Peter Joy
Boxborough, MA
March 21, 2002
State Senator Robert A. Havern
Room 513
State House
Boston, MA 02133
RE: The Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC)
Dear Senator Havern,
I recently learned of a proposal to transfer control of Hanscom Field from Massport to the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC), with notion being that the MAC may be more receptive to community concerns.
I would like to remind the Transportation Committee of how the MAC dealt with the towns of Stow and Boxborough regarding House Bill 3210, which they proposed during the 1999-2000 legislative session and in previous years. The attached letter written to the MAC during this period sums up what we feel is the MAC’s contempt towards the non-aviation public, as they seek to promote private aviation interests in the Commonwealth.
You may remember that the Transportation Committee offered an amendment to HB3210, which attempted to address the concerns of private property owners who live near privately owned airfields. The MAC rejected the Committee’s amendment and instead chose to remove the bill from consideration. Subsequent public statements from the MAC’s Chief Attorney, Wayne Kerchner, indicated that the MAC intends to re-file this bill later date. This leads us to believe that the MAC is very determined to eventually take action against homeowners who do not have easements or restrictions of any kind on their property that relate to the existence of a nearby privately owned airfield business. The fact that the MAC’s intentions violate constitutionally protected property rights does not seem to deter them.
What reinforced our perception of the MAC as predatory towards the non-aviation public was what transpired in the ensuing months after this bill was removed from consideration. On numerous occasions, Mr. Kerchner made false statements to the press regarding HB3210. One example of this includes Mr. Kerchner stating that the MAC had no idea where this bill came from, when in fact during this time he was routinely telephoning Kate Fichter in your office to check on the bill’s status and to lobby for its speedy approval.
Needless to say, to this day we are shocked that a taxpayer funded state agency would be allowed to promote the interests of the owners of private airfields by taking action against private citizens, or at least attempting to. I sincerely hope the Transportation Committee can consider the above when evaluating the current situation regarding Hanscom Field.
Sincerely,
Peter G. Joy
CC: State Representative Joseph C. Sullivan.
==========================================
Peter Joy
Boxborough, MA
May 29, 2000
Mr. Bob Mallard
Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission
10 Park Plaza, RM 6620
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Recent Meeting with Stow and Boxborough, House Bill 3210
Dear Mr. Mallard,
Thank you for meeting with Stow and Boxborough residents recently regarding House Bill 3210. Hopefully, it is now understood that this proposed legislation cannot be legally implemented as written.
We certainly appreciate what the MAC has done for municipally owned airfields throughout the state. However, this recent proposed legislation that was designed primarily for the benefit of privately owned airfields made it necessary for many Stow and Boxborough residents to collectively hire legal representation. Our attorney assures us that the MAC has no legal authority to damage or remove trees on our private property without first holding a legal easement and/or deed restriction. As has been the long-standing practice, the owners of privately owned/public use airfields must obtain legal easements and deed restrictions from property owners if they need to improve the Approach and Part 77 surfaces in the environs of the airfield business. This is a constitutionally protected legal necessity that cannot be over-ridden by legislation.
The MAC is apparently using the public use designation as a ‘red herring’ to justify the action it is attempting to take against area homeowners. It is the sole responsibility of the airfield owners to do whatever is legally necessary to safely operate their chosen business. However, the MAC continues to renew public use certificates for privately owned airfields whose owners have been unable to obtain deed restrictions and easements which are necessary to ensure the continuation of safe Approaches and Part 77 surfaces for the customers of these businesses. The continued issuance of a public use certificate for these kinds of marginal privately owned airfields is insufficient legal justification for the MAC to violate our property against our will.
In the final analysis, privately owned/public use airfields are the chosen vocation of a business owner. They primarily serve recreational aircraft users who patronize these businesses on a voluntary basis in the pursuit of a hobby. The fact that they are open to the public 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, or that they have sought and received federal or state financial assistance does not give these businesses the legal status of publicly owned entities in the Commonwealth. Even publicly owned entities would have to use the Eminent Domain process to implement some of the goals of the MAC’s Vegetation Management Plan.
The tone of this letter is regrettably harsh, but the inability of airfield owners to acquire an interest in neighboring property cannot and will not result in the unlawful violation of our hard-earned residences. We will be monitoring future legislative activity in this area and intend to vigorously challenge any attempt by the MAC to violate our constitutionally protected property rights, which as you know, are sacrosanct in our country.
Sincerely,
Peter G. Joy
CC: Mr. Saltmarsh and Wayne Kurshner, MAC
Representatives Pat Walrath, Cory Atkins
Senator Pam Resor
Stow and Boxborough town officials
Stow and Boxborough neighbors of Minute Man
Massachusetts Municipal Association