Closer Look: The Not-In-My-Backyard Opposition to Tweed Expansion

It is becoming increasingly hard to find logic in the aggressive campaign being waged by a relatively small group fighting expansion of Tweed airport.

But with any group fighting development, and such groups forms with development of all sizes, from a larger airport to building a Costco or an Aldi or multi-unit housing, we have to look at the fight in detail to determine if the concerns are fact based or its simply classic Not-In-My-BackYard (NIMBY) at its finest.

What we cannot deny is the positive impact growth at the airport will have on economic development.

You could not have attended any forum or political speech in the last decade where the need for more flights in and out of Tweed was requested. It is raised constantly, and most notably, from bio-tech firms the state has focused on.

And based on Tweed just hitting its 1 millionth customer, it is clear the benefits are being seen by businesses and residents alike.

Environment. Really?

What opponents are pushing for is a more exhaustive environmental study to be performed by the FAA.

This sounds logical, and seems to convey a genuine concern for the environment. But not really.

The logic by those fighting the expansion is simply that if they can force such a study, and delay the project the 2-3 years it takes to complete such a study, they project will die. By that time, the financing will likely be gone, and even if the plan worked all along, the project dies.

And thats the opposition based on so-called “environmental” concerns.

The problem with this is something the FAA and federal government already know well: expansion and updates at regional airports, as a whole, are much better for the environment.

Hundreds of thousands of vehicles travelling from the New Haven area to NYC or Hartford isn’t good for the environment. It’s also bad for infrastructure, causing needless traffic and wear and tear of roads and highways.

The Federal government, under both political parties, has designated of dollars in budgets and stimulus bills to expand and update regional airports exactly for that reason.

But opponents are showing up at town meetings with a petition demanding the more exhaustive environmental study, which is basically using the environment to cover the ‘I don’t want it near me’ crowd.

This is not surprising, as claioms of environmental concerns have become the opposition du jour in fighting any devilment or advancement.

Don’t like affordable housing? Yell about environmental impacts.

Don’t like Costco coming to town? Yell about environmental impacts.

Don’t want to be bothered hearing more planes from an airport expansion? Well, you get it.

And we know this by realizing that those signing petitions against the plan on environmental grounds are not promising to never use air travel in some brave attempt to save the worlds eco-systems. No, they still want to use planes. They still want to travel, go on vacations, and more.

After all, genuine desire to save the environment comes with an actual sacrifice and a changing of behaviors. Giving up single use plastic bags for reusable ones. Creating more mass transit to get cars off the road. Setting aside household items that can be recycled.

But opponents here are not suggesting any personal sacrifice or changes in their behavior. They still want to fly. They still want to travel to Europe, and make business trips, and enjoy holidays with family in some other state and abroad.

So they are maintaining demand for flights. They just don’t want any of the inconvenience near them.

In many ways, we are spoiled, as we, living in CT and in the US, get access to many services without having the deal with the negative impacts of them.

We get to drive any car we want, but do not need to live near any of the factories, and their pollution, where those cars we love are made.

We get to stare at our cellphone and buy a new one every few years, but live nowhere near the factories with child labor where they are made, and don’t have to deal with the pollution from the ships that transport them to us.

It’s a privileged life. But the conveniences we demand come with consequences for someone, but as long as they are far enough away, we don’t seem to really care. Someone does live near those factories, those are real children making your cell phone and sneakers, and there are millions living with the negative impacts of your conveniences.

And when we do have to face even the smallest of inconvenience, we have groups that yell about the environment or really anything they can to stop even the threat of being personally impacted by them. But still, someone has to experience that negative impacts of the demand we all provide.

Other airports have additional flights to cover the very demand we provide every time we travel. And we have no issue with it. Really, do we really care about the population around JFK or LaGuardia airports? After all, to hell with them. If they have to deal with additional flights, the additional noise and additional pollution that our demand creates, do we really care? As long as those negative impacts are someone else’s problem and not near us, who gives a damn, right?

If these groups actually cared about the environment, they would have petition to promote staycations. Vow to never use planes. Promise to stop shipping on Amazon and other online stores that ship using airports and airplanes. Even eliminate the U.S. Mail, which makes grand use of planes.

But that’s not happening.

The FAA isn’t stupid. They are used to these groups, and its likely they won’t move forward with a multi-year study that essentially kills the project. Elected officials know this, and its very likely they were made aware of it before writing letters and demanding more in an effort to placate the malcontents. After all, they can fight it, claim they stood up for resident concerns, and then say their hands were tied with the FAA decides not to do the study.

At the same time those same elected officials claim to support economic development, especially bio-tech firms the state is focused on. Those firms have asked repeatedly for more options at Tweed. The need to bring in experts, scientists, and board members is vital for bio-tech and healthcare research firms, and expanding offerings at Tweed does that, and it helps growth all over the shoreline.

Leaders in East Haven have taken a cautious stance, and from a negotiation standpoint, it makes sense. Do what you need to do to get the most out of the deal. Fight for more money, tax revenue, and concessions; after all, that’s what negotiations are for.

But the fact is that any elected official that claims they desire more jobs, more economic development, while at the same time fighting to stop Tweed expansion is a fraud. It simply makes no sense; It’s a standard example of words not matching actions: you cannot claim to want jobs and growth while undercutting jobs and growth.

To this end, we can gather much from the approach being taken by opponents by looking at a project in Branford that saw some of the same residents leading the fight against it, and even some of the same ‘experts for hire’ being used to fight it.

Costco/Tweed

When Costco first applied to Branford, it was with overwhelming support. But, a longstanding feud existed between the Democratic party the owner of the property to be developed. Lead by former leaders of the Democratic Party, including a former first selectman and town attorney, they formed a group, the Branford Citizens for Responsible Development (BCRD) to lead the fight against the plan.

Also fighting the plan was the Branford Land Trust, whose leading spokesmen were members very much connected to the Democrats fighting the plan.

But something interesting happened. Many members of the Land Trust actually supported the project, and questioned why the organization was fight it.
Soon, a marked difference was made in how each organization fought the plan. Costco representatives reached out, multiple time, to both groups. The Land Trust ultimately sat down with Costco planners, held multiple meetings, and made adjustments to better the project.

But the BCRD, despite repeated requests, refused to meet or even discuss the project. They simply hired attorneys and so-called experts to fight it, and threatened lawsuits.

Genuine environmentalists work to make projects better. They meet, propose ideas, and balance the needs for development with the environment.

Those whose goal is simply to kill a project show no reasonable desire to come to the table, and will simply throw as much s### at the wall to hope something sticks.

With Tweed, we are seeing the latter. There is no genuine concern for the environment. After all, expansion of regional airports is a very good thing environmentally on a large scale.

In fact, while the experts for Costco, the Land Trust and even a peer reviewer assigned by the town saw minimal environmental impacts on the project, the opponents did find a hired gun to present “expert” testimony to fight it. the result was a comical presentation that was largely ignored.

And now, the anti-Tweed group has hired the same so-called expert.

There is no end to what people will do for money; but these hired gun experts traditionally are one man shops who have no issue throwing darts are other professional work to attempt to muddy the waters. But in repeating the same process over and over, professional boards and commissions voting on these projects, like the FAA, have come to know the game.

Some opposition is understandable. East Haven mayor Joe Carfora fighting it is smart from a negotiation standpoint. Negotiate better traffic patterns, improvements of roads leading to the airport, maybe even more financial concessions. After all, with the significant financial backing the project has in place, Carfora should be doing all he can to garner more concessions from the town he represents. That makes sense, and is even prudent.

But yelling environmental concerns when opponents show no viable alternatives, and hire engineers who are regularly available for opponents on many project to simply muddy the waters, all to cover up that they don’t want to be bothered with any additional noise from the very services they demand, is a farce.

And the less the opposition has actual evidence to support its claims, the more loud and emotional they will get. Screaming at public hearings, attacking officials at town meetings, claims of vastly decreased quality of life, direct from the opposition playbook that has been used a thousand times before.

What we know is this:

Tweed expansion will take thousands of vehicles off the road, a major win for the overall environment and the wear and tear on infrastructure.

Tweed expansion will create jobs and raise up lower economic classes.

Tweed expansion will grow the economy, increasing home values and increase tax revenue for local towns.

Yet the opposition remains the same:

I care about climate change.

I care about creating jobs for others.

I care about economic development.

As long as I’m not inconvenienced in any way by it.

Yeah, we know. Not in your backyard.