[BoulderCouncilHotline] More Airport

From: Wallach, Mark <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 6:58 AM
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] More Airport
To: HOTLINE <[email protected]>


At last Thursday’s study session we took steps to permanently remove the Boulder airport from consideration as a site for affordable and middle-income housing or, for that matter, from any alternative use of the property. In exchange for a few potential (emphasis on “potential”) FAA grants we have acceded to the FAA’s bullying tactics and bent the knee to a federal agency that does not have the interests of Boulder at heart, merely a desire to protect its aviation empire. We should stand up to bullies, not yield to them, but the policy of the City of Boulder appears to be otherwise.

At the outset, I must say that the presentation we received from staff was, in my opinion, not an even-handed analysis of the issues surrounding the airport, but an advocacy brief for the purpose of obtaining those few, meager grants, and at the cost of committing to operate the property as an airport in perpetuity. The facts presented on Thursday were poorly researched, incomplete and served little purpose other than to push us into making the decision that was desired all along. 

Let’s begin by being very clear about what this vote represented. We are selling a property worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the FAA for the mere prospect of a few grants to cover the inability of the airport to pay its own way. You doubt the characterization of this decision as a sale? Consider this: we will, permanently, lose all control over the property. We will never have the right to change its use, to sell it to another party or to do anything with it that the FAA prohibits. That is the essence of conveyance, even if we do not grant the FAA a deed and formally transfer title. A deed is not necessary; in every respect that matters the FAA will own the land. And we will be selling 179 acres at a price (the grant funds) we could have obtained by selling 5 acres on the open market. I suggest that selling a property of this value for such minimal consideration is highly inappropriate. 

And we should be aware of the collateral effects of this decision, which include the following:
In taking this step we have abandoned all those who are experiencing excessive noise pollution; our “voluntary” noise limits have no effect whatsoever. We will never have the right or ability to address them in a manner not approved by the FAA. I am always amused when I hear someone state that there should be no remedy for those impacted by airport noise on the theory that they moved into a neighborhood near the airport; they should have expected these conditions and deserve what they get. There is no other issue in Boulder that is dealt with so callously, especially by those who are not impacted. 

We have also abandoned the lower income families and children in Vista Village and San Lorenzo to continued airborne lead pollution. Not a word was said about this, and no weight was given to the airport’s continuing negative environmental impact, an impact that will now continue on unless the FAA at some point bans the use of leaded fuel.  That wait may be long indeed. It is almost impossible to call Boulder an environmentally progressive community in light of the calculus we have made to elevate a few federal grants over the health and welfare of our citizens. This is the choice we are making.

And finally, without even a by-your-leave, we have disenfranchised 3,400 signatories to a citizens’ petition calling upon us to alter the use of the facility. A petition that was withdrawn, as we all remember, so as to not interfere with the City’s own lawsuit against the FAA.  Upon receipt of the first grant funds that petition is dead and buried, and cannot be resuscitated. This is our famous adherence to the concept of community input? I think our new policy can only be described as seeking  community input, except when we find it inconvenient. Community input apparently comes and goes at our discretion. 

This is the most consequential land-use decision I can remember, and we made it without a hearing, public testimony or any semblance of input from the community.  At the end of the discussion the majority recognized the inappropriateness of making this decision at a study session and promised a more formal resolution to be placed on the Consent Agenda (Really?), but that will not make the process we have adopted any more acceptable. 

I would argue that taking a vote to consider taking FAA grants does not imply that we must immediately do so. My colleague Ryan Schuchard has raised the issue of placing some guardrails around taking such grants, and I agree. As we are clearly in a better position if we can get the work done without resorting to grant funding, he has argued that taking that step should be the last resort, not the first, and only after we have exhausted all possibilities, among which are the use of CCRS funds, funds that would become available if we expand the City’s debt limits in November, funds that become available every time we do an Adjustment to Base, funds that may become available from an improving economy or from the impact of the Sundance Film Festival. These guardrails should also include close consultation with this Council before action is taken. Treating the ability to apply for such grants as a mere administrative matter that is the exclusive purview of staff is absurd, when the effect is to effectively give away hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate value.

And, finally, none of this has anything to do with the continued operation of the airport. We would do that for the next 14 years, at a minimum. We would do it in perpetuity if our court case is unsuccessful or if that turns out to be the will of the community. But by holding out our hands for federal grants we are making the judgment by ourselves, and binding every council that follows us to the decision we make now. Receipt of the first grant funds will make the perpetuity obligation a reality.  I suggest that the price of those funds is so high as to be unacceptable, and it is a pity that the Council majority finds that it is a Devil’s bargain worth making. 
Given the majority’s view of the optional nature of a public process for this decision there may well be no remedy for this situation. But future generations will look back on this action in disbelief at the rationale with which we took these steps, the minimal benefits we received in exchange for taking them and the extraordinary amount of real estate value we so casually gave away in a straw poll at a study session. It is cold comfort to be in the minority that will not be responsible for this action; as a Council we will be judged in our entirety, and that judgment will be harsh.
 


_______________________________________________
bouldercouncilhotline -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]