Voters in Pitkin County are weighing in on the future of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport on two different ballot measures.
If passed, ballot question 200, a citizen’s initiative, would strip Pitkin County commissioners of their authority to change the size of the airport runway. Referendum 1C would reaffirm Pitkin County commissioners’ ability to approve and implement a new runway layout.
To help make sense of these contradictory choices, Halle Zander spoke with Aspen Daily News Reporter Josie Taris, who’s been covering the issue.
(You can listen to the interview or read the transcript below.)
Halle Zander: Give me a brief history for those who don't know. What is the controversy behind these two questions?
Josie Taris: The airport needs to update its Airport Layout Plan (ALP), which is a facilities planning document and shows the FAA that the airport will meet standards. The county was close to finalizing an ALP in 2018, but community concerns over growth and climate goals halted the process, which led to the Vision Committee and the Common Ground recommendations for a new ALP.
The Common Ground recommendations also included widening the runway by 80 feet to allow aircraft with wingspans up to 118 feet, which would be in full compliance with federal regulation.
That widening, and the wider wingspan aircraft (that) would come with it, is largely the crux of the issue.
Zander: What's the issue there? Why is that a problem?
Taris: Some people in the community are concerned that those wider wingspan aircraft are going to be noisier and dirtier emissions-wise, and that the larger aircraft will also exponentially increase growth. The science on that and the data on that is very open to interpretation depending on who you talk to. It's all very nebulous.
Zander: All right, so let's start with question 200. Who is funding this effort, and what would be the consequences of it passing?
Taris: The tax exempt organization Citizens Against Bigger Planes is by far the largest donor for the committee organizing support for question 200, and that's Our Airport, Our Vote. Citizens Against Bigger Planes donated over $100,000 to Our Airport, Our Vote between late July and early October. And as a 501(c)(4), Citizens Against Bigger Planes is not required to disclose their donors. So, you hear about dark money in politics on the national level quite a bit — this is what they're talking about.
If question 200 passes, the county commissioners could not widen the runway without another approval vote from the county electorate.
Zander: All right. So what about the other question, 1C? It would essentially help the commissioners retain their existing powers over the airport. So if it passes, would it result in any changes?
Taris: Not really. 1C supporters say it's the secondary vote that question 200 is asking for, but supporters of 200 reject that premise entirely and view it as an attempt to undermine the citizens’ will.
I should mention that a 501(c)(4) did donate $50,000 to the issue committee supporting 1C, that was Coalition for a 21st Century Airport, that number is less than half of what the 501(c)(4) that donated to the issue committee supporting question 200 ended up donating in total.
Zander: Now, the FAA has been watching this local election and has made some threats about what would happen if question 200 passes. Can you explain the fallout?
Taris: I don't know that the FAA would characterize it as a threat, but they did send a letter to the county a couple of weeks ago saying that question 200’s passage could get the county into legal trouble with the federal regulatory agency. The county, as the airport sponsor, is not allowed to hand over or lose authority over the airport because of the contracts that they've entered with the feds since the ’70s when they accepted federal funding to support the airport. Since the ‘80s, they have accepted over $110 million in funding, and with that money comes strings.
If the county is found out of compliance with those contracts, the FAA could pursue a violation investigation, which could lead to legal action. It's all very uncharted territory, but it is safe to say that the FAA would not be happy with question 200’s passage.
Zander: Are there any U.S. airports at this point that operate independently from the FAA? Is there precedence for this?
Taris: None with commercial access, and there is no aviation activity in the country that does not have some oversight from the Federal Aviation Administration, so the FAA is always involved in some way.
Zander: If we don't move the airport runway, I mean, how would the FAA remain involved with the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport?
Taris: All federal funding to the airport would be foregone. The county would have to fund airport operations and renovations itself. They have floated ideas like sterilization. Sterilization is a runway specific term, meaning there is nothing on the runway when an aircraft is incoming or outgoing.
It would slow down flow, or the rate in which aircraft come and go, significantly. We all know what it's like to be stuck on the taxiway waiting for our plane's turn to take off. It would be that problem compounded.
Zander: All right, Josie, thank you so much for your time today.
Taris: Thank you.
