SRQ Gives Up on Selling Land to New College

In January, the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority requested the Federal Aviation Administration allow it to sell approximately 31 acres of airport land to New College of Florida, which is owned by the state.

The New College of Florida Board of Trustees approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority, which was followed by the SMAA governing board's approval of the same agreement.

On April 10, the FAA “declined to approve the request to release the subject property from federal obligations.” The five-page letter included a long list of objections.

On May 8, the SMAA appealed the FAA’s decision. Over the next several months, the appeal was escalated up the FAA management organization, from the FAA District office in Orlando to the FAA Regional office in Atlanta to the Regional Administrator. I followed each escalation with my own emails to the new higher-up person being asked to reverse the FAA’s April 10 decision.

In a July 8 email to the FAA higher-ups, the SMAA President expressed frustration and threatened to “initiate an effort with my Federal elected representatives.” I don’t know if that happened.

On August 20, 2024, with the FAA about to reject the SMAA appeal with a letter, the SMAA issued an Official Statement, writing that “the SMAA withdrew the Request for Release of Land from the FAA.” Issuing this on election day may or may not be a coincidence. The news media will be busy with election results for a while.

So, this airport land sale issue is finally over. This is the outcome I have been promoting for many months. I want to thank the FAA staff for protecting the best long-term interests of our national airport system despite receiving immense pressure to allow the sale and later reverse their decision to reject it. I also want to thank several local news media reporters for recognizing the public interest in this political overreach that would have slipped by unnoticed without their reporting.

The SMAA knew from their recent discussions with the FAA that the FAA was about to reject their appeal. The FAA rejection would take the form of a long letter refuting the SMAA’s claims and listing why the proposed land sale was not in the best long-term interests of the Sarasota Bradenton Airport and the national airport system. Not wanting to receive that letter from the FAA, the SMAA withdrew its appeal of the April 10 FAA rejection, allowing the FAA’s April 10 rejection letter to stand before more reasons for the rejection could be added by another FAA rejection letter. I would love to see the draft letter the FAA prepared but did not send.

How do I know this? SMAA’s president Rick Piccolo’s August 20 email to the FAA, sending the withdrawal of the SMAA’s appeal for a review, includes the following sentences: “I ask you to confirm receipt of this correspondence. I also ask that you confirm that this closes out all aspects of the review process.”

A short time later, the FAA replied, “We have received the withdrawal of your request for the land release.” Moments later, Rick Piccolo replied, “Thank you for confirming the receipt and I would appreciate a confirmation on my other question as soon as possible.”

Rick Piccolo apparently wanted to confirm that the FAA will not send him another letter rejecting his appeal of the FAA’s April 10 rejection letter. He doesn’t like those additional reasons for the FAA rejection to be in another letter that could be made public and embarrass the SMAA, as the April 10 FAA rejection letter did.

“The FAA does not believe the land sale proposal provides a benefit to the national airport system.” The SMAA failed to convince the FAA that the land would never be needed for airport purposes. The FAA stopped the SMAA from making a deal that (the FAA and I believe) was not in the best interest of the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.

The FAA wrote that the airport master plan is outdated due to the recent increase in passenger traffic. The last master plan did not consider the land leased to New College ever being available for airport uses.

The FAA was displeased by the 99-year lease term, which often results in issues near the end of the term. If the airport authority continues not to enforce the lease provision that New College maintain the buildings in good condition until the end of the lease term, that may be unlawful revenue diversion.

The FAA is displeased by the incompatible land use of a college by an airport, especially the dormitory residential use.

The FAA is displeased by the far below-market-rate rent, which diverts airport revenue from this non-aviation function. That, too, may be unlawful revenue diversion.

The FAA wrote that the real estate appraisals used to establish the sales price were faulty in many ways. They listed them in their April 10 rejection letter. The FAA wrote that the current land use zoning is wrong for that airport land.

These FAA objections still stand. New technology’s impacts on aeronautical facilities are a new issue, so let’s add that to the bottom of the list. The issues above are the reasons the FAA has already written to explain its rejection of the land sale. We will never learn what additional issues the FAA discovered since April 10.

My work on this project is done. Well, almost. I can’t let the SMAA get away with pretending they had a noble and selfless plan to help New College. Still, the “mean old FAA” rejected it, which has some new vague concerns about future technology that is not even specific to this airport. That is B.S. Notice that the “future technology” issue is the only issue not connected to any real people, such as the SMAA board, the president, or state government officials.

The other known issues did result from actions by local and state officials (e.g. the far below market rate 99-year lease agreement, the airport master planning that ignored the New College land, state exemption from local land use and zoning requirements, delegating airport zoning protection to others, state exemption from local building code requirements, misused street and avigation easements, faulty real estate appraisals, the state exempting itself from FS 333, and political appointments to the SMAA board).

So, if the FAA rejection can be blamed on the federal government and some fuzzy future technology, a faceless issue that applies to all airports nationwide, then no local or state officials have any blame for this New College land problem that has been festering for years. And no blame for state officials who saw an opportunity to use political pressure to solve their embarrassing political problem—announcing that they would expand a college that did not own enough land to expand upon).

They hope the public will buy their self-serving damage control explanation and forget about it. No mistakes were made, no personal responsibility, no regrets, and no lessons were learned. Just blame the federal government (most people will buy that explanation) and move on. I hope that the public will remember this failed political effort.

The August 20 “SMAA Official Statement” says, “The airport will continue to collaborate with New College to ensure our long-term needs are aligned.” In the next paragraph, New College President Richard Corcoran stated, “New College will continue to cooperate on future development matters.”

New College will not hesitate to ask their SMAA landlord for whatever it wants, and the SMAA will try to accommodate their requests. New College/State of Florida still has the political power to continue to control this airport-tenant relationship. I am asking the FAA and local news reporters to monitor any agreements between the airport authority and New College/the State of Florida for the next few years to protect the government and the public’s interest in the SRQ airport. You can do this by going to the SRQ website, searching board meetings, and seeing the agenda a few days before each board meeting and/or attending the board meeting.

Florida state government Republicans wanted to expand New College into the “Hillsdale College of the South,” but it did not have sufficient land to expand upon. So, they pressured the SMAA to sell the state 31 acres of airport land. SRQ airport passenger traffic was booming, requiring new construction near the airport passenger terminal. The New College land is also near the passenger terminal so that it could be used for terminal support facilities in the future. New College's request to buy airport land should have been quickly rejected by the airport authority, knowing it was not in the best long-term interest of the SRQ airport. Instead, the FAA had to reject it.

Expanding New College is the state’s problem, not the SMAA’s problem to solve. However, when one political party controls the state government, with super-majorities in the state legislature, and has the governorship, attorney general, and secretary of state, predictable overreach occurs. They go beyond defeating the other political party on legislation; they use government power and tax money to attack their perceived political opponents via culture wars. State governors use their power to appoint political operatives of their party to boards of public institutions that should be nonpartisan, such as airport authority and college boards, to pursue the objectives of their political party.

Changing New College from liberal to conservative is a political objective of the Republican Party of Florida. I am not a Democrat or a Republican, and I don’t personally care if New College is liberal or conservative. I am a career airport management professional who (like the FAA) objects to airport authorities risking their airport’s future by doing short-term political favors for the party that appointed them.

This describes the Republican-controlled government in Florida, as well as the Democrat-controlled government in states like California, Massachusetts, and Washington. Currently, 40 of the 50 state governments are controlled by one political party, like the governments of Russia and China. Reining in this political polarization is essential to maintaining our democracy.

Political abuse like this SRQ Airport fiasco will not stop until voters replace political party loyalists with legislators more responsive to centrist voters. Election reforms like open primary elections and ranked choice voting would attract and help elect better candidates. I support these non-partisan election reforms. Please join us.

John Schussler is a retired properties manager for the Sarasota Manatee International Airport.