Letters to the Editor
The
Editor:
The article regarding the outcome of the airport study in
the September 7 issue of The Northern Light was misleading.
The writer (who left his name off the article) makes
it appear as if expansion of the airport is almost free.
He states that the city’s contribution has already been paid
when actually the rich pro-pilot politicians “paid” with
borrowed money from hard working taxpayers with no repayment
in sight. There is much more unmentioned expense to come.
The article goes on to say that residents approved an advisory
ballot asking if the city of Blaine should explore the feasibility
of abandoning the airport as a municipal function. Actually
a petition was signed by enough citizens to put abolishing
the airport on the ballot, but was changed by Blaine city
council’s pro-pilot politicians to its current wording.
Not even close to what the people asked for. “We the
People,” and the U.S. constitution apparently doesn’t
apply under our current government. It seems much of Blaine
City Council is there for the purpose of manipulating the
outcome of the airport issue. Blaine citizens deserve so
much better. The Northern Light article failed to mention
the $92.2 million in new annual sales that will be generated
when we replace the airport with commercial development as
opposed to no such windfall with airport expansion. The Northern
Light article never mentioned consultant Paul Sorensen’s
comment that, “This is the best industrial property
you have. It has the best access and visibility.” Maybe
the author has his own personal interest in the airport.
My information came from the September 6 issue of the Bellingham
Herald. City manager Gary Tomsic is quoted in the Herald
as saying, “This is a piece of information that will
go on to the council and the public.”
Maybe Mr. Tomsic missed The Northern Light deadline or maybe
the author feels this important information need not be passed
on to the public.
To those of us who live here for the beauty and tranquility,
if you think our “little fishing village,” has
airplane noise now, just wait until we get a big city jetway
expansion. I recall early on when Blaine’s airport
manager made the comment, “The airport’s not
going anywhere.” Now I realize perhaps he would know,
after all, it’s not really up to the taxpayers, is
it?
The pro-pilot politicians just need our money, not our opinions.
And they certainly aren’t willing to give up their
airport just for the well being and prosperity of the town.
Bottom line, the study favors development over an airport
by far. Our voted-in-by-each-other leaders can argue pro-airport
all day long, but at least we can rely on the numbers. They
don’t lie.
P.S. To the person who wanted to know where Dennis Hill lives,
two major airport players cast their votes in Blaine for
10 years while residing in Bellingham before finally being
discovered last year. Do you think they care where anyone
lives? And paying off airport investors? Don’t let
them fool you. Their land will be worth plenty of money with
plenty of opportunity. They already rent out hangars for
industrial purposes having nothing to do with aviation.
Caryn Johnson
Blaine
(Editor’s note: The writer of the story was Tara
Nelson, who has no vested interest in the airport.)
The Editor:
I think most of us in town like the small airport. It’s
the idea of expanding and the fact that it will destroy
the last remaining large wetland in Blaine, close off Pipeline
Road and add noise and congestion in that area that disturbs
most of us. Skallman Park would be history, over 50 percent
of the industrial zoning we now have would be tied up in
the expansion. Of course if the airport is closed, then
we get a strip mall and a bunch of tin buildings housing
$8 an hour “industrial” jobs. It seems that
the two choices we are getting are really dour. Outsiders
are being paid big bucks to advise us on what’s best
for our town. What they give us could be applied anywhere
in the U.S. Considering our location, I think we can do
better.
Tourism, recreation and education to me seems a much better
fit for the town. Rather than destroying the wetlands let’s
make it into a wetlands bank and use it as part of an environmental/educational
tour from the docks to the fish hatchery on Pipeline Road.
Rather than closing the airport, upgrade to a top notch
A1 small plane airport. Have skydiving and events like
we used to. The parachutists could land at the ball fields
as an example. This would bring in added revenue for the
school district. Build a mountain bike course at Lincoln
Park. Connect the various venues by a bike/pedestrian path
that would go from the docks to the fish hatchery with
arterials branching off to the neighborhoods and schools
etc. We have the water already being used for regattas.
We could add wind surfing, wake boarding. Our skateboard
park is well known to skateboarders throughout the northwest.
The music and art festivals are bringing in talent worldwide.
Build a convention center and hotel. If we developed tourism,
recreation and educational opportunities in Blaine the
jobs and investment would follow as a result.
For me, the only people I see benefiting by an expanded
airport are the ones investing the $2.9 million in private
funds. If it is such a good deal, the city of Blaine should
invest in it, not private parties. If the airport closes,
it will be those developing where the airport once was
benefiting. The rest of us will lose one way or another.
If we choose to think outside the box, we could end up
with a vibrant, healthy, job-filled community. Hopefully
the choice will be ours to vote on.
The water could provide opportunities such as sailing,
windsurfing, events, etc.
Make a bike/pedestrian trail through the town from the
docks to the fish hatchery at the top of Pipeline. It would
provide for a healthy and safe way to get to the various
locations throughout Blaine.
Patrick Madsen
Blaine
The Editor:
While I appreciate that the articles regarding the Blaine
municipal airport in the September 7 – 13 issue
were fairly reported, I believe there was a significant
error.
In the “meetings” article as continued on page
3, you referred to the meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. on
September 18 at the community center as a “public
hearing.” In fact it is only a public meeting where
the city council will receive the completed alternative
uses study from the study committee and consultants. I
believe this will be in the same format the council received
the Airport Master Plan from its steering committee and
consultants a few weeks ago.
Also appreciated is that your other airport article in
that issue, “Committee releases alternative study” on
page 9, points out that the study committee, “acknowledged
they had not calculated in some factors such as an underestimated
demand for hangar space, the fact that the city’s
contribution to the proposed airport expansion has already
been paid through land acquisition costs,” “and
that hangar leases generate leaseholder tax revenue.”
Nor were the costs of the roads and other infrastructure
accounted for in the alternative uses study, (as they have
been in the airport master plan). Referencing demand, I
would point out that the aircraft based at Blaine municipal
already exceeds the master plan predictions for 2010, and
would exceed those predicted for 2015 if we had the hangars
now.
I would further point out that the 332 jobs that “could” be
created on the airport property by 2025 will most likely
be created anyway around the expanded airport, as is happening
right now, and with that we’ll also have the 119
jobs to be created by the airport improvement itself. In
short, we can keep the Blaine municipal airport and have
it all.
Don Nelson
Blaine
The Editor:
I am appalled at the front page headline of last week’s
issue of The Northern Light and the lack of un-biased information
being released by our city newspaper regarding the study
of alternative uses for the airport land. If you are a
Blaine citizen who doesn’t regularly read The Bellingham
Herald, you would believe that there is no alternative
other than keeping and expanding the airport. The Northern
Light has failed tremendously in reporting all of the information
regarding the study. There are two articles in the Bellingham
Herald dated September 6 and September 12 both with overwhelming
numbers in favor of abolishing the airport and moving Blaine
forward to bigger and better things. An actual economy
that could put Blaine where it should be growing like Lynden
and Ferndale! The “cost” to the city ($1 – 4
million), is a very small price when the annual payroll
to abolish would be $10.4 million through 2025. Not to
mention the jobs created to redevelop the land! The leases
that the city holds with private citizens do not need to
be terminated.
Those two leaseholders, who obviously threaten to sue the
city, should think of the economic windfall they would
receive if they maintain their leases in a developed area.
Gary Tomsic and our city council have a “tough” decision
to make whether or not to let our taxpayers vote on this
issue – let me guess, they will decide for you in
a private executive session.
I urge The Northern Light to report on the whole good of
the entire city, not just on the benefit of a few. I do
believe you have an ethical responsibility to your readers!
Rachel Hrutfiord
Blaine
The Editor:
I have only lived in Blaine for a couple of years and I
always look forward to reading The Northern Light and
its coverage of the Blaine airport. I would like to congratulate
the city on their decision to hire a professional consultant
to give their findings on the controversial airport property.
I have heard enough about city council members who are
not acting in good faith, chocolate factory owners that
have landed in Blaine and lifelong Blaine residents who
live in the school district but can’t vote in the
city because they live outside the city limits. Hopefully
the citizens of Blaine and the city council can step away
from the name calling and back stabbing between airport
foes and focus on the $45,000 professional consultant’s
report that will be presented September 18 at the Blaine
senior center.
I understand that this issue has been voted on four different
times and again I appreciate the city hiring someone to
help our council make an informative and educated decision
with regards to the future of the Blaine airport.
Michael Farrell
Blaine
The Editor:
As a career-long real estate developer and now a citizen
of Blaine, I have difficulty understanding why the city
council is considering closing our airport and selling
the land off to a private real-estate developer. Professionally,
I’ve consulted with many communities over the years.
Their city leaders have asked me for my suggestions to
improve their municipalities’ prospects for economic
growth. If the Blaine city fathers put that question
to me, my first suggestion would be to improve and expand
the airport, a key part of any modern city’s infrastructure.
Why? Because Blaine already owns an airport! If a community
of Blaine’s size wanted to start from scratch and
build a new general-aviation airport in the 21st century,
it would face a Herculean task – contentious legal
proceedings to condemn land, rezoning for airport use,
developing roads and utilities to the airport site, dealing
with environmental regulations and concerns and, last
but not least, raising the money to built the airport
itself. Having an existing facility, the city of Blaine
does not face any of these problems. The master plan
for improving and expanding the Blaine airport has already
been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.
All the city council has to do is approve the master plan,
and it can be implemented entirely with federal-state-private
funds, at no cost to the city or the taxpayers.
I appreciate the fact that the city council has received
considerable pressure from a few outside developers and
feels compelled to give the issue a thorough hearing.
But I hope the council will not allow the vocal volume
of a few outsiders to outweigh the logic of keeping our
airport open for the good of the city and those of us who
live here.
Mark Theaman
Blaine
The
Editor:
Thanks for Karl King for taking my picture by the Peace
Arch at its 85th anniversary event. However, I was not
the oldest in attendance. Maybe the oldest male.
I wish Norma Kruse, of the Wolten family had been pictured
instead, or at least included. I understand she has an
important birthday coming up soon.
Many of her dear friends and relatives would love to
see a picture of her then.
Leonard Breidford
Blaine
Letters
Policy
The Northern Light welcomes letters to the editor; however,
the opinions expressed are not those of the editor. Letters
must include name, address and daytime telephone number
for verification. Letters must not exceed 350 words and
may be edited or rejected for reasons of legality, length
and good taste. Thank-you letters should be limited to 10
names. A fresh viewpoint on matters of general interest
to local readers will increase the likelihood of publication.
Writers should avoid personal invective. Unsigned letters
will not be accepted for publication. Requests for withholding
names will be considered on an individual basis. Only one
letter per month from an individual correspondent will be
published.
Please
send your letter to:
225 Marine Drive, Blaine, WA 98230 or fax 360/332-2777.
E-mail:editor@thenorthernlight.com
Letters Policy
The Northern Light welcomes letters to the editor; however, the opinions expressed are not those of the editor. Letters must include name, address and daytime telephone number for verification. Letters must not exceed 350 words and may be edited or rejected for reasons of legality, length and good taste. Thank you letters are limited to five individuals or groups. A fresh viewpoint on matters of general interest to local readers will increase the likelihood of publication. Writers should avoid personal invective. Unsigned letters will not be accepted for publication. Requests for withholding names will be considered on an individual basis. Only one letter per month from an individual correspondent will be published.
Please email letters to letters@thenorthernlight.com