NYCivic - Questions on Airport Lease

Airport Lease Extension
Warrants Public Comment
By Henry J. Stern
October 15, 2003

Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki announced their agreement today on the extension of the Port Authority's lease from 2015 to 2050 for LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports from the City of New York, with many amendments and new undertakings.

You can read their joint press release on the subject, issued at City Hall, by clicking Airports.

Although the lease does not, at first glance, seem unreasonable, considering the relative strength and negotiating position of the parties, it is impossible to judge its merits since the public has not seen it. Today's press release summarized a letter of intent; the full lease agreement has not yet been drafted.

As apparently permitted by law, the negotiations were conducted privately by two public agencies, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

Two issues come to mind immediately:

Should the approval of other governmental bodies be required before the City can enter into this transaction, and
Should there be a hearing process, during which the public would be allowed to comment on the proposed lease extension, and make recommendations for its approval, rejection, or amendment?

The first question is harder to answer. To involve the City Council would make negotiations more political, with members desiring adjustments favoring their districts. To invoke ULURP could make it impossible for the city to execute agreements of this magnitude. It is unfortunate that the Board of Estimate was abolished, in toto, it might have been helpful here. On the other hand, there is a great advantage in giving the city's chief elected official the ability to enter into economic agreements.

The second question is easier to answer. A hearing process, under which the public would have the opportunity to comment on the proposal, would be helpful in getting comments and suggestions which could improve the agreement. The Federal Administrative Procedure Act and many state laws require disclosure of the terms of proposed agreements, and provide a specific period of time during which comments will be received. It is a basic principle of good government that the public should have the opportunity to be heard, certainly on major government initiatives with significant consequences.

It would be interesting to see what citizens, taxpayers, and experts in public authorities have to say about this proposal. It is easy to criticize and to say that the terms should have been more favorable to one side or the other. But the proposed lease was the result of a lengthy negotiation, and will require final approval by the Mayor, the Governor, and the New Jersey Commissioners on the Port Authority, who may or not be entirely on board, and who could be concerned about proposed amendments to the letter of intent.

We would also like to receive information on the merits of privatizing airport operations. Would that be more efficient and provide greater revenue than Port Authority management? What are the pros and cons, and how would airport security be affected?

There is economic advantage to the region in entering into an agreement like this, which would lead to substantial physical improvements at the airports and should lead to improved access to the business districts, an issue which is of similar importance. We hope that the elected and appointed public officials involved can agree to a lease extension which is equitable to the city, state, and the authority. We believe that providing an opportunity for public comment, and taking the comments seriously, including those on privatization, would lead to a better result for airlines, passengers, airport neighbors and the general public.