Business Jet terminal, general aviation corporate aircraft center, executive pilot lounge, VIP passenger terminal, jet maintenance center….what are we talking about exactly?
The City Council’s Transportation Committee met yesterday, and it became clear to me that we still do not have a common understanding of what the controversial ‘Renton Jet Center’ actually is. Depending on who you talk to, it may be any one of the above items, or all five, or something else entirely.
I went into yesterday’s meeting thinking that the jet center was a place where corporations or well-heeled individuals would park their executive-class business jets. And I was thinking we were talking about jets with bathrooms, sleeping accommodations, and dining tables. As I said in my blog entry on January 28, I am sympathetic to public concern that such a facility could inadvertently become home to older, noisier jets such as Lear Jets–especially if the facility is privately owned.
I also heard the viewpoint that if the jet center were built right, it could attract the much-quieter very light jets (VLJs). But after some public feedback and review, this approach did not entirely make sense to me; VLJs are relatively small aircraft, not much different in dimensions than any other six seat aircraft. They could park in a multi-use general aviation hanger, and not need special operating accommodations from a dedicated jet center. In other words, someone who owns a six-seat twin turbo-prop would need a very similar facility to someone who owns a new VLJ.
When I asked my questions about this, I was told that I was mistaken about what the jet center is. But when others tried to set me straight, I found that other parties at the table (Renton Airport Manager, Airport Advisory Committee reps, Renton’s public works director, and some of my council colleagues) could not articulate a common understanding either.
In some views it is a transient pilot lounge and waiting area, where visiting pilots can park their airplanes, visit the area, and then take-off. In other views it sounds more like a VIP passenger terminal, where outbound VIP guests queue for travels far and wide. In some scenarios it caters mostly to jets, while in others it caters to all aviation uses equally.
And as an adjunct to the areas for accommodating people, there would be areas for storing or servicing aircraft –but it is not universally clear whether these are Renton-based aircraft vs. transient aircraft, or jets vs. mixed aircraft, or a combination of all these things.
After further discussion, it appears that the reason the stakeholders don’t agree on these answers is that the city was waiting to see what the private sector might propose. i.e The city would request proposals from the private sector, then let someone privately build and own the version of the “jet center, or corporate aviation center” we like best. (We would just lease them the land for thirty or forty years.)
But such an approach would be a mistake, in my view. I feel the City of Renton should develop the facilities ourselves, to our own specifications. We could sell bonds to build good quality and aesthetically appealing hangers, pilot facilities, and maintenance bays, and then pay for the bonds with monthly rental income—with no cost to taxpayers. We could size the hangers for general aviation aircraft, possibly including VLJs. We would then lease the space on an annual basis (instead of a 30-year basis), and have good control over the continuing performance of the tenants. For instance, if someone establishes a pattern of buzzing residents or demonstrating sloppy safety practices, we would evict them and take the next tenant on the waiting list.
This approach has another great advantage. When we allow the private sector to build on leased city property, we set up a future conflict and heartbreak for our children to deal with. When the lease period expires for public land under a privately owned building, taxpayer-equity laws require that the public take possession of the building. This can seem ruinously unfair to the owners of the buildings, who constructed and maintained the building for 30 years. (Clayton Scott, who we later named the airport after, actually lost ownership of his building under these circumstances).
Forced repossession after thirty years encourages the private sector to construct low-cost or temporary buildings, so they can financially tolerate abandoning them in 30 years. Unfortunately, such buildings can look like aluminum warehouses or even Kwansit huts. And in the waning years of a thirty year lease, some tenants even lose their will to keep their buildings painted—resulting in a bleak, neglected appearance so close to the heart of our downtown.
On the other hand, if the city builds the facilities, we can make sure they look nice, are built to last, and maintained properly. We can make sure we have courteous and safety-minded tenants, and we can provide space that accommodates the mix of airplanes that the Renton Community supports. This is the plan that I would favor.
___________________________________________________________________________
Important note:
The above opinion is my own, and I do not speak for the entire council. And I offer my apologies to those of you who have been working on proposals to build your own buildings on the subject airport property. I have not seen your proposals, and I don’t know who has made submittals. But I respect your willingness to invest in our community and regret the disappointment my opinion, or the fractured community reaction, may cause you. But I would not want you to invest even more in construction plans using incorrect assumptions about council or community support. I am only one of seven council members, so I don’t know how this question will resolve itself. If the City were to build a city facility, and lease space, it would seem fair to me that those of you who have submitted proposals would be at the front of the line for lease consideration. I’m not sure of the legal issues however, so I could not promise how this would work out.
