LB Airport Expects Summertime Revenue Decline Mainly From JetBlue Schedule Changes, Which Won't Affect Police, Fire, Parks, Libraries, Infrastructure Funding For Taxpayers Citywide, And That's Important Because...

LBReport.com

Publisher's Perspective

by Bill Pearl

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(March 21, 2015) -- On March 19, Long Beach Airport management told LB's Airport Advisory Commission that Airport revenue is expected to decline in the coming months as a result of schedule changes mainly but not exclusively by JetBlue. Airport management didn't say -- but taxpaying LB residents need to grasp -- that this will have virtually no meaningful (or minimal if any) impact on City Hall's General Fund which provides police, fire, parks, libraries, and infrastructure services for taxpayers citywide.

[Scroll down for further]

That's because under federal law, direct Airport revenue (items like landing and ramp fees, gate use fees, parking, other Airport charges on carriers and private aircraft) doesn't provide -- and legally can't provide -- funds for general Long Beach taxpayer services like police, fire, parks, libraries and infrastructure citywide.

The Airport provides relatively small spin-off revenue from sales tax (roughly a penny on the dollar) from selling food, beverages, souvenirs. If travelers happen to stay in Long Beach -- which most don't -- the City may receive taxi revenue and hotel room tax. The City's library foundation also annually receives a six figure sum from fines resulting when flights exceeded noise limits in the city's protective Airport ordinance (among the most progressive in the country by allowing increased flights as aircraft become quieter.).

Compare: The Port pollutes and creates negative quality of life and health impacts but provides a small percentage of its revenue for the City's Tidelands. The Airport pollutes and creates negative quality of life and health impacts but can't provide any of its direct revenue to benefit taxpayer services citywide. The Airport's health impacts include toxic particulate fallout with effects scientists are only now coming to fully appreciate. The toxics precipitate onto a city surrounded by four freeways (including its "diesel death zone") and already impacted by an adjacent polluting port complex.

The City's largest single revenue source is property tax revenue. Accordingly, it is very much in the City's interest and in its residents' interest, to protect its property tax revenue by not inviting risks to the City's Airport ordinance. The ordinance protects the City from unlimited flights at all hours of the day and night on all runways. Allowing a federal customs facility at the Airport could invite that unintended consequence because such a customs facility can't legally be limited to one carrier. It could create an entirely new category of risk exposure that LB has never before faced.

On Feb. 19, 2015, City Prosecutor Doug Haubert testified before the Airport Advisory Commission and explained how decisions at the airport could lead to a legal challenge. LBREPORT.com is to date the only LB outlet to have reported this. For our coverage, click here. [We recommend you email your neighbors and social networking friends about this. Send them this link so they'll know what others haven't reported.]

LB Airport is fiscally sound, and able to withstand schedule adjustments by some of its tenants, because wise Council members like Rae Gabelich and tireless neighborhood advocates like Joe Sopo opposed attempts to "super-size" the Airport into a 130,000+ sq. ft. monstrosity. Their stance protected LB's right-sized Airport that travelers appreciate andm thanks to maintaining that right-sizing, isn't saddled with unsustainable debt.

Regarding international flights, now-exited Airport management operated without transparency, without voted Council authority and without public input. In the latter half of 2013, it spoon fed the Council two summary memos describing what it was doing and portraying the issue as whether a customs facility would or wouldn't cost the Airport money. LB's electeds kept this quiet going into the 2014 election cycle. It took a Public Records Act request by LBREPORT.com to uncover and report the real extent of what had been going on behind the public's back.

Fortunately, on March 3, 2015, a new City Council voted 4-3 (Yes: Austin, Uranga, Price and Richardson; No: Lowenthal, Andrews, Mungo; Gonzalez absent, 4th dist. vacant) to stop the non-transparent staff driven process and re-set the matter for responsible and prudent Council and public discussion after a new 4th district Councilmember has been in office for at least 60 days. At that time, elected officials will be able to examine the full scope of issues requiring thoughtful examination and discussion before making any decisions on how to proceed or not proceed.

To their credit, Councilmembers Austin, Uranga, Price and Richardson, while not weighing in on the merits of the matter, supported this more open, prudent process. Not to their credit, Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal and Councilmembers Dee Andrews and Stacy Mungo effectively voted to let the non-transparent, Airport staff driven process continue Councilwoman Mungo even read a pre-written manifesto accusing some of her Council colleagues of "pandering" (her word.) We wonder if Councilwoman Mungo grasps, or considers it irrelevant, that much of her 5th Council district potentially has the most to lose if the City loses its protective Airport ordinance.

At issue now is a lot more than whether a customs facility will break even. There's widespread consensus (including from JetBlue) that whatever takes place should be within the terms of the City's Airport ordinance, but that will be meaningless if a Council majority takes an avoidable action that could result in losing the ordinance.

Like a doctor warning a patient of serious consequences from his/her conduct, City Prosecutor and former Airport Advisory Commissioner Haubert has explained the magnitude of what's at stake. We add the following: A locally controlled municipal airport is a convenience for some, but allowing an international airport could invite an uncontrollable airport for all. Uncontrollable growth is the difference between healthy growth and malignancy. No intelligent person would risk turning a healthy status quo into a malignant outcome after being warned of that risk.

Most landlords don't let tenants dictate to them what should or shouldn't be done on the landlord's property. Tenants using our Airport knew that LGB doesn't accept international flights when they came here. We are stunned that some in town have descended to arguing that the City should agree to international flights because a corporate tenant wants them. In our opinion, that is a totally irresponsible way to approach a decision that could bring the City unintended consequences that could include the permanent loss of our City's protection from unlimited flights at all hours on all runways.

International flights haven't brought prosperity, prestige or tourists to Newark. We think Long Beach deserves a better future.

A decline in Airport revenue won't have any appreciable effects on the City's General Fund services, including police, fire, parks, libraries and infrastructure. It shouldn't be allowed to cloud decisionmaking on whether our City should maintain our Airport and City protections as they are, or risk unintended consequences that could put an uncontrollable Airport in our midst.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.