I am responding to your editorial on the economic advantages of the airport. First let me say I support the airport and do agree it is an asset to the community, but I question some of the logic you used in the editorial.
First is your apparent assumption that the airport is wholly responsible for more than 1,000 jobs. You use the word “linked,” which says to me they might just as well stay if the airport were gone. What is the evidence that the airport is the sole contributor to those companies staying in the area?
Secondly, has a policy decision been made that the taxpayer would support an airport to attract and hold these companies? I didn’t know the country was supplying subsidized shipping cost to a select group of companies. Your editorial makes it appear that way.
So, how about a follow-up piece to explain how this economic bonanza really works.