We thank Maxwell Lord for also responding to our questionnaire. Here are his full responses.
1.What do you think the city should do about its lawsuit against the FAA to clarify how long the city is legally obligated to run the airport?
▢ Drop the lawsuit indefinitely. Keep this site an airport no matter what.
▢ Keep our legal options open. Appeal or pursue legal clarification about who controls this land when the time is ripe. Don't accept any more grants that would extend our contractual obligations to the FAA past 2040. Find other ways to fund airport needs, which amount to a fraction of a percent of the city's annual budget.
▢ I’m not prepared to answer at this time.
▢ I can’t comment for legal reasons.
✔ Other- see full write up (question 4)
2. Assuming that the City of Boulder establishes local control over the future of the airport site, what do you personally think is the highest and best use of these 174 city-owned acres?
▢ Airport
✔ Primarily housing / mixed use neighborhoods
▢ Primarily open space / public park
▢ The people of Boulder should decide through a public process or vote
▢ I’m not prepared to answer at this time.
▢ I can’t comment for legal reasons.
▢ Other
3. In the event that Boulder keeps the airport (either because of judicial decision or city decision), what kind of airport should we have?
▢ About the same as we have now
▢ Smaller! There are already too many flights out of Boulder airport. Keep it safe but minimal.
✔ Bigger! We should expand the airport with more tenants and better facilities and attract more aviation activity to Boulder.
▢ I’m not prepared to answer at this time.
▢ I can’t comment for legal reasons.
▢ Other
3. Is there anything else you would like the ANC and the public to know about your policy positions regarding the airport and the future of the site?
The airport is an interesting problem, and I have been quoted by many as saying that is an issue that I am most indecisive about. I have wide sweeping knowledge about housing, fire mitigation, and homeless infrastructure. I think it is fair for me to have some weak spots, and this is perhaps one. I have met with Mark Wallach, and also Jan Burton about this issue and heard the opposing viewpoints.
I suppose that I do believe that the airport does not provide sufficient community to enough people in order to justify its use. For what its worth, of the half dozen or so (very limited) amount of pilots I know in the city, all of them gained their licenses in our neighboring airports.
That being said, I also understand the value of small aviation. While I am not a member; clubs, community, facilities, are what ultimately make up a city. Ill confess that when I first heard about the measure, it was framed to me as the big evil developers trying to take timmy's airport away. After reading more about the issue, I realized that perhaps it is a small powerful lobby that is heavily leaning on the cities resources.
In the end, I realized that it is not my biggest priority. While I do believe we need to keep an eye on this for posterity, it is simply not our biggest issue right now. I would like it to keep simmering, research to be done, and plans to be made how to better integrate the airport into the city. In the event that we are unable to turn it into something usable due to chemicals, litigation, or otherwise, I would hope that more people are able to learn to fly there. For the time being, that may just have to be the case.
In general, the best way that the city is able to create more housing is by leveraging the land that it owns. I do believe that there is a way this can be done in the future, but for now I believe that a fully revised land use code is what would allow for the future generations to modify the airport as needed, and that is my biggest priority on council.