What Does the Literature Say on the Impact of Airports on Quality of Life (and home values)?--A Non-exhaustive review. . .
Check the second article out for actual dollar impact of an airport on home values and then ask yourself if this road diversion/airport expansion going on in Arcola is in our best interests (then contact Bob Hebert and let him know how you feel about this deal at: hebertb@co.fort-bend.tx.us or phone: 281-341-8608):
Article #1: The Impact of Airports on Home Values (from http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/impacts.html)
By Leonard Kranser, Editor Updated July 16, 1997
Mr. E.P. Benson, President of the Dover Shores Community Association, in Newport Beach, wrote to the Orange County Planning Commission on November 16, 1996, as follows: "Our community has experienced and had to endure the unpleasantness of living under the Airlines take-off flight route from John Wayne Airport ever since it opened as a Commercial Airport." Mr. Benson went on to argue for transferring that experience to the El Toro community.
There is one fact that residents near John Wayne and residents near El Toro agree upon. Homeowners are asked to "endure ... unpleasantness" when they have an airport for a neighbor. "Unpleasantness" is a euphemism for noise, air pollution, accident hazards and traffic.
The mantra of real estate professionals is "location, location, location" in the choice of a neighborhood in which to live. No one willingly chooses to buy a home with "unpleasant" neighborhood elements, under a flight path, next to a freeway, down wind from a refinery or beneath power lines, unless they are enticed by an attractive price for the property.
Real estate law requires sellers to reveal noise and other nuisance factors, including airports, in a Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement, prior to sale, so that prospective buyers are warned. This allows informed buyers to look elsewhere. or to lower their offers. It follows that home values will be substantially lower around an aviation reuse of El Toro than around a non-aviation use. Logic dictates that home values will be lower, around a heavily used major international airport, than around an infrequently used military base.
STUDIES MEASURE AIRPORT IMPACT
In 1994, the consulting firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. was commissioned by the Federal Aviation Administration to prepare a study entitled, The Effect of Airport Noise on Housing Values: A Summary Report. Clearly, the FAA was concerned about this matter. The study developed a methodology for evaluating the impact of noise on housing values, by comparing market prices in similar neighborhoods that differed only in the level of airport related noise. The study found that the effect of noise on prices was highest in moderately priced and expensive neighborhoods. For two moderately priced "paired" neighborhoods north of LAX, the study found "an average 18.6 percent higher property value in the quiet neighborhood, or 1.33 percent per dB of additional quiet."
A 1996 study, funded by a grant from the Legislature of the State of Washington, used somewhat similar methodology and found that the proposed expansion of Seattle-Tacoma Airport would cost five nearby cities $500 million in property values and $22 million in real-estate tax revenue. The study of single family homes in "very good" condition, with "three or more bedrooms and two or more baths" and "excluding the most expensive and inexpensive units to provide more representative comparisons" found that "a housing unit in the immediate vicinity of the airport would sell for 10.1 percent more-- if it were located elsewhere."
The study also concluded that, "all other things remaining equal, the value of a house and lot increases by about 3.4% for every quarter of a mile the house is farther away from being directly underneath the flight track of departing/approaching jet aircraft". Click here for the full report, available to the El Toro Airport web site from the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, a Washington State affiliate.
In 1997, Randall Bell, MAI, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker and instructor for the Appraisal Institute, provided the results of his own professional analysis to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. After examining 190 sales comparables over the previous six months, in communities near LAX, John Wayne airport and Ontario Airport, Mr. Bell found a diminution in value due to airports averaging 27.4 percent.
ACTION AVAILABLE TO HOMEOWNERS
Realtors have reported cases where offers were withdrawn or lowered in the El Toro vicinity as a result of airport plans. Homeowners who believe that their property already has decreased in value can request reassessment. Appeals forms can be obtained from the County Assessor, PO Box 149, Santa Ana 92702 or call (714) 834-2941. Homeowners receive postcard Notices of Assessment each spring.
Article #2 -- Staff Paper 363 (from: http://landuse.aers.psu.edu/study/BerksExecutiveSummary.htm)
June 2003
The Impact of Open Space and Potential Local Disamenities
on Residential Property Values in Berks County, Pennsylvania
Richard Ready and Charles Abdalla
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Staff Papers are circulated without formal review by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Content is the sole responsibility of the authors.
Executive Summary
This research project estimated the impact that surrounding land use and potential local disamenities have on residential property values in Berks County, Pennsylvania. An implicit house price function was estimated based on 8,090 single family houses sold between 1998 and 2002, using regression analysis. Information on surrounding land use, proximity to potential local disamenities, and structural attributes of the houses were used to explain variation in house prices.
Within 400 meters of the house, the land use that has the most positive impact on house price was open space, followed by large-lot single family residential land. Commercial, small-lot single family residential, and multi-unit residential were less desirable. The least desirable land use within 400 meters of the house was industrial. Also, open space on parcels that are covered by conservation easements, including agricultural conservation easements, has a less-positive amenity impact than open space not covered by such easements. This does not necessarily mean that easements cause nearby property values to decrease. It may be that farms with agricultural conservation easements tend to be managed more intensively, which may be seen as less attractive by nearby homeowners.
Between 400 and 1600 meters away from the house, the land use with the most positive amenity impact on house price was commercial, followed closely by large-lot single family residential. Of open space uses, only land that is owned by Local, State or Federal Government and land that is covered by conservation easements have a statistically significant positive amenity value.
Several potential local disamenities were found to have a negative impact on nearby house prices. Of the potential local disamenities investigated, the impact of landfills on house price was largest, and extended the farthest (up to 3200 meters). A landfill located 800 meters from a house decreases that house’s sale price by an estimated 6.9%. The impact of a large-scale animal production facility (over 200 animal equivalent units or aeu’s) on house price was about one half to two thirds as large as that from a landfill (4.1% at 800 meters), and did not extend as far (up to 1600 meters). The impacts on house price from mushroom production and from the regional airport were much less (0.4% and 0.2%, respectively, at 800 meters). The impact from high-traffic roads was small, and extended only a short distance. No significant impact was found for sewage treatment plants.
Additional analysis attempted to investigate whether different types of animal production facilities had different impact on nearby house prices. Differences in the impact due to differences in the size of the operation (number of aeu’s) were not statistically significant. Further, medium-sized production facilities (200 to 300 aeu’s) were found to have a statistically significant negative effect on house prices when considered apart from larger facilities. Similarly, the impact did not vary significantly by species (poultry, swine, and beef/dairy). An analysis of proximity of animal production facilities and residential properties showed that the density of single family homes around animal production facilities was lower than the average for rural parts of the county. An implication is that some potential for conflicts is avoided due to the way in which these land uses are located on the land.
The total impact on surrounding house prices was calculated for a landfill, the regional airport, and an animal production facility. The average impact on the value of 3342 houses located within 3200 meters was $2442 (all values are in 2002 dollars). The total impact on all houses was $8,162,000, which is 2.6% of the assessed value of the affected properties. The average impact of the regional airport on 2256 houses located within 1600 meters of the airport runway and its flight paths was $104, and the total impact on the value of these properties was $235,000, or 0.1% of the assessed value of the affected properties. This calculation does not include 2391 properties located near the airport within the City of Reading. The average impact of a single animal production facility on 119 single family residences located within 1600 meters of the facility $1,803. The total impact on all 119 houses is $215,000, or 1.7% of the assessed value of the affected houses. These figures are intended as illustrations, and should not be considered averages for similar facilities. The impact from any given landfill, airport, or animal production facility will depend on the number of houses located near the site, and on the market value of those houses absent the facility.
The study area chosen, Berks County, was well suited to this type of analysis, in terms of data availability and the diversity and dispersed spatial pattern of land uses and agricultural production. The research method should be extended to more study areas, to see if differences in population density, demographics, or type and amount of open space and agricultural production influence the results. Until more research is conducted in more counties, care should be taken in extrapolating the results from this research to other regions.
_______________________
For more try these and then "do your own search" being aware of sites and resources that may be directly or indirectly funded by those industries. Often university and government reports are more balanced as long as no vested interest is detected by the researchers.
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
**********
Committee for Responsible Development-SP Group
responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com
http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com
Missouri City, TX
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Tuesday, February 07, 2006
9 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
see this piece from FBNow.com on local developer issues:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/689/isolationists-substitute-false-security-for-community
and airport issues with comments:
Expanding Houston Southwest Airport A Bad Idea
In my opinion and others as well to expand the Houston SW Airport would be a bad idea. Why can’t the land be used to build something helpful for the community instead of lining the Mayor of Arcola’s pocket? I think it should be the community’s decision, and not the personal decision of the Mayor, or the county judge.
Diane Banda
Arcola
1 Tom Hilton - Feb 7, 02:32 pm
Diane,
You hit the nail right on the head.
Mr. Griffith has 211 acres to route South Post Oak to McKeever (plenty of space) – there is only one reason why he needs to go into Newpoint…to allow the road to go around the FAA control point.
It’s as simple as that.
The County wants to go in and condemn 10+ acres in Newpoint just to accomodate Mr. Griffith’s development plans.
Our County government is in a sorry state of affairs.
God Bless Us All.
Tom Hilton
Some more from a Monday article:
2003 Plans To Expand Airport In Arcola Secretly Moving Forward
I went to Austin to meet with TxDOT Aviation officials earlier this week, and was shocked to discover that they are still working on expanding Houston SW Airport EXACTLY as prescribed in the 2003 Feasibility Study.
This is the same Feasibility Study which was approved by Commissioners Court in July 2003 due to Judge Hebert’s incorrect claim that the County would be required to repay the $500,000 if the Court did not accept it. This is the same plan that was overwhelmingly rejected by the City of Arcola, Area Residents, and declined acquisition by Fort Bend County itself over 2 years ago.
So now they are going ahead with the plan to expand the airport anyway – they are just not telling anybody. They are claiming that the 22 properties presently being surveyed for possible purchase by the airport east of the runway are being bought for “safety purposes.”
However, Arcola City Councilman Greg Abarr called me last week and said that Judge Hebert admitted to him that he had seen plans illustrating that the airport owner is indeed planning to extend the runway 950 feet eastward. Abarr was reportedly upset over this revelation, and told the Judge that the deal (South Post Oak) was off, as he felt he had been lied to by Mr. Griffith. However, by Monday of this week, Abarr had flopped on this decision, and the deal was back on.
Judge Hebert is continuing to fight for this expansion, even though it is presently an unsafe airport (it’s currently out of compliance with FAA safety regulations) and such expansion would make it even more unsafe (plans show a possible 1,400-foot extension to the runway). One example of Hebert’s quest is the Dec. 20, 2005 letter from the County to the FAA where they asked leading questions in the hope that the FAA would respond in kind. This would allow the County to place blame for confiscating the 10+ acres in Newpoint Estates on FAA regulations, and not on their blatant attempt to use government power and taxpayer funds to unfairly take land from some citizens for the sole benefit of private business interests.
Unfortunately for Judge Hebert, the FAA’s reply did not respond to their leading questions, but simply approved the layout intruding into Newpoint. I had heard that the Judge was very upset about this.
An example of these leading questions in addition to false claims in this letter are;
“Given the traffic count associated with increased development south of McKeever in Sienna Plantation and other areas, a new alignment is absolutely necessary.”
FALSE. Steep Bank Trace has nothing to do with South Post Oak for one thing. Studies by the HGAC show the traffic count to be 200 cars/day presently with a projection of 600 cars/day on McKeever – no critical traffic relief needed here Judge. In addition, all plans to date show the closure of McKeever from the point extending eastward from the connection with South Post Oak, thereby causing more congestion, not less.
“McKeever Road cannot provide the needed relief because westbound traffic on Highway 6 cannot exit onto McKeever due to the Highway 6 overpass at FM521 recently built by TxDOT.”
FALSE. I live off of McKeever, so I know that when I’m westbound on Highway 6 heading toward FM521, there are very large signs showing the exit to McKeever Road. This is how I get to my home – claiming that westbound traffic cannot currently exit onto McKeever is a blatantly false statement Judge. (The Judge is apparently referring to the future here, where that claim would be true when the City of Arcola gives away the R.O.W. of McKeever to Griffith in exchange for the annexation of the 90 or so acres excluded in the recent Interlocal Agreement between the County, Griffith, and Arcola).
“You have informed us the FAA flight safety standards would not allow expansion of the existing McKeever, or a replacement thoroughfare, at locations within a certain radius of the end of the runway, which happens to be near Newpoint Estates.”
FALSE. McKeever Road was an existing road when the airport was developed, and the airport owner built the runway too close to McKeever, thereby endangering the residents using that road. The FAA cannot prevent the County from upgrading McKeever or building a “replacement thoroughfare.” This airport has received about $1.3 million to date for the specific purpose of bringing it into compliance. Taxpayers should not be asked to foot the bill for bringing this airport into compliance – the airport owner needs to remove about 565 feet from the west end of the runway to do so. This would alleviate the need for the County to go into Newpoint Estates to confiscate the property there, and would allow the upgrading of McKeever on its present location.
“You indicated that although the FAA could not prevent the County from building the road, if the County were to violate those flight safety requirements and ignore FAA objections, the Airport might have a cause of action for damages resulting from the County’s non-compliance with those FAA flight safety requirements.”
FALSE AND MISLEADING. This statement is in direct contradiction of the previous statement. The County is not required to comply with FAA flight safety requirements Judge, the Airport is required to comply with FAA flight safety requirements. This is a blatant attempt by the Judge to have the FAA respond in a manner where the County could then point to FAA regulations forcing the confiscation, when in fact, they don’t.
“Further, if there were to be a future accident involving air operations and traffic along the road, the County might be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties for unlawfully obstructing/interfering with airspace regulated by the FAA.”
FALSE AND MISLEADING. The runway is unlawfully violating McKeever Road’s safety by being built too close to the road in the first place. The County will be subject to civil/criminal litigation by residents of the County if there is an air operations/traffic accident, as it is the responsibility of the County to ensure the safety of the citizens driving on its roads. The action that needs to be taken is for the County to force the Airport to take McKeever Road out of danger, Judge.
In addition Judge Hebert, the possibility of the Airport extending its runway 950 feet eastward should be of concern to County officials. If, after repeated warnings of the clear and present danger of the existing layout of this airport are ignored, and the runway is extended due in part by the County’s help, the County will be liable for damages resulting from such, when the inevitable catastrophic accident happens.
This South Post Oak Road project is being done solely for the benefit of this airport, and takes much-needed funds away from other mobility projects in the County that are ACTUALLY needed. All one needs to do to find proof of this, is to read from the letter from Mr. Griffith to then-County Judge Adolphus 6 years ago in April 2000: “An integral part of the future development of Houston SW is the expansion of the airport north across McKeever Rd…In order for this to happen, McKeever Road needs to be diverted up to Highway 6 where it will tie into South Post Oak.” There you go Judge, straight from the horse’s mouth – any further claims to the contrary from you or other officials claiming otherwise is nothing more than propaganda.
The South Post Oak Road project MUST die a well-deserved death, or the County will be complicit in disregarding the safety and welfare of Fort Bend County Residents.
Thomas J. Hilton
Arcola
1 Chris Calvin, Ph.D. - Feb 3, 10:30 am
Once again Tom Hilton has caught our elected officials with their creative attempts to disregard the truth and misinform the taxpaying/voting public.
Rerouting McKeever Rd., rather than fixing it on its current location near hwy 521, will only create further traffic nightmares on hwy 6. 10,000+ residents/homeowners do not need or desire another exit from the Sienna Plantation area onto hwy 6. This does not address our mobility needs and allows for the unwanted airport expansion that will do harm to our home and property values. This doesn’t even begin to address the many other communities in this area that will be negatively impacted like Colony Lakes, Silver Ridge, Waterbrook West, Waterbrook, Oyster Creek, Oakwick Forest, West Pointe, etc…
I’m not sure what the local politicals think they are up to, but ignoring the voters, taxpayers and property owners in this area will only back fire on the plans to help this private airport and its owner.
When we moved here to Sienna 2 years ago we were told that the airport was not going to grow into a large regional airport (like the Sugar Land airport) and already it has been named a Hobby reliever.
During the recent Rita scare many jets were rerouted to this airport and those of us that stayed listened to them as they landed every few minutes (not an inviting sound—makes it hard to sell your home too).
To complicate this further. Our developer here in Sienna has released information that they support the road diversion, but not the airport expansion, when they know full well that these decisions are not mutually exclusive but part of the Hebert-Griffith gift.
I would like to encourage those who live on either side of this fly-way and closer into the airport to vigorously oppose this effort by our developer, Bob Hebert, Jaime Griffith, some on the Arcola city council that will ruin our property values and quality of life. I would also like to ask our developer’s long time friend Allen Owen, mayor of Missouri City, to contact Mr. Hebert and tell him this expansion will hurt the tax base of this city (of course remember that Owen contributes to Mr. Hebert’s campaigns).
Thank you Mr. Hilton again for keeping the public informed on these antics!
**********
Chris Calvin, Ph.D.
co-chair
Committee for Responsible Development-SP Group
responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com
http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com
Missouri City, TX 77459
2 John Armstrong - Feb 3, 11:44 am
Well, I guess consider me a ‘boob’... I’ve contacted the airport myself to ask those very same questions and, I guess I was outright lied to by the general manager of operations. Since moving to Texas a few years back I am still trying to catch onto the need for lies and deceit down here. Folks, if you don’t want to answer the questions don’t but, don’t lie to the person either. Hope the person I spoke to on the phone and she knows who she is, reads this.
Does this mean the airport owner won’t financially benefit from this effort as Hebert originally stated?
It’s bad enough that we have a 30” gas pipeline running next to the homes a block and a half away, which we were never told that is was a 30” pipe and now deal with a ‘pipeline’ patrol plane almost every morning doing a fly by 300’ above, which will only get more frequent as the population groups out here by what the DOW contact indicated and Texas law mandates.
The trains shake the living mess out of ours homes, we were told the track was ‘defunct’ at best, worse was once a week. Now, from contacting the railroads themselves, UP and BNSF it is only going to get more frequent too… one train system services the coal plant south of us… anywhere from X number to over 120 cars of coal will be pulled through this area. The other one is increasing loads and train volume through this area because the hub around Houston in getting overloaded.
Now, yes, now… jets overhead! Why didn’t I buy a loft in the city next the airport or train depot and a chemical plant? Hmm… I could have saved some money. Because with all of this going on I hate the thought of selling my house… I can see it now… “here is the dining room(shaking from train), and here is the back yard(roar of pipeline patrol plane and and jets)”.
If anyone is interested in the contact numbers for these companies please contact me… don’t take my word for it contact them yourself.
3 noairportexpansion - Feb 3, 01:33 pm
We do not want Bob’s & Jaime’s airport!
4 Joel Grice - Feb 3, 07:09 pm
Why is it so difficult for those people who get paid by us, our elected officials to be honest with us. I have lived on property at the west end of the airport for eight years and I am sick and tired of the continual double talk. If you want to develop the airport then let everyone know so that those of us who will be directly affected can make informed decisions about our property. While I am less than surprised by the shinanigans which go on in Washington, I am very disappointed that local officials, individuals who live where we do find it acceptable to “try” to keep us in the dark on government action which will have profound effects on our lives. I would say to Judge Hebert and the entire county commissioners court that your less than straightforward actions are not what I would expect from individuals who are elected to serve those who elect them and whose taxes pay for the decsions they make each day.
Thanks for your vigilance Tom.
5 Anson Garcia - Feb 4, 12:59 am
Thx for the info guys. I know how I’m voting in the next elections.
5yr Sienna resident
6 ' - Feb 4, 06:15 am
. . amen Joel!
7 Tom and Frances Tuffly - Feb 4, 09:18 am
Fort Bend County and Arcola’s Mayor/Council are selling out the people of Arcola over the expansion of Houston SW Airport. The Mayor will not tell the people what is going on, but covers up the fact that the whole thing is to give the owner of this airport what he wants financially at the expense of the economic future of Arcola. We don’t need to extend South Post Oak Road or close a portion of McKeever Road due to the simple fact that McKeever has very little traffic. The last large parcel of land inside the City Limits, 217 acres located south of the airport, could and should be developed if this airport expansion concept would be dropped. The Mayor of Arcola should devote more time to bringing water to this city. New economic development is actually being sidetracked because the Mayor is too occupied with satisfying the wishes of Jamie Griffith, owner of Houston SW Airport.
Tom O. Tuffly
Frances Tuffly
518 Maguire
Arcola, Texas 77583
281 431-1255
8 , - Feb 4, 11:16 am
The plans for the airport expansion/road diversion are located at: http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org
9 Tara Jurica - Feb 4, 01:59 pm
This is just more of the “same old same old” junk that we have been dealing with around here for years. For those of you new to Missouri City, there used to be a train track that ran up from the plantation along side of Mckeever(now Sienna Parkway) and crossed Highway 6. McKeever used to be a dirt road. The airport USED to be quiet, and was only used by smaller privately owned planes. We used to have huge corn fields where there were quail(how do you think Quail Valley got its name?) THere USED to be peace and quiet, and know and love thy neighbor. NOW….with all of this development, we should all just move to Manhattan…...it is soooo sad. Th destruction of the pecan grove on Highway 6 in one day(I guess that was all done so people couldn’t complain until it was too late) The loss of thousands and now possibly tens of thousands of acres of wetlands and hardwoods. I am wondering if these guys are planning on damming up the creek the runs under Trammel Fresno??????? Seems to be the one and only place on this side of Fort Bend county where a person can actually see beaver and river otters…..Don’t believe me? Go check it out!
We all need to speak up, and have our voices heard! This rapid wanton development is rediculous!!!!!!!!!
Do we really need a bigger airport? Another exit onto Highway 6?(How about using some foresight guys and putting a road from Sienna Proper to Sienna Point so the school kids won’t have to endure and hour long bus ride everyday by going 15 miles out of their way. )Or how about building a school that will not have temporary buildings surrounding it within two years? Wow! What a novel idea!!!! Out with the old and in with the new seems to be the mantra these days. Bigger and better, more expensive! Thats great and all but when you start to mess with people’s way of life, you need to sit back and rethink….....
10 Tom Hilton - Feb 4, 04:31 pm
This is an indictment of the County and Arcola governments’ lack of honesty and their lack of willingness to do what is best for their electorate. Their only concern is to kowtow to the interests of the developers. God knows, Arcola doesn’t even want to develop a plan to determine what’s best for it’s own City, as it may interfere with what the airport owner wants. I have to ask – what is their interest here? Could there be money exchanging hands under the table here? I don’t know, but this seems to be the only logical explanation – maybe an investigation is warranted here.
ON THE EAST SIDE: Houston SW and TxDOT Aviation are claiming the land acquisition is being done for a “safety Zone”, even though this is exactly the land needed when they were planning a 950 extension of the runway there. There is no equal “safety zone” planned on the west side – strange, if they are not indeed planning a substantial extension to the east.
ON THE NORTH SIDE: Arcola is abdicating any negotiating leverage (control of the streets, water to the property, etc) and failing to negotiate in good faith for the best interests of the City. The Mayor and Greg Abarr claim that McKeever will never be closed, but refuse to answer specifically how that will happen when showed plans showing McKeever dying into South Post Oak. They both make progandistic statements at Council meetings, yet refuse to field questions regarding those statements.
ON THE WEST SIDE: Judge Hebert is grasping at straws trying to justify diverting McKeever into South Post Oak; (A)”Critical Traffic Relief Needed (?)”,
(B) “FAA Flight Safety Requirements dictate confiscation”, (C) “Airport Owner is donating $500,000 (although it would cost about $1,000,000 to purchase Newpoint properties and more $ required due to damage of Mrs. Neuhaus’ property values), (D) “The Judge was unaware of any plans to revamp and enlarge the current airport because the demographics of the airport limit what can be done…(?)”, (E) The airport would benefit inadvertantly from the South Post Oak project…yeah, right. (Refer to April 2000 letter from Grifith to Adophus – at least Griffith was speaking the truth there!)
Give it up, Judge – you are trying too hard – and who knows, there may be consequences to your actions. We’ll see.
I have called Greg Abarr and alerted him of this article, and have invited him to respond. It will be interesting to see if he will – I doubt it though, because then he would be required to state his position in writing instead of the empty words that he likes to throw at us. The only thing that I am interested in Mr. Abarr, is action – not empty words.
I look forward to the democratic process of cleaning house this May at the Arcola Govt level. Looks like the powers-to-be are trying to put all of this to bed before the May election.
I guess we’ll see what happens after the May election, eh?
Sincerely,
Tom Hilton
11 Prescott E. Small - Feb 6, 03:52 pm
With the new information of the expansion of the Sugar Land airport it makes wonder if this is not really just a tax payer funded effort to help Jamie stay competitive. Sugar Land could drive this airport out of business so why even bother expanding it?
Let’s take it a step further. If this airport can not compete with the new and improved Sugar Land airport what else would the land be good for? The land would only be framed on 3 sides by the new “Post Oak road, Hwy 6 and 521? I just can’t imagine what that property would be worth if the land were used for some other purpose.
Especially if the improvements are made at taxpayer expense (regardless if it is local or federal).
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/665/from-trailer-to-taj-mahal-sugar-land-airport-image-takes-off
visit http://www.citizensforbettergovt.org for more documents and the actual plans.
And here's one that ended up on FortBendTalk.com which originated from the FB Sun:
More Excuses or Just a Little Help From A Friend!
responsible_dvlpmnt Feb 07, 2006 - 12:33 PM
Thought some of you might get a kick out of this communications series staged for our benefit by the developers of Sienna Plantation through our developer run/controlled HOA (they call it the SPRAI). This also appeared today in the FB Sun timed for release on our developers internal website (of course you can't respond to their releases because they won't allow it--so here it is--feel free to comment and I will send it to FBNow too):
COUNTY JUDGE
Fort Bend County, Texas
Robert E. Hebert (281) 341-8608
County Judge Fax (281) 341-8609
February 2, 2006
Ms. Sandra K. Denton CMCA, LSM, PCAM
General Manager
Sienna Plantation Residential Association, Inc.
9600 Scanlan Trace West
Missouri City, TX 77459
Dear Ms. Denton;
Thank you for your inquiry. Please understand that the county has no plans for the Houston Southwest Airport. Some of the confusion on the airport may arise from the fact that the county considered, and then rejected, a possible acquisition of that airport in 2002-2003, and the airport owner also owns 200+ acres along and South of Highway 6 thru which the proposed South Post Oak Boulevard extension will pass. With that clarification, I am pleased to respond to each of the questions that you submitted on behalf of the residents of Sienna Plantation. There has been some talk concerning a “secret plan” to expand the airport, therefore an additional question has been added in an attempt to give a factual response to any legitimate concerns citizens may have about such claims.
The responses to your questions come from this County Judge, and may not necessarily represent the views of our County Commissioners. My staff has relied on official minutes of Commissioner’s Court, calculations provided by the county engineer and records of the Houston Southwest Airport for the numerical data provided herein, but the opinions and conclusions are mine alone. They reflect my understanding of this mobility project at this time.
Yours truly,
Robert E. Hebert
County Judge
Will McKeever Road be improved and/or realigned? If so, why and how?
Yes, The County plans to extend South Post Oak southward from Highway 6, tie it into the existing McKeever and reconstruct McKeever westward as an improved two-lane road with shoulders to its intersection with Sienna Parkway. McKeever Road will remain a city street in Arcola from Highway 6 to its new intersection with the South Post Oak Boulevard extension.
The County realized that McKeever Road would cease to be a major thoroughfare when the overpass spanning Highway 6 at FM 521 was completed and began planning an alternate route to Highway 6 in the year 2000. That Highway 6 overpass now severely restricts traffic from easily and safely gaining access to Highway 6 during peak traffic periods. As Fort Bend grows South of McKeever a North-South thoroughfare from McKeever is needed to give residents an alternate hi-capacity route for access to Highway 6. Chimney Rock was originally planned to tie Highway 6 into McKeever, but that alignment was abandoned at the request of Newpoint Estate property owners as it would have bisected that community. The completion of South Post Oak Boulevard on the North side of Highway 6 coupled with 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 and to allow the City of Arcola to annex acreage along both sides of the new street significantly lowers the overall cost of this mobility project for the County and adds significant value for the City of Arcola. Completion of this project will allow traffic along the new South Post Oak/McKeever routing to access Highway 6 through a traffic controlled intersection. Future construction of the proposed Steep Bank Trace Boulevard as Sienna grows eastward will make the new South Post Oak Boulevard extension an even more important mobility asset for Sienna area residents in the future.
Why is the project being proposed? Who benefits? Who is negatively impacted?
Although I was not in office at the time, 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.
When complete the project will benefit the present and future residents of Sienna and other areas South of McKeever in Fort Bend County; it should benefit the existing airport owner by improving airport safety and significantly increasing the value of the 200+ acres he owns through which the South Post Oak extension will pass (over and above the value of the right of way and cash contribution he has agreed to contribute to the project); and development in the annexed areas along the new South Post Oak extension should provide jobs and increased property and sales tax revenues for the City of Arcola and its taxpayers.
The current schematic alignment of the South Post Oak extension would require the acquisition of land off the back of four large acreage lots at the Southern end of Newpoint Estates and that alignment would have a potentially negative impact to those four lot owners, but efforts are underway to adjust the proposed alignment to keep the roadway within the already restricted GCWA canal easement and avoid taking premium property off those lots. Under state law any purchase of right-of-way required will be made at fair market value plus any damages incurred. 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.
How long will road traffic be impacted while the construction is done?
During the construction of the South Post Oak extension the existing McKeever Road should not be impacted as this will be a “green field” project. Once the tie-in is made to the existing McKeever there will be intermittent delays while the McKeever Road intersection with South Post Oak is constructed, and then as McKeever is resurfaced and improved with shoulders to Sienna Parkway. Work will be scheduled to minimize traffic flow interruptions and advance information will be available on the County’s mobile AM radio system to keep area drivers informed as to construction areas and possible delays.
Would the McKeever Road project allow the adjacent airport to expand or re-orient its runway?
Houston Southwest Airport is a privately owned airport operated under FAA certification as a public aviation facility. While the County has no authority to tell a private business what they may or may not do, the County is also under no obligation to use tax dollars to promote the expansion of any private business. The airport predates Newpoint Estates and Sienna by several years and its existence is protected under federal aviation rules and regulations. However, McKeever Road predates the airport, and I believe that the County is not obligated to alleviate safety conflicts incurred when the airport owner knowingly constructed the runway in close proximity to McKeever. While the County has no control over what the airport owner may do on his own property, 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. A resolution that meets those conditions would necessarily preclude any expansion of the existing runway to the West.
If so, will it allow for more and or larger jet aircraft?
The Houston Southwest Airport in Arcola is an FAA designated “reliever” airport. As such it currently services a wide variety of jet aircraft. Its current runway is 5003 feet, and the airport today can safely accommodate most corporate jets. Based on the previous acquisition study performed for the County under the FAA grant, a runway expansion of less than 1000’ may be feasible to the East but is limited by the railroad tracks at FM 521. No directional realignment of the runway is feasible due to potential conflicts with approaches to other area airports and other FAA safety standards. A copy of that airport study is available through the County library.
If so, will there be increased noise in Sienna?
Houston Southwest Airport records reflect that the airport currently experiences jet landings every other day. However, during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Houston Southwest Airport records reflect a tremendous increase in jet traffic as corporate and medical evacuations placed a load on all Houston area airports. On September 21-22 the airport experienced a peak volume of a jet landing or taking off every 15-20 minutes throughout the day. If you were not disturbed by the increased jet volume during the time of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, you should not be disturbed if the airport increases daily jet traffic. The volume during that hurricane period far exceeded the volume anticipated by any Houston area reliever airport during routine daily operations.
If so, will the risk of car/plane or plane/house accidents in Sienna increase?
The alignment solution I seek should reduce the risk when the South Post Oak/McKeever Road project is completed. Additionally, by recently applying for and accepting FAA safety grants, the airport owner has committed to making improvements to the instrument approaches, runway lighting and structural clearances that should significantly enhance the safety of operations at this airport.
How will Sienna residents be specifically impacted by the McKeever Road project?
Once South Post Oak Boulevard is extended and McKeever Road is resurfaced, Sienna residents will have an additional route along McKeever onto South Post Oak to State Highway 6. Sienna Plantation’s developer is required to build the proposed Steep Bank Trace through to connect with McKeever/South Post Oak to allow traffic from the East side of Sienna to access Highway 6 without having to move westward through the development to Sienna Parkway; thereby further reducing peak-period traffic along Sienna Parkway and improving traffic patterns throughout Sienna Plantation as that areas growth continues. The developer estimates that construction of this phase of Steep Bank Trace should begin in late 2006 or early 2007.
Could this affect my property value?
Mobility projects historically have a positive impact on property values. The improved mobility offered by the South Post Oak extension from Highway 6 should help minimize traffic congestion along Sienna Parkway as the area South of McKeever expands.
Will these improvements bring more vehicular traffic to the area? If so, how will this be mitigated?
Given the growth projected for Sienna Plantation, the opposite seems actually true. The new South Post Oak extension will improve access to Sienna Plantation from Highway 6 as Sienna grows. Sienna will provide more vehicular traffic as it develops and the new road will help alleviate potential congestion from that development and offer residents a fast and safe alternate route to Highway 6, FM 521 and Highway 288.
When would these changes take place?
The City of Arcola has passed a resolution in support of the realignment of McKeever Road and the extension of South Post Oak. Once the necessary interlocal agreements have been negotiated, commissioner’s court will consider funding the project for construction. While any negotiation is subject to unforeseen delays, the County would like to begin acquiring any necessary right of way by April 1. If that date is met, actual construction could begin by August of this year.
Is this project part of a secret plan between the County and the airport owner to allow the Airport to expand its operations?
Not to my knowledge. 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 first occurred when the airport owner sought to have the City of Arcola acquire the airport using FAA funds for the purchase price. Acting then as the court appointed receiver for the city, I rejected that request. The second occurred following the first rejection when the airport owner turned to the County with a request that the County acquire the airport. Shortly after I took office as County Judge, and following a detailed FAA funded study of a possible acquisition, all four County Commissioners joined with me to unanimously reject that request. With that rejection the ownership and operation of the airport remains in private hands and any future improvements to that facility would be planned and performed by the private owner on his property subject to review and approval (and possible funding) by the FAA.
Comment: As many of you know Ms. Denton, the SP general mgr., and her staff were hired without our homeowner input last year by our HOA board, which is made up of all developers (no voting homeowners). This is the same group involved with a SLAPP suit against some homeowners here who spoke up against the 2700 apartment units brought to our community by them. This staged and timed release is IMO a bit much and all to obvious.
Also it may make more sense when you realize that the Sienna/Johnson developers are campaign contributors of Mr. Heberts. I suppose it is also a coincidence that Mr. Hebert is trying to finish all agreements on the road diversion before the Arcola City Elections take place in May (he says by Ap.1st) whereby several candidates are running against the airport expansion. Good luck folks!
for JK:
A defending attorney was cross examining a coroner. The attorney asked, "Before you signed the death certificate had you taken the man's pulse?"
"No," the coroner replied.
The attorney then asked, "Did you listen for a heart beat?"
The coroner said, "No."
"Did you check for breathing?", asked the attorney.
Again the coroner replied, "No."
The attorney asked, "So when you signed the death certificate you had not taken any steps to make sure the man was dead, had you?"
The coroner, now tired of the brow beating said, "Well, let me put it this way. The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk, but for all I know he could be out there practicing law somewhere."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ck these related comments out from FBNow:
"Hebert takes the special interest money from those that use power and wealth in the form of SLAPP suits to silence individuals like Chris Calvin that deny the freedom of speech. Hebert takes money from special interest to expand private business and threaten the use of eminent domain on home owners and families for personal profit of an airport owner on the McKeever road project. So what if it is legal, it is immoral. I know the difference what is their excuse? What is your excuse?
Justice may wear a blindfold, but there is not a muzzle!
Peace & Love Fort Bend County!" --Small
39 CSE - Feb 6, 08:51 pm
Hello All:
I know Prescott Small personally. Having worked with him for the past three years has given me numerous insights into him as a person. Do I share all of his beliefs? No. Is he out to use public office to spread his religious beliefs? No. Is he concerned about our children being dumbed down by special interests of the “far” right who seek to censor what your children are taught to make themselves sleep better at night? Yes. Is he concerned by a sitting County Judge who’s only proven record of support is for spending tax money to support developer special interest, while lowering the quality of your life by increased air traffic over the neighborhoods he supposedly represents? Yes. Does he truly want to make a difference in politics by refusing corporate donations to fund his campaign? Yes. While Prescott Small may not be all things to all citizens in Ft. Bend County, he will be worthy of a vote from somebody wanting their voice heard over the chorus of developers currently bending the ear of Bob Herbert.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home