THE PERSPECTIVE OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES General aviation airports also impact communities that neighbor those communities in which an airport is located. These communities derive the benefits of having the facility in close proximity, but are forced to deal with the negative implications associated with housing a general aviation airport. Sometimes the airport is located closer to the municipal center of these communities than it is to that of its host community. These neighboring communities have little say and no control over matters affecting the airport. For them, this is a problem. NJGASC SURVEY OF NEW JERSEY MUNICIPALITIES WHICH NEIGHBOR AIRPORTS This survey was sent by certified mail to the Administrators of 123 municipalities in New Jersey that neighbor municipalities hosting airports and whose shared border is within three miles of the subject airport. Of these, 36 municipalities (29%) returned completed questionnaires. The survey was divided into two parts. Part one was a series of statements, either of fact or of opinion, which the respondent was to rate from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" on a one to five scale. This summary will eliminate those respondents who replied with a "three" since this reflected "insufficient knowledge to agree or disagree or to form any opinion" However where most of the Administrators of the neighboring municipalities lacked knowledge on a point in issue, that fact will be noted. The respondents generally agreed that the airport preserved open space (56% to 21%), preserved wet lands (31% to 17%, but 51% lacked knowledge) and preserved the wildlife habitat (32% to 20%, but 49% lacked knowledge). These township administrators believed the airport was important for air transportation for small businesses in the region (69% to 20%), as well as large businesses in the region (54% to 17%). Those with knowledge believed the airport was mostly used for business (29% to 20%), but 51 percent lacked knowledge about this point. Regardless of business or pleasure, the airport made it easier for people to travel to the region (43% to 26%). There was little doubt to these Township Administrators that local businesses used the neighboring airports (46% to 12%). They believe the airport has a positive impact on the area's economy (49% to 17%) and provides jobs, both directly and indirectly, to the region (51% to 20%). Respondents were divided whether the needs and concerns of their municipality were the same as the municipality in which the airport was located (the majority believed they were not 44% to 35%). They were also divided as to receiving notice from the host community of all meetings and hearings regarding the airport and its operations (39% believed they did not receive them, 31% did not know). Neighboring communities' Administrators responded clearly negatively (44% to 15%) when asked if their community's desires or concerns were given the same weight as those of the host community in hearings about the airport conducted by the host community. And when it was suggested that they had an opportunity to share their views on proposed airport improvements or projects they disagreed (46% to 29%). Further, the overwhelming majority prefers that applications for the development or improvement of an airport should be made to a State agency, like the Department of Transportation, to ensure impartiality (63% to 17%). Forty-three percent of neighbor township administrators agree that their constituents are concerned about aircraft noise and 37 percent said their constituents were not concerned about it. But the majority of their people rarely complain about the airport (60% do not receive complaints). The majority of respondents replied negatively when asked if they were concerned about air pollution from the host community airport (No-46%, Yes-29%), or traffic caused by the airport (No-52%, Yes-26%) or accidents involving aircraft that come from the airport (No-49%, Yes-39%). An overwhelming number of communities replied in the negative when asked if they prefer that the airport be closed (59% to 18%). Respondents were equally divided when asked if they want the length of the runways and the size of the other facilities to remain as they are even though it is bad for the airport owner's business (23% to 23%), but were almost unanimously in favor of supporting improvements that would make the airport safer (69% to 3%). Communities were divided about making improvements to encourage more business use, more investment and more higher paying jobs in the area (35% to 29%). Ninety percent of the communities responding felt that their people would be offended by the constant noise of large aircraft used by airlines on a repetitive schedule (66% to 6%). They were not as adamant about the occasional corporate jet (No-57%, Yes-23%). The municipality is clearly in favor of participating in an Airport Advisory Committee that meets quarterly to discuss issues regarding the airport (80% to 3%) and feel that their views should carry the same weight as those of the host community (80% to 9%). Communities were divided when asked if a privately owned, public use airport should be entitled to grow and develop its business just like any other privately owned enterprise (36% to 42%), but did feel that all public use airports are a part of the State transportation system and should be regulated by the State (51% to 26%). When asked the number of monthly complaints received by the community, 23 responded one or less, while six responded five or more. Part two of this survey was a series of statements suggesting various services and activities offered by airports. Respondents were asked (yes or no) which services they would like the airport in the neighboring community to provide. The overall response was quite favorable toward the use of the neighboring airport for community service. A majority of respondents were in favor (82% to 18%) of the airport providing emergency medical transportation and emergency airborne fire fighting capabilities (87% to 13%). The response was favorable for flight training for an aviation career (70% to 30%) and technical training for a career as aviation mechanic (79% to 21%). Respondents wanted the airport as a base for aircraft for people living in the community (78% to 22%), a base for aircraft for small businesses that would bring investment into the community (78% to 22%) as well as for larger businesses that might bring higher paying jobs to the region (70% to 30%). They would like business travelers to use their airport facility (77% to 23%) and for the airport to be a base for air taxi/charter operations (68% to 32%). Respondents were generally negative to the use of their airport as a base for commuter airlines to major cities (33% to 67%). They preferred to use the airport grounds as a recreational facility for air shows or balloon festivals (59% to 41%) and for open space for community activities that do not interfere with airport operations (81% to 19%). One problem for neighboring communities which was made apparent both in the survey and in testimony given before the Commission is that the airports do not fall within their jurisdiction, thereby limiting the municipality's ability to influence policy regarding the facility. Senator Schulter made this point when he addressed the Commission. The Senator's district hosts Solberg, Alexandria and Sky Manor airports. He told the Commission that "the people who live near airports do not feel that they can get any kind of hearing, any kind of consideration for their concerns when an airport is expanded and, therefore, the safety, or the clear zone, might be expanded to include the property on which their homes are located."185 Although the Senator could not offer the Commission any evidence where property lost value,186 he noted that "property owners feel that this is an impediment which translates to a lower [property] value."187 An individual testified before the Commission on behalf of the League Legislative Committee of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, the Township of Branchburg, and in her capacity as Mayor of Long Hill Township. Using Branchburg Township as an example, she pointed out that "[w]hat our neighboring communities do within their borders has a substantial impact on our community and upon the services and facilities that are required for that community. It is perhaps coincidental, but many of the local airports which are in . . . this State happen to be located on municipal boundary lines. As a result of that, regulations and land use control in one community will have a dramatic impact on the uses in an adjacent community . . . whether that adjacent community likes it or not."188 She also expressed municipal and residential concerns over the physical expansion of airport safety zones in relation to the physical expansion of airport runways. "If a property owner has property in a community adjacent to an airport and the airport owner is permitted, through the community that the airport lives in, to expand a runway, that runway's expansion will immediately thrust the safety zone designation out into the adjacent property owner's land. The property owner has very little ability to regu late that."189 " The expansion of that safety zone will then dramatically impact that particular property owner's use and enjoyment of his or her property."190 " What you are saying is that the privately owned/public use airport has the ability to dictate my property's usage as a private property owner. I think anything the Legislature can do to minimize or compensate in some fashion for that impact would be well needed legislation."191 As an alternative she suggested the abolition of, or dramatic change to, the New Jersey Airport Safety Zoning Act, "because that legislation seems to have gone a long way toward harming relationships between municipalities and the aviation facilities . . ."192 Other municipal concerns which she expressed regarded airport expansion related to increased roadway traffic to and from the airport facility;193 added stress to municipal infrastructure and services;194 and airport noise, "probably number one, two and three on the list of objections."195 She also noted that municipal decision-making, which appears to ignore an airport, is sometimes affected by other legal requirements. "[I]n the past I was told by proponents of the aviation industry as a municipal represen tative, 'You should not have put that high density residential development next to the airport. What were you thinking of?' Well, frankly, we were sued by Mount Laurel developers. It is not like we had a choice."196 The Branchburg Township Administrator testified on concerns about an airport's impact on the quality of life for residents and their property values.197 The Administrator expressed the Township's reservations regarding the airport's potential to increase to its full capability as provided under the Solberg Master Plan. The plan would call for an expanded runway allowing for 60,000-pound aircraft to come in to the airport.198 The residents' primary fear in this case is the noise and traffic associated with commercial airline service.199 This is yet another example of an administrator's misinformation; a small jet transport aircraft, like the Boeing B-737 or the Airbus A-320, requires a runway with a weight bearing capacity of more than twice that amount. Footnotes: 185 NJGASC, 1/30/96, pages 7-8. 186 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 16. 187 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 23. 188 NJGASC, 1/30/96, pages 29-30. 189 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 31. 190 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 42. 191 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 43. 192 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 53. 193 NJGASC, 1/30/96, page 46. 194 NJGASC, 1/30/96, pages 46-47. 195 NJGASC, 1/30/96, pages 45-46. 196 NJGASC, 1/30/96, pages 49-50. 197 NJGASC, 1/30/96, pages 66-67. 198 NJGASC, 1/30/96, pages 67-68. 199 NJGASC, 1/30/96, pages 70-71.