I see people are still checking the blog, so lets keep going.  I am surprised how many hits there have been with nothing new posted in almost two years.

Just an update.. It has been 13 years since the city has promised a shopping center in St. Clair and what do we see,, nothing, 13 years and nothing, just weeds.  Before the election in which Ron Blum ran for mayor, he stood up in city council and stated “I have a developer standing by to develop the airport property”.  13 years should be enough time to prove that he was lying.

The closure of this airport is a prime example of total and complete breakdown of how government should work.  Thank god McCaskill is gone good riddance.  Politicians like her make me sick to my stomach to think they have as much power as they do, and abuse it so badly.    

IT’S GONE

The city pulled it off.  It took ten years but Blum finally got his way.  In a comment by the mayor in a local news paper, the mayor stated that the city has lost millions because it has taken so long to close the airport.  A comment like this gives the appearance that a huge retail development is just standing by to start building the proposed BIG BOX promised by the city.  So the question is, when will this developer start?  There are many who believe it will never start.  There are many more people that believe it was never going to be a reality, just talk to justify Ron Blums vengeance on the airport. 

The St. Clair Regional Airport was donated to the city and paid for by the users of the airport.  It was taken from them by the citizens of St. Clair who did not pay for it or use it, so they could profit from it, and led by Ron Blum.  It just goes to show what someone can do if they know a senator. 

When this all started, we contacted Claire’s office for help, and they seemed to be onboard, but as it developed, she turned.  Even with all of the evidence on what Ron Blum was doing to the airport, Claire’s top aid stated that none of it made any difference; she was set on getting it closed. 

Crooked politicians

Several emails were sent to MoDot Aviation and this is the response.

"Regarding the wishful intention of closing the St Clair airport I would like to file a complaint concerning the mis-interpretation of the Relocation requirements of the NEPA act and the determination that the tenants at St. Clair are not dislocated people in the FONSI.  The Law is clear on this and consultation with OFFICE OF REAL ESTATE SERVICES Director, Virgil R Pridemore of the Federal Highway Administration, Mr. Pridemore stated that the purchasing of land was not a requirement to be considered to be a dislocated person. 

Can you please tell me what are MoDot Aviation's intentions for relocation?

I addition, The city of St Clair claims it subsidizes the airport with city money.  Can you tell me how much the Casablanca subdivision, (which are all leased homes owned by a corporation) is paying in rent to use Airport road? It appears that the owner of the Casablanca subdivision is using Airport road, which is airport property, for commercial use. Was a lease ever negotiated? or does this company get to use the road which is airport property for free? Is this revenue diversion?"

This was the first answer on June 7th which was sent on May 4th

" I received your email below requesting that an informal complaint be opened concerning the relocation costs for tenants at the St. Clair Regional Airport. Mitigation for displaced persons must follow the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.  The Uniform Act establishes minimum standards for federally funded programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property or displace persons from their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, demolition, or rehabilitation for a federally funded project. It is my understanding that the closure of the airport  is not considered a direct result of acquisition, demolition, or rehabilitation for a federally funded project.

Therefore, it is my understanding that the closure of the airport and the notification of airport tenants would be covered under negotiated leases.  The City would be obligated to terminate the lease and provide notice of same as outlined within the lease agreement.

As for your questions regarding the entrance road, it is my understanding that historically, the City has used City funds for maintenance of the airport road.  Apparently some significant maintenance of the road has occurred since Air Evac left the airport, and all of that work was paid for with City funds. Because City funds have been used to maintain the road, and not airport funds, I will not be opening a Part 13 on this matter. Thanks,

Amy Ludwig

Administrator of Aviation

Missouri Department of Transportation

Phone: (573) 526-7912"

A reply was sent on June 7th ans still no answer??? Looks like two different opinions on relocation, seems demolition of a federal project is covered in her answer, and has no intention of asking the city to collect rent on federal property. 

"We will get back to you on the relocation, obviously we disagree as with the rest of this unfortunate situation. The FONSI called this a federal project.

We would like to see proof that the city used city money to maintain the road and how much? The significant maintenance was done after the facility was built for Air Evac. The road was destroyed during the process by a private corporation and was therefore fixed as a result.

Where does the law say that no revenue should be collected for any reason for the use of federal funded property for any reason. Thats why the city is paying rent for the lift station. Which is determined by what they say is the current value of the property which is also a disagreement. The city is paying around $300 a year for a 60x60. We pay $175 a month for a hangar. How much should they have and should be collecting for 176 leased homes owned by a for profit corporation?

You all seem to think that know one needs to conform to the rules because of the new legislation but they way we read it is that it doesn't go into effect until the city pays for it all. Is this true?  The airport should be maintained in a safe and serviceable condition until this time.  

Also remember this airport was donated by local families to be an airport. How would you feel if you donated something similar and someone used it for something for their own personal agenda? "

That's approximately $63,360 a year for the last 3 years that should be charged for using the federal road. The city claims they are loosing money on the airport. In addition to the aircraft hangared their at $175 a month. 

Fortunately they are a few new people concerned about this issue. Leadership that is focused on draining the swamp and getting rid of crooked politicians. 

The city of st clair and a few politicians are attempting to close and sell the st clair airport property at less than 1/10 of what it is worth. 

The last sentence of the email says it all, What if this was your donation and someone tried to give it away for someones else's profit?

For those responsible for this fiasco, just do the right thing. 

If the airport is sold it must be Fair Market Value and relocate the residents to another airport, very simple.

The bill passed to close the St Clair airport  https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2759

In response to the comment about having a lawyer write a letter.

In response to the comment about having a lawyer write a letter. 

The St, Clair situation is unique.  This exact situation has never been done before.  No one in the entire FAA organization has any expertise in this type of case.  There is not a lawyer out there that can advise because of the uniqueness of this case.  Also this is a block grant state, so now it gets mixed up with MOODT which just adds another layer of bureaucracy ADDED to the mix that someone has to deal with.   MoDOT cannot write a sentence on the subject of enforcement without FAA approval.  This is good in a way, because MoDOT has no expertise in Grant assurances and enforcement. 

It is also bad, because it adds delays to a process.     The FAA cannot enforce grant assurances in a block grant state.  They provide guidance to the state.   The whole arrangement of a block grant state agreement seems to have been lost in the fog of government bureaucratic complacency. 

The major player in this case, is POLITICS.  Pure and simple.  The politics of this case determines what rules apply, and who they apply to.  End of Story.   It is the biggest issue, and is one that is never spoken of, even though it is the biggest component of this issue.  After all; This is just a little airport in the middle of nowhere.  WHO CARES--- NO ONE!!!!!       

This is also the future of things to come in aviation.  Even though the FAA cannot predict the future, they can determine the direction under which it will go. 

IF THERE IS A PROBLEM.

IF THERE IS A PROBLEM. 

Be careful, if there is a problem at your airport, and the sponsor caused it, either they don’t know the rules, or they don’t care.  If they don’t know the rules, they are not going to like being told about it.  Just try and tell a public official they are doing something wrong.    

If the problem is intentional, be REAL careful.  Now you have a bad politician, or public official that knows what’s up and knows that they have been found out.  If they have connections greater than yours, walk away, you cannot win unless you have documented proof, and a way to publish it, and then you are still at a 90% disadvantage. 

The first problems you will encounter is obtaining information. 

We heard this dozens of times.  “You don’t even live here, what business is it of yours”?  This is the first sign of people that do not know the rules.  All airport business is public business.  It is not based on residency.   All airport information is to be made available to the public.   OK that is simple, maybe??  The FAA has changed that definition.  At one time if someone asked for airport information, the sponsor was supposed to provide it.  But now that is up to interpretation.  Some FAA personnel will state they have to give it to you.   They have to get it out of a file drawer and hand it over.   Other FAA or MoDOT personnel will say that you have to make a sunshine request, or Freedom of information request.  In Missouri a Sunshine Law request is worthless.  If you are requesting information from MoDOT Aviation, it will take months.  If you are requesting information about an airport from the sponsor, they are required by law to provide it, but they can charge you hundreds of dollars for “research time”.   And it can take as long as the sponsor wants it to take as long as they respond in three days and tell you they are looking for it. 

The problem in Missouri is that no one in state government enforces the laws that pertain to local government.  They were never written.  If you want public information, and an airport sponsor does not want to give it to you, you have to take them to court, and if you don’t win, at your expense.  Prepare to drop $60,000 to start. 

If you are reading this and you have a problem at your airport, and you are in Missouri, get to know your state legislators, if you have to go to Jefferson City and meet them do it.  They might be able to help.  If you do not have a political connection, you are out of luck. 

If you do get the information, What do you do next!!!!!!!!

THEY JUST WAIT IT OUT

THEY JUST WAIT IT OUT

What is more frustrating is the rollover of personnel.   If someone has an issue that needs fixing, and it is in someone’s office that is about to retire, or move to another job, or due to any other change, you are screwed in every which way possible.  If someone takes over the office you were dealing with, the person that is taking over that position will probably not know a about the office, or the rules that pertain to that office, or your cases in that office, and they don’t want to know about them.  The person that left does not want it, and the person that is taking over does not want it, both of them are just hoping it goes away. 

The St. Clair Regional issue has been going on for ten years; there has been enormous turn over in personnel in both MoDOT and the FAA.  All the issues of compliance, rules and regulations, no longer exist, they have seemed to vaporize into the thin air. 

Communications with MoDOT at this time are nonexistent.   Basically, any compliance issues, or enforcement actions that require attention, will probably not be addressed by MoDOT for about another year.  Expect nothing. 

If you are reading this and you have a problem at your airport, and you are in Missouri, get to know your state legislators, if you have to go to Jefferson City and meet them do it.  They might be able to help.  If you do not have a political connection, you are out of luck. 

THE NO RESPONSE RESPONSE.

THE NO RESPONSE RESPONSE. 

Let’s use an example of a public federally obligated airport.  Someone is using airport property for a non- aeronautical purpose.   The airport for whatever reason needs some extra cash.   The city states that they are going to have to raise hangar rents to cover the situation.  What does a tenant do? 

As an airport tenant, you have the right to review Sponsor provided documentation that supports the raise in rental rates, and provide input into the situation.  GOOD LUCK.   If you managed to get the financials, and no rent for the nonaeronautical use is documented, what do you do?  Call the FAA!!!  As soon as you hang up the phone, the phone call never happened.  File a written complaint!!  EVEN IF MODOT AND THE FAA FIND THE SPONSOR IN VIOLATION, THEY WILL WRITE A LETTER TELLING THE SPONSOR, THEY MIGHT BE IN VIOLATION.  The city can respond with complete”BS”, it won’t matter as long as they responded with something.   After that it’s over.  As long as the authorities have documentation that shows the sponsor was contacted it is final.  No follow up, no further enforcement, no solution to a problem is necessary.  The sponsor can end it by just not responding to anything.   

In the mean time the rent goes up, the Non aeronautical user is still there.  You request more information and find out that the city is not depositing the non aeronautical use rent in the airport account.  After all it is city property.  This is also revenue diversion. 

The FAA will not proceed with a rates and charges complaint unless the complainant can show that the airport is producing surplus revenue.   And even if the complainant can show proof, there is a 90% chance they will not enforce.  The Feds have this invisible dollar amount that must be met before revenue diversion will be addressed, and it fluctuates. 

At St. Clair Regional it was finally addressed when the rent went from $175 to $300.  The rent did stay at $175, but the city was given preferential treatment on the revenue diversion for the use of the maintenance hangar.  The issue of raising rent to force tenants off of the field was never followed up on,  after they city failed to respond to MoDOT.