- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
24 cents a sq ft! Over 40 years! At CPI! If this is competitive, close the damn airport, build an industrial park there and reap $10 to $20 a sq ft for the Township taxpayers and reduce our tax increases to CPI! Unbelievably pissed off!
Anon,
Airports aren't industrial lands, they have restrictive covenants and limited legal uses and as such their rental rates simply aren't comparable to normal industrial lands. As noted at the Airport web site: "A restrictive covenant in the sales agreement [for the airport] stated that the land could revert back to federal ownership if the Township ceased operating the property as an airport." As a consequence the land is for airport use only, try to turn it into an industrial park and the feds will take it back and we'll be left with nothing.
As for the price, as far as I can tell that is pretty close to market for airport leases. From a quick Google search I found rates ranging from 18 cents to 35 cents in a variety of settings, however, the higher values all seemed to include moving into fully constructed facilities. From my search I note that Vancouver Washington charges 28 cents a sq ft and Saskatoon airport charges 21 cents for serviced land. Sounds like 24 cents is pretty much in the middle of the range for these facilities. In this particular case, much of the area being leased is currently empty and Acrohelipro is going to pay out of their own pockets to build the facility. At the end of the lease there will be an asset onsite which if factored into the lease price makes it look like a decent deal.
I will admit a bias towards the lease since I used to run with a number of the Acrohelipro folk out of the Running Room in Willowbrook. From my conversations and visits I will note that most of the employees live right here in Langley, they shop here, send their kids to schools here and pay their taxes here. These are the kind of well-paid, highly skilled jobs that Langley should be after and with the new addition there will be a bunch more of them to come.
Blair you are an intelligent informed individual and can actually do your homework and further understand the figures. Well stated....an airport is not industry, there are many differences and uniquenesses. For the LFP editor to be so blatantly misinformed and not do his/her homework really is a testament to their lack of big picture view. they are so narrowly focused on one councillor, Richter, the same one who claims we over tax and yet proposed the 'TAX' for the airport improvement fee. Clearly the lease rates are within business standards and equivalent to those of the other leases at the Langley Airport. Thanks Blair for being on top of the issue! As for the LFP Editor - take your foot out of your mouth and get tuned in!
So the question is what financial benefit is the airport to the taxpayers? I'm sure the immediate neghbours won't mind if there was no airport at all! Why do we have and even want an airport then if we have to subsidize it to this extent.
Did Council not recently lend the airport tons of money to do this very expansion as well? As Anon clearly said previously why not tear it down and get real revenue from the land there and as he aptly said cut our annual tax increases in half and at least keep out tax increases at consumer price index (CPI) at maximum! Or how about a freeze on taxes for a break for at least a couple of years as a novel idea in Langley Township!
Don't give me the economic generator lines either since we seem to have tons of these to no avail that still cause 77% tax increases over the next 10 years! And pretty much doubling of our taxes over the last many years. We churn out residential, business and industrial development like there is no tomorrow in the Township and still can't pay for infrastruture with these 'economic generators'.
The real problem remains, why didn't this council look at some of the questions that were posed by Richter and at least discuss them? Come on, get real, 24 cents over 40 years at CPI will never make sense to this editor on any land in Langley.This is subsidizing to the nth degree. Maybe we should have a REAL independent economic study on the airport finances to see what the real financial impact is on us the taxpayers! Basically exactly what Cllr. Richter proposed. With no discussion or thought whatsover I might add!
As it stands right now it seems to this editor that the airport generally just seems to be an old fly boys club that serves mainly this very small priviledged elitist social club! Sure it generates some jobs but so do a lot of other businesses in Langley who DON'T get a 24 cent subsidized Township lease rate for a 40 year term!
The second item of my article still applies. If you don't even entertain discussion, questions, new ideas and new thoughts there is no potential for any inovation and creativity on this township council. There is a definite slate and bias that cannot be denied any longer on this council. And Scupper take your own foot out of your specific slate's hero's rear end first before throwing your bricks at our glass house. At least this Editor entertains discussion!
LFP,
You wrote: “Why do we have and even want an airport then if we have to subsidize it to this extent.”? As far as I know there is no direct subsidy. In this case the Township has given a slightly below market rate on a lease in exchange for a longer than normal lease and a promise by the leasee to carry out significant upgrades on the Site. In essence the difference in long-term lease costs is being borne through an up-front land improvement cost. At the end of the lease the Township will inherit a value-added facility. This is not a subsidy, but a pretty straightforward real-estate transaction. It is no different than a landlord reimbursing a tenant by reducing a rental payment to cover the cost of paint when a tenant paints his/her apartment.
You also wrote: “why not tear it [the airport] down and get real revenue from the land”? The answer to that was clearly written above...because you can’t!!!. If the Township tried to close the airport it would be repossessed by the Feds. The land is for use as an airport, it was transferred to the Township with a restrictive covenant, end of story. You could no more turn the airport into an industrial site than you could turn Langley Memorial Hospital into a townhouse development or Campbell Valley Park into a landfill for contaminated waste.
Editor:
Yes the Council did lend money to the airport authority for expansion and development with INTEREST - a benefit to the taxpayer - not a tax like Ricter proposed (you sure seem to dodge that issue. This airport pays for itself on a day to day basis and will in the long term be a significant revenue generator and this has been well documented by both papers over the years. It is a true community asset and job generator and benefit.
It seems to me that Council get a fully documented package with significant details and backgrounders on each issue - if eight councillors do their homework, read thye material, ask the questions and have the answers why do they need to second a motion that has little inherent value and is only going to cost more money to implement. As a steward of the taxpayer's dollar spending money I have difficulty when it efficiency studies and indepenedent revenue studies are undetaken - don'' they cost BIG dollars and who will pay for them???? The taxpayer. So your retoric sounds great but once again the taxpayer has to flip the bill for the cost of yet another STUDY - oh how the media would love that story!
Talk is cheap and sometimes action is expensive and this is an example of expenses that really don't need to be spent! Sorry LFP Editor, sometimes the greater numbers seem to know what is better for the greater good!
Hello B.& S! Forgive the pun, but after listening to you two I have changed my mind. Let’s definitely tear the airport down and build a showpiece casino out of wood! We can make it three times bigger than Langley City's and put them out of business. Then we won't have to worry about a measley 24 cents a square foot rental rates and I'm sure the feds will jump at the chance to have a piece of this action. Thanks for the ideas fellas!
Hey Scupper, how come you know so much? Are you at these meetings? How's your baby?
As far as I know the Bateman's baby is just fine. I know it may be confusing to you to have someone so knowledgable but I know many of the councillors and am in conversation with then on a regular basis- therefore informed unlike others! You get your facts from the blogs (very dangerous) I get mine at the source, where it counts, Council Agenda's, being at the meetings, watching the telecasts and researching the topics discussed and working from an informed perspective. Good-luck!
Sounds like you get your info from Ward Scupper.
Maybe it is!
Scupper, what do you think about Cllr. Ward being quoted in yesterday's paper saying he would not acceptanything less than a ~6% tax increase?
...I know it may be confusing to you to have someone so knowledgable(sic)....
I wouldn't go patting myself on the back too hard there Scupper. First of all, if you were so knowledgeable you would have spelled it correctly. Secondly, if those old boys down at the council can pull the wool over your eyes, I wouldn't give you too many marks on smarts. I used to go to all the meetings myself, but I couldn't take all the shmoozing and political games that they play, one with the other. Personally, I think Kim deserves a medal for managing to continue on with her solid efforts to try and make this community a better place.
Langley is fortunate to have an airport for a number of reasons. It does give us another dimention that many other cities do not have. I think though, that Richter's comments need to be heard, whether we agree or not.
To me, the airport is more or less a park, and all other parks are an overhead, not a revenue producer. I go their quite frequently, whereas I don't visit any of the parks that are not natural.
The airport is a definite asset to Langley. Any suggestion that it should be torn down (especially out of spite) is foolhardy. If you are serious, you have a small vision for our collective future here.
There's not much of a problem when it comes to proof of Kurt Alberts' silent slate. Just check out the Langley Times edition for the Friday before the last election. There they all were, and he had enough names to pack "His" council. Strange though, that the Times did not see in this any hint of slate building! That in itself would have dished up a juicy and controversial editorial....but some newspapers are more into revenue than reporting.
Commenting by HaloScan
