Letters to the Editor 12-17-15

Lost sympathy
Editor: It speaks volumes that pilots and other members of the pro-airport crowd are threatening to litigate should the city continue its course of trying to close a facility that serves few, costs many and stands in the way of the best economic development opportunity this city is likely ever to see.
Some people have labeled members of our citizens group as self-serving. If it is self-serving to work toward transforming Cloverdale into a city that isn’t on the brink of financial disaster, where businesses are plentiful and on solid financial footing, and residents aren’t forced to drive for miles to shop and make sales tax donations in surrounding communities, then we proudly wear the label.
But, what do you call a small group of people who have benefited from the continued existence of a costly facility that local taxpayers have been forced to subsidize over many years, and then who threaten to sue if the city takes the responsible action of trying to close it?
Our group wants Cloverdale to thrive. Conversely, various pilots, their organizations and supporters are willing to bring this city to its financial knees, if it means they can’t have their way. In light of these threats and the boorish and disrespectful behavior displayed by many pilots and their supporters at the Dec. 8 City Council special session, it is hard to maintain any sympathy I personally had for the few folks who use the airport.
It’s up to the FAA. If the facility is a “national treasure,” as the pro-airport crowd claims, the FAA won’t agree to close it. But if the FAA does allow Cloverdale to divest itself of this financial albatross, let the pilots take the FAA to court. Though, of course, it’s far easier to beat up on a nearly bankrupt little town than to take on a federal agency.
Lisa Brew-Miller
Cloverdale Citizens for Responsible
Economic Development
Money and lies
Editor: After attending the meeting last week regarding the issue between the investor and the airport, I came away confused, discouraged and disappointed.
 Confused as to the real reason Laulima wants the airport closed, discouraged at the number of people who actually believe the false promises they have been making and disappointed at the intentional strong arm tactics and bullying the investor is doing to our City Council.
Yes, the council voted to let them go ahead and try to get the airport closed, but that process is very lengthy (could take seven or more years), and still cost the city in maintenance costs for the airport. Hopefully, Laulima is paying all these expenses as well. The actual chance that the FAA will approve our airport closure is very slim; in fact it’s been suggested by those who really know the facts that it will not happen. In seven or eight years, when the FAA denies the application for closure, then what happens? Will Laulima pull out of the resort project and leave our city hanging out to dry? The chance of getting grants to help with the airport maintenance will be extremely hard, if not impossible to get. As its sponsor, the city must maintain the airport. If it can’t, it will be fined and bankruptcy looks inevitable.
Fact: A youth facility cannot be developed on the airport property; it’s a flood area. There is sure to be an EPA issue because of the fuel dispensed on the property and for the same reason given that the airport can’t expand – there is no sewer and water service available. The city would be looking at more than $7 million and years (try imagining 10 to 20) to actually see this happen. Laulima indicated that they would be willing to pay part of that.
Fact: No helipad, no emergency airstrip. The FAA will not allow this. These cannot be provided; no way, no how, no matter what pretty pictures Laulima shows us, and how much money Laulima has. Should a disaster happen in our area we’d be up a creek without a paddle. Then again, maybe Laulima will be providing all residents token paddles.
A resort can coexist with the airport. The diagram showing the air restrictions was misleading and false. All these unnecessary expenses, (Over $45,000 the city has spent so far related to this issue), potential expenses for Laulima, (they don’t care, they’re rich) could all be avoided if Laulima would put aside a selfish personal agenda and cooperate with the city in establishing a facility that works with our airport.
Message to our council: make sure that you get it in writing that Laulima will pay for all expenses resulting in this airport closure attempt, including airport maintenance as required by the FAA. After their attempt has failed, make sure they agree to repay the city all expenses that have been a result of this fiasco, and a huge penalty for putting us through this fairytale of a promise.
Linda Welch
Cloverdale
Unsubstantiated assertions
Editor: On Dec. 8 the City Council held a special meeting to discuss the proposed airport closure. The purpose of this meeting was to bring the council and the community together to discuss this project in all its detail.
Instead, the room was packed, somehow, with people from out of town who don’t live or work in Cloverdale. They and some of their local supporters chose to disrupt the discussion with antics, verbal harassment and fantastical, unsubstantiated assertions about the possible future of the airport.
Their behavior disrupted what might have been a serious, thoughtful dialogue between the City Council, the developer and the community on an issue that affects the lives and livelihoods of thousands of our residents.
Shenanigans, such as those demonstrated by those who disagreed with our position are common in our national politics but have no place in Cloverdale. This group’s behavior speaks for itself. Thinking residents will ask themselves, are these the people I want to be associated with?
In the past few months, we have engaged in discussions with our friends and neighbors about the future of Cloverdale and its families. We have learned a lot from each other and this has helped shape our own vision.
We will continue our mission with thoughtfulness, courtesy and dignity. No matter what our opponents throw at us.
Elissa Morrash
Cloverdale Citizens for Responsible
Economic Development
Decision speaks volumes
Editor: Most people at the last council meeting were in favor of the airport, and what does the council do? They vote to look into closing the airport. That should speak volumes about our current council. Notice the council is saying nothing about putting the issue on the ballot. Looks like the council is in someone’s back pocket?
Greg Ericson
Cloverdale