The connection between airports and urban development is highly contested. From the time airports were first established in the 1920s airport proponents have argued that they would inevitably result in economic benefits for the local area. This boosterism played an important role in efforts to both establish and expand airports. While there is general agreement on a relationship between airports and economic development, its nature has varied over time and with location. Some scholars have questioned whether airports spark economic development or whether local economic development provides the context for airport expansion. Others have pointed out that sometimes the relationship has been a zero-sum game as economic activity simply moves from one part of a metropolitan area to another. And many have argued airport development is most likely to promote wider economic benefits only when it is part of broader planning efforts, but jurisdictional complexities (suburban airports surrounding by multiple jurisdictions, for example) often thwart such efforts. And the question arises as to whether airport-driven economic development merely aids the area immediately surrounding the airport or the broader metropolitan region. For local officials, the greatest barrier to using airports as a tool of economic development, though, has been the persistent problem of airport noise. Especially since the dawn of the jet age in the 1950s, aircraft noise issues have both shaped and limited development around airports. Further, the land use planning process for areas surrounding airports has had to not only show sensitivity to the noise issue but also to ensure that any development would not constitute a hazard to aerial navigation. Therefore, local officials have been most successful in promoting development closely related either directly or indirectly to aviation—activities such as manufacturing, transportation, hotels and convention centers. The areas around airports have also become the sites of otherwise “undesirable” developments such as prisons. However, any development on or near a public airport must also comply with multiple and complex federal rules and regulations. Most recently, calls for the privatization of airports has given rise to the question as to whether airports are more likely to promote economic development under private or public ownership. Privatization has been most common outside the United States. Within the United States, while privatization has had its champions, public ownership remains the overwhelming norm for larger commercial airports.
Public Ownership of Mineral Lands in the United States
