The comment period for this draft policy rule change ended today.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-1203-0001
There are FAA policy changes like this all the time which are generally only noticed by people in ‘the biz’; especially if they don’t have any obvious connection with flight paths or noise or pollution.
When we first started watching this sort of thing, it took us a while to notice that everyone tends to wait until the last moment to comment. But we wish activists took land use more seriously, especially around Sea-Tac Airport. In fact, the Sea-Tac Communities Plan of 1976 was the first major attempt to use FAA money for “non-aeronautical” purposes. The idea was to create a noise buffer around the airport. Since then, the concept has become so common that such purchases are referred to as “noise lands”. Pretty much every airport now has a strong interest in Section 163.
Here are two representative comments:
Comment from Airports Council International (North America)
Comment from National Association of State Aviation Officials
We commented and were the only community-oriented organization to do so. What is interesting is that several industry commenters seem to disagree on the implications. Politics makes for strange bed fellows and we disagree with many of the comments on principle. But everyone agrees that the Draft is confusing.
Originally, the FAA offered to fund those land purchases for community benefit. But airport sponsors (and local electeds) quickly realized that they could encourage zoning such properties for various commercial purposes and use those lease revenues to power further airport activities–including expansion of operations! The initial FAA requirements centered almost exclusively around “population density”. In other words, so long as the area was clear of human beings, it was considered a legit non-aeronautical purpose. (Around Sea-Tac Airport stakeholders would get into arguments that a parking lot was actually more appropriate use of noise land than a baseball field because [OMG!] too many people might gather a few times a week to attend games.)
If you read through these comments, airport sponsors have come to rely heavily on their ability to monetize those lands. Some couldn’t stay in business without them.
In a real way, this discussion is a bit like the current wars over water rights in the Western United States. The original idea was noble and beneficial, but at a certain point, stakeholders came to consider the resource theirs.
All commenters agree that the Draft is ambiguous and we also advocate for clarity. But clarity can be a two-edged sword–especially with regard to Sea-Tac Airport.
- On the one hand, the FAA could insist that all future uses need to be more explicitly aeronautical. Which would be bad for residents around Sea-Tac Airport.
- On the other hand, the FAA could maintain the status quo and leave use of noise lands to airport sponsors, which might be fine if the County or City owns the airport, but not so fine if the sponsor happens to be an independent actor like the Port of Seattle. As it stands, the Port can essentially re-purpose its properties without so much as a zoning hearing.
- On the third hand, the FAA could, in theory, shift its position back to the original intention of “noise land” and insist that, while the sponsor maintains title, the community has a voice in land use–as was the case here in 1976. If the land was purchased with FAA dollars, for community benefit, each community should have a say in how that land is used–and derive a shared benefit from its use.
One way to think of noise land is that it is a bit like avigation easements: the community got a one time benefit in exchange for providing a perpetual windfall to the airport sponsor. Even in the case of city or county owned airports, the allure of lease revenues is so powerful that local governments often cannot help themselves, making communities just beyond the noise buffer sacrifice zones in exchange for promises of economic development.
But in the case of a free-agent like the Sea-Tac Airport, the Port is literally incentivized by both the County and State to maximize revenue wherever possible.
All in all, Section 163 has morphed into a terrible deal and not in keeping with the spirit of the Sea-Tac Communities Plan.
Instead, both the proper use and ongoing benefits of noise land should be shared equitably among all the stakeholders–just as water rights are now being negotiated.
What the public does not fully appreciate is the true cost of noise land. By taking those properties permanently off the tax rolls–and then allowing the Port of Seattle to derive 100% of the market-rate profits from those lands–it saps the strength of surrounding cities. That is what poor land use policy has done: made the Port richer and made the surrounding cities too weak to advocate for themselves.
And the really insidious part is that most electeds throughout America (and especially here) were all on board with it. Again, the allure of “economic growth” trumped community interest. Not all at once. More of a steady drip, drip, drip.
There will always be airport communities and they will always be at higher risk. Yes we should work on pollution and noise, but even more basic is that each city must have the strength to advocate for itself and show the will to consider the needs of its residents near the airport.
Section 163 was a good idea that, like so many parts of FAA law, was turned to a bad purpose. There is no reason it cannot shift back.