Airport site fires up opposition
Bellevue Triangle residents gear up for relocation battle
By PAT MURPHY
Express Staff Writer
Residents of the Bellevue Triangle in south Blaine County have enlarged the meaning of the familiar battle cry of property owners opposed to nearby public facilities, ?Not in my backyard.?
Not only do they not want a new Wood River Valley airport in their backyard, they don?t want it in their front yard, side yard or in the middle of their yard.
This was clear almost from the moment some 60 property owners and residents gathered Sunday night at Tom O?Gara?s large ranch barn to hear Friedman Memorial Airport officials explain why a new airport is needed and how a possible site will be found through elaborate studies.
The target of the residents? wrath is Site No. 3, located in the Bellevue Triangle, and one of 16 possible sites for a new airport designated by Friedman consultants for study.
Although none of the sites have been formally adopted as finalists in the selection process, Site No. 3 was unofficially and informally listed among three preferred by a citizens site selection committee taking a straw vote. The other two are sites No. 10, south of U.S. 20 and east of Highway 75, and No. 13, adjacent to U.S. 20 east of Fairfield. The latter site also is in an area approximately where a 1990 study suggested a new airport be built.
But as airport authority chair Mary Ann Mix and airport manager Rick Baird repeatedly emphasized during the meeting, none of the 16 sites has been subjected to final, demanding examinations required before ultimate approval by the airport authority and then the Federal Aviation Administration. Site No. 3, Baird said, might well be eliminated soon.
But it was clear from residents? reactions that Site No. 3 would be selected over their collective, figurative dead bodies.
The Bellevue Triangle is defined by the Blaine County Planning and Zoning Department as some 40,000 acres between Glendale Road on the north, a line of hills west of Highway 75, hills east of Gannett Road and the Timmerman Hills south of U.S. 20.
One of the most vocal residents, Jay Coleman, told the group ?we should dig in our heels? and prepare for officials to ?roll over us with yellow (construction) machines.?
Longtime area rancher and farmer Katie Breckenridge also said the ?biggest danger? facing residents near all the potential airport sites is that property owners would be given less say-so than federal laws covering wildlife species, the environment and Native American tribal interests.
Mix agreed that federal laws ultimately prevail.
Jim White called the fight over Site No. 3 a ?major political battle,? imploring the group to ?show up at public meetings? at which the airport is discussed and oppose the Bellevue Triangle as a site.
The high water table would automatically eliminate Site No. 3 for consideration, according to resident Dick Springs, who said water could be found normally only 22 inches below ground level, but during heavy rains the area is flooded and impassable in some parts.
Several residents pointed out that the pressure to move Friedman airport is partly due to proximity to Hailey--but an airport in the Bellevue Triangle would place that in the front door of the city of Bellevue.
Could an airport meet requirements of the county?s comprehensive plan?
Mix said the power to condemn property through eminent domain law would prevail.
Ketchum resident Ed O?Gara, founder of Atlanta-based O?Gara Aviation Company, a jet pilot and brother of Bellevue rancher Tom O'Gara, asked why couldn?t the present Friedman airport simply be kept open with necessary improvements and maintain present levels of airline service.
But Baird said the FAA could unilaterally cut off funding for improvements it requires and even decertify the field. Baird pointed out that even if the runway were moved a matter of feet, the same major study required by a new airport would need to be undertaken.
Baird said over the next 10 years, millions of dollars would be spent to bring Friedman up to the standards the FAA requires just for present service of turboprop airliners.
In questions and comments from the residents at the meeting, obvious sympathy exists for maintaining the present airport because of its convenience.
But authority chair Mix pointed out that even if millions were spent to expand and improve the field, the limitations of adverse weather conditions and nearby mountainous terrain would not change.
She said, by way of explanation, that one estimate is that $35 million would need to be spent to satisfy the FAA?s safety requirements, including relocating a segment of Highway 75 eastward into an area now occupied by Woodside area homes, closing the airport for months to widen and extend the 6,950-foot runway and acquire more land.
Baird said that the eventual site ideally ?will inconvenience a small number? of people, including airline passengers, residents, aircraft owners and valley businesses dependant on an airport to fuel the area economy.
