The Biddeford Airport causes tumult between citizens and pilots. Some argue that it is too expensive to keep around such a dangerous place; however, others argue how resourceful the airport is.

The ballot for a June 4 general election in Biddeford, Maine has this referendum question: “Shall the city authorize the Airport Authority to close the Biddeford City Airport at a cost of about $3 million, to be taken from general operating funds?”

The airport takes in about $56,000 annually from sales of gas, property taxes, and land leases. The cost of running the airport, which includes maintenance, utilities, and improvements, was $72,000 in 2007 and $60,000 in 2008. The 126-acre property is worth $1.6 million.

The airport has been considered dangerous, allowing public access. There are regulations enforced, but the community doesn’t seem to adhere.
“We have pedestrians, motorcycles, four-wheelers (and) ATV’s all using it,” said Tom Bryan, the airport manager. “They just use it as a backyard and that’s against regulations.”

Federal safety regulations have been enforced a few years ago in order to keep funding from the Federal Aviation Administration. No trespassing rules are being enforced causing the airport to be less dangerous.

Phyllis Landry, a private pilot who keeps his single engine plane at the airport, believes the airport to be a great resource.

“Once about five years ago I had to abort a takeoff because a bunch of neighborhood kids ran onto the runway right in front of me,” said Landry. “The FAA is just doing its job. People need to understand that. Maybe it’s expensive to run the airport, but it’s a great resource. I know business people who fly in here all the time.”

Although the airport is costing more money to exist, it is allowing convenience for many business people and pilots.

Citizens, however, do not understand the need for their tax dollars to go towards something they don’t believe in. Granted by paying a little more money, the airport is a little safer, but it’s not a price they’re willing to pay. Roland Pelletier lived next to the airport for 25 years. He doesn’t mind airport noises and festivities, but he does have an opinion about the money.

“Taking my money bothers me, airplanes right over the schools where my grandchildren go bothers me,” said Pelletier. “NTSB has a report of a pilot, who was also an instructor pilot, hit the trees at the end of the runway because he did not do a correct pre-flight check and at take off speed could not pull back on his controls because he forgot to take off his control lock. Some residents no longer have trees to protect them, this bothers me.”

The airport began cutting down trees for safety reasons a few years back, but having trees present seems to be a comfort to many citizens.

Paul Archambault continues to live, after 24 years, in the house at the end of the runway. He is the chairman of Can Our Little Airport (COLA).

“Sure this started out as a fight about trees and public access,” said Archambault. “But it’s not just about that anymore. Now it’s about money, too.”

The airport continues to be a tax burden among citizens.

“The money is the biggest thing,” said Pelletier. “If it was self-supporting, fine. Let it go on.”

Danger seems to be an issue of the past. It has taken more money to make this less of a problem, thus creating an even bigger concern.

“Times are tough in the economy,” said Pelletier. “We can’t afford to support operations that don’t support themselves.”

There are 47 planes based at the airport and about half of them are owned by corporations. These planes would be losing business and people would have to arrive at an airport most likely less convenient for them.

“If I couldn’t fly out of here I’d have to go to Sanford or Portland,” said Landry.