City Withheld Key Information on T.F. Green Expansion
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Picture this. A contactor comes into a person’s home and tells him he’s going to be making repairs to the home. But refuses to be specific as to what he’ll be fixing, or when he’ll be done. Would a reasonable person sign an agreement giving the contractor carte blanche to do as he pleases?
That’s the scenario a Warwick City Councilman says he was confronted with by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) and Mayor Scott Avedisian earlier this year when they were presented with the memorandum of understanding to mitigate the impacts of airport expansion at T.F. Green airport.
“It was like being asked to sign a purchase and sale agreement to buy a home, except that you didn’t know which home you were buying, or when you were actually buying it,” said City Councilman Steve Merolla (Ward-9, Potowomut, Cowesett).
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTVague Agreement
The agreement, according to Merolla, was vague at best, and perhaps even disingenuous.
The agreement directs the council to an “attached map” to view the businesses and homes that would be acquired for safety purposes. But in the back of the agreement, there is no actual map. Instead, it says “Exhibit A, and Exhibit B” which simply states “INTENTIONALLY OMITTED- TO BE ADDED LATER”.
“So we were expected to sign an agreement waiving all our rights without knowing what businesses or homes were being taken?” Merolla said. “Here we go again”.
Merolla pointed out that the previous two times the airport was expanded, RIAC took 14 years before it finally finished purchasing the homes necessary. That process, he said, created a high level of frustration and inconvenience for those people whose homes would be purchased—the most obvious source being the fact that people cannot sell their homes when it will be taken by the airport several years later. It’s also difficult for those homeowners to determine whether or not they should make repairs to their home.
To meet the safety requirements, the FAA would need to purchase 12 businesses and another 129 homes, as well as 5 acres of wetlands. The agreement is vague on how much money would be spent doing this—only stating that it would “request from the FAA funding of not less than $10 million dollars annually for the purpose of property acquisition and/or noise mitigation.”
The agreement also provided a clause saying that RIAC could purchase additional homes of individuals who felt they were being impacted unfairly by the airport, but only if “funding is available”—an unsure thing in the current economic climate and the federal government’s deficit.
Council Never Offered Counter Agreement
Patti Goldstein, the Vice President of Community Relations for RIAC, said the council didn’t communicate their differences on the agreement to RIAC, making it impossible to meet their needs.
“[The agreement] was presented to the city council over a year ago with the intent of hearing back from them as to what they wanted. They never responded with a counter agreement or requested a subsequent meeting to discuss the various issues they felt were important. They recently voted it down with no direction or further communication to RIAC until they decided to challenge the (record of decision)”, said Goldstein.
But Merolla said that the council did respond back asking for the exhibits, but RIAC wasn’t forthcoming.
“How can we negotiate when we don’t know what they’re asking for,” said Merolla.
Merolla also questions where the administration stands on the issue.
“Mayor Avedisian wants to have it both ways," he said. "He wants to be able to tell the citizens that he had objections to the airport expansion plan, but that he couldn’t go forward with it because RIAC followed the proper procedure. Mayor Avedisian also wants to be able to go to the Chamber of Commerce and tell them that he supports airport expansion.”
Mayor Opposed Expansions
Avedisian originally voiced concerns for the airport expansion, arguing that it would only hurt taxpayers in his city. In an interview with GoLocalProv last year, he said there are a lot of misconceptions about how the airport affects Warwick.
"Most people think the airport is a cash cow and that we derive a lot of money from the airport we derive virtually nothing from the airport,” he said. “They don't pay taxes, they don't even pay a PILOT program. They're exempt from PILOT."
Avedisian said he was going to continue to fight for a more fair compensation package from the airport.
“We keep fighting for a fair compensation package and wish we were able to convince the state that that was the most logical way to get everyone together and find some common ground,” he said. “But it's very hard to find common ground when each year you lose between $400,000 and $700,000 in property taxes."
Airport Here to Stay
But Merolla claims Avedisian has changed his tune and is now supporting the FAA’s record of decision.
“How can you on one hand say that you had 1,700 pages of objections and now you support the decision with a straight face?”
Merolla said that over the last several years Mayor Avedisian has repeatedly said that the city could not get involved in the process until the record of decision was handed down. Now that it’s been handed down, the Mayor is on record, in a letter to the council, saying that it would be unwise to contest the record of decision because the city would lose any potential challenge to the airport expansion because the FAA followed the proper procedures.
Two weeks ago, the council voted to hire an outside law firm to contest the FAA’s record of decision—that will expand the runway to over 8,000 feet. The move, according to RIAC and the FAA will make the airport more competitive and efficient, allowing airlines to provide service across the country, as well as making the airport safer.
Almost everyone agrees, including the members of the city council, that the airport is an economic engine to both the city of Warwick as well as the state as a whole. There is, however, some question over the affect an increased level noise and in some cases, pollution will have on city residents.
Given the memo agreement that was provided to the city council, they thought it better to challenge the record of decision in court instead of willingly ceding all their rights without a settlement agreement in place.
“The airport is here to stay, all we’re trying to do is protect the health and safety of the people of Warwick,” said Merolla.
If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.