Why We Must Sue Massport
By Karin McQuillan
The question of the week is, will the four towns sue Massport? Senator Susan Fargo, Representative Jay Kaufman and many of the four towns’ selectmen believe that Massport has broken state law in their haste to approve Shuttle America for commercial air service at Hanscom Field without waiting for state-mandated local review. When Massport decided to ignore state law they crossed the line. Our towns must turn to the courts to protect our rights, or lose them.
On July 15, the board of Massport voted to allow Shuttle America to run commuter air service with 50-passenger planes out of Hanscom Field. These are the largest commercial flights ever allowed at Hanscom. Claims for quiet notwithstanding, according to local noise experts, their turbo-props’ noise profile on landing is similar to the large 737 jets used by major airlines. This move was precedent setting in a number of dangerous ways.
Massport rushed this approval through without waiting for the legally-mandated review by a board comprised of representatives of the four surrounding towns and the Hanscom pilots association (HFAC, Hanscom Field Advisory Committee). HFAC is charged by state law with the right and responsibility to review proposed changes in service at Hanscom Field, to make sure they are in compliance with the Hanscom Field Master Plan. The law is clear in granting communities the right to review. Massport’s action is a serious breach of the rule of law.
The Master Plan states: "passenger air carrier operations will not be allowed at Hanscom Field, except in an emergency," due to "the inappropriateness of a general aviation airport such as Hanscom serving large aircraft." The Master Plan limits passenger operations to aircraft "with no more than 30 seats."
The Master Plan is also the basis for the Massachusetts Environmental Agency’s (MEPA) approval of operations at Hanscom (the 1995 GEIR). Operations forbidden under the Master Plan, such as Shuttle America’s 50-person service, cannot be pre-approved by the GEIR. Massport’s claims to the contrary deny us the protection of environmental laws.
In short, Massport has instituted a policy change of unlimited magnitude by ignoring the Master Plan in order to allow commercial aviation at Hanscom. This is a dangerous and illegal precedent, on both procedural and policy grounds. Massport does not have the right, in our democratic system, to set itself above the law and change the nature of Hanscom Field without allowing for review and comment by HFAC. HFAC was created by the state for the express purpose of limiting Massport’s unilateral power and ensuring proper mechanisms for input from elected public officials and citizens.
Secondly, Massport does not have the right to make changes in character to Hanscom Air Field, without triggering the need for an environmental review under the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency. Shuttle America says it will begin with four flights a day, but this is not a ceiling -- it is not possible to set a ceiling on commercial activities, once allowed. Massport claims that four flights do not require environmental review. But state environmental law forbids such "segmentation" – which would allow any business to avoid environmental safeguards by starting small, and then building up to destructive levels over time. It is the character of the service, not the number of flights, which triggers review. Again, Massports claims have no legal basis.
Massport claims they are required by federal law to approve any provider with planes under sixty seats. According to McGregor and Associates, Massachusett’s premier environmental law firm, this claim "is patently false. Congress has reaffirmed the power of the proprietor of an airport to control uses allowed there." The Master Plan explicitly controls use: it limits Hanscom to general aviation. Numberless statements by Massport officials, including Director Peter Blute’s in Lexington last year, have reaffirmed that Hanscom is to be limited to general aviation. Massport would have us believe they have been making promises for years which they are not allowed to keep by federal law. What federal law? They don’t say.
Massport has decided to ignore state law, to ride rough-shod over the local review process, to charge ahead without environmental review, and to break its many public pledges to maintain Hanscom as a general aviation airport. It has decided to jettison its own sensible planning imperatives (you can’t have a commercial airport whose only access is a two-lane road through a national park).
Massport Board members openly stated their reasons for these highhanded decisions at their July 15th meeting. They hope that by forcing Shuttle America on the suburbs, they will win political points in East Boston, be able to claim ‘environmental justice,’ and silence the opponents of the new runway at Logan.
This is political folly. Starting Shuttle America here doesn’t help Logan’s neighbors one decibel: commuter service at Hanscom is in addition to other airlines’ competing services at Logan. It doesn’t replace a single Logan flight. Shuttle America only operates out of reliever airports: it is not coming to Hanscom instead of to Logan. Violating the Hanscom Field Master Plan has absolutely nothing to do with the new runway at Logan. Breaking promises to us certainly will not side track Logan activists.
All Massport has achieved by flouting the laws for community and environmental review is to once more demonstrate that the only way to control Massport is through the courts. We must support Senator Fargo, Representative Kaufman and our selectmen in the decision to sue.