Why Third Runway Is So Unfair

Location, location, location

Opposition to the Sea-Tac third runway project remains very strong in the Highline area because of the heavy burdens that the runway would thrust on the citizens & cities in Highline (South-West King County).

Sea–Tac has a tiny airport campus in the middle of long-established, almost totally residential neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are concentrated on the south and west side of the Airport, where they will suffer the most impact from addition of a third runway. Because of the tiny campus, most of the pollution impacts fall on properties not belonging to the Airport.

The west side of Airport is particularly sensitive because, for a decade, from 1977 through 1987, the Sea–Tac Communities Plan (in which the Port participated) encouraged local cities to locate housing, businesses, and on the west side near the existing airport. Unfortunately, this development is under what has become the flight path of the proposed third runway.

At the time, the Port said that the west side was such a problematic site that it would never build a third runway there. As late as 1992, Port Commissioner Pat Davis told the Highline Times that Port had no desire to build a third runway. So, many in the community were caught off–guard by the sudden appearance of the third-runway plan. Property values in the area took an instant nosedive, leaving many homeowners pinned in place.

Neighbors Pay Airport Costs

Although the State treats Sea–Tac as a facility of state–wide importance, it is run by one small county–wide agency - the Port of Seattle. The State does not control the expansion programs of local airports. The State provides no mechanism for distributing the costs of the impacts of airports to all those who benefit from them. In practice, impacts not paid for by an airport are subsidized by the next-door neighbors.

The costs associated with the third runway project are disproportionately borne by communities immediately surrounding the Airport. Communities such as Burien and Des Moines will be impacted by noise, traffic congestion, and socioeconomic hardship merely because of their location near the Airport. Of the estimated $2.95 billion in potential mitigation costs in the area south of the Seattle city limits, $2.3 billion (almost 80%) is projected to be required for Burien and Des Moines alone. Other environmental, transportation, and socio-economic costs have not yet been calculated.

Airport Income Pays No Environmental Costs

A basic strategy of the Port of Seattle is to shift its costs for the Airport on to others. (These 'others' have less ability to pay, & little ability to protest.) The Port does nothing about the health problems arising from air pollution or noise. The Port provides no relief to homeowners or businesses whose property values are hammered by noise. The Port does not make compensating payments to local governments for lost revenues. The Port is dilatory in following sound environmental practices in dealing with water pollution, leaving the people and cities downstream to feel the impacts & to try to undo the harm at their own expense.

The Port's plan for financing runway construction & other expansion projects appears to be to continue selling bonds backed by future real-estate taxes to be collected by the Port. The Port's share of the cost of the noise-mitigation program in local schools is being paid out of real estate taxes levied county-wide (including residents in the school district most heavily impacted by noise – who are also paying equal amounts into the program through a local bond issue!).

All of these costs, & others, should be part of the cost of doing business at an airport, & they should be met entirely from the operating revenues of the Airport.