was a small airport there which morphed into an airpark but — in much the same way as Winter Haven — other housing developments popped up right adjacent to the airport … IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OPEN MOJAVE DESERT! On final, you could almost grab a burger off of a grill before touchdown. Really! Once the Rosamond Skypark Assn started getting complaints … they decided to do something about it. They sued all of the local developers and land owners for “AVIGATION EASEMENT” in Kern County … and won. So all landowners who want to buy or sell must sign off avigation easement rights and cannot complain. In effect, lump it or live someplace else.
I’d urge the Winter Haven airport, et al, to do the same. I’d recommend that you contact the Rosamond Skypark Assn at Rosamond, California (L00) to find out how they did it and how it’s working. Writing about it to bring it to the forefront of our attention is fine but proactivity is better. Good luck.
Great article Jamie! As a former airport manager in the Phoenix metro area, I experienced this first hand. You hit the nail directly on the head.
Yes, avigation easements are good but an encumbrance upon the property is even better. Probably both are needed. This encumbrance should clearly advise the potential owner that the property is subject to aviation impacts. But most importantly it needs to be crafted in a way that it’s linked to the property title for as long as the aviation impact is present. That way subsequent owners of the parcel through transfers of the property (sale, repo, trade, gift or whatever) are advised and are required to acknowledge their understanding of the issue through their signature.
Unfortunately, if this has already run through its required zoning obstacles at Winter Haven, I fear it may be too late for meaningful edits requiring these documents through the zoning process (which is the most efficient and effective way to do this).
Does it stop the homeowner complaints? Does it stop city officials from wringing their hands in frustration due to decisions of past (or sometimes still current) officials? No, but it does show positive and legal action by the airport and airport sponsor toward advising of exactly the kinds of problems discussed in the article.
With an avigation easement and encumbrance on the title in place, it becomes a matter of caveat emptor – buyer beware.
How many city officials is the “Developer” related too?
I never have understood why aircraft manufacturers don’t get involved in preserving airport environs. It’s in their best interests to have as many airports as possible in the U.S., but you never hear about Piper Aircraft getting involved to support airport survivability. Maybe they see it as not their problem, but when we get down to a very limited number of airports (think it couldn’t happen?) with limited space to park airplanes then they will be in the forefront spending their money to reverse the trend; it will be too late.
Might want to check your history before making this statement, but then again, it’s ancient history. Piper Aircraft, specifically William Piper himself, conducted their own campaign for airports in the 1940s-1960s. He promoted the concept of “airparks,” friendly, community-sounding small airports. This I believe is the reason some small airports are called airparks today. Aside from recovering PR materials from the campaign from the Piper Museum , I have found press accounts covering Mr. Piper’s speeches on the subject to influential business and community groups. This focus later was carried on by the new (1970) omnibus industry group, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, of which Mr. Piper was a key founding member. I did so at GAMA (1981-87) and we did that work at AOPA as well, at least during my time there.
Unfortunately, as stated, it’s a typical situation at any airport. With that said, it’s our individual responsibility to continue to protest and fight against these stupid actions! Money makes the world go round!
I know I’m a horrific cynic about these things, but if you start with the assumption that the city wants to close the airport to make more developable land available, than all seems to be going according to plan. Get dug in for the good long fight. I’m not sure it can be ultimately won, but stranger things have happened.
most of the U.S .has gotten away from what is best, too what is best for me at the moment( or who contributes to my campaign ). with lack of imagination an most officials being lead by their wallets first, I doubt this trend will subside. Anyone that moves towards a high noise enviroment, AKA… military base, airport, racetrack, or even farms, If that facility was there first, any complaint should be thrown out.
In america, people forget, if you don’t like something , you have the right to move! from you town, your city, state, or Country.
Good luck KGIF
(I don’t think it will take 20 years to be SMO all over again, more like 20 minutes . . . )
The city is FAR more interested in the increased tax base generated by all these homes and the large impact fees that will be paid. They’ll get a lot more money NOW and when the complaints start rolling in (and they will, you are 1,000% correct), they’ll be able to shift the blame to someone else (the airport) or will have retired anyway. The aviation uses won’t generate much tax revenue so under the theory of HABU (“highest and best use”), which is a real estate development term, every square inch of land must be as developed as possible in order to generate the absolute maximum tax revenue. Never mind that nobody will want to live there, or that anyone who does is going to be unhappy.
Municipal property tax revenues come from three sources. Raw land, which doesn’t generate much tax, but takes no municipal services, residences, which generate significant taxes BUT cost more in municipal services than they pay – and the homeowners are resistant to higher taxes, are loud, and they VOTE. Look at the many northern cities which have lost their industrial bases and are now primarily residential – they are broke, in debt, and crumbling. (Detroit, anyone?) You can look closer to home and see the same thing – Deltona, which is primarily residential, is in the same boat, there is never enough money or even close to it, and they are constantly squeezed between raising taxes and fees and reducing services and borrowing against an uncertain future to do it. Aging infrastructure, astronomical water bills (and going up), all the same problems.
The third tax source is business and industrial property. This is where the money is for cities. High value properties which don’t take much in the way of municipal services, and those taxes can be passed through to the customers via increased prices. The owners may squawk about it, but ultimately, they know it won’t come out of their own pockets. Unfortunately, the residents don’t want to see this (NIMBYs) and developers don’t make much money unless they build houses (not warehouses), so they also push – and push hard – for more homes instead.
You’re right, the city commissioners need glasses. They need to figure out the optimal mix of vacant, residential, and commercial land, AND THEN STICK TO IT. Most government functionaries and elected officials are only concerned with what happens during THEIR term in office, problems down the road which result from their decisions are, well, someone else’s problems.
Good luck . . . most people (and governments) only learn from their own mistakes, and often not even then. I told Napoleon that invading Russia in the winter was a bad idea, but he didn’t listen. Winter Haven is going down the same path, this will end in tears for everyone except the developer, who will take the money and run, leaving all the problems behind for someone else to deal with.
Has this been shared with the Editorial Desk at Orlando Sentinel? It belongs in their Lake County Edition, but might even get coverage in Scott Maxwell’s page 1 column.
Alan M. Hoffberg
Longwood, FL
The power that Developers hold over local officials is absolute. There is no consideration for what is sensible or right when it comes to developing land for personal financial gain.
Perhaps every prospective purchaser should have to sign a binding agreement they accept the risks of living close to an airport, and promise to never complain or try to restrict operations…
And good luck with that one…
Quite ridiculous – in 20 years it will be SMO all over again.