As regards the Biddeford Municipal Airport, City Council President John McCurry said it best: “This is our property, and we need to take care of it.”
His comments were part of the council’s discussion before voting 5-4 last Tuesday to accept funding from the Federal Aviation Administration to upgrade the safety measures at the airport. The cost of adding security fencing, gates and a new rotating beacon at the airport will be $381,000, with the FAA covering 90 percent. That will leave the state and the city with 5 percent, or $19,050, each to pay.
The very existence of the airport has been a contentious issue in the city for many years, with opponents and proponents clashing to the point that the city gave up on its own airport commission altogether seven years ago. Should it stay or should it go? That issue has yet to be fully decided, even though voters rejected closure of the facility back in 2008.
In the meantime, it is indeed city property and should not be left to disintegrate into ruin or fall behind on safety measures. With pilots regularly using this airport for leisure and business, it would be downright irresponsible for the city to reject these FAA funds, jeopardizing the safety of not only the pilots, but passengers and residents of the homes in the flight path. The city must not wait for a tragedy to occur because they refused to install the most basic safety measures based on political bickering.
The fence will not only deter vandalism and provide an extra measure of security for the expensive planes and equipment stored on site, but will also keep people off the runways and out of harm’s way. The most important addition, however, is the new rotating beacon that will improve pilots’ ability to find the airport, no matter the weather conditions.
While it was a close vote, we’re glad to see the city finally investing in the basic maintenance of this property, after seven years of simply refusing to deal with it at all.
The new airport commission that has finally been reconvened should not allow itself to be seen as a cheering section for the airport, however, which has caused divisiveness in the past. Many residents have been vocal about their belief that the airport is little more than a publicly funded playground for those who can afford their own planes, and feel it should be closed entirely. To them, the agreement to fund basic safety upgrades such as this fence is a display of support for the airport’s continued existence because it involves a long-term agreement with the FAA. Those in opposition must realize that the city has already voted, only six years ago, to keep the airport open, so safety upgrades are a prudent move at this point. A major expansion or overhaul would be another issue altogether.
In the meantime, we agree with Councilor Bradley Cote that an economic study of the airport must be done, and should have been done already. No discussion can be had about the facility until the city has the facts about its use and its economic impact from an impartial, professional source. How can anyone know whether the airport is a boon for the city or a money pit until the numbers are in?
We’re glad to see the city taking responsibility for the maintenance of this property for now, but in the long run, it must also invest in a study so the residents can make an informed vote to either close it or develop a multi-year plan for its maintenance and possibly expanded uses.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
