THE PERSPECTIVE OF AIRPORT OWNERS
The perspective of the owners of privately owned public use airports is 
substantially set forth in the foregoing section of this report entitled 
Problems Facing New Jersey's General Aviation System. The findings set 
forth in that section represent the combined product of interviews with, 
surveys of, and testimony taken from present and former private owners of 
public use airports. This section briefly sets forth a comparison of the 
different perspectives of the private and public owners of New Jersey's 
general aviation airports. The findings set forth herein are based upon a 
compilation of survey questionnaires sent to all 15 publicly owned 
airports and all 35 privately owned airports in New Jersey (see Appendix 
F). A total of 38 airports responded, of which ten are publicly owned and 
28 are privately owned. 

Private Owners

The most common reasons given by private owners for why their airports 
might close are property taxes, municipal opposition and/or interference, 
financial considerations, pressure from neighboring residents and, in some 
instances, the age of the owner who is nearing retirement.  
These private owners also suggested that specific programs would encourage 
them to remain open, including: property tax relief; State support in 
resolving municipal opposition to airport development; an airport 
preservation program similar to the Farmland Preservation program; a 
change to public ownership; an increase in economic benefits; and relief 
from fees, regulations and land use restrictions.

Sixty-one percent of private owners responded that real estate taxes were 
a financial hardship. Twenty-four percent stated that increased real 
estate values might cause them to close, while another 24 percent stated 
it was not a determinative factor. Sixty-eight percent stated they would 
remain open for public use if there were an airport program similar to 
Farmland Preservation. Sixty-eight percent had received State funds from a 
New Jersey Block Grant or FAA AIP Grant program, while 32 percent did not. 
Twenty-nine percent stated that they were satisfied with the required 
State and federal grant assurances (i.e., the commitments airport owners 
must make to receive grants) while 21 percent stated their 
dissatisfaction. Thirty-nine percent stated that its five-percent sponsor 
share was a great financial hardship, while 25 percent stated it was not.
Additionally, 71 percent stated that their facilities were not presently 
operating at maximum capacity and 54 percent responded that they did not 
expect to be operating at maximum capacity during the next five years.

Thirty-nine percent of the respondents stated that there exists local, 
county, city, or municipal opposition or regulations that are detrimental 
to their continued existence, while 29 percent stated there were not. 
Twenty-one percent stated that there was a possibility that the airport 
would close due to pressure from nearby residential neighborhoods, while 
50 percent stated that there was no such pressure.

Finally, 32 percent responded that they expected their long-term ownership 
to remain private while 25 percent said they expected to change to public 
ownership.

Publicly Owned Facilities
Ninety percent of the State's publicly owned airports reported there was 
no possibility of closure due to increased real estate values. Eighty 
seven percent responded that they received State funds from the State's 
Block Grant Program or the FAA AIP Grant Program, while ten percent stated 
they did not.  

Ninety percent stated that their facility was not presently operating at 
maximum capacity, while 70 percent stated that they did not expect to be 
at maximum operating capacity within the next five years.

Only 30 percent of the publicly owned facilities stated there exists 
local, county, city, or municipal opposition or regulations that are 
detrimental to their continued existence, while 70 percent stated there 
were not.