In a survey conducted by East Hampton Village in October, village residents who responded were overwhelmingly against permanently closing the East Hampton airport, a town property.
The village mailed out approximately 2,000 surveys, but only 29 percent were returned.
A presentation by Marcos Baladron, the village administrator, at the Jan. 21 village board meeting, a day after the town voted to close the airport and then reopen it as a “publicly owned private-use facility,” further limited the information provided by the 15-question survey by focusing on only two questions: “Are you in favor of closing the airport permanently?” to which 77 percent answered “no.” And, “Do you believe the village board of trustees should be actively involved in the Town of East Hampton ‘airport closure’ debate?” to which 76 percent answered, “yes.”
The presentation set up a false dilemma. It became clear in reviewing the survey results that the issue is not as simple as people being either for or against the airport. The results that were not discussed at the village board meeting showed a much more nuanced picture.
Most respondents who want the airport open favor limitations on noise and landing times. On the other hand, some who want it closed still want it open for emergency use or could tolerate it with no helicopter traffic. In fact, only roughly a third of respondents wanted “no limits” on the airport.
A fair majority, 63 percent, of total respondents were in favor of limiting airport traffic.
“I was somewhat confused, to say the least,” said David Gans, a village resident who called into the meeting to discuss the survey. He said the survey should have been web-based, and it only offered binary questions. He also questioned the usefulness of a survey with a 29 percent return rate. “I don’t necessarily think it’s a representative standpoint of the village,” he said.
Mayor Larsen didn’t engage Mr. Gans in debate, but instead asked Mr. Baladron how many people responded to the survey. Mr. Baladron said 574 had returned it. “Well, they all figured out how to answer the questionnaire,” said Mayor Larsen. “It seems like most people figured it out. So that’s good.”
The presentation also ignored two questions that encouraged residents to write in responses. One asked how they have been affected by air traffic, and the other asked under which circumstances they would allow the airport to remain open. From these write-in responses, three main themes emerged, which could help mold the debate on the airport’s future operations.
First, people who responded to the survey want the airport to remain open, at least partially, with many calling it “vital” to the community.
Second, “Uber helicopters” and large jets were the main bugaboos. Many complained about helicopter noise. Some simply wrote in, “ban helicopters.” Even people who wanted to keep the airport open without restriction took issue with the racket caused by helicopters.
Third, many residents wrote in requesting that hours be limited for departures and arrivals.
Melissa Tomkiel, the president and general counsel of Blade, a helicopter and jet charter company, hoped the nuances of the debate would be highlighted. Over the telephone she said, “It would be much better and more coordinated if the town got together with the users of the airport and came up with restrictions” instead of closing it altogether.
She was sensitive to the noise issue but warned, “Once the airport goes away the noise abatement routes go away, so you’re going to have people flying directly over these communities.”
“It’s just one of the unforeseen consequences of just closing the airport without working directly with the airport operators,” she said.
A divide between summer and year-round residents was also apparent. Approximately a third of respondents identified as summer residents. Of those, less than 20 percent sought to limit the use of the airport. A much higher percentage, 44 percent of year-round residents, wanted to limit the use of the airport.
Other commenters wanted increased fees for problematic aircraft and, perhaps oddly for a survey about the airport, wanted more attention paid to leaf blower noise. Still others claimed the debate had been manufactured by new homeowners who lived near the airport and were in it only to raise their property values.
While the village board asserted that many residents wrote in to thank it for the survey, at least an equal number stated that the airport was a town issue, not a village one.
For example, a resident who was opposed to closing the airport and to limiting air traffic wrote, “The airport is outside village limits. Any grievances should be brought to town board by affected property owners. Otherwise, it: 1. Runs the risk of becoming a circus and 2. Could become a jurisdictional battle [in] which (to the embarrassment of the village) the town would prevail.”
Another resident, seeking to solve the airport noise problem and the low-income housing issue all at once offered, “The land could become a vibrant ‘new urbanist’ community with small homes for workers and the elderly.”
For an issue that has aroused passions on both sides of the debate, there was plenty of humor in the comments as well.
A Georgica Road resident answered the question, “Under which circumstances would you allow the airport to remain open?” with, “If a medium jet was put at my disposal — at no charge.”
While another year-round resident responding to the question, “What is the largest contributor to airport noise, if any?” answered, “The complainers.”
