Tukums Airport. Entrepreneur Nihilism and Officials' Stubbornness
Aviation noise is the most significant negative factor, but a commercial airport also creates a background of air pollution and accident risk. Research has shown that municipalities have experienced a decrease in property tax revenue, a worsening of health issues and learning problems in children.
The public became aware of the conclusion of the State Environmental Bureau in the Tukums Airport expansion case. It is negative. Society, which has an opinion on everything, split into two camps: those who rushed to defend the entrepreneurs, and those who sided with the residents who would have to live with the consequences of the airport's operation.
Tukums Airport is not a new project. It is already operating. The issue is about expanding its operations. Within the framework of the airport's operational expansion, it is planned to provide regular passenger services and increase the number of flights to 3,000 take-offs/landings per year. According to the projections of the activity initiator, part of the planned flights per year would consist of scheduled flights and part of charter flights.
Details of what, how and why can be found on the VPVB website [1].
I wish to point out that in such procedures, residents' ability to obtain and present compelling arguments in defence of their interests - citing recognised studies or certified measurements - is virtually impossible due to their cost or inaccessibility. Meanwhile, the possibilities of entrepreneurs and in this case the interested party - the local authority - are practically unlimited.
From the Public Consultation Minutes:
Valdis Felsbergs: Yes, individual noise episodes will be approximately as loud as a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.
Valdis Felsbergs: Air pollution caused by aircraft has not been assessed. You have not felt anything until now and will not feel anything in the future either. (aircraft are the largest source of benzene pollution, for what it's worth)
Valdis Felsbergs: Yes, it does disturb residents, but it is within the bounds of the law.
Valdis Felsbergs: Yes, that is a technical error which we will correct.
A Tukums resident: I want someday to fly from Tukums airport to England to see my children and grandchildren. I am in favour of Tukums Airport! (no comment)
Dace Dēliņa: The development of the territorial plan for Smārde began back in 2003. At no point were there any objections from any resident. (never mind that it was 12 years ago, right?)
Agris Grosbergs: The airfield currently bears no responsibility for how pilots fly over the airfield. (ba-dum-tss...)
Valentīna Kancāne: My proposal is that infrastructure should serve people, not people serve infrastructure. The airfield has been granted tax reliefs, but what reliefs do we get?
From the letter of E. Šīns (SIA Latio):
However, one must be aware that an international commercial airport would primarily serve as a transit airport, and an influx of tourists to Tukums city from among the airport's passengers is unlikely.
Aviation noise is the most significant negative factor, but a commercial airport also creates a background of air pollution and accident risk. Research has shown that municipalities have experienced a decrease in property tax revenue, a worsening of health issues and learning problems in children.
Near newly established airports, property values can decrease to 43% of their original value [..]
From an economic perspective, of course another functioning airport in Latvia would be needed. All the more so given the unpredictable Russia and Latvian Railways' dependence on it. And the economic return from transit in Latvia, as is known, is quite significant. True, reading in the EIA report the socio-economic benefits conjured up by the entrepreneurs about the flourishing of the tourism sector and up to (oh, this "up to") 100 jobs, a smile forms on one's face and A. Šlesers's pre-election populist promises of tens of thousands of jobs come to mind. A fat full stop to these doubts is added by what E. Šīns has written.
Nor is it surprising that in principle the project will sink due to the stubbornness of the municipality's officials and entrepreneurs' greed. From the EIA it follows that only about 5 households will suffer from the noise. It is incomprehensible why the local authority could not meet them halfway by offering at least some tax relief, or the entrepreneurs could simply buy out these properties. But no - time, nerves and paper will be wasted. Lawyers and advocates hired, PR specialists engaged, journalists and "environmental experts" bought, bribes paid. But to meet residents halfway or at least listen to what they have to say - that, no! They'll do it on principle.
Sources:
comments