Mistreating the Facts

Well, there’s at least one thing I agree with Friends of PFN about.

In his response to my op-ed of a week ago, Mr. Fred Werner, president of Friends of PFN, writes: “Everybody should read the entire record, not just the propaganda.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Beyond that statement, Mr. Werner and I will have to agree to disagree.

There are many points in Mr. Werner’s op-ed that I take issue with, but let’s focus on just four.

First, Mr. Werner says: “The current airport can be brought up to FAA standards for far less money than it will take to grade, fill and destroy the wetlands and feeder creeks that sustain West Bay for the new airport.”

Based on the FAA’s analysis, bringing the current airport up to federal safety and design standards would require either extending the existing runway into Goose Bayou’s protected waters or destroying up to 200 homes in Forest Park. The cost of doing this is considerable, both in terms of dollars and impact on the community. You can read more here.

Second, Mr. Werner describes the new airport site as “a distant wetland site to serve communities that don’t exist.”

The new airport site might be further from where Mr. Werner lives, but it is, in fact, closer to the center of the airport’s primary service area and fast growing regions west of the Hathaway Bridge. In the same sentence Mr. Werner perpetuates the myth that the airport will be built on a wetland site when if fact the site is an industrial pine forest. Here’s what Audubon of Florida said about the site.

Third, Mr. Werner says: “For whatever reason, a few prominent local environmentalists decided to endorse the project.”

Mr. Werner knows why they have endorsed the project. Under the West Bay Sector Plan, which allows for the relocation of the airport, approximately 40,000 acres around West Bay will be placed in conservation. This includes nearly the entire shoreline of the bay and all its tributaries. It is an incredible opportunity to protect West Bay forever. Again, here’s Audubon’s rationale for supporting the sector plan. That’s “whatever reason.”

Finally, Mr. Werner and Friends of PFN are pushing a two-airport solution. According to their thinking, we don’t need one airport – we need two. But in the next breath they say there’s no demand. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

If they are endorsing the two-airport proposal made by a relocation opponent some have described as a retired “airline executive,” then they are advocating moving our commercial airport out of Bay County.

The other problem with two airports is airspace conflicts with Tyndall and Eglin. That’s one of the reasons the FAA rejected this approach, and it’s clearly stated in the record that Mr. Werner encourages everyone to read.

General aviation is an important component of air service in our community and our region. And there’s a real opportunity for growth in this area. There is a demand for improved FBO services and better general aviation facilities, and many see the potential for improving general aviation at the new facility.

Mr. Werner's group does not represent all pilots' point-of-view. I’ve heard from many general aviation pilots in western Bay and Walton counties who support relocation.

Unfortunately for many Friends of PFN, they may have to give up their “backyard” airport for the broader community good.