6 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

Taxpayers or the city general fund are NOT subsidizing Burke. Its part of the airport system of the city. Hopkins and Burke are part of an enterprise fund of the city----they are not funded by the general budget. Its in the interest of operations at Hopkins that Burke stays open. If you're on a commercial flight at Hopkins, do you really want to be 10th in line for take off because you have little Cessnas in front of you as part of a flight school?

What about using the county airport for crop dusters? We have three airports.

1 hour ago, Cleveland Trust said:

I have this study from 2002 advocating close: https://www.gcbl.org/files/resources/burkereport.pdf

 

Additionally, Burke lost close to 50% of its traffic between 2017-2018. It is going in the wrong direction. Maybe someone on this forum knows what change can be made to make Burke a better economic engine than a developed lakefront. 

 

Cleveland Trust--where do you get your numbers? The last time I asked, you cited a non-aviation reporter at Scene whose article was full of errors. And now you say "Burke lost close to 50% of its traffic between 2017-2018."?  That's absurd.  So you don't poison otherwise innocent minds, here are real numbers:

 

2017  26,773 Itinerant (BKL is either origin or destination) + 11,798 local (flights that take off and land at BKL)

2018  25,209 itinerant + 9,288 local

 

hardly a 50% decrease in traffic---and these are aircraft numbers--not passenger numbers.

 

 

 

 

Just now, Pugu said:

 

Cleveland Trust--where do you get your numbers? The last time I asked, you cited a non-aviation reporter at Scene whose article was full of errors. And now you say "Burke lost close to 50% of its traffic between 2017-2018."?  That's absurd.  So you don't poison otherwise innocent minds, here are real numbers:

 

2017  26,773 Itinerant (BKL is either origin or destination) + 11,798 local (flights that take off and land at BKL)

2018  25,209 itinerant + 9,288 local

 

hardly a 50% decrease in traffic---and these are aircraft numbers--not passenger numbers.

 

 

 

 

I was citing the numbers in one of your posts for 2017 and 2018!

1 hour ago, Cleveland Trust said:

My neighbor is a politician. He told me some things off the record about Burke at a cook out. I can’t burn a source. 

 

I am just looking for numbers in the public record that confirm what I was told and I can’t find them. I think there is a $4 million payroll connected to Burke that no one at city hall wants to mess with even as operations there wind down. Burke is in a tailspin but some people still make a little money, it is still functional and so business as usual.

 

So so the question is, will the next mayor spend the money to modernize Burke in an effort to increase revenues or do we stop the downward trajectory and pounce on this opportunity. 

 

What did your neighbor tell you?  I'd be interested to hear.

 

"spend the money to modernize Burke in an effort to increase revenues" -- YES! I like this thinking, though its more important to increase passenger levels than revenues. That should be the objective.

 

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by Pugu

2 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

I was citing the numbers in one of your posts for 2017 and 2018!

 

My post?  Do you mean this one? If so, i was using YOUR dates, so I was comparing 2000 to 2018. 

 

45 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

What did your neighbor tell you?  I'd be interested to hear.

 

"spend the money to modernize Burke in an effort to increase revenues" -- YES! I like this thinking.

 

Basically Burke is a joke, however, Burke’s future cannot be questioned. The younger councilmen have to wait until Jackson is out of office before a change can take place. Two more long years! We talked a little bit about how Dimora and Russo liked it when things stayed the way they were: sometimes a bridge to nowhere is a revenue stream to someone. Cynical stuff. Cleveland stuff.  

 

Bottom line is we could do better but some people will be unhappy. I get that.

 

I don’t think there is anything you can do to make Burke viable. But according to Burke’s website looks like someone is about to make a ton of money redoing the whole thing: https://www.burkeairport.com/about-burke/operations/progress

This is really gonna attract Amazon and the hipsters! 

 

I mean, I’m not implying, nor was my source implying that this has anything to do with public contracts and some money going to the right people. I’m sure Burke isn’t a bridge to nowhere. Toronto’s waterfront is overrated and if we just spend money redoing this gem of an airport we’ll get all those medical conventions at medical mart, right? I’m sure of it.

 

You may get your wish. A total redo of Burke.

 

I guess I’m out of luck. I was hoping to gather consensus around closing Burke but it appears we are about to be stuck with it for good. I hope you’re right.

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

39 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

My post?  Do you mean this one? If so, i was using YOUR dates, so I was comparing 2000 to 2018. 

 

Oh. Okay. I’m at the beach with my kids on my cell, I don’t have perfect memory. It is upthread somewhere and not my number. Bottom line is that 111,000 in 2000 (or something) down to your number. Bad news.

It takes long range thinking to potentially shut the airport down- it'd probably be years upon years (10? 20?) before it'd be officially closed after all of the necessary steps are taken. This means the majority of politicians will be dead, and for that matter, a lot of us UrbanOhio folk ? . It may not make sense in the immediate sense, however, will we regret not doing anything down the road when we'd still be looking at a long process to get the airport shut down?

 

Just some thoughts, it may benefit us now- but think of how much money is spent on this place and how much will be, and maybe starting the process to shut it down would make more sense...

 

PS- can a new mayor just pull a chicago and start tearing into the runway overnight? ? 

27 minutes ago, GISguy said:

It takes long range thinking to potentially shut the airport down- it'd probably be years upon years (10? 20?) before it'd be officially closed after all of the necessary steps are taken. This means the majority of politicians will be dead, and for that matter, a lot of us UrbanOhio folk ? . It may not make sense in the immediate sense, however, will we regret not doing anything down the road when we'd still be looking at a long process to get the airport shut down?

 

Just some thoughts, it may benefit us now- but think of how much money is spent on this place and how much will be, and maybe starting the process to shut it down would make more sense...

 

PS- can a new mayor just pull a chicago and start tearing into the runway overnight? ? 

Nope. He can change course.

 

The clock is ticking.

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

An active airport that still has some strong defenders isn't closed because others don't like it anymore. Establish a new vision for Burke's future. Go through the alternatives analysis process with the usual public/stakeholder meetings to get buy-in. Also establish a context for it. What should the nearby uses be to support and be supported by the new use of Burke? How will we incentivize users to adhere to the plan? What new access routes/services could there be? In short, get people excited about an alternative future for Burke and there will be motivation for change. Without that vision, the only action involving Burke's future will be on forums like this.

 

BTW, while I have been reluctant to consider an alternative future for Burke, I've become less so. My concern in the past was that there are too many surface parking lots in the CBD that need developing before a massive site like Burke is repurposed. There is enough development momentum brewing for the surface lots that I might be less concerned in a few years, if all goes well. Obviously, a lot can happen in three years or so, including the performance of the national and regional economy. But if the momentum continues, and if the vision for Burke is to repurpose most of it for a park, then I'd be supportive of a new future for Burke.

1 hour ago, GISguy said:

 ... it'd probably be years upon years (10? 20?) before it'd be officially closed ...

 

And to my thinking that's all to the good. In 10-20 years the land will doubtlessly be much more valuable and the developer, not Cleveland, will be willing to pay the demo/infrastructure costs. In addition, by then, the city won't have to go with the first bidder and can be more selective about what gets built.

21 minutes ago, KJP said:

An active airport that still has some strong defenders isn't closed because others don't like it anymore. Establish a new vision for Burke's future. Go through the alternatives analysis process with the usual public/stakeholder meetings to get buy-in. Also establish a context for it. What should the nearby uses be to support and be supported by the new use of Burke? How will we incentivize users to adhere to the plan? What new access routes/services could there be? In short, get people excited about an alternative future for Burke and there will be motivation for change. Without that vision, the only action involving Burke's future will be on forums like this.

 

BTW, while I have been reluctant to consider an alternative future for Burke, I've become less so. My concern in the past was that there are too many surface parking lots in the CBD that need developing before a massive site like Burke is repurposed. There is enough development momentum brewing for the surface lots that I might be less concerned in a few years, if all goes well. Obviously, a lot can happen in three years or so, including the performance of the national and regional economy. But if the momentum continues, and if the vision for Burke is to repurpose most of it for a park, then I'd be supportive of a new future for Burke.

I think they are ready to chase the market and put in a second runway at Burke, at least the website says that is the plan. It will be near impossible to recoup that money spent unless traffic increases dramatically. But who wants that? Why do we want thousands of planes flying a few hundred feet over downtown? I think it comes down to this : 

“Council President Martin J. Sweeney did not return calls for this story. But Councilman Mike Polensek discounted the chances of a Jackson-friendly council majority going against the mayor's wishes on Burke.”

 

from this: https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2014/03/sweep_of_views_on_burke_lakefr.html

yes lets worry about infilling downtown before worrying about Burke. I consider that to include the lakefront by the stadium. Lakefront should be put on shelf for a possible greater lakefront of the future.

Edited July 15, 20195 yr by Mildtraumatic

7 hours ago, Mildtraumatic said:

Anyone really have any numbers on Burke proving or disproving the benefits economically to Cleveland.

 

You can do anything with numbers. It would be easy to say something like Burke provides a $12.5B economic benefit to Cleveland, while another can say it is only $6.2B. But whatever the number, it is most certainly a positive number.

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

 

You can do anything with numbers. It would be easy to say something like Burke provides a $12.5B economic benefit to Cleveland, while another can say it is only $6.2B. But whatever the number, it is most certainly a positive number.

No. At that number Burke would be more valuable than all the airports in Ohio combined. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Operations/Aviation/OhioAirportsFocusStudy/FindingsandRecommendationsDocs/EconomicImpactBrochures/Cleveland-Cleveland-Hopkins Intl.pdf

 

^I was just throwing out sample numbers. One study could say its economic output is $XB while another could say $YB.

3 hours ago, Mildtraumatic said:

yes lets worry about infilling downtown before worrying about Burke. I consider that to include the lakefront by the stadium. Lakefront should be put on shelf for a possible greater lakefront of the future.

I disagree. Get rid of restrictions and value-destroying flight path and let the developers decide where they prefer to build.

4 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^I was just throwing out sample numbers. One study could say its economic output is $XB while another could say $YB.

Okay. But your example numbers were off by an order of several billion. 

6 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

I disagree. Get rid of restrictions and value-destroying flight path and let the developers decide where they prefer to build.

 

If it makes you feel better, PASSENGER numbers (not take off and landings) are up 28% from 2017 to 2018.  Ultimate Air alone is up 7.4% at BKL.

How much should we pay for the new Burke runway being planned? $100 million? $200 million? How much is too much to spend on a failing airport in a shrinking city?

3 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

If it makes you feel better, PASSENGER numbers (not take off and landings) are up 28% from 2017 to 2018.  Ultimate Air alone is up 7.4% at BKL.

Nice. A little more money being made.

^Why you so fixed on money or revenue?  Airports are facilities to enable air transportation. The metric is passengers and not cash.

8 hours ago, Pugu said:

^Why you so fixed on money or revenue?  Airports are facilities to enable air transportation. The metric is passengers and not cash.

Is that true? I thought they were related. More passengers means more t/l taxes = more revenue. More revenue = less public subsidies needed.  

 

How would you ever know if you had a boondoggle? 

9 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

If it makes you feel better, PASSENGER numbers (not take off and landings) are up 28% from 2017 to 2018.  Ultimate Air alone is up 7.4% at BKL.

Okay. Ultimate Air has ONE flight a day to Cincinnati!!! If it is up 7.4% that is not economic development. That one flight vs. $20 billion of real estate that is worthless because of that one flight a day flight path. That is crazy. 

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

I mean do you really want me to fly my private jet into Hopkins? You have to be mad!

37 minutes ago, Mildtraumatic said:

I mean do you really want me to fly my private jet into Hopkins? You have to be mad!

Yes, all the billionaires here have it so bad.

56 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Okay. Ultimate Air has ONE flight a day to Cincinnati!!! If it is up 7.4% that is not economic development. That one flight vs. $20 billion of real estate that is worthless because of that one flight a day flight path. That is crazy. 

 

$20 billion in real estate development. What bizzarro world are you living in?

1 minute ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Yes, all the billionaires here have it so bad.

Umm, was joking. Last time I was in Cleveland I stayed at Four Points by Hopkins. ?

What happened in Cuyahoga County in 2008? ? 

Just now, Mendo said:

 

$20 billion in real estate development. What bizzarro world are you living in?

Cleveland! Where our lakefront is where you store your limestone! 

Hey New York and Nashville and Chicago, you know what you need? An airport downtown! You’d really see an economic boost. Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! 

16 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Hey New York and Nashville and Chicago, you know what you need? An airport downtown! You’d really see an economic boost. Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! 

Hey it's one thing we have they don't.

 

Okay, I’ll reset this.

 

Our most valuable asset, the lakefront (compare prices of lakefront real estate in thriving cities to inland real estate), is deemed worthless because there is an adjacent “asset,” Burke (airports depress real estate values universally). The presence of one negates the value of the other. 

 

We we are in a position where we no longer need Burke. The Port is about to spend a lot of money modernizing a boondoggle. 

 

We we have an opportunity to see Cleveland as something other than a backwater laughingstock with people getting rich managing our decline. 

 

The city is shrinking. I see this as a problem. I want Cleveland to grow. Burke has been here trough the decline. It is not an economic engine. It just isn’t. We have three airports. We need to pull the plug on the one that would give us the best upside. That is Burke.

1 minute ago, Mildtraumatic said:

Hey it's one thing we have they don't.

 

We are shrinking. 

Just because we are shrinking doesn't mean we need to give up assets. Things are beginning to turn around. Land value's are still down. Wait for them to rise a bit before we talk about getting rid of Burke. Building up downtown is priority 1#. Hitting gavel.

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by Mildtraumatic

18 minutes ago, Mildtraumatic said:

Just because we are shrinking doesn't mean we need to give up assets. Things are beginning to turn around. Land value's are still down. Wait for them to rise a bit before we talk about getting rid of Burke. Building up downtown is priority 1#. Hitting gavel.

Maybe Chicago should have waited to develop Millennium Park until all of the vacant lots downtown were filled. Maybe if they had an airport downtown instead of that park they would be much better off. 

 

Remember Stark’s lakefront plan? That was designed to create a ? BOOM in a way infill doesn’t. That boom would redefine Cleveland. City hall saw change as the interruption of revenue streams and didn’t give any cooperation. 

 

Remember when BP left? That was because Cleveland was too small for the executives. There was no vision at city hall. BP recognized that. They chose a city that offered things we couldn’t. We need to understand what civic magnets attract people and deserve our support and advocacy. 

 

I see Burke as a boondoggle. Nothing more. If downtown airports were necessary every city would be building one. They just aren’t doing that. An airport close to downtown is essential but one that dictates the land use and land value is a civic planning disaster. That’s where we are.

You think Burke had influence in getting the GOP Convention? 

8 minutes ago, Mildtraumatic said:

You think Burke had influence in getting the GOP Convention? 

An airport got us the GOP Con. plus they always put them in swing states. We can’t live in the past. 

 

Do they only put GOP conventions in cities with downtown airports? ? Will we get the GOP Con every election because of Burke? 

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

22 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

1. The private sector would be building the new subdivision, not the city. Home builders would fall over themselves to do it.

 

2. It wouldn’t be just a shutting down of the county airport. It would be a merger of the county airport with Burke AT Burke. Technical difference but a big one. And like I mentioned earlier, the city and county had very very preliminary discussions about exploring the possibility of doing just that a few years ago so it’s not something im pulling out of my arse.

I don’t care about farmland property filling up with McMansions, I want to free up the land north of downtown from the FAA development regulations and use this unique asset as a population magnet. 

 

Want a Boom Town? Shutter Burke and split the traffic between County and Hopkins. 

^So let me get this straight, the city is shrinking and can’t afford the $2 million cost of keeping Burke open. Yet there are billions of dollars worth of land locked up under almost unbuildable Burke airport because “lakefront property”. How much does the city have to pay to shut down the airport and move operations to the other two airports? Does Cuyahoga county airport have the room for all the planes and the length of runway needed for overflow duties? I believe that is no.

   How much will the city need to spend to unlock the billions of real estate?  Sewer, electric lines, fiber optic lines, gas, and water lines don’t build themselves. I assume there will be new streets, culverts, retention ponds, and street lighting with maybe some traffic signals since it will be so busy. That sounds like quite a bit more than a $2million year problem. 

Look what we are missing out on: Cleveland lakefront compared to what’s going on in Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Baltimore, our competition.

 

Why doesn’t Detroit wait until they fill in all those vacant lots first? Riverfront Park? That will never attract anyone!

 

 

17 minutes ago, audidave said:

^So let me get this straight, the city is shrinking and can’t afford the $2 million cost of keeping Burke open. Yet there are billions of dollars worth of land locked up under almost unbuildable Burke airport because “lakefront property”. How much does the city have to pay to shut down the airport and move operations to the other two airports? Does Cuyahoga county airport have the room for all the planes and the length of runway needed for overflow duties? I believe that is no.

   How much will the city need to spend to unlock the billions of real estate?  Sewer, electric lines, fiber optic lines, gas, and water lines don’t build themselves. I assume there will be new streets, culverts, retention ponds, and street lighting with maybe some traffic signals since it will be so busy. That sounds like quite a bit more than a $2million year problem. 

It’s all about the transaction and public benefit. Maybe waterfront property is really not valuable. Maybe real estate people gaslight us into thinking there is demand for lakefront real estate when there isn’t. 

 

Or, Cleveland is an outlier in not capitalizing on proven Investment strategies (ignore Cleveland for a minute and look at other city data) in favor of old guard money making schemes. It’s not like there has ever been a scandal in Cleveland involving a boondoggle.

 

About the county airport, read those two reports I posted upthread. It will bring you up to speed.

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

I'm all for repurposing Burke primarily as a park, with the western, southern and eastern fringes opened up for development. It could be the next major park that the city/metroparks pursue after Irishtown Bend which, by itself, is a $100 million endeavor.

 

And to be fair, the utilities to support this repurposing can be financed with TIFs. The value of the land at/near Burke will likely go up with its conversion to a park.

Well then the Pace/cumberland project should be a smashing success just north of the stadium especially for browns fans to move to.  I think that will be a good proof of concept whether there is demand for lakefront living year round on Lake Erie. 

11 minutes ago, audidave said:

Well then the Pace/cumberland project should be a smashing success just north of the stadium especially for browns fans to move to.  I think that will be a good proof of concept whether there is demand for lakefront living year round on Lake Erie. 

Agree with audidave.  If Cumberland can successfully develop and sell its Dock 30 project, closing Burke could be revisited.  Dock 30 has superior connectivity to downtown and attractions, light rail access, and a school as part of its project.  So it's more obvious to me that Dock 30 should be the lakefront priority right now.  But if it struggles with financing, construction, or occupancy, I think the Burke closers have their answer.

22 minutes ago, audidave said:

Well then the Pace/cumberland project should be a smashing success just north of the stadium especially for browns fans to move to.  I think that will be a good proof of concept whether there is demand for lakefront living year round on Lake Erie. 

To some extent. It is a good start but it is a truncated version of the plans and realities in other similar cities. We will not be able to keep pace with them in their efforts to lure jobs and talent. We need a comprehensive agenda to shape the lakefront and we have one giant obstacle.

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

28 minutes ago, KJP said:

I'm all for repurposing Burke primarily as a park, with the western, southern and eastern fringes opened up for development. It could be the next major park that the city/metroparks pursue after Irishtown Bend which, by itself, is a $100 million endeavor.

 

And to be fair, the utilities to support this repurposing can be financed with TIFs. The value of the land at/near Burke will likely go up with its conversion to a park.

I’ve talked to Stark about this. Chicago did the same infrastructure spending that he wanted Cleveland to do. Millennium Park attracts more people in a few hours than Burke does passengers in a year. Boom ? 

Edited July 16, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

To address Cleveland Trust's population loss point, yes, Cleveland has lost people.  Here's a depressing thought:  Cleveland was larger yesterday than it is today.  And tomorrow it will be smaller.  But that's different from the market.  Healthy markets can correlate with population gain but not always.  That's why Cleveland has three major sports teams and some larger cities have fewer.

2 minutes ago, PaxtonMarley said:

To address Cleveland Trust's population loss point, yes, Cleveland has lost people.  Here's a depressing thought:  Cleveland was larger yesterday than it is today.  And tomorrow it will be smaller.  But that's different from the market.  Healthy markets can correlate with population gain but not always.  That's why Cleveland has three major sports teams and some larger cities have fewer.

Those teams will move. 

14 minutes ago, PaxtonMarley said:

Agree with audidave.  If Cumberland can successfully develop and sell its Dock 30 project, closing Burke could be revisited.  Dock 30 has superior connectivity to downtown and attractions, light rail access, and a school as part of its project.  So it's more obvious to me that Dock 30 should be the lakefront priority right now.  But if it struggles with financing, construction, or occupancy, I think the Burke closers have their answer.

Only problem is that Dock 30 will be valued as a development with an airport landing strip a half mile away. Get rid of that proven real estate value depressor and Dock 30 will be more attractive from a number of perspectives.

Just now, Cleveland Trust said:

Those teams will move. 

 

Ouch, that discussion for a different day and a different thread.

 

Stark's probably right about Millennium Park. Keep in mind that Millennium Park is very well connected to the Loop, same with Baltimore's Inner Harbor, and D.C.'s National Mall.  Each of those civic spaces has concert venues, monuments, and museums to keep visitors interested and engaged.  So instead of saying "close Burke," how about being a little more visionary and ask what do folks want to Burke to become?