PD Editorial: A high bar for closing Cloverdale airport

It’s not easy to shut down a local general aviation airport, nor should it be. Cloverdale is learning just how complicated - and costly - the process can be as it weighs a proposal by Laulima Development to build on the 254-acre Alexander Valley Resort site.

There’s a catch. The company says that construction of the upscale resort hotel and million-dollar homes is contingent on the closure of Cloverdale Airport. In its place, Laulima has promised to build a sports park for the community.

But to do so, the company is asking that the Cloverdale City Council give its unanimous support for the plan and do it by tonight when the council and the public are due to hear a formal presentation of the development plan and receive public comment.

Even if the council gives a green light, that won’t be the final say. Closure of the airport will be up to the Federal Aviation Administration, which, history shows, has not looked kindly on such plans. If the FAA approves the closure, the proposal also will be put to voters as a referendum. Plus there’s a threat of a lawsuit from pilots who use the airport.

That said, there are real merits to this proposal. The $200 million Alexander Valley Resort and equestrian center would generate significant income for the community through hotel-bed taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. Meanwhile, supporters of the project argue that the airport is lightly used. It is home to a mere 17 aircraft and two small businesses and, as a commercial operation, barely stays profitable. Project supporters contend the airport actually requires a subsidy from Cloverdale to stay in business.

“The airport is no longer an asset. It is a liability, one that stands in the way of a lucrative economic development opportunity for our community …” Cloverdale residents Lisa Brew-Miller and Bob Bialon, both members of the Cloverdale Citizens for Responsible Economic Development, wrote in a Close to Home column on Saturday.

Laulima does not plan on building on the airport itself. But it contends that noise from aircraft will spook the horses, bother guests and create safety issues. In addition, they would be limited by the restrictions that exist on how close one can build near an airport.

Nevertheless, the public has many reasons to tell the council to proceed with caution if at all. For one, once an airport is closed, there is no going back. Few cities are clamoring to open new airports, which is one of the reasons that the Federal Aviation Administration does not look favorably on such closure plans. Even those airports that are lightly used can serve in times of emergencies or natural disasters such as the Lake County fire this summer.

Meanwhile, there are the unanswered questions. For example, who will pick up the additional cost that will be required to maintain the airport during the estimated four to seven years that it will take to apply to the FAA for closure? Staff has made clear that it will be challenging to get FAA grants for safety and maintenance while the city seeks to close the facility. Also, what assurances does the city have that the developers will stick with the plan for the long haul and won’t leave the city holding the bag for legal costs and other expenses?

Although the developers have indicated they would like a decision by tonight, Cloverdale council members should not be rushed into a decision. It’s clear that the FAA won’t be, which assures this is, at best, only the beginning of a long journey.