Public information session No. 5 for the BFJ Planning Study regarding the fate of Brainard Airport ended in the evening of Aug. 13 in a very unsatisfying way. Most of the attendees were Brainard airport supporters and their disappointment with the lack of more substantive information regarding the economics of closure, specific land contamination data, or realistic building options in view of the recent flooding was palpable.
BFJ claimed that any finding released must first be cleared with the study’s oversight body, Department of Economic & Community Development (DECD) and with the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, or DEEP. A draft report, again not for public disclosure, will be completed by the end of August. However, a final report to be made public for review will not be available until October. Those are BFJ’s directives from the DECD. Fair enough.
After all these months of study, however, there is a glaring deficiency that left us a bit troubled. It was surprisingly disappointing to learn that BFJ has, as of yet, failed to look into in any detail the future plans of Hartford Jet Center owner Lindsey Rutka, or his substantial roadblocks to development over the past several years because of closure uncertainty. It was also shocking to learn that BFJ has failed to interview Barry Alexander, CEO of Aquiline Drones; the Rowleys of VIP Avionics; Mr. Neligon of Total Aircraft Parts; Senior AME Dr. Robert Dodenhoff whose medical office is at midfield; Phil Smith of Learn2Fly flight school or any of the other flight school owners about their present contribution to the economic activity of Brainard. These leading business people are on the field, and have significant economic activity that supports the airport, the general aviation community, the city and the region. All owners had been available to share informed economic data. The pushback by one of BFJ’s managers that they surveyed only a list provided by CAA is hardly an adequate excuse.
Hartford-Brainard Airport flight school sees airfield taking off in futuristic world of air travel
Thoroughly surveying and documenting present business activity in detail is absolutely essential and should have been BFJ’s first step.
Several strong recommendations exist for what could be done to make Brainard much more valuable. It is curious that BFJ apparently has not reached out further to specific local pilots and other business users of the airport, beyond a very abbreviated questionnaire, so it could gather all possible information regarding Brainard’s present activity and future potential. HBAA, a grass roots organization representing pilots and business users, also took exception that they were not contacted directly for comment either.
The stated purpose of BFJ’s intervention in the first place was to assess the “best and highest use” for the South Meadow property. Taking aside the alternative usage possibilities, such as mixed use, shopping, residential or warehouse development, the proper answer to the question requires a complete understanding of what goes on at Brainard today. It also requires a complete understanding of what will happen to the airport in the near future should the “umbrella of uncertainty” regarding closure be lifted and Brainard be allowed to develop to its fullest potential as a vibrant center for general aviation in the Northeast.
The question of whether to close Brainard is complex, and anyone familiar with the property knows that its environmental, socioeconomic and political issues interact heavily. Brainard is clearly an important aviation-oriented facility, well positioned to benefit from the explosion of new and exciting aviation technology. The effort to close, championed by a very few Hartford politicians with unclear motivations has been a very contentious issue in Hartford politics and is a prominent campaign issue for the upcoming Hartford mayoral race.
Our state legislators need and should expect clear, complete and unbiased data to come out of the present BFJ study that is relevant for our specific airport in order for them to make the best decisions. Clearly, the scope of the study is vast, indeed, and BFJ is commended for its efforts in gathering as much information as they have. However, present observations suggest that BFJ must extend itself much further. It must document the present vibrant business and commercial activity as well as clearly outline the bright future Brainard will have if allowed to flourish. A failure to do so will cast an “umbrella of doubt” as to the validity of BFJ’s study, no matter what the final conclusions might be.
Michael B. Teiger is President of the Hartford Brainard Airport Association, Inc.
