FAA extends rTTF comment period

The comment period on the FAA’s “Policy Regarding Access to Airports from Residential Property” (rTTF) has been extended to September 14, 2012. From the proposed rules summary, “This action proposes a policy, based on Federal law, concerning through-the-fence access to a federally obligated airport from an adjacent or nearby property, when that property is used as a residence.”

FAA’s proposed rule can be read at regulations.gov. So far, 18 people have commented on the proposed policy. You can submit your comment here or read the comments already submitted.

Brent Blue, founder of ThoughTheFence.org, is a leading advocate for rTTF access at federally-obligated airports. His comments can be read at the above noted link or on his website, ThroughTheFence.org. Among Brent’s comments…

FAA policy document: “‘Extend an access’ is defined as an airport sponsor’s consent to renew or extend an existing right to access the airport from residential property or property zoned for residential use, for a specific duration of time, not to exceed 20 years.

Brent’s comment: “This is also a violation of the spirit and intent of the law.  There is nothing in the legislation which limits the duration of an airport sponsor’s contractual commitment to rTTF access holders.  In fact, it does the opposite by stating in 136 of P.L. 112-95 specifically ‘Applicability—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to an agreement between an airport sponsor and a property owner (or an association representing such property owner) entered into before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.'”

One reply on “FAA extends rTTF comment period”

I see litigation . . .

An airport property with airstrip access is worth a lot more than the same property without – then the adjacent airstrip is regarded as a nuisance and reduces the value further. Realtors in Florida are required to disclose the existence of nearby airstrips and airports, because non-aviators do NOT want to live anywhere near all those dangerous, noisy airplanes.

If airport access is unilaterally revoked subsequent to the purchase (and a part of the inducement to purchase was airport access), that constitutes a “taking”, and is absolutely grounds for litigation. Further, if a lender decides that the borrower is now upside down because of the reduced value, it may be cause for foreclosure – read your mortgage, lenders CAN do that if the value of the collateral is significantly decreased for ANY reason. Good luck getting the worms back in the can on this one . . .

Comments are closed.