Solar Power at the base no airplains

We live to close to the runways and are in the crash zones as well as 3 of the Horsham schools! It is so nice and peaceful now with out the drone of airplanes warming up on the runway or circling. It is also nice not to see all the pollution (jet fuel) emitted from the landing planes or circling planes. The base is already a sewer pit of pollution lets do clean energy not add to the pollution by continuing with airplanes.
Horsham will not stay a nice place to live in with the whine of planes landing every 6 to 10 minutes and our property values will go down as well as our health!
We would like to see solar energy used for at least part of the base and sell the energy to PECO.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Solar Power at the base no airplains

  1. Civilian planes are safer and quieter than military jets says:

    I understand your concerns regarding crashing planes given the misinformation you have been told. Civilian pilots are well trained and safe and civilian planes are safer than complex military jets that have ejection seats and do not meet FAA safety requirements. The Military aircraft do not have noise restrictions like civilian plans and often emphasis performance at the expense of very noisy engines that burn a lot of fuel. The claim safety is of great concern is a scare tactic put out by those that have hidden interests (full disclosure, I like airports and the tax & job benefits they bring along with open space and less car traffic) . If the planes were so dangerous for our kids, the schools would not and should not have been built near the base. The reason plane crashes always make the news is that they are so rare and it is exceedingly rare for someone on the ground to be hurt. Unfortunately, our kids are far far more likely to die from cars.

    As a big proponent of alternative energy and pollution controls, I take exception to your pollution concerns. People have a legitimate concern about pollution levels when living under Chicago O’hare flight paths with 900,000 takeoffs or landings a year with the vast majority of them being commercial airliners. That has no bearing on a public use non-commercial airport in horsham with 20,000-30,000 takeoffs or landings a year, the vast majority of which would be by very light aircraft.

    Lastly, an airport is a wonderful place to install solar panels in a dual use fashion (more revenue per square foot of land) rather than just placing them on the ground which makes them less cost effective. It would be great to cover the roofs of hangers with solar panes and potentially buffer areas around the runway.

  2. TomD says:

    There is more pollution generated by the traffic clogging Horsham Road, County Line Road, Limekiln Pike, 611 and Welsh Road than by the airplanes.

    My wife is a Montgomery County Master Gardener and we’ve visited the Norfolk Botanical Gardens. They are located at the Norfolk International Airport, which is a larger airport with more runways than Willow Grove. If there was so much pollution from the airplanes, you wouldn’t expect to find a Botanical Garden (of all things) there.

    Solar energy is fine even though it does take some time to realize a return on the investment someone would have to make – and you can still have an airport and solar power.

    A business park is fine too. But there is empty business space all over the area – just walk around the Prudential Business Campus. What would attract a business to Horsham? Having a general aviation airport would differentiate Horsham from other areas.

    Someone has been sticking “No Airport” signs around Horsham for the last few weeks. The irony is that there IS an airport in Horsham and there has been an airport here since 1926 – no one is talking about knocking down houses or converting open space to build a new airport – the airport exists. What some are talking about is destroying a valuable resource under the false belief that it will somehow lead to things which lower their own taxes and/or raise their own property values.

    Come on people – don’t let yourselves be cheated out of a unique and valuable asset!

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      The airport is an “asset” to the region. To Horsham it is both an asset and burden. The resistance in Horsham rightfully is concerned about the worst case scenario developing at the airbase. They have already seen an attempt by Rendell to bring Teva Pharmaceuticals distribution operations to the site, claiming that there was no interest in a 8000 ft runway that would just so happen to be out Teva’s backdoor if they resided there. To my knowledge they don’t bring Teva’s products in from Israel on boats.

      They aren’t worried about what small plans are currently being considered. They are concerned about what might follow months or years afterwards. No one here can predict that. So we fight it based on our worst fears.

      Horsham doesn’t “need” the added business economy to maintain its quality-of-life, esthetically economically. We need only cover the additional costs of maintaining the property in whatever form it takes and whatever infrastructure it requires. Anything above that would go towards reducing or maintaining the tax burden at roughly current levels.

      From my perspective, I’ll be happy with maintaining my taxes at roughly current levels and preserving Horsham’s quality-of-life. Given our mistrust of what the future might look like – years down the road – at the JRB site should aircraft operations are allowed there, the airport concept is a loser.

  3. Rich says:

    “Come on people – don’t let yourselves be cheated out of a unique and valuable asset!”

    As a resident of Montgomery Township who lives directly under the North-South approach of the JRB Willow Grove runway, I cannot understand why the big push to destroy a unique and value asset (as stated by TomD). It makes no economic sense to get rid of it…

    The possibility of real opportunities that a functional runway of this size brings to the area is considerable. I find it offensive that some of these local developers are trying to grab this parcel of land for more office parks and houses. Seriously? No…Seriously? Enough is enough! This is a one in a million facility that is being presented to us with a ribbon on it, and these developers who have the 90’s boom mentality can only see it as more of the same failed development. Quite sad indeed, but I am not surprised anymore by this type of thinking. Several locals get theirs and the rest of us get more office parks we don’t need while the local officials call it “progress”…

    Anyway…I wanted to make another point about what I have been reading in the news regarding the actual Federal Govt handoff of the base…Is it not stated that the local municipalities get to decide if the base stays an airport or not, and beyond that the Fed has the final say on what to do with the land. Does this not become a moot point all this talk about what to do with the land when the Fed has the final say? Their messages to us have been somewhat suggestive as to what they are willing to accept as uses for the base. (Various types of government housing and homeless shelters is what I read in a few articles). Be careful what you wish for people…You may be turning a profit center into a cost center with your short sightedness.


  4. David says:

    You hit the nail on the head. It appears that there are certain “interestes”, including developers, that think they will make a lot of money off of blocking a public use airport. They (via the Town Council) have successfully hoodwinked some people in Horsham into advocating on their behalf, for a result that will likely cost Horsham residents more taxes for more school, fire, police etc. and will throw away an asset that cost all taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to construct and is not affordable to reconstruct elseware. Why else would there be the big push to rezone the land ASAP.

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      I find hilarious that some think developers and other interests have somehow “hoodwinked” the majority of Horsham residents into opposing an airport. Any homeowner could certainly figure out for themselves what an airport – in its largest form – would do to quality-of-life and to property values. Just look at what Tinicum Township is currently going through.

      You guys can go on and on about how limited the air operations would be and how little noise or polution it would produce; but it does not matter. Those of us who oppose the airport think of what COULD BE there … in its worst form … years down the road. Not what a few private and corporate aircraft might mean.

      No one here can predict what might be in store at the JRB site years from now. We’ve already seen one attempt to bring Teva’s distribution operations to the site. What would be next?

      I find it hard to believe that an airport that size could be operated and financed in perpetuity solely by corporate and private plane owners. I would think you would HAVE TO at some point attract a commercial air operation – be it airline or cargo – with much greater usage (more flights, expanded hours) in order to make the airport economically feasible over the long haul. And until someone shows me HOW such a large air facility can be financed far into the future based on limited civilian and corporate operations, I will keep harping on that issue.

      • David says:

        The fact that Horsham was named a great place to live with a far more offensive military base compared to the aviation facility that is proposed and reasonably expected proves that the property value issue is a non-issue. Essington is not a high end neighborhood but that is not because of the airport. Ridley Park and prospect Park are right accross the highway yet, though slightly further away, Ridley is much more expensive. That is due to the buildout of the town (density and type of buildings) and the proximity to Boeing jobs (like would be attracted to Willow Grove airport), not because there is any less or more impact from the airport. Also, that area has many negatives such as refinerys, powerplants, and a toxic waste dump across the river. Despite all that, if Essington is so bad as you seem to be saying, the residents would not be so unhappy about the prospect of being bought out of their houses. Essington has a very tight knit community that likes being where they are. I can’t and would not stop you from continuing to make comparisons to PHL however I will say they are unfair and those types of comparisons are the basis for the no airport in Horsham claims. Yes, the “largest” use for an airport (UPS, Jumbojets etc.) would have an effect on property values however that is called scare tactics so that people leap to the “obvious” conclusion that an airport is bad at the expense of the many positives. Less road traffic, less taxes, Educational opportunities for our kids, great jobs that creat more housing demand, quicker reuse of the base land, opportunities for Green energy generation, are some of those positives. I would normally ask what else will do the same thing for Horsham however you already said you were OK with higher taxes.

      • Hatboro Mike says:

        a) I never said Essington was “bad”. In fact, I don’t recall making characterizations of it. Just that they’re an example of what happens when airports grow. People are displaced.

        b) I’ll handle the higher taxes should them come about, if that’s the result of foregoing a potentially large and busy airport. But what I believe I said was that I would be happy with taxes staying where they were at, but that Horsham residents – and no one else – would be the ones enduring whatever results at the airbase, be that higher or lower taxes, higher or lower property values, more noise, traffic, etc.

        c) Please explain how you get “Less road traffic, less taxes, Educational opportunities for our kids, …” out of airport development. I doubt very, very much that an airport in place of the currently existing airbase somehow nets us “less traffic”. You make a leap of faith in stating that taxes would automatically go down if we just approve this airport thing. That’s an assumption, based on potential business development that you have no way of knowing will be the result; and it’s very much the opposite of “scare tactics” when it comes to trying to influence residents.

      • David says:

        A) “Any homeowner could certainly figure out for themselves what an airport – in its largest form – would do to quality-of-life and to property values. Just look at what Tinicum Township is currently going through.”
        I do not see how your comment is only applicable to people being displaced but I will accept it to mean that. Sorry for the tangent.
        B)Sorry, I might have lept to the notion of higher taxes because that is what I am worried about, along with traffic. How do you think the base land can be reused to maintain the current tax rate? I suppose a strong use of zoning to ensure that added “benefits” are offset by the added tax income is the only way because there would be roughly 1800 (anybody know the total amount?) acres suddenly available for development between the airbase and land in the current safety zone. That means road construction etc. etc. the maintenance of which all has to be covered by property, income and business taxes. If it is developed slowly over decades then the impacts may be minimized but in the meantime, the base land will have to be patrolled and someone will have to pay to tear down the buildings or it will look like a war zone and attract vandals. Also, the low income housing required by the BRAC process will have to be offset by other tax income. An aviation facility would attract businesses, be up and running quicker than the alternatives I can think of, and require relatively few services so it seems to me to be the most sure way to avoid higher taxes. Along those lines, businesses would be attracted by an airport however without the airport, business may need to be attracted with tax breaks. Do I have a crystal ball? No. But the odds are in favor of the airport attracting tax paying businesses.
        C)Good points. It appears we both have fears of the unknown since you are right that I don’t know what will ultimately be there if not an airport and I am worried about how the eventual use will be managed. For me, the airport is the known quantity, though challenging to promote given that it is not clear, and may not be for decades, how the land will ultimately be used if not an airport.
        Regarding traffic, much of the ~1800 acres on and off the base would not be developed in the case of an aviation facility, which directly translates into less traffic compared to the likely alternatives. I did not mean to imply that it would be less than current traffic levels, at least not once a potential business park is built out. Is there any alternative, other than a massive recreational park, that would not increase traffic over current levels?
        Taxes could go down because the airport would need minimal services and would attract businesses that pay well. That is the best combination I know of for reducing or not raising taxes. Nothing on that land is likely to reduce taxes immediately though I believe the airport is the safest way to not increase them. Ultimately, we and the HLRA should ask RKG to do their job and present us with the expected pros and cons of the airport and other options. If at that point I am proven wrong, so be it, but I am partly basing my assumptions on comments RKG has made in the news, saying the airport is likely the best use of the land.
        Educational opportunities come in varius forms including jobs helping with airport operations and working for businesses that use airports, often with opportunities for flight experience in addition to the pay. Many of my friends worked at community airports growing up, loved it, and learned valuable skills that helped them get good jobs or run businesses later on. An aviation facility will very likely include aviation education programs in partnership with one or more area universities, continuing Horsham’s 80+ year history as an incubator of aviation professionals (pilots, managers, engineers, maintainers etc.).

      • David says:

        In the news today:
        “Boy Scouts Will Work Towards Aviation Merit Badge
        Tents will be popping up on the grounds of Coastal Carolina Regional Airport (KEWN) this weekend as some 220 Boy Scouts camp out at the airport and work towards earning their aviation merit badges.

        The scouts and 50 leaders are all part of the Neuse Basin-East Carolina Council of the BSA. reports that the activities will include a skydiving demonstration, as well as sessions devoted to basic aerodynamics and flight controls, preflight planning, navigation, and control tower operations.

        The airport plans a static display of fixed and rotary wing aircraft ranging from home-builts to multi-engine turboprops.

        Instruction will be provided by students and faculty from the Craven Community College Aviation Technology Institute, as well as GA and commercial pilots volunteering their time.”

  5. Kelly says:

    Airports are known to be major sources of noise, water, and air pollution. They pump carbon dioxide (CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the atmosphere, as well as dump toxic chemicals—used to de-ice airplanes during winter storms—into waterways. The 25-30 year lifetime of airplanes will keep large numbers of today’s polluting engines aloft long after technological solutions begin to make significantly cleaner engines available. And technological advances in the area of de-icing have been slow coming, potentially allowing toxic chemicals to continue to be released into groundwater. The level of activity of the Base was much smaller and less environmentally hazardous than an airport which would have to fly 24/7, rain or shine, snow or ice.

  6. Dave H says:

    Considering the state of our economy, I would think creating an environment where businesses would want to come and set up shop would be high priority for the powers that be. An executive airport with shuttle flights to Phila International, Allentown, JFK etc, would be a big attraction to potential high tech businesses, who have sales and marketing teams who need to travel on a regular basis. And remember, the more business tax revenue is generated, the less has to be shouldered by the residents. More businesses would be a better long term investment than more homes which would further strain already crowded road and school systems.

  7. David says:

    Everything you write applies to car and lawn mower pollution also. Yes, any motorized vehicle does as you say, though the flights would be so seldom that any environmental effects would be effectively negligible. Regarding 24/7 operations, even Philadelphia International has few if any flights between 11pm and 6 am, at an airport that has 1250% to 2500% more takeoffs or landings a year. Seriously, would businessmen flying in the few business aircraft really be interested in going anywhere during the night when they should be sleeping? The other aircraft also, people want to sleep at night. Ask tower controllers at Philly International, they are bored at night. Yes, some aircraft may come back in the evening from a meeting but I doubt many people would hear the plane landing over the traffic on Horsham road and 611. Seriously, noise studies have show road traffic to be noisier than planes. The “no airport in Horsham” website cites environmental concerns based on EPA data for an airport with almost double the air traffic at Philadelphia International (because it conveniently serves their purposes of scaring people). De-ice chemicals are not good for the environment mainly due to the volume. If (a big if since Northeast Philly and Trenton do not seem to have the demand for such a service despite repeated attempts to provide it) an airport in Horsham was to have scheduled service, it would be with a few small propeller airplanes, it would need very little de-ice fluid and new fluids such as Kilfrost are environmentally friendly (
    Lastly, the activity at a public use airport would be much more environmentally friendly and quieter than large afterburning military jets. Jets are designed for performance, civil aircraft are more interested in fuel economy and FAA and EPA regulations do not apply to the Military, that is why it is called the “sound of Freedom”, Military aircraft are extremely loud. Just because certain people want you to think airports are aweful does not make it so.

  8. David says:

    Regarding Dave H’s Comments:
    Exactly, the airport would attract businesses that need an airport nearby, creating tax revenue with minimal services provided. That will minimize tax impacts to residents or possibly even lower taxes. What people need to consider is what the alternatives are. Even if the airport is a park, all the land the township wants to rezone will be high density residential. It has been proven that the cost of benefits (schools, fire, police etc.) is disproportionat in the medium term with the tax revenue generated from the new housing so everyone’s taxes have to go up (developers make money at existing taxpayer expense). Airports are self sufficient, minimizing benefits required while bringing in revenue. Keep in mind that FAA money given to the airport is generated from taxing aviation, not the general taxpayer. In fact, the federal government has “raided” the aviation trust fund to help pay for other activites, unrelated to aviation. That is like taking the road money generated through gas taxes and using it elsewhere. So Horsham and local businesses would get FAA dollars without paying in.

  9. Carolyn Steiert says:

    I realize you can prove anything you want by using the internet. I also know money talks. With this being said I went to the internet to see what was there on airport pollution. I was amazed that there were articles. Below is a paraphrasing from a few articles:
    From, I learned “A study released in 2004 concludes that the rise in demand for air travel is one of the most serious environmental threats facing the world.” “ Yet, while emissions from most source sectors are declining due to the implementation of more stringent control programs, the growth in air travel and the continued lack of federal control programs for aircraft engines is contributing to increased air pollution from airports.” “Aircraft engine fuel efficiency has improved 70 percent per passenger kilometer since the 1960s. The newest, most sophisticated commercial engines have very high combustion temperatures, which results in lower carbon emissions, but higher nitrogen oxide emissions. As engine performance improves, abating nitrogen emissions, the primary issue related to aircraft air emissions, especially as air travel expands in coming years, will be fuel consumption. Taxing fuel is not legally viable. . .”
    From “The study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, suggests that officials should pay closer attention to these overlooked emissions, which could cause health problems for residents. Paulson and colleagues note that scientists have known for years that aircraft emissions from fuel burned during takeoffs and landings can have a serious impact on air quality near major airports. “
    From “Airports are known to be major sources of noise, water, and air pollution. They pump carbon dioxide (CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the atmosphere, as well as dump toxic chemicals—used to de-ice airplanes during winter storms—into waterways. But determining the extent of airplanes’ contribution to local, national, and international levels of pollution is difficult—cars and airplanes entering and leaving airports produce roughly equivalent quantities of ozone precursors.”. . “Studies suggest that noise may harm health.”
    From “Living near an airport also means facing significant exposure to air pollution. Jack Saporito of the U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association (CAW), a coalition of concerned municipalities and advocacy groups, cites several studies linking pollutants common around airports–such as diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide and leaked chemicals–to cancer, asthma, liver damage, lung disease, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, and even depression”.
    Do we really want an airport?

    • David says:

      Thoses articles are referring to an airport like Philly International, not an airport like would be in Horsham and you know it. You are trying to compare the pollution from living on a 10 highway to the pollution from living on a local two lane road. Actually, the disparity may be larger than that since a Horsham airport would produce ~.0035% the emissions of Philly, or less as I detail below. I don’t know about you but I have trouble visualizing such a huge difference but here goes. Horsham = 3.5 and Philadelphia =1000.

      Making the rough assumption that aircraft emissions are equal to takeoff weight, which unfair to piston aircraft since they are more fuel efficient, we can compare the relative emissions. Philadelphia International has ~550,000 operations a year compared to 40,000 operations at Horsham (and probably much less) so Horsham would have .07 percent the pollution. But wait, say the average size plan at Philadelphia is a 737 (124,500lbs) and the average size plane at horsham is $6250 ( 30,000lb business jets 5% and the piston fleet is 6000 lbs average for 95% of the planes), the average flight per day at Horsham would be .05% the size of the 737s. Multiply the .07% and .05% and a Horsham airport would creat .0035% the emissions.

      • David says:

        Oh well, I should have proof read that comment but I think people can figure out my meaning. Sorry for the typos.

        An additional pollution thought. If the airport does not happen and all the new houses are built at the ends of the runway, how much more pollution will there be from car emissions and car oil leaks, lawn care chemicals, Drano that the treatment plant passes through to streams, etc.?? If all that has a greater impact on the environment, I would not be surprised.

  10. Bob says:

    Hatboro Mike
    You are right on. I dontknow of any CITIZENS of Horsham that are for an airport. Anybody on here that is for an airport is not a resident. If you were a resident , you would not want constant noise, air and water pollution. If you do live in a crash zone, which is all around the base, you would not want the constant fear of a goose being sucked into a turbine and the jet crashing into your house and killing your family.proponents of an airport are not residents and do not care about your health, property value or any thing else except their own SELF INTEREST. I would rather pay higher taxes and have more traffic than an airport

  11. Bob says:

    You are obviously not a RESIDENT of Horsham, probably a pilot or something to do with aviation and could care less about the quality of life in Horsham. In all of 8 or 9 lengthy posts, you did not mention where you reside.

  12. Carolyn Steiert says:

    There is no reason to believe that if this land in Horsham becomes an airport that it would stay for small planes. After all, those of you who want an airport say it must stay an airport because of its large run way. Since the runway can handle C130’s etc why not DC10’s, Boeing 747, or A380. Landing 24/7 6 minutes apart.
    Also if the FAA is paying for 90% and the PA state government the balance why would they limit the size of aircraft, times, circling patterns, etc?
    Is the letter that was circulated at the meeting on May 18 which said something about limiting the size of aircraft someone’s opinion and would that open the airport for discrimination law suits if we get pushed into an airport?
    Even Small planes have issues see “ 4 (HealthDay News) — As corporate and private jets take off and land at small airports across the country, their engine exhaust fills the air with small particles of combustion that could affect the health of people living nearby “… “The impact area from the regional airport that we studied was much larger than the impact of a freeway,” said lead researcher Suzanne E. Paulson, a professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles.”… “People who live near airports are exposed to high levels of the pollutants that come from airplane exhaust,” she said.”… “For the study, Paulson’s team measured air pollutants near the Santa Monica Airport, an airport for private planes and corporate jets in southern California. They found a greatly increased level of tiny particles called ultrafine particles, which are less than 1/500th the width of a human hair.” “ In fact, the amount of these particles present in the air was up to 10 times higher downwind from the airport, at a distance of about one football field, and 2½ times higher at a distance of about six football fields. “
    Also “ Citizens Against Airport Pollution [CAAP] has filed a lawsuit against the City of San Jose because the City recently approved a major amendment to the Airport Master Plan without an Environmental Impact Report describing what adverse affect these amendments will have on the environment.”
    Also from “If you live within 6 miles of an airport, you are at heightened risk of dying prematurely from environmentally induced cancer. The culprit is the pollution spewing from jet aircraft, ground vehicles, and airport maintenance operations.”…” In July, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that environmental factors – mainly radiation and chemical pollution – are roughly twice as likely as genetic factors to contribute to cancer cases. Aviation is responsible for emissions of nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, naphthalene, benzene (a known carcinogen), formaldehyde (a suspected carcinogen), and dust particles that harm human health and contribute to global warming. .. “The poison circle from a single runway can extend 6 miles from its hub and run 20 miles downwind.”. . .” Jet planes pollute much more on the ground than in the air. Up to 90% of aircraft hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions occur when planes idle and taxi.”
    Do we want an airport? Are we being pushed into an airport from those who do not live in Horsham!

  13. Brian McCarthy says:

    Quality of life? Hmmmm…. wasn’t the military air base there before you were? Why would you move next to an air base and then complain about quality of life?

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      The airbase-was-there-before-you is a disingenuous argument. The airbase has been a sleepy little semi-ghosttown for years … maybe decades compared to what an open-ended airport operation might bring to the Township.

      Many of us – who now oppose an airport – never had a problem with the level of military operations there, even on those rare weekend mornings when an engine test or full-afterburner takeoff was experienced.

      The worst-case scenario with an 8000-foot runway sitting there, just a short hop from over-crowded, over-used, over-extended Philly International could be MAGNITUDES larger, busier and noisier than NAS/JRB Willow Grove ever was.

      And yes, that kind of worst-case presence would KILL Horsham.

  14. Brian McCarthy says:

    Solar power, good idea! How about an organic farm? Maybe they could grow medical marijuana?…. oh wait, that might go to an evil pharmaceutical company. At least the evil military people and their stinky, noisy airplanes are gone!

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      “At least the evil military people and their stinky, noisy airplanes are gone!”

      Another BS attempt to paint concerned Horsham residents as “military haters”, which is so easy to see through it’s not worth the keystrokes I’m using here.

      So where do you live, Brian? Need an airport down the street from your house???

  15. Bob says:

    Brian is obviously not a RESIDENT

  16. Carolyn Steiert says:

    On a personal note. . . someone asked why did I move here…I didn’t, I never left. I care and blog because I am a product of Horsham. My parents and grandparents moved here in the 40’s in order to make a better and healthier life. As a child I went to schools where we use to wave at the pilots (if the teacher wasn’t looking) as they descended between our two school buildings. Here is where I learned to question everything and try to better the environment and the place I love.
    There were farms here once with cows and horses, open land which had peace and quiet and good air. We have a rich history and an old history. We are named from a small town in England were land is not as open. We had visits from Amelia Earhart we HAD an airport were great things happened. We have an Air Museum to chronicle and praise what happened in the past and remember what the men and women who did to make this land a great place. I hope the Museum will continue to praise them for their courage and honor them for their achievements.
    We use to have chimes ring out every Sunday from the base chapel. We use to have planes that broke windows as they passed over head or burnt the tops of too tall trees. However, it was military aircraft who were here to protect and service this great nation not just themselves. We use to have jobs to go to. But now, we are mostly residential. Turning the base into a commercial airport would lead to an airport serving the needs of the few at the cost of most of us. The concrete runways doesn’t have to be torn up just reused perhaps for solar, a road, or foundations for a strip mall to compete with Warrington. We can only hope to make the environment better and in changing that our lives and the lives of generations to come. No matter what happens at the base it will coast all of Horsham greatly.

  17. Bob says:

    AMEN Carolyn
    Righteousness and Common Sense shall prevail.

  18. pat says:

    Maybe they ought to just give the base to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and maybe you people would rather have a huge federal PRISON airlift.

    No, maybe you’d rather have another industrial park full of empty buildings and “space available” signs. Or maybe a nice HIGHRISE development. Gee, maybe 611 will magically grow more lanes and traffic lights.

    Or maybe more shopping centers like the ones ALREADY littering 611. Yeah, that’s it, take away all the open space and make sure that NOBODY ever uses that base again so as not to ruin your precious “quality of life”.

    Oh, or maybe we can sell the space to Teva… no wait, they already took their business, jobs and money to Philadelphia. Way to go, morons.

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      Well, it’s Horsham’s base now, Pat. And the people of Horsham will make the decisions, because our township was the only public entity to care enough to make sure we had a say. And we’ll deal with both the possible successes or failures that result. No need for you to worry about it, since obviously you don’t live here. Bummer ….

      So deal with your disappointment and grow up!

  19. Bob says:

    Look in the mirror, You are the MORON

  20. Carolyn Steiert says:

    Oh you are so right about traffic on 611. It is going to get a lot worse, Pat!
    Warrington, “The Gateway to Historic Bucks County”, is building 2 new shopping centers one to include a hotel to complement the new airport and other to bring in new stores so people can spend their money in Bucks county again where people can “Follow Your Heart to Bucks”!
    Horsham gets stuck with the pass thru traffic for people shopping or going home to Bucks County where: “ Few places have the character, allure and ability to withstand the test of time as adeptly as Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Tucked neatly within Philadelphia’s Countryside amidst rolling hillsides, working farms and picturesque old-time towns, Bucks County is marked by a particularly inviting countryside.” From
    Bucks County has 5 airports already. Why not expand one of their airports? Is Bucks protecting the homes and families of their residents and keep a better quality of life for them? Who is going to make the money in Horsham and whose health will be suffer?
    Maybe what we need are more roads east – west, shops to bring in $, light industry to bring in $ so we can compete with Bucks County! Is this what Bucks is afraid of?
    Bucks County has a fortune in tax revenue from all the malls. If Horsham built new malls on the air base people would go to them instead of Warrington’s malls and Horsham would generate a tax bonanza! An airbase would not produce an appreciable tax base for Horsham and it would be more of a liability. Once the FAA has control, Horsham would have no say and perhaps no tax revenue.

  21. Carolyn Steiert says:

    Some one wrote the base should be made into a prison. Perhaps a cemetery would be a better option. At least the neighbors would be quiet, the grounds well-kept , there would be a tax revenue, the customers would not mind left over toxic waste and the space would be green until nature could finish cleaning up what man dumped and planes polluted! Don’t forget airplane pollution ruins your health.

  22. Christian says:

    Lets all take a moment to complain about traffic.

    Its a Headache, the noise, the Red lights, the bad drivers. Waahhha(violins and baby’s crying)
    Lets all take into effect…..basically your thinking about yourselves in the here and now.

    Typical adults not thinking about utilizing this space for the future and your children and income producing ideas. A Cemetary? Really? Good…go bury yourself there.

    Sorry, YOU as the “SO-Called” adults screwed this economy up for us in the first place….dont screw this up for me and my peers!

    KEEP IT AN AIRPORT – there is WAY more to utilize and produce income for YOUR children if this is done in the correct and non-political way.

    I dont care about YOUR comfort….you obviously did not when you took a second mortgage out on your house and cant afford it now.

    That is the message from the youth of America. Dont blame us for your mistakes or say you did it for us…because, guess WHAT? You Failed.

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      Obviously someone just got kicked out their parents’ basement.

      Take your anger somewhere else. It has nothing to do with the issue of what to do with the airbase. Sounds more to me like you need a change in venue.

  23. Carolyn Steiert says:

    It sounds like you are a pilot Christian. If you are a pilot you will make out very well at an airport. You will make big $ and can just fly away from a community and spread pollution and noise as you warm up the engine and fly out.
    As you take off you can laugh at the poor slobs that live so close to an airport that to have “a dream home next to a small airport could be a nightmare for their lungs.” From or “ Researchers have known for years that exposure to excessively-loud noise can cause changes in blood pressure as well as changes in sleep and digestive patterns — all signs of stress on the human body. ” from
    You will probably live 20 + miles away because by then you will have read from “ 4 (HealthDay News) – “As corporate and private jets take off and land at small airports across the country, their engine exhaust fills the air with small particles of combustion that could affect the health of people living nearby “… “The impact area from the regional airport that we studied was much larger than the impact of a freeway,” said lead researcher Suzanne E. Paulson, a professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles.”… “People who live near airports are exposed to high levels of the pollutants that come from airplane exhaust,” she said.”… They found a greatly increased level of tiny particles called ultrafine particles, which are less than 1/500th the width of a human hair.” “ In fact, the amount of these particles present in the air was up to 10 times higher downwind from the airport, at a distance of about one football field, and 2½ times higher at a distance of about six football fields. “
    Or perhaps another article “even more alarming, the European Commission, which governs the European Union (E.U.), considers living near an airport to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke, as increased blood pressure from noise pollution can trigger these more serious maladies. The E.U. estimates that 20 percent of Europe’s population — or about 80 million people — are exposed to airport noise levels it considers unhealthy and unacceptable. “ from
    You want jobs so do adults. If you have no education you may get a janitorial job at the airport, cut the grass, or plow the snow, be a ‘high tech” national security officer or dish out food at a restaurant. If you have some education you may be in customer service, although right now I don’t think you can deal with people, their kids or crying baby. Maybe you would be a better mechanic. What kind of job do you want?
    Yes I agree with you, adults do screw things up. Most of the “adults” in today’s societies only think of how will that benefit me, how much money can I get out of the deal and how many little people can I step on to get what I want. Greed is ruling the world and business.
    To the youth of America look at the mistakes the adults made, don’t follow in their steps, think for yourself and try to make this a better world to live in for every man, women and child and in not just what is good for me.

  24. Carolyn Steiert says:

    Christian, Horsham’s traffic is now is all pass thru mostly going to the turnpike and to Bucks County. An airport will also bring more cars onto the roads. If Horsham becomes an International airport like Pittsburgh we will see even more traffic and planes. See (June 9, 2011) – “Passenger traffic at Pittsburgh International Airport grew by 2.0 percent as nine airlines reported positive gains according to the April 2011 Scheduled Airline Traffic Report, prepared by the Allegheny County Airport Authority.”
    Pittsburgh International has “ Nine airlines (which) reported an increase in passengers in April 2011 compared to April 2010, as a total of 680,604 scheduled passengers were enplaned and deplaned at the airport for the month, compared to April 2010, which had a total of 667,372 passengers (680,604 passengers in April 2011/667,372 passengers in April 2010; 2.0 percent increase).” . . . “Year-to-date totals show scheduled traffic up 5.8 percent” – See above internet article.
    According to The Intelligencer June 16, pg A5 Mr. Black from Pittsburgh’s Allegheny County Airport has said there are many jobs and large economic activity. Is this what our County Commissions are considering – an International airport so Horsham can have all this economic grow, more planes landing 24/7?

  25. Carolyn Steiert says:

    It was the best of times and the worst of times. Every generation has had to face horrific problems as well as the opportunity to find great solutions. My family was so poor we spelled the word poor with 3 o’s. My family over came their difficulties with hard work. The reason we want the base to be solar is to keep the wealth of America in America. We are slaves to oil producers and the foreign manufactures. And so long as our oil $ go over seas and we buy from foreign countries we will have a higher proportion of the worst of times then the best of times. I truly feel for young people in today’s economic conditions. We are trying to restore what America was built on cheep energy, cheep food, easy credit and the caring for your neighbor. We apologize for offending you. P.S. we did not have to take the 2nd mortgage on our house and we advise you get the best education you possible can and help make the above goals a reality for America again.

  26. Amy says:

    I’ve read through this full thread and I wanted to add a few observations.

    I’ll start off by saying I’m not a resident of Horsham, since that will quickly be pointed out. I am however a resident of Montgomery county and a frequent patron of Horsham based businesses. So while I’m not directly impacted by the fate of Willow Grove Navel Air Station I do have a valid interest.

    It seems far fetched at best to think that Willow Grove will EVER evolve into something akin to Philadelphia International Airport. Northeast Philadelphia Airport is a more apt comparison of air traffic and environmental impact. Willow Grove is smaller the PNE by 350 acres and has 1 fewer runway. (1@ WG and 2@ PNE).

    I grew up in the flight path of PNE…in the crash zone. Never once in the 25 years did the thought of a crash bother me. We were more concerned with pollution from the industrial parks and Nabisco than we were from the aircraft at PNE. The noise was negligible. My parents have lived in the area for more than half their lives and have never complained about anything going on at PNE. The most excitement PNE ever caused was when the blimp would be docked there.

    Much of the health and environmental impact studies mentioned in the posts above deal with major airports like O’Hare, LAX and JFK. I don’t deny that sustained air traffic would cause more pollution and noise than the Naval Air Station produced, but to cite studies of major metropolitan international airports as examples of what would happen at Willow Grove is a bit disingenuous. And if PNE and Trenton don’t experience sustained and scheduled traffic, what indicators are there that heavier demand would be experienced at Willow Grove?

    Just some observations from a neighbor who experienced living near a a small regional airport first hand.

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      I too lived in close proximity to PNE from 1966-97, in fact very close to the flight paths on BOTH ends in two separate houses. For certain there were a few accidents, but I tend to discount that threat when I consider the Willow Grove site.

      My objections are based on:
      1) I watched PNE grow from a very sleepy private plane operation to a much more bustling level of activity. So obviously few airports in urban areas ever remain at the same level of activity from whence they start.
      2) The financial benefits so many on the airport side like to promote WILL NOT result from the same kind of sleepy, general aviation operation they foresee. Only from a much larger commercial operation will any direct significant economic activity result. Corporate/industrial development, which they also laud as an indirect economic benefit, will indubitably demand more than a “limited” aviation operation.
      3) The runway at JRB-WG is over 8000 ft long. In that regard, the base can already accomodate much larger, heavier, and noisier aircraft today than PNE ever did. Perhaps the “out” here is that JRB-WG only has ONE runway now, but that hardly precludes the possibility that one could be added.
      4) We do not trust that governmental agencies would NEVER consider JRB-WG as a possible solution to overcrowding at PHL. All one has to do is to look at the expansion going on at PHL now to see that anything is possible when government gets “bright ideas”.

      Although I would agree that comparisons to PHL are loaded with some very dark, remote possibilities, but the runway length at JRB-WG puts the base on a different level than PNE, in my opinion. That runway will NEVER go away. It would be cost-prohibitive to remove or shorten any part of it. You cannot land a 737 at PNE. You could do that today at JRB-WG.

  27. Sqrt99 says:

    The runway at NAS JRB Wilow grove is exactly 8000 ft, the parallel taxiway is 8001 ft. You can land ( and they have) just about anything there. Ive watched C5 Galaxies do touch and goes up close and personal on several occasions. The runway itself was resurfaced about 7 years ago. However all this is a moot point as the township hlra has scrapped any plans for an airport at this time.

Comments are closed.

Check to see if this plug in is active.