EDITORIAL: Transparency needed on Kings County airport issue

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

It’s no secret Kings County council will meet May 20 with representatives from Michelin. What could remain a secret from citizens and users of the municipal airport in Waterville is what exactly councillors and company executives discussed in the closed-door meeting.

The county’s chief administrative officer Tom MacEwan said council’s meeting with Michelin falls under the purposes stipulated by the Municipal Government Act for in camera sessions - either as land negotiations or contract negotiations.

If so, we can’t argue against the county’s right to hold the private session.

 Warden Diana Brothers said May 6 there could be a motion coming out of the session. If this were the case, the MGA requires the motion be presented and voted on in open session.

If there is no vote after the meeting, we believe it is incumbent on the municipality to provide an update to the public on the nature of the conversation - even if some details have to be omitted to protect Michelin’s interests. Taxpayers and airport stakeholders have too much riding on this.

Kings County stands to enjoy economic benefits if Michelin expands its plant on the current airport property.

It would be foolish for council to throw away an established economic driver for the municipality, the airport, without standing to gain something greater. If an expansion by Michelin is imminent, all council’s decisions regarding the airport to this point make sense, including the one to close the facility and seek a new location.

However, if a substantial expansion by Michelin is not in the foreseeable future, the decision to close the airport doesn’t make sense. Without a guaranteed expansion, the recent decisions only make sense if the county wants conditions for growth by Michelin at some point down the road to be as favourable as possible.

If this is the reality – and an expansion isn’t expected soon - citizens will hold councillors accountable for the loss of a tangible economic asset, the Waterville airport. We agree with stakeholders that if the current airport closes before plans for a new location are announced, it is highly unlikely that any of the businesses or hangar owners would return to Kings County in the future.

One issue muddying the waters of public transparency and accountability is the legal action being taken against the municipality by a group of hangar owners. We understand why the hangar owners would pursue this avenue, but when a legal action against the municipality is in play, it provides council with another reason to take discussions behind closed doors.

One thing is for certain: even though council has voted to close the airport, stakeholders haven’t given up. For example, the Annapolis Valley Flying Association is holding an open house at the airport on May 31. One reason is to rally public support behind the facility. Association spokeswoman Nancy Sweeney said the group has four months left and she is doing what she can to “fight for the airport and keep it open.”

Read more coverage of the municipal airport issue here.

Organizations: Kings County council, Annapolis Valley Flying Association

Geographic location: Kings, Waterville

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Another Concerned Citizen
    May 20, 2014 - 20:37

    Thank you for having the courage to speak up and highlighting that it would be foolish for council to throw away an established economic driver for the municipality, the airport, without standing to gain something greater. Please keep pressing for disclosure whether a business plan with investment value and timetable exists at Michelin. Without a business plan approved by Michelin head office, there is NO justification for throwing 128 Valley residents out of work and throwing away $5.15 million in yearly GDP in the Valley, derived from the economic activity at the airport. The cold reality is that the Warden etc. have not been able to demonstrate that there is a planned, real expansion. In reality, quotes attributed to Michelin North America President Pete Selleck at the announcement of construction of a new $757 million plant in SC in April 2012 show that Nova Scotia is not competitive for large investments by Michelin. "A separate report from Reuters said Michelin's decision to expand in South Carolina rather than in its other markets was due to a number of factors, including existing infrastructure, along with "a pro-business environment". "We could have built this new capacity anywhere in the world," said Mr. Selleck." They chose SC because SC made the conditions right. Continental Tire and Bridgestone Tire must agree because since Sept 2013 they have announced expansion or new tire plants in South Carolina to the tune of $1.7 Billion (that’s Billion with a B). Editor, you are correct, transparency is required on this issue and NOW to save jobs in the Valley.