Do we really need the Eugene airport?

This community owes a big "thank you" to Alan Pittman and the Eugene Weekly for digging out the information on that "Sweet" airport.

The Eugene airport has spent $30 million on expansion since 1987 and is down from six airlines to two. It spent $2 billion to expand in 1992, but failed to attract new service. Though it has 1/3 fewer passengers using the airport than projected at the last expansion, it wants to spend another $24 million to expand yet again, projecting a growth rate nearly as high as the last projection.

Most of Mahlon Sweet's funding comes from revenues and federal grants [which come from taxpayers], but Airport Manager Mike Boggs also wants $1.1 million from Eugene's taxpayers for incentives to lure new airlines. $252,658 in incentives is already down the drain because of airlines that took the money and ran, and the airport has not repaid $1.1 million the City of Eugene paid in 1992-93 after a highly controversial decision to pay off airport bonds.

Deregulation is the reason Eugene has only two airlines, and considering how many airlines have gone out of business, it is questionable how well the "invisible hand" of the market has served the industry. Incentives have not filled the gap, as even Boggs admits, and for the brief period of time they did increase service, he doesn't even know how much of the revenue generated was profit over the increased expenses of serving the airlines -- including the $90,000 bad debt left by the airline that flew the coop. That is basic information!

Studies of the effectiveness of such incentives by the Oregon Economic Development Department, and labor and activist groups have come to the same conclusion [No More Candy Store by Greg LeRoy; Intel Inside New Mexico by the SouthWest Organizing Project]. Instead, businesses use incentives to start bidding wars to sweeten the pot. Many local citizens have expressed strong opposition to business subsidies, particularly in the wake of the wide swath cut by Measures 5 and 47 [which did not affect the airport] on local services. According to Councilwoman Taylor, $1.1 million would just about restore cut services. Why should Eugene taxpayers pay for airline incentives rather than social, educational or recreational services they are far more likely to use?

We get the same old tiresome song: "The airport and increased service is critical to business interests, and what's good for business is good for Eugene, attracting new companies and improving the economic base." This mantra is some sort of hypnotic litany that seems to put people into trance. Where is the proof? Where is the cost analysis that shows the average Eugenean is better off having his/her tax money subsidize air travel, whether for business execs or poor students, than on supplying sorely needed services? Especially if we add in the various other subsidies with which taxpayers are saddled, such as Enterprise Zone subsidies and Systems Development Charges. We need a cost benefit analysis of all the ways in which taxpayers subsidize businesses and what they get for it.

Mahlon Sweet is not convenient. Flight choices are very limited and fare prices are up to twice as high as Portland's. Getting to the airport requires either expensive parking or an expensive cab ride. Driving two hours to Portland, leaving one's car in the parking lot and driving back dead-tired at the end of a trip, while adding 20 lbs. of carbon per gallon to the greenhouse gas payload, isn't much of an option either. Taking a two-hour shuttle bus to Portland wouldn't be fun -- BUT -- how does that occasional inconvenience stack up against what we pay in subsidies?

The business community, the biggest backer of the airport, is not likely to foot the bill, and Congress is not about to reverse deregulation. Shutting down the airport and providing shuttle buses to PDX looks like the most cost-effective option.

Hen Cackles

©Wanda Ballentine, 1998