Project: Parkland Airport - West of Edmonton

[Prairie Chicken]

This is very positive! I wish the developers the very best in this endeavor.

[rac007]

Sounds like it's going ahead. They're taking deposits on hangar lots and construction to start before the end of the year.

[LisaResident]

As a resident in the proposed area for this airport, which is currently residential and agricultural, I am opposed to an airport in my backyard. Parkland County does not support this new development as shown by their latest news release. Would you want an airport in your backyard? There is extreme opposition to this proposal by all residents in the proposed area as well as the municipality Many other sites for an airport are much more suitable. The infrastructure surrounding the proposed site is not developed for an airport. Many of the roads are gravel roads. This is no water system other than underground wells. There is no firehall anywhere in the vicinity. Many people on this site are asking about shuttle service and airport parking. The proposed property has very little developed land and all surrounding landowners have all expressed they will not sell any of their property for further development of an airport. The proposed sited also contains an underground pipeline. The oil company owning the pipeline does not support the airport proposal either. I support more airports but in commercial/industrial zoned areas. Not residental/agricultural neighbourhoods. The proposal is being fought every step of the way. Find a new site for your airport.

[Tom H]

LisaResident

I was first trying to desperately not reply to your post, but some of the comments well....

Would you want an airport in your backyard?

Why yes I would and do. You see I currently live in the flight path of the remaining runway at Edmonton City Centre Airport, I have been there over 20 years and specifically bought my house to be in the flight path (less than 1.5 miles from the runway) and would have bought closer if I could have. I actually find the reduction in aircraft upsetting and miss the 737s.
And no I don't own an aircraft.

When Edmonton City Centre Closes my wife and I are discussing selling and seeking out another airport to live by with our children if possible.

If you actually respond I may have more later.

[Beefitarian]

Would you want an airport in your backyard?

Yes! I understand you might not love airplanes as much as me though.

Hmm, I see Tom beat me to that.

[rac007]

As a resident in the proposed area for this airport, which is currently residential and agricultural, I am opposed to an airport in my backyard. Parkland County does not support this new development as shown by their latest news release. Would you want an airport in your backyard? There is extreme opposition to this proposal by all residents in the proposed area as well as the municipality Many other sites for an airport are much more suitable. The infrastructure surrounding the proposed site is not developed for an airport. Many of the roads are gravel roads. This is no water system other than underground wells. There is no firehall anywhere in the vicinity. Many people on this site are asking about shuttle service and airport parking. The proposed property has very little developed land and all surrounding landowners have all expressed they will not sell any of their property for further development of an airport. The proposed sited also contains an underground pipeline. The oil company owning the pipeline does not support the airport proposal either. I support more airports but in commercial/industrial zoned areas. Not residental/agricultural neighbourhoods. The proposal is being fought every step of the way. Find a new site for your airport.

I respect your opposition but obviously you are not familiar with aviation. Many airports outside of large cities are located on gravel roads (which can be paved). Many airports are serviced by water wells or cisterns. Many airports do not have firehalls in the vicinity, if the airport is busy enough an emergency station can be built on the airport. All land starts with no development, which is the point of construction. Many rural airports have pipelines that run under them. Many airports are surrounded by agriculture because outside cities there are no commercial/industrial areas.
Instead of fighting this every step of the way, people should see this for what it is. An important transportation hub for all the bizjets and other business that don't want to use the international, and an economic boon for the surrounding area.
As for the extreme opposition, I know for a fact that at the public information meeting on Tuesday, many of the people in vocal opposition were in fact hired guns from the airport authority at the international airport.

[Hipster Exterminator]

As a resident in the proposed area for this airport, which is currently residential and agricultural, I am opposed to an airport in my backyard.

I suggest you register your disagreement with the grifters, hipsters and retards in Edmonton who have made this course of action necessary. This is a good place a place as any: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/fo ... y.php?f=13

I guarantee you that this is nobodies preferred course of action.

[Tom H]

LisaResident

I was going to see if you responded to my first post before adding more, but as I think it likely the most to be hoped for is you may revisit and read I am going to continue...

Lets start by being clear from my end.

I do not own an aircraft, possibly never will.
I have no vested interest in the success or failure of the Parkland Airport project.
I am not lobbying for or against. The market will decide that.

The only reason I am responding at all is because I find the attitude
expressed in your post offensive.

Before you came to your position did you look into what the proposal really was?

- Have you visited a small airport like Westlock, Barrhead or any one of a
number of other similar types in the region before forming your opinion?

- Do you have any concept of how little impact a Private airport with a 2600 foot
runway really has?

- How little in terms of infrastructure or resources it takes to operate?

Because I would be shocked find you have!

No until you can prove my opinion incorrect I can only assume you heard "AIRPORT" and went sideways picturing Jumbo Jets 24hrs a day and a four lane traffic without looking into the effects at all.

In closing...
Your comments in general are over the top in my opinion and you will find as the City of Edmonton encroaches on your acreage paradise that you may end up wishing the little airport was there
to keep it away and protect your life style.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[rac007]

As a resident in the proposed area for this airport, which is currently residential and agricultural, I am opposed to an airport in my backyard.

I suggest you register your disagreement with the grifters, hipsters and retards in Edmonton who have made this course of action necessary. This is a good place a place as any: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/fo ... y.php?f=13

I guarantee you that this is nobodies preferred course of action.

I agree. If you're so uptight about this, go walk into Mandel's office in city hall and give him a piece of your mind.

[Moose47]

To Miss NIMBY

"Would you want an airport in your backyard?"

"HELL YA!"

Cheers...Chris

[skymarc]

Were is Parkland exactly in relation to CYXD?

[Flybabe]

West.

The proposed lands are off of highway 60 south of Acheson and north of Devon.

Just noticed the proposed site has shifted from the last time I looked. Lots of NIMBYs, it appears.

[rac007]

Off the parklandairport.com website:

"The planned airport location is on the East side of RR 270 Sandhills Road
about 1.5 miles north of the 627 Garden Valley Road,
with an East-West runway angled to the North."


So about halfway between acheson and devon, and 3 miles west of highway 60.

[Woxof38]

We don’t want you here”: Sandhills residents to Parkland Airport at volatile public meeting

http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com/2013 ... ic-meeting

this link below has a proposed diagram

http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com/2013 ... -developed

[rac007]

this link below has a proposed diagram

http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com/2013 ... -developed

That proposed site is an old one. The new one is farther southeast.

[Aunty Aerodrome]

We don’t want you here”: Sandhills residents to Parkland Airport at volatile public meeting

http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com/2013 ... ic-meeting

this link below has a proposed diagram

http://www.sprucegroveexaminer.com/2013 ... -developed

PLEASE... if you are going to discuss this issue, check your facts! The "proposed diagram" does NOT apply to the new proposed site. The site illustrated in the diagram was NOT purchased and has nothing to do with the actual purchased site.

Additionally, no, the community does NOT want an aerodrome/airport/airstrip etc. in their community (Approx. 99% are against it). And NO, we will not one day thank you for the air pollution, noise pollution, and potential soil/water pollution that aviation will bring into our agricultural area. And WHEN (not if) some novice pilot misses the end of the runway, we will NOT be thanking you for the tainted water table and soil that will take years to clean up. Please save your breath and don't bother telling me it will never happen when I can produce MANY media and court documents to demonstrate otherwise.
And NO, I personally will not be thanking you when property values plummet because the MAJORITY of society do NOT want to live next to an airport. And I am positive my children and grandchildren will NOT be thanking you for the loss of land that has been in the family for over 100 years because you have defiled our community and left us no choice but to move.

Personally, I believe that it is extremely SELFISH of a minority group to want to hurt so many people that only want to live their lives in peace.

And to the poster who does not own a plane but likes to live in the path of an airport... you CHOSE to live near an airport. That choice was not made FOR you. You didn't choose to live in a peaceful setting only to have an airport move in accross the field.



EDITED - Threats not tollerated

[Tom H]

Well Aunty

Seeing as you targeted my comment I am going to reply.

First this:

I do not own an aircraft, possibly never will.
I have no vested interest in the success or failure of the Parkland Airport project.
I am not lobbying for or against. The market will decide that.

The only reason I am responding at all is because I find the attitude expressed in your post offensive.

Now to this...
LisaResident posted this question:

Would you want an airport in your backyard?

To which I gave a through honest response.

Yet you seem to think you can call me out with this:

And to the poster who does not own a plane but likes to live in the path of an airport... you CHOSE to live near an airport. That choice was not made FOR you. You didn't choose to live in a peaceful setting only to have an airport move in accross the field.

I did not ask the very reason I moved there over 20 years ago be removed. See the airport was there for over 85 years.

I didn't ask for what is likely going to be a decade of disruption to my neighborhood due to a project that has no solid public plan or public ROI shown to this point.

Now to this:

And WHEN (not if) some novice pilot misses the end of the runway, we will NOT be thanking you for the tainted water table and soil that will take years to clean up.

Your odds of having a neighbor do that rolling their double gas tank SUV or Truck are greater than you do from a light aircraft...are you banning those?

Because I too can...

and don't bother telling me it will never happen when I can produce MANY media and court documents to demonstrate otherwise.

You see there are far more documented SUV/Pickup/Farm Trucks on that record creating spills than there are light aircraft.

And NO, I personally will not be thanking you when property values plummet

Will you when they go up due to a residential airpark is in place?

Because that is the trend in the United States and the ones in place in Canada.

And I am positive my children and grandchildren will NOT be thanking you for the loss of land that has been in the family for over 100 years because you have defiled our community and left us no choice but to move.

You are making the choice, you have choices...
- You can work with the airport to mitigate the issues
- You can adapt, as those looking at the Parkland Airport are having too.
and many more...

The people looking to have to move their businesses and lifestyle are the ones that have NO CHOICE because someone else took it away! You want to express your anger...direct it at them.

Personally, I believe that it is extremely SELFISH of a minority group to want to hurt so many people that only want to live their lives in peace.

Are you talking about yourself or those being forced to relocate?

It goes both ways.

Rather than come on here and spew vitriolic venom I am going to suggest the same as I did to LisaResident.

- Have you visited a small airport like Westlock, Barrhead or any one of a number of other similar types in the region before forming your opinion?

- Do you have any concept of how little impact a Private airport with a 2600 foot runway really has?

- How little in terms of infrastructure or resources it takes to operate?

My suggestion is at least a constructive excercise that will allow you to gain real knowledge of what is actually proposed and what effects it will really will have.

Then if you are still opposed you can try coming on forums like this from a position of Real knowledge (and a little common courtesy would be nice) and quite possibly sway opinions or at least work towards solutions that everyone can live with.

Rather than attacking and solidifiying opinions and opposition...like your meeting the other night.

You see, your approach is turning someone like me, who has no vested interest in the success or failure of the proposed airport against you simply because of your attitude and attack.

A tactic that does not build support for your cause.

Respectfully...

In my highly biased personal opinion

(edited after for spelling and wording)

[rac007]

Well said Tom H.

[azimuthaviation]

2600 foot airstrip? What happened to the 5000 foot runway and an airport to facilitate private, military, and commuter operations that was originally envisaged? Something a little better than this is needed to replace CYXD. And its a business by one or two people, (has anyone even heard of them or know what they do?) who have to safeguard their interests foremost not service our needs. It seems they are abandoning their original design and looking to rush in an airstrip and get their money back by hosting small private owners and tiny operators who are being evicted.

And thats even before taking account the resistance from the residents, whether their concerns are well founded or not (I think not personally) theres seems to be a consensus among them and we should respect them.

Has anyone thought of forming a cooperative to develop a new airport where we would be in the decision making process and build to our needs? And I still cant think of a better location or better partner to have than thr Enoch first nations. Has anyone been by the River Cree Casino lately? Thats a world class business and entertainment facility, and with an airport nearby ...the possibilities are boundless.

[Tom H]

azimuthaviation

2600 foot airstrip?

That is what I understand from those I know that have been looking into the site. So best information I have at this time.

At the orginal site they were proposing all you are mentioning.

That said...

For what you would like to see I think it is going to be Villeneuve, eventually.

Strictly from a business view...

There is not the market share for the larger services big enough to split between (2) locations in the, very close, proximity.

Then look at the cost of putting in the infrastructure, quickly, to achieve a similar operation, 5000' runway, ILS, 2nd runway, 2 grass runways, road ways suitable for larger commercial operations etc. etc.

25mil-30mil? educated guess on the low side.

That kind of independent investment needs a solid market share and a bullet proof business and marketing plan to make happen and even then it won't be quickly.

I guess by the time you got the Investment and Engineering done to break ground market pressures will have Edmonton Airports in the game seriously and a lead that would be near impossible to break.

Times are changing, Reg Milley is retiring so you are going to have a new CEO and very likely a new approach to things. Many of the players from past years have retired and EIA has quite a number of younger up and comers that are ambitious and wanting to make a name for themselves and the only mid term option for them to do that is CZVL.

It will be interesting to see how it developes but things are going to change at Villeneuve, pretty soon I bet we see the direction.

Back to Parkland...
2600' GA operation that allows for flight schools, affordable light operations and a Residential airpark is something lacking with the closure of so many of the smaller sites and Cooking Lake filling fast.

I think it has a good chance of success and in time when the area residents see how small the impacts really are it will be accepted...grudgingly, but realistically it will be less of a pain than a motocross or ATV track to the area.

BTW

I wasn't joking when I was saying that the Parkland operation would likely protect the area residents from the dreaded "Urban Sprawl". I have run into a couple of folks from the development industry at different functions that are already looking at that area in the longer term.

Political rumour (take it for what its worth) has it if Edmonton's annexing into Leduc/Devon county doesn't fly (which is possible) this area to the West will be next.

But the area around Villeneuve is safe as no one wants that war again so soon.

In my highly biased personal opinion
(that can't afford it anyway)

(edited for spelling and added final comment after)

[Aunty Aerodrome]

With all due respect,
From what has come out of the developers' mouths at the meeting last week (which I attended, so I can say this fully informed)... a 2600 ft runway is only in their initial plans. They are seeking to purchase further land around the site to extend the runway to accommodate for larger planes.

I have no problem with the occassional SUV, motorhome, etc. coming down the road. Planes consistently landing "in my backyard" however is another thing altogether.

It may not have come accross in my prior post, but I do feel for those who are having to re-locate their planes. I am sorry that the City of Edmonton did not work with you. However, I am not a pilot. I do not own a plane. I will never own a plane. While I use them to travel on vacation, I have no need for yet another expensive hobby. So, how did your problem become my problem? As far as my opinion that oen small group is being selfish in disrupting the lives of a majority, I was referring to those who wish to develop an airstrip to serve a minority group in the middle of farmland/acreages that are occupied by a much larger group.

At the meeting of nearly 300 people last week, a poll "for" or "against" was taken. Of nearly 300 people, only 12 hands were counted as "for". This is an example of how a minority group is affecting a larger, more invested group. Sure, the pilots wanting the aerodrome on Sandhills have made an invesment in their planes, their hobby, etc. but these residents have invested hundreds of years in their land and their way of life.

I am not disputing that the displaced pilots and planes need somewhere to go. But wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if they found somewhere to go where they were wanted and had the support of the community? That location is NOT on Sandhills Road.

One last thing... to the moderator: I was in no way making threats of any kind in my last post. I was simply pointing out that planes are expensive, the development is expensive, and people in the area are emotional and frustrated and angry...especially considering that the purchase was a "blind sale" and the community as a whole was in no way consulted. While I in NO WAY condone any illegal acts, I just mentioned that there could be risks associated with going ahead with this development. It was not meant as a warning of any kind...only food for thought. In no way was I intending to threaten anyone or their property...nor would I. Just to be clear. EDITED TO ADD: This is an aviation website, and you made a post referencing armed resistance... It's not a leap to understand why this was edited. Read the rules, post by them, and your participation will be welcomed. Referencing "arms" is not something taken lightly, however unfortunately, in this day and age.

I realize that I am a minority in this forum, and I am not posting here to create disruption. I simply wish that those displaced by the City of Edmonton would consider the feelings of Parkland residents for a moment and explore other alternatives - such as Enoch. The development being on Enoch land only makes sense from a business standpoint and is likely to meet with far less opposition.

Just my opinion.

[Tom H]

Well Aunty

Thank you for a much more courteous post, it is appreciated.

But let me address a few points to be clear.

From what has come out of the developers' mouths at the meeting last week (which I attended, so I can say this fully informed)... a 2600 ft runway is only in their initial plans. They are seeking to purchase further land around the site to extend the runway to accommodate for larger planes.

That, in my opinion is very unlikely to happen.

Please refer to the above post for detail regarding the market share and infrastructure as well as other issues relating.

The other side of it of course is the information LisaResident presented...no one apparently will sell them additional surrounding lands.

The combined (taken at face value) dictates Parkland will be a light general aviation airport if particularly if LisaResident's information is correct.

The market and surrounding owners will decide.

Planes consistently landing "in my backyard" however is another thing altogether.

Why? Light aircraft noise levels are lower, not at ground level and at an airport of this type less frequent that typical vehicle traffic.

That is why I constructively suggested you check similar scope airfields in the region, besides they are all in nice areas to drive through. But seriously, checking them out will give you first hand knowledge which is invaluable whether you continue to oppose or not.

It may not have come accross in my prior post, but I do feel for those who are having to re-locate their planes. I am sorry that the City of Edmonton did not work with you.

I appreciate that, but this is about more than just planes, many small businesses and employees are being displaced that fit this type of airport...

I have no need for yet another expensive hobby

.
Aunty, I think what you are missing is this is not about an expensive hobby. I mention above, there are many small businesses that are likely interested in the site.

An example would be flight training...you enjoy your vacations flying to different places...those pilots get their training starting in airports suited to light aviation and accessible to students.

No flight schools, no students, no airline pilots...pretty simple really.

So, how did your problem become my problem?

When the people and businesses were displaced as well as the fact the geography suits the use and there are few sites that would be workable.

As far as my opinion that oen small group is being selfish in disrupting the lives of a majority, I was referring to those who wish to develop an airstrip to serve a minority group in the middle of farmland/acreages that are occupied by a much larger group.

So how will you feel when the area comes up for annexation, at the rate Edmonton is growing it will happen sooner or later.

How will you feel about it when one of your neighbors sells and a subdivision is developed, or an oil field related unit, or a recreation centre...

There are many things that will have much higher impacts and with your proximity to Edmonton they are coming...I don't like it for my own reasons and I don't imagine you will.

I must also say after driving the area some weeks ago (curiosity)
and viewing it on google earth several times while posting you seemed to get far more opponents at your meeting than actual people in the affected area.

Leads me to think people are over estimating the actual flight paths and impact area.

It might surprise you to learn until very recently (about 3-4 years) there were (2) airfields within 3 miles or so of the proposed site...bet you didn't notice. I used to fly with a friend from one of them.

Sure, the pilots wanting the aerodrome on Sandhills have made an invesment in their planes, their hobby, etc. but these residents have invested hundreds of years in their land and their way of life.

Again, strike hobby and substitute business and equipment as that is what many will be. They too are trying to preserve a way of life.

I'm also quite certain the majority of the people attending the meeting have not had family on the sites for 100years. I would guess the majority of the acreage owners it would be less than a decade.

I am not disputing that the displaced pilots and planes need somewhere to go. But wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if they found somewhere to go where they were wanted and had the support of the community? That location is NOT on Sandhills Road.

Understand, this is not a subdivsion and cannot use just any piece of land. There are very limited areas that have the location and geography that will allow for an economically viable faciltiy such as this. It takes a combination of factors to make a small airport operation viable and sustainable and mother nature only supplied so many. This area appears to be one of the few remaining and likely has the least impact overall.

I would assume that the proponents would accept suggestions on alternate sites that are similar in size shape and locale should you and your neighbors know of any. No I am not being sarcastic, but suggesting an approach that may work for you.

As for Enoch, there are many complicated factors (I am aware of a few and know there are many more) that limit development on Aboriginal lands that may be making it unviable.

I have no special knowledge but do know from others it is much more complex than other areas.

As to the moderators edit...this site is very sensitive to anything that can be taken as a threat and being an aviation site and the world we live in today the moderators steps are well intended IMO.

Thank you once again for a much more courteous post and I hope the exchange has been helpful in at least generating some understanding.

To reitierate...
- I have no vested interest in the success of failure of this proposal and am about as likely as you to personally use this airport.

But after having been through the Edmonton City Centre issue I have a low tolerance for vitrol and attacks, we are all much better than that and open discussion is far more useful.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Hipster Exterminator]

I will extend as much consideration to the people of Parkland County and the people of Edmonton extended to us. It is unfortunate that will live in a world where most interaction has to occur with the double-bird fully extended but that is just where we're at as a civilization.

The only message I have received for the last decade from the ERAA and the City is that this is the way it is going to be, we have the legal right to do it and if you don't like it hit the QE2, you're non-contributing scum and we won't miss you. Why is your right to go about your lives unmolested greater than that of the thousands more who utilized and were employed by the City Centre Airport?

If what the Parkland proponents intend to do is every bit as legal as what the city and ERAA have inflicted on us, why shouldn't the onus be on you and your neighbours to suck it up or leave?

[Hipster Exterminator]

Times are changing, Reg Milley is retiring so you are going to have a new CEO and very likely a new approach to things. Many of the players from past years have retired and EIA has quite a number of younger up and comers that are ambitious and wanting to make a name for themselves and the only mid term option for them to do that is CZVL.

It will be interesting to see how it developes but things are going to change at Villeneuve, pretty soon I bet we see the direction.

Tom, I respect you tremendously but this is pure fantasy, the "younger up and comers" are the worst of the lot.

While I believe the City of Edmonton and the ERAA to be malevolent, vindictive and dishonest, I don't believe they're incompetent or ineffectual. If there were a willingness by either to see Villeneuve developed into an effective replacement for City Centre they would be done by now. When Sturgeon County tried to proactively kickstart the process they were shut down in the name of fighting suburban sprawl. And even if by some miracle Villeneuve were to be expanded, how long would it be before someone starts flying a Beech to Calgary or Grand Prairie and it is hit with similar restrictions to those imposed on City Centre in recent years?

I don't think any solution to this disaster is going to be found in anything controlled by the ERAA.

[Tom H]

Hipster Exterminator

Tom, I respect you tremendously

I appreciate that a lot, thank you.

but this is pure fantasy, the "younger up and comers" are the worst of the lot.

I appreciate your point of view and respect it.

But with what I do I have to deal with many of these people a lot or I simply cannot get things done and I sense a change coming.

Many of these young un's do get it in most ways when you get to talking with them, but to move up they "follow orders" to keep getting ahead and pay the bills.

But things are changing:
Reg Milley President and CEO is retiring
Much of the upper staff is new
several member of the Board of Directors are due to change

And the market has changed

There is not the billion dollar terminal expansion on the profile to deal with.

Port Alberta is never heard from now for whatever reasons

The high dollar development and Big Dollar Potential clients that could fill the International are pretty much done.

If you are a young mover/up and comer Viileneuve is the game...or move on.

Then there are operational considerations.

If you were the ops guys or CFO at EIA would you want light to mid GA plugging up the time slots for comparative pennies or Q 400s and domestic regional jets that pay off big bucks in the time slots?

With the WestJet Turbor prop fleet looking like it's gonna open up communities that have been off the grid/under serviced and Air Canada threatening similar on regional service "I think" that is what the choice they will be facing is going to be.

If it was me I would be developing the heck out of Vill to keep the serious bucks at YEG to cover the BIG bills that came with the expansion.

Plus a new CEO typically means "New Direction" as they want to be different and better than the predecessor.

You could be right that I am trying hard to be optimistic, but I am trying to be glass 1/2 full as everything else I am dealing with is not good.

In my highly biased personal opinion