PROBLEMS FACING NEW JERSEY'S GENERAL AVIATION SYSTEM HISTORICAL ATTRITION OF NEW JERSEY AIRPORTS New Jersey currently has 48 general aviation airports. The State has lost 53 public use airports since 1952. Since 1952, airports in New Jersey have been closing at the rate of one per year. Given the vital role that airports play in the New Jersey economy and transportation infrastructure, the most important questions facing this Commission are why and whether this trend will continue. New Jersey cannot afford to lose another airport. Once an airport is closed, there is no chance that it will ever reopen. The sight of a former airport is subdivided and developed, making the return of the airport impossible. Because of the high expense and social resistance to building new airports, existing airports are commodities that are virtually irreplaceable. Of the 53 airports to close since the 1950s, all but one were privately owned, public use airports. Despite this loss, 68 percent of New Jersey's surviving public use airports remain privately owned; this is the second highest percentage in the Commission's Sister State Survey.69 The health of New Jersey's remaining privately owned, public use airports, therefore, becomes a paramount concern. REASONS WHY NEW JERSEY'S AIRPORTS HAVE CLOSED The Commission conducted a survey of former airport owners to determine the reasons for closure. In addition, the Commission conducted a separate survey of all present airport owners -both public and private- to determine what state of facts exist presently, if any, which might with the passage of time cause them to close their airport. In many instances the problems that overwhelmed the former airport owner, and the concerns and problems of the present airport owners, are the same. In exploring factors causing airport closure, the Commission first explored and then rejected the theory that closures resulted from a lack of demand or need. General aviation, as a whole, and business aviation in particular, have expressed the need for additional facilities and look for improvements to existing facilities. This need for a larger, comprehensive general aviation system is far greater now than it was in the 1950s, when the number of general aviation airports in the State peaked. In addition, testimony provided by airport owners often cited the need for additional hangars and more capacity, rather than any lack of demand for their services. The Commission has identified several contributing factors to the closure of New Jersey's general aviation airports. These factors, explored in detail below, include: INSUFFICIENT NET INCOME AND POOR RETURN ON INVESTMENT The majority of airport owners testified that it is the love of aviation, not financial reward, which keeps them in operation. As evidence, many of the owners cited low rate of return on the capital invested in the airport facility and insufficient net income. Factors causing low net income included: (1) high property taxes; (2) significant costs associated with regulatory compliance; and (3) the inordinate expense and resistance of municipalities when attempting to expand or improve an airport. Inadequate return on investment is further substantiated by the fact that not a single new airport has been established in New Jersey in the last 20 years, while many airports have closed.70 The Commission found no evidence of any community in New Jersey giving financial support to its privately owned public use airport, even though the benefits brought to the community by the airport outweigh the actual costs the community incurs from hosting the airport. Nor does the great economic benefit that the airport brings to the community provide a reciprocal economic benefit to the airport owner.71 Yet, it is the owner's personal business economic gains or losses that determine the long-term viability of an airport in a community. Private airport owners cannot continually endure the expense of providing airports that only benefit the public. For example, Charles Kupper, of the former Kupper Airport, testified that the only moneys coming out of his airport is the salary to his son, Peter, who is airport manager and operator.72 Solberg Airport co-owner, Thor Solberg, testified that "[there needs to be a way of compensating the owner of the property for whatever its development right is compared to what its value is as an airport. If that were done, either through transfer of development rights or a purchase of development rights, then you would have good economic incentive for people to remain in the airport business . . . and to make it flourish."73 Charles Searock, vice-president of South Jersey Regional Airport, confirmed that his airport participated and benefitted from the transfer development rights program. Ed Brown, owner of Allaire Airport, stated, "no sizeable airport can be economically viable if it pays taxes on runways and taxiways and its only source of income is directly aviation related. It must participate in the economic benefit it provides to the area in either or both of two ways: (1) recognition of its public benefit by tax relief on public use portions; and (2) the airport must generate income from the industry and development it has attracted." Increasing Land Values and Residential Development The majority of airports that have closed in New Jersey since the 1950s became sites for new residential or industrial development. None of these airports has reverted to farm use or returned to wetlands or swamps from which they were claimed. Several closures were precipitated by the death of an owner or partner, whose heirs were not interested in continuing an airport business. The available evidence strongly suggests that privately owned, public use general aviation facilities are closing because the owners receive a relatively low return on the large amount of capital tied up in the real estate. As the most densely populated state in the nation, and considering its proximity to New York City and Philadelphia, New Jersey is home to very valuable real estate. Real estate values have skyrocketed in the past two decades and airport owners have seen a dramatic appreciation of the val ue of their land. This might have been immaterial were the airport operations generating a return on capital commensurate with the increased capital value of the real estate. However, this is not the case. Airport owners are continually tempted by opportunities to "cash in." Residential and commercial land developers continuously make offers to purchase. They provide the owners with a chance to finally transform their asset base from airport real estate into one that will give a fair return on capital. It is obvious that airport owners, earning less than five percent on their capital, can earn much greater net income by selling their real estate, paying capital gain taxes and reinvesting the balance in the public money markets. Princeton Airport co-owner Ken Nierenberg stated that, as owners, they are not making a return on their real estate investment equivalent to what they could get at a bank earning eight- percent interest.74 The banking scenario is idyllic: more income no labor. Thus, it is not surpr ising that many airport owners mentioned this alternative as a significant economic threat to continuing an airport's operations. Burden of Real Estate Taxes The real estate tax burden was the major reason given for airport closures by former airport owners. It is also a major problem for current airport owners. Property taxes are related to, indeed a function of, the airport owner's high capital investment in land and improvements. While the owners' income from the airport is negligible, the land and improvements on it are quite valuable. The airport's land is appraised for its highest and best use. The airport's improvements-runways, taxiways, ramp areas, terminals, public parking areas, and the like-are also very valuable. Ironically, an airport owner who cannot afford to improve her runways, but who accepts State Grant or Federal AIP funding, may find the taxes assessed on just the improvement absorb her entire net income. The taxes under this treatment are an onerous burden. Vineland-Downstown Airport stated that "[real estate taxes are always a hardship, we are not planning any new improvements because of the taxes." Somerset Airport pays $62,400 per year in property taxes.75 Allaire Airport pays over $500,000 annually in local real estate taxes.76 Twin Pines Airport owner, William Weisner, testified that his property taxes increased from about $5,000 to $18,000 in just one year, in 1995.77 Therefore, the privately owned airports, which are the most vulnerable, are also the ones upon which the State loads the heaviest tax burden. Charlie Kupper, of Kupper Airport testified, "We need relief with real estate taxes . . . As I said, it costs me between $5,000 and $6,000 just to open the door every week. The airport is not going to live. It is going to die. General aviation is going to die for privately owned airports."78 The State has addressed similar tax related issues as they apply to other industries. A case in point is the farm industry. Twin Pines Airport owner, William Weisner, testified that the legislature should initiate "some kind of tax relief like farmers get, or exempt all airports, because we do not make money on runways."79 Farmers, like airport owners, have seen the value of their property increase, too. When operating profits of farms, similar to airports, could not keep pace with these rising property values, New Jersey demonstrated its commitment to its farms, helping to preserve its limited open space through the enactment of the Farmland Preservation Act. This gave farmers lower property taxes in recognition of their contribution to the State.80 Many of the airport owners who testified before the Commission strongly exp ressed that similar action was needed to prevent high property taxes from closing more of the State's general aviation airports. Sussex Airport owner Paul Styger stated, "a farm could have double the acreage, be right next door, and if I am paying $50,000, they could be paying $4,000. Now, I have nothing against farmers. . . But we have a public service, too, and a lot of it we do not get paid for. The taxes are a big problem."81 Camden County Airport stated that real estate taxes "exert an extreme financial hardship for the airport. An 'airport assessment' to relieve us of real estate taxes would definitely improve our ...[chances of]... continued operation as an airport." Many other states have addressed such tax-related issues. Four of the sister state survey respondents have a property tax exemption for their privately owned public use airports; another has an effective exemption with the state reimbursing the airport for the property tax; and one respondent assesses airport land based upon its agricultural valuation. Additionally, one state has a bill pending for property tax exemption and a seventh state has a bill pending for agricultural valuation. Tax Treatment of Publicly Owned vs. Privately Owned Airports Not only does the municipality derive far more benefit from the airport than does the airport owner, but the municipality requires the private airport to pay property tax on what is truly its public transportation infrastructure. The asphalt for the runway, taxiway, clear zones, the terminal, parking ramp, and all the land reserved for present and future clear areas serve a public transportation need similar to the State's roads and railroads, and the land and improvements necessarily associated with them. However, a municipality, by law, is prohibited from imposing a real property tax on a highway that runs through its borders82. The Legislature is empowered by the Constitution to grant exemptions from taxation by means of general laws83 and has exercised this authority to exempt from all taxation all railroad property used as main stem or facilities for passenger service. 84 Furthermore, a municipality cannot assess taxes against a publicly owned airport,85 regardless of whether the airport is owned by the municipality itself, a county or another public entity, like the Port Authority. Yet the publicly owned facility provides no greater or better public service than the privately owned airport serving the same public transportation function. Maryann Worth, manager of Red Lion airport, told the Commission, "We are providing on our Airport a public road for the aviation people. T hat is what a runway is. They come in, they use it. It is non-revenue producing."86 This is another irony of the property tax conundrum. THE FUTILITY OF APPLICATIONS TO THE HOST MUNICIPALITY TO IMPROVE THE AIRPORT The Commission found that private owners of public use airports are highly trained, dedicated and professional people. Their life-long training is to the standard set by the FAA, which has tested and certified them, and re-certifies them in some capacity annually. The standard is always the highest degree of skill and care. It is a violation of Federal and State law to be careless in air transportation. However, the owners who appeared before the Commission evinced a professional dedication above and beyond the legal requirements. The Commission was impressed that these owners do care. Virtually every one of them testified of some concern to improve their airport for greater safety and were frustrated most when their host municipality, or the NJDEP, or some other governmental agency did not share that concern. This frustration today begets suggestions from some owners that it may be time to quit. The greatest hardship private owners face today is when seeking approval to improve their airport. These improvements are necessary both for safety and economic survival. During the 50 years since most of New Jersey's airports were built, modern general aviation aircraft have become heavier and faster, which is why they now require longer runways. It is a simple fact of physics that an aircraft which weighs 5,000 pounds and travels at 60 mph can be stopped safely on a shorter runway than one which weighs 90 ,000 pounds and travels at 120 mph. The momentum of the latter is 36 times greater than the former. It is a simple fact of aerodynamics that the modern aircraft needs a longer runway to become airborne safely. It would be frustrating enough if safety were the only issue. However, the issue is also one of running a viable modern business. In the 1940s an airport owner could operate a reasonable business catering to the needs of small aircraft, the business aircraft of the day. An airport needed only a 2,000 to 3,000 foot runway stressed for 12,500 pounds. But modern business aircraft have become much larger and faster. A viable private airport business today must be able to attract and accommodate the needs of that modern business aircraft, for which 2,000 to 3,000 foot runways are wholly inadequate (see Table page 125). Additionally, the other facilities at the airport must cater to the needs of modern business travelers. This enables the airport business to grow, causing equity to appreciate. It is how wealth is achieved. However, many municipalities will not allow the private airport owners to change their business. Campaigns are run, and elections are won, based on a policy of "no growth" for the airport. Even privately owned FBOs on publicly owned airports are subject to this. The manager of Essex County Airport testified that airport issues are easily turned into political issues, with local officials exploiting them for political gain. "You have an administration coming and they need a place to hang their hat. There is no greater place than an airport in your town to start a little bit of an uprising, to get the people going on something and, hopefully, to win an election."87 He noted that "[m]unicipalities should not have the right to judge aeronautical businesses that go on at an airport, as long as those businesses are operating under federal and State standards."88 Municipal officials, for their part, believe they are doing what their constituents desire. Sometimes, a small group of highly vocal residents purporting expertise can convince a majority of the municipal governors that a runway extension, designed to invite business aircraft, will suddenly transform their small country airport into a primary international airport. They inspire irrational fears that scheduled airlines-presumably carrying hundreds of passengers and thousands of pounds of cargo on each flight-will commence service to their town and drown them with incessant, heavy aircraft noise. The Commission recognizes that no one would want that; least of all the airlines. The Commission has also concluded that such a scenario is mythical. Airport owners are frustrated by such mythology. They feel unfairly treated by municipalities and communities that subscribe to such myths. Airport owners are concerned with operating safe facilities and want their facilities to have all the devices that improve safety. They need to build new hangars designed for modern aircraft. They especially need longer runways, which are the best improvement they can make for both safety and business. Municipalities are generally inexpert in matters of aviation. It is a highly technical science and there are very few airport experts available to the municipalities to advise them. These aviation experts would be an added expense to already tight municipal budgets. Moreover, the municipalities would only be duplicating what NJDOT has accomplished. Usually municipalities have no long-term policy to guide development of a privately owned airport. As the municipal officials change periodically, they must learn the aviation science anew with each application submitted by the airport. This causes the preparation of business plans by the airport owner to be difficult. Somerset Airport co-owners, Danny Walker and Ellen Parker, testified "When you have a municipality reviewing it [planned improvements at airports], you are having people who are totally not knowledgeable about aviation needs or requirements. They are putting their stamp of approval or non-approval on something that they know nothing about."89 South Jersey Regional Airport stated that it supports any program where "the airport owner . . . can expect to operate his airport as a business and can be reasonably assured that investments on his part will not be wasted by arbitrary political decisions, e.g. granting variances to build facilities in airport safety zones or runway protection zones." He stressed that airports must be considered as part of the transportation network and that tax dollars must be spent to maintain runways just as they are for highways. Even if a municipality does not have a legal right to ultimately deny an owner's application, if it chooses to do so, it can unreasonably withhold its approval forcing the airport owner into wasteful and protracted litigation. This makes the costs prohibitive to do business as a modern airport and to make safety improvements.. When a municipality targets an airport in this manner there are any number of ways they can increase its costs or try to hamper its business. It was noted above that one airport owner testified that his property taxes more than tripled in one year.90 There are several additional examples. Somerset Airport and Bedminster Township The owner of Somerset Airport, testified that, in 1993, he submitted a plan to Bedminster Township to replace 36 outside tie-down spaces and eight old hangar spaces with a hangar that would accommodate 42 aircraft. In spite of the net loss of capacity of two aircraft, local residents sensationalized the plan as an airport expansion and the planning board rejected the proposal. In order to get the plan approved, Somerset Airport had to agree in perpetuity never to develop an additional 11 acres of airport land. At the time of Mr. Walker's testimony, $178,000 had been expended in application, engineering, and legal fees, not including the value of the land easement.91 In addition, the Somerset County Planning Board was requiring Somerset Airport to "donate" $9,800 to the Chambers Brook Watershed Authority, even though Somerset County engineers have made a determination that the run-off from this project will be zero to negligible.92 In addition to the plan approval process, Somerset Airport is addressing a 1994 Bedminster Township zoning issue that changed airport zoning from a permitted use to a conditional use, a move that violates the State Airport Safety Zone law.93 Mr. Walker further expressed the need to adapt his facilities to meet the demands of modern aviation.94 Allaire Airport and Wall Township Mr. Ed Brown, owner of Allaire Airport, testified that Wall Township has changed the zoning of his airport several times. 95 In an effort to protect himself from the municipality, Allaire Airport has spent approximately $600,000 in legal fees between 1990 and 1995.96 Trinca Airport Mr. Alex Davidson, owner of Trinca Airport, purchased the airport nine years ago and wants to expand its 2,400 foot long runway to 4,300 feet in order to accommodate business traffic and provide access to the International Trade Zone in Mt. Olive, which is 12 minutes away. The airport is located close to Interstate 80. Mr. Davidson has been unable to move forward with the Airport Master Plan. His testimony indicated that a small number of very vocal residents of the municipality have prevented approval of his program.97 Twin Pines Airport and Hopewell Township Mr. William Weisner, owner of Twin Pines Airport, complained that Hopewell Township's interference made it difficult for his airport to survive economically. In 1957, the Township restricted him to having only three aircraft on the field. After a 15-year legal battle, this restriction was overturned.98 Then, in 1982, Twin Pines submitted an application to build hangars for aircraft. This was rejected because the zoning board zoned the airport as residential. Therefore, hangars constituted a nonconforming u se.99 Princeton Airport and Montgomery Township Ms. Naomi Nierenberg, an owner of Princeton Airport, believes she was the target of harassment by the Montgomery Township Zoning Board. In 1987, the owners of the airport received a 4 p.m. phone call about a meeting that very evening, at which the Township would consider rezoning 800 acres surrounding the airport. The land had been zoned research/engineering/office since the mid-1960s, but an ordinance would change it to residential. Six weeks later the ordinance passed and became law. As a result, the airport now has 350 additional houses under its traffic pattern with the concomitant noise complaints.100 Between the zoning issues and the airport's application to build additional hangars, Ms. Nierenberg reported that Montgomery Township, between 1989 and 1993, spent over $600,000 in legal and professional services to fight the airport. Solberg Airport and Readington Township Mr. Thor Solberg, an owner of Solberg-Hunterdon Airport that has been serving Readington Township since 1941 and encompasses 700 acres, reported that the Chairman of the Planning Board has described Solberg Airport as a transient use, one that will in time probably disappear.101 He testified that the Township has tried to restrict the development of the airport by intentionally creating obstacles with little concern for safety.102 For example, it built a children's recreation area off the departure end of t he primary runway within the airport safety zone and is building a regional elementary school off of the end of the crosswind runway just outside of the safety zone. The Township did finally participate, but two years later when it was time for the airport owners to present some solutions for future options, the Township representatives of both Readington and Branchburg interrupted the presentation and simply stated that, in their view, it was inappropriate to have such a solution, even though they had not heard the full presentation of the solution.103 Mr. Solberg related how it was difficult to get the participation of Readington and Branchburg Townships in developing the airport master plan. The plan proposed the extension of the primary runway from 3,700 feet to 5,600 feet. The 5,600-foot length was selected by computing the needs of a Beech King Air and a Cessna Citation, two relatively small corporate aircraft that represent about 50 percent of the membership in the National Business Aircraft Association.104 The Township did finally participate, but two years later when it was time for Solberg to present some solutions for future options, the Township representatives refused to allow the meeting of the Airport Study Advisory Group to proceed.105 Mr. Solberg finally attempted to present his plan at an open public hearing on February 8, 1996, according to reports in the Courier News, "The crowd at the packed municipal building, which easily exceeded the meeting room's 367-person capacity, did not treat the airport's manager, Thor Solberg, kindly after he outlined the airport's recommendation for expansion. . .The audience at times resembled an angry mob that frequently interrupted Solberg and his master plan consultant, Allan A'Hara."106 Mr. Solberg further stated, ". . .one of the few people who had the courage and fortitude to stand and to try to speak positively about the airport was physically threatened when he left the meeting. He had to get the police to help him."107 The Branchburg hearing illustrates the need to have decisions on airport improvements made on a higher, more objective and less emotional level.108 It should be noted that Readington Township has yet to adopt the mandatory land use regulations under the Airport Safety Zoning Act. INCONSISTENT GOVERNMENT FUNDING The airport owner survey (See generally Appendix F) revealed that funding of improvements to airports is a paramount concern to the owners and operators of general aviation airports in New Jersey. Seventy-four percent of New Jersey's airports have participated in the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or the New Jersey Block Grant Program. Those airports designated by the Federal Aviation Administration as reliever airports are entitled to 90 percent project funding, under AIP Block Grants funding guidelines, with the requirement that the facility continue operating as an aviation facility for a period of not less than ten years if privately owned, and not less than 20 years if publicly owned. The remaining ten-percent is thereafter divided evenly between the State and the project sponsor. Such financing is available only for the purpose of improving public use areas and cannot be used to fund revenue-producing projects. The State Block Grant Program provides airport sponsors 90 percent project funding, with the requirement that the facility continue operating as an aviation facility for a period of ten years, or repay the grant on a pro rata basis. The project sponsor pays the ten- percent balance. There are privately owned, public use airports whose owners do not want to deed restrict their property for 10 or 20 years, either because they are uncertain that they will desire to operate an airport for that length of time, or in the event of their own death, burden their heirs with property restricted to airport use. For this reason, some airport owners have chosen to make improvements out of their own pockets. For example, all of the many extensive improvements at Allaire Airport (including an instrume nt landing system) have been done at the sole expense of the airport owner with no State or federal funding whatsoever. Allaire Airport owner Ed Brown explained in the questionnaire, "The attendant operational restrictions would be too onerous." Private owners who maintain their land for airport use have arguably chosen the least attractive use from both economic and legal perspectives. Other available land use options could be more appealing and far more lucrative to the owner, without having to contend with the daily concerns over environmental issues, adversary municipalities, neighborhood concerns, litigation and personal and financial sacrifices. South Jersey Regional Airport responded that it found the New Jersey Block Grant Program provided "excellent results" in advancing the airport's "ambitious airport master plan." The airport recommended that the New Jersey Block Grant Program "be administered on a 'need' basis, not on a 'fair share' basis." It also recommended that the State "develop a strong, objective, open 'need' program based on each airport's potential and real contribution to the airport transportation master plan." Other airports suggested speeding up the entire grant process and expediting the payment process. Ocean City recommended, in its questionnaire, that the process for obtaining grants of less than $50,000 be streamlined. Aero NJ President Naomi Nierenberg (co-owner of Princeton Airport) testified that airports never know how much funding will be awarded from year to year, thus making it very difficult to plan and complete a multi-year project. "Our concern is, we live from year to year and we can't plan. If we start project 'A' today and we get approval and we get some funding on that project - we can't plan for next year, next year and next year because we don't know how the funding is going to be."109 The co-owner of Princeton Airport, Ken Nierenberg, reiterated this point, "You put a five year CIP, capital improvement program in, but you're not sure what's going to happen. Every year you have to find out how much money is available. You don't know if there is money available in it or not. So it's a tough way of planning projects at an airport if it's a multi-year project."110 In testimony before the Commission, Robert Michaud from McFarland Johnson, Inc., explained how New York State initiated a special federal funding project in 1993 in the form of a $10 million, four- year program called the Specific Transportation Aviation Program (STAP), which was designed around economic objectives, rather than safety and capacity objectives. The State of New York applied these federal funds for 100 percent funding of revenue producing projects, such as hangars and fuel farms. Thus, New York acknowledged the need for the airports to be financially stable in order to survive.111 Flying W Airport Manager Leonard Lagocki, and Sky Manor Airport owner Kent Linn, both recommended that the State grant low-interest loans to airports for revenue producing projects such as hangars, heavy equipment for snow removal and grass cutting.112 D Y Consultant Dennis Yap, representing Trenton-Robbinsville Airport (but speaking with knowledge of many airports in New Jersey, including Flying W, Oldmans and Woodbine), testified that grants for T-hangars, lawn maintenance, snow removal equipment, and other improvements that are not "public facilities" could "help the financial viability of an airport and actually preserve airports in New Jersey."113 Mr. Yap also stated that the sponsor's share of State grant improvements is a financial hardship for general aviation airports, whether privately - or publicly - owned. Mr. Yap further recommended, on behalf of his clients, that the State make available low-interest loans to airports that face underground storage tank removal or remediation.114 POLITICS AND THE PUBLICLY OWNED AIRPORT Certainly over time New Jersey is more likely to lose privately owned airports than publicly owned ones. However that does not mean that every publicly owned airport is secure, nor that publicly owned airports are not also threatened by municipal politics. Atlantic City and Bader Field When Atlantic City's Bader Field was originally established to accommodate the Second Pan-American Aeronautical Congress in 1919, the Atlantic City Press described it as Atlantic City's "Airport." The term "airport" had never been used prior to that. It was not the first municipal air facility, but since then, New Jersey has claimed it had the first "airport" in the world. In its statement of purposes Bader field was: * "To establish a model airport which shall serve as a model for other American cities to follow in establishing municipal or public airports," and * "To set an example which, if followed by approximately 100 cities in the United States in the near future, will supply the aerial transportation which this country needs; will keep American aeronautics in the forefront; will give employment to a large number of American Army and Navy airmen, aeronautical engineers and mechanics who have been demobilized; ... and will assure the United States from being caught unprepared in the event of war."115 It achieved all these purposes and more. Charles Lindbergh, visiting after his historic flight in 1927, stated "... Atlantic City airport has good possibilities, and is an ideal location to the city proper. In fact, it's the best situated in that respect, I think, than any I have yet encountered."116 In 1933, two African-Americans, Dr. Albert Forsythe, a prominent Atlantic City physician, and his co-pilot, Alfred Anderson, selected Bader Field as their launch site for a transcontinental flight to Los Angeles. They were the first African-Americans to achieve this feat at a time when the War Department and most flight schools thought African-Americans could not fly. The two men, who went on to set other flying records, became New Jersey heroes and were even honored with a parade in Newark. Both men achieved great notoriety for their accomplishments and later, Mr. Andersen, while teaching flying at the Tuskegee Institute, was selected as the pilot-in-command for Eleanor Roosevelt's aircraft. This was the causative event which lead to the formation of the famed 99th Pursuit Squadron-the Tuskegee Airmen-which posted a distinguished record in World War II. Their historic transcontinental flight from the Atlantic City "Airport" (Bader Field) was sponsored by the Atlantic City Board of Trade and their aircraft was named The Pride of Atlantic City. In response to the Commission's Host Municipality Survey relevant to Bader Field, all Atlantic City's answers repeated just one theme: "close the airport." City of Linden and the Linden Airport The testimony of the Mayor of the City of Linden (accompanied by the City Engineer, who also testified) is another illustration how a municipality's plans over what to do with its airport can shift, suddenly and dramatically, with the change of political administration; i.e., the State's transportation infrastructure may depend on what mayor is in office. [I]n 1983, the former mayor, at least the mayor preceding me, tried to close the Airport. He wanted to do away with the Airport entirely. We had a contract, with the FAA asking us - or demanding that we keep the Airport open until the year 2002. He wanted to bypass that and commercially develop it. There was 188 acres of land there. The FAA strongly objected. They gave him a couple of plans. If he could move it to another site, perhaps they would accept it, but every place he tried to move it the FAA objected, and the citizens of that city objected . . . The former mayor wanted to close it immediately or not do anything until the year 2002, then the loan would be repaid, and then he planned to develop the entire Airport. I thought of a compromise. I would like to keep an airport in Linden. It was helpful, and it is still helpful, to some degree, in Linden . . . Helpful to our businesses, helpful to attract people to Linden.117 The Mayor pointed out another problem created by the political uncertainty: [W]ith the former mayor's idea of closing the Airport, a lot of the pilots and owners of the planes went to other facilities because of the uncertainty of what was going to happen to Linden. So we are down to approximately 70 planes. I think now, once it is public that the contract [with the FAA] has been signed, that the new Airport is going to be built, they will be rushing back, because it is a great location for a general aviation airport.118 CONFLICTING REGULATIONS The Commission found that another major threat to the existence, improvement and opening of additional general aviation airports is the confusing and conflicting regulatory environment in which their businesses operate. Federal Regulation Notably, airport owners, in their testimony, did not cite the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") as a problem. Under the FAA, aviation has become the most regulated industry in the nation. The FAA promulgates regulation for design, manufacture, financing, operation, maintenance and export of all aircraft. It licenses and regulates pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, air traffic controllers, medical examiners and airport operators. For the general aviation airport owner, the FAA has precise requirements governing the services they offer, including providing fuel, aircraft rental, maintenance, flight instruction and air charter service. The federal regulations are far from simple, but not a single witness mentioned them as a burden. Where airport owners have difficulty is the plethora of State agencies and local municipalities attempting to regulate and oversee airport operations and facilities. State Regulation Over the course of the Commission's hearings, several airport owners expressed their frustration and dismay regarding the conflict between the regulations and the oversight of the New Jersey Departments of Transportation ("NJDOT") and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's ("NJDEP"). Thor Solberg, co-owner of Solberg Airport, testified that it is difficult for airport owners and managers to keep apprized of all the different State regulations that could apply to their facilities.119 Airport owners overwhelmingly agreed that the business of maintaining and improving the airports is made exceedingly more difficult by the wide variety of State regulations, especially when the issues involve conflicting regulations, or conflicts between the regulations of NJDEP and the safety of persons in air transportation. Many owners cited confusing and conflicting regulations as a deterrent when contemplating the improvement of their airfields. Thomas Dixon, representing Morristown Municipal Airport, testified in detail describing complications, delays, mitigation fees and other expenses imposed on the airport by NJDEP when making safety improvements at that facility. Morristown Airport includes 620 acres, with 18 acres containing hangars and other buildings, an unspecified number of acres for runways and taxiways, the remaining balance consisting of open space. Mr. Dixon explained that there is an "apparent conflict between environmental regulations - State environmental regulations - and the Federal Aviation Regulations, primarily Part 77 . . . We would like to see the cost of environmental permits and the mitigation involved with that minimized to reduce any extra or unnecessary expenditure of public funds. We would like to have the ability to address safety concerns efficiently, quickly and permanently. Maybe the way to do this would be to empower the Division of Aeronautics with the authority to declare a project a significant safety concern, and then redirect this project . . . with input and comment from DEP . . . but with overall authority resting with the Division of Aeronautics."120 In regard to wetlands restrictions, Mr. Dixon testified, "It is not like we are putting a new highway in and we can divert it a quarter of a mile to the south because there is a wetlands or a sensitive area. We are stuck there."121 Airport owners implored the Commission for some relief from NJDEP's oversight of general aviation airports. Some had some creative solutions. Essex County Airport Manager, Art Cmiel, explained that in l974, the Essex County Improvement Authority purchased 275 acres of land for a combination airport and industrial development. A year later, 80 acres were determined to be wetlands. Mr. Cmiel suggested that the State purchase the land that does not fall in a vital section of the airport and its approach zones, designating it as wetlands, through Green Acres funds.122 The most serious form of conflict is that which arises between the NJDEP's environmental regulations and the common law obligation of an airport owner to assure safe operations to, from and on their airport. It literally becomes a conflict between the protection of the environment and the protection of human life. Airport owners are continually thrust into this conflict. Routinely, they must address several safety-related issues within and surrounding their airport facility, including removal of obstructions on runway approaches (tree removal), maintaining a clear line of sight for the air traffic control tower, installation of deer deterrent fencing and safety area improvements off the end of runways (tree removal, stump removal and disposal and wetlands work), maintenance or alteration of water courses and improving runways in wetland areas. Numerous airports have had problems with the seemingly simple need to remove trees that have grown to become an obstacle in the clear zone of the runways. Tree growth makes operations hazardous not only because it could be the cause of a fatal accident, but also because it obstructs the view of the control tower, and the view of pilots looking to see other aircraft before taxiing onto an active runway. Furthermore, it attracts wildlife (especially deer and birds) in and around the area where aircraft are landing or taking off. According to airport owners, the conflict between the NJDOT safety requirements and the restrictions of the NJDEP cause higher project costs and severe delays.123 An example of this occurred at Morristown Airport. The NJDOT determined that certain trees, which had grown up into the flight path of aircraft operating there, were a hazard to aviation and had to be removed by the airport owner. Removal of trees in this area required a permit from the NJDEP. The NJDEP disallowed the permit. It did, however, recognize the hazardous situation and proposed that the owner relocate the runway. After much more effort, NJDEP finally issued a permit, but its permit placed restrictions on the techniques for removal of the trees. The terms of the permit would not allow the contractors to use their equipment on site and required them to hand carry their equipment to the site. Not surprisingly, the cost of the project increased substantially as a result of the extended labor and time necessary for the NJDEP. In some situations, the cost of implementing such a project is not feasible and owners may have to postpone or sacrifice plans to improve airport safety, thereby jeopardizing the safety of air transportation, putting human lives at risk and threatening their own continued operations.124 Even after permits are granted without complication, many projects cannot achieve what is needed for the airport to comply with NJDOT safety regulations. For instance, the NJDEP does not allow any trees to be completely cut down, but rather requires that 18 to 24 inches of the tree remain coming up from the ground. As a result of the limitations imposed by the NJDEP, contractors are being hired simply to leave these tree stumps or merely cut off the tops of trees. However to an aircraft hurtling into an overrun, tree stumps can be as dangerous as whole trees and do not comply with NJDOT or FAA clear way requirements. These half-measures result in less than ideal safety conditions and leave these areas difficult for the owners to maintain.125 Moreover, such half measures can cause the disallowance of anticipated grant money to pay for the project. When airports were built in New Jersey between 40 and 60 years ago, they were frequently built on less valuable swamp or lowland (viz.: Newark International, Teterboro, Morristown, etc.). Virtually every airport in New Jersey contains wetlands. Major expenses can arise in obtaining permits and incurring mitigation costs for "disturbing wetlands." In addition to a protracted and expensive permit process, when wetlands are involved, owners are required by NJDEP to mitigate wetland disturbance by contributing two acres for every one acre of wetlands disturbed. These mitigation costs significantly add to the overall price of the original project. This problem affects every airport safety project, whether it is building a deicing facility and the concomitant water system to comply with storm water pollution prevention regulations, or improving a runway.126 Thus wetlands regulations severely restrict what improvements and changes can be made at these airports. Sussex Airport owner Paul Styger explained that he is interested in buying farmland adjacent to his airport, but "the [prior owner] put a ditch down the length of the field. Now, because the ditch, when it rains, holds water, . . . it is wetlands. That, then, destroys the area on both sides of it, which is not wet, but which is within that distance."127 Airport owners overwhelmingly testified that the conflicting oversight of the NJDOT and NJDEP has forced general aviation airports to undertake projects that are more expensive and time consuming, which often causes a job to remain unfinished. The NJDEP is mainly concerned with helping to preserve and protect the environment of New Jersey, where the NJDOT is focused on providing the people of New Jersey with a safe means to access the air transportation system. Because these two worthy undertakings so often come into conflict, a revision of this regulatory process should be considered. Special Problems Arising From Death of an Airport Owner and Estate Taxation Many New Jersey airports have already been passed to the second generation. With each generation the probability grows stronger that the next generation may want to pursue other interests with the family capital, or may simply not be interested in aviation. The multiple heirs that can be expected to occur with each succeeding generation will cause the income each receives from the airport eventually to become minuscule. Inevitably, the majority of them will vote to close the airport and sell the land. Even if the next generation wants to continue in the airport business, it may not be able to do so.128 An airport's balance sheet seldom shows large cash reserves. Death tax rates increase as the value of the estate increases. The airport land and all its improvements (including asphalt runways, taxiways, public parking areas and terminals) will be appraised as very valuable assets and the applicable tax rate will be very high. If the combined State and Federal tax rates equal 50 percent, this means the heirs must raise cash equivalent to half the value of the airport to pay the taxes. If there is a mortgage on the land the situation becomes hopeless. Even if there is no mortgage, the airport may not have sufficient income to make installment payment of the taxes under a family business election and, even if it did, there would not be sufficient income remaining to warrant continuation. As a result, many estate beneficiaries have been forced to close the airport, sell the land and pay the taxes. Footnotes: 69 NJGASC Sister States Survey, Appendix C. 70 Exhibit 39. Last licensed airport was in December 1982 for Oldman's Airport. 71 NJGASC, 3/26/96, page 96. 72 NJGASC, 3/12/96, page 42. 73 NJGASC, 11/28/95, page 74. 74 NJGASC, 11/28/95, page 105. 75 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 105. 76 NJGASC, 10/31/95, page 29. 77 NJGASC, 3/13/96, page 60. 78 NJGASC, March 12, 1996, page 30. 79 NJGASC, 3/13/96, page 59. 80 NJGASC, 11/28/95, page 71-72. 81 NJGASC, 3/13/96, pages 79-80. 82 N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3. 83 N.J. CONST., Art 8, º1, par. 2. 84 N.J.S.A. 54:29A-4. 85 N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3. 86 NJGASC, 3/12/96, page 78. 87 NJGASC, 3/12/96, page 49. 88 NJGASC, 3/12/96, page 52. 89 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 129. 90 NJGASC, 3/13/96, page 60. 91 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 128. 92 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 127-128. 93 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 111. 94 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 112-114. 95 NJGASC, 10/31/95, pages 32, 36, 42. 96 NJGASC, 10/31/95, page 37. 97 NJGASC, 10/31/95, pages 47-60. 98 NJGASC, 3/13/96, page 52. 99 NJGASC, 3/13/96, pages 53-54. 100 NJGASC, 11/28/95, pages 85-87. 101 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 97. 102 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 97. 103 NJGASC, 2/27/96, pages 99-100. 104 NJGASC, 2/27/96, pages 98-100. 105 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 99. 106 NJGASC, 2/27/96, Appendix 1X, Courier News, 2/29/96, page B1. 107 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 111. 108 NJGASC, 2/27/96, Appendix 2X, Courier News, 2/10/96, page A7 109 NJGASC, 9/26/95, page 69. 110 NJGASC, 11/28/95, page 100. 111 NJGASC, 11/28/95, page 62, et seq. 112 NJGASC, 3/12/96, page 11; and 3/19/96, page 10, et seq. 113 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 6. 114 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 16. 115 H. V. Pat Reilly, From The Balloon To The Moon. page 50. 116 See Id. page 51. 117 NJGASC, 2/27/96, pages 38-39. 118 NJGASC, 2/27/96 page 48. 119 NJGASC, 11/28/95, page 72. 120 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 11, et seq. 121 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 29. 122 NJGASC, 3/12/96, page 56. 123 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 16. 124 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 14. 125 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 14. 126 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 20. 127 NJGASC, 3/13/96, page 79. 128 NJGASC, 11/28/95, page 72.