Airport Expansion Corrections (more misinfo from Hebert?)

Arcola resident responds to county judge's memo on McKeever Road expansion, airport (From FB Sun--click link on title for full story)


I am writing this letter in response to County Judge Bob Hebert's article in your paper on Feb. 8, where he responds to queries on McKeever Road and Houston SW Airport. I believe the judge was incorrect on several key points which I feel need to be pointed out.

Before doing so however, the point needs to be made that there is one reason, and one reason only for South Post Oak to intrude into Newpoint. That reason is that the FAA has set a Control Point where no road can be situated, and McKeever presently violates that Safety Zone. Therefore, the road must be diverted around this Control Point, which South Post Oak provides by intruding into Newpoint. All of the other blathering that the judge does on the article to justify the county's action in this matter is nothing more than hog-wash.

1) Hebert: "...the airport owner's offer to donate right-of-way across his 200+ acres South of Highway 6, plus contribute $500,000 to the construction project..significantly lowers the overall cost of this mobility project for the county..."
Response: The required condemnation/purchase of 10+ acres in Newpoint, required compensation for adjoining landowners for reduced property values, required re-location of Duke Road, and inverse condemnation of Neuhaus property will cost the county significantly more than anything that Griffith is offering. The statement that the cost will be lowered is a mis-statement.

2) Hebert: "...it appears that the project was proposed by Fort Bend County which engaged LJA Engineering, Inc. in January 2001 to investigate and design a realignment of McKeever".
Response: The realignment of McKeever was not initiated by Fort Bend County, but rather by the owner of Houston SW Airport Jamie Griffith. This fact is illustrated in a letter from Griffith to then Fort Bend County Judge Adolphus dated April 19, 2000 (8 months prior to January 2001) in which he states; "An integral part of the future development of Houston SW Airport is the expansion of the airport north across McKeever Road and the Briscoe Canal. In order for this to happen, McKeever Road needs to be diverted up to Highway 6 where it will tie into South Post Oak. To facilitate the inclusion of this project in the upcoming (Mobility Bond) election, I will commit to dedicating the right-of-way to the county and to funding 50 percent of the road's construction cost between Highway 6 and the old McKeever Road. Upon completion of the new McKeever Road/South Post Oak, the old McKeever Road right-of-way would be deeded to the airport owner."

3) Hebert: "My personal goal is to keep the new alignment wholly within the existing right-of-way and the restricted canal easement and I believe it can be done."
Response: The people who own the property in question have paid, and continue to pay property taxes on the land extending all the way to McKeever Road. This property includes a 200 ft. wide GCWA canal easement. The judge is hinting that if he is capable of building South Post Oak "wholly within the restricted canal easement" then he is not harming the property owners. This is an incorrect statement. The judge admits that this canal easement is restricted - presumably for canal-related business...not road construction. And because the proposed use by the county exceeds the scope of the easement, the county would have to pay the landowners for the land included inside the easement. Although the landowners cannot build inside the restricted easement, the easement is fulfilling the important purpose of providing a buffer zone from other development (including road construction).

4) Hebert: "I expect the airport owner to cooperate with us in devising a route for the new South Post Oak that will enhance the safety of his current airport operation while minimizing the taking of property in Newpoint Estates".
Response: What needs to happen, since the airport is currently out of compliance with FAA safety regulations (runway was built too close to McKeever in the first place), is that the County should insist that McKeever Road be taken out of harm's way by requiring the airport owner to remove 950 ft. from the west end of the runway. The health and safety of Fort Bend County residents using McKeever Road should be foremost in the county's cocnern here. Mr. Griffith has ample room (211 acres) in which to build South Post Oak to McKeever, and if the county interferes here to confiscate properties in Newpoint, then this is nothing more than eminent domain abuse disguised as a mobility issue. This will accomplish "the enhancement of the safety of his current airport operation while minimizing the taking of property in Newpoint Estates", as it will bring the airport into compliance with FAA safety guidelines while not requiring condemnation of any Newpoint properties at all.
5) Hebert: "If there is a secret plan, no one has let me in on the secret. In fact, I have rejected two previous requests from the airport owner to purchase the airport with federal money and convert it to public ownership. The second (rejection) occurred when the airport owner turned to the county with a request that the county acquire the airport."

Resposne: Mr. Griffith sent a letter on August 8, 2000 to Bob Hebert along with other leaders of the Greater Fort Bend County Economic Development Council; Judge Adolphus, Bob Brown, and Herb Appel detailing what needs to be done to setup the airport for acquisition by Fort Bend County. To quote Mr. Griffith: "The conclusions, I believe are that; 1) Houston SW Airport needs a sponsor front and center (Fort Bend County) to lead the conversion to public ownership project. And 2) To get funding for the called-for studies (The $500,000 appropriated by Tom DeLay for the sham called the Airport Feasibility Study) this year, I believe the appropriate officials should immediately contact Dave Fulton, indicate their desires, and demand some cooperation."

Judge Hebert and the GFCEDC have been instrumental (and still are as evidenced by the judge's actions today) in pushing the airport expansion project forward. The fact is that the county declined acquisition of this airport only because the city of Arcola forced them to decline acquisition. The judge is trying to take credit where none is due here.
The county needs to do the right thing here by; 1) Not getting involved in eminent domain abuse to obviously benefit a private developer, and 2) Demand that this airport be brought into compliance with FAA safety regulations by removing 950 ft. from the west end of the runway. The possible expansion of this runway by 950 ft. eastward does not make any sense as the airport currently cannot meet FAA safety regulations - bringing in more and larger jets is only going to exacerbate this safety problem.

Thomas J. Hilton
Arcola


Comments from area residents in FB Sun-online:

No more airport expansion-
Dear Editor,
Please convey the interests of Colony Lakes, Sienna and all the other homeowners out here that do not want more jet traffic over our homes. We are talking about hundreds of millions in lost property value, not just a few dollars here or there. If the county judge won't listen and is trying to rush this through the Arcola council before the May elections we won't forget Bob!
Do the right thing and listen to those that put you in the seat. Improve McKeever Rd. as is to hwy 521, not as another exit to hwy 6 which won't help in emergencies. No more favors!
Nomoreairportexpansion, MissouriCity, TX

Added: Wednesday February 08, 2006 at 02:03 PM EST

unimportant sienna resident
Of course I didn't hear the jets during Katrina and Rita. I got out of town like most of the other sienna residents. If they didn't bother you during Katrian and Rita then they wouldn't bother in the future if expansion occurs is a rediculous statement.
Anson Garcia, missouri city
Added: Tuesday February 07, 2006 at 12:11 PM EST

Hebert's Response...
Hebert's comment are far from actual truth:
http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/impacts.html
http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/rbell.htm
http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/AirportNoise.pdf
http://www.braac.org/Impact_on_land_values.pdf
http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/taxloss.html
http://landuse.aers.psu.edu/study/BerksExecutiveSummary.htm
This are just a very, very small sampling of a simple Google search for research on Airports and their impact on residential areas. Some actual $ figures and some what you would need to invest in to reduce airport noise.
My personal opinion is this: HOG WASH...

Steep Bank East in Sienna Plantation is going to take the brunt of this for my area...let only those people who live of of McKeever.

The expansion is not in the best interest of Sienna... improving the quality of McKeever Road 'Yes', not airport expansion.
Oh, not disturbed by jet noise during the hurricanes? Please, I was to busy trying to get out of the area as suggested by the mayor of Houston and Governor of Texas.

Steep Bank East has a 30" industrial pipeline from DOW running through it... almost everyday a pipeline patrol place flys through here... it's a single engine plane, trust I hear and it is disturbing... now JETS?
So, let add this up... Trains, Planes and more automobile traffic.

Airport Expansion is not a MOBILITY PROJECT... MOBILITY PROJECTS are ROADS, inlets and outlets not air traffic.
I moved out here like alot of people to get away from the noise and hurried pace of Houston... enough is enough.
Hebert does not have Sienna Plantations or the residents of, best interests at heart. This change inpacts his area and ours... I urge all residents who don't airport expansion to express this to Hebert personal.
John Armstrong, Missouri City, TX (S.P. Resident)