IBJNews

Airport Authority continues to fight off-site parking lot

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Airport Authority has taken its fight against an off-airport parking operator to the Indiana Court of Appeals after exhausting its options in Marion County Superior Court.

The IAA filed an appeal with state court on Nov. 16 seeking to stop Ohio-based Chavez Properties from building a $15 million parking facility in the AmeriPlex business park, a four-mile drive from the terminal entrance at Indianapolis International Airport.

It’s the latest twist in the airport’s effort to stop a potential competitor to its own parking operations.

Parking is the authority’s second-largest source of revenue, bringing in $39 million of $136.5 million in 2011 operating revenues.

“We believe it was never the intention when [AmeriPlex] was originally zoned that off-airport parking be allowed,” Michael Wells, president of the Indianapolis Airport Authority’s board, told IBJ on Tuesday.

The brouhaha began last year when AmeriPlex owner Midwest Logistics Partners asked the Metropolitan Development Commission for a modification of a zoning land-use plan.

The MDC approved the land-use changes, over the objection of the airport authority, giving Chavez Properties all 31 acres it needed in AmeriPlex for the parking lot, which is expected to employ 45 people.

The authority appealed the commission’s decision to Marion Superior Court.

Last August, Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele found the MDC to be within its authority and that the 1995 land-use plan governing AmeriPlex provided “zoning framework that could evolve fluidly and efficiently over AmeriPlex’s development life span.”

Last month the authority filed with Marion Superior a motion to correct errors. But  the court denied reconsideration.
 
The airport authority still contends that only the City-County Council can approve such changes in land use. If successful, the authority’s challenge could diminish the MDC’s ability to amend so-called Commercial Special Districts like AmeriPlex.

“IAA remains of the opinion that the Metropolitan Development Commission did not have the legal authority to change the land use authorizing the development of a commercial parking lot on Ameriplex Boulevard and that the Court of Appeals is the appropriate forum for the determination of the legal issues presented,” airport authority CEO Robert Duncan said Tuesday in a prepared statement.
 
The airport’s tenacious stance has upset some in Decatur Township, who say Chavez Properties’ proposed Fast Part & Relax lot could generate $400,000 in annual tax revenue. 

The airport is regarded as both a blessing and a curse to some Decatur residents because authority land is exempt from the township’s tax rolls. The authority has grown its footprint in the township over the years, including acquiring residences affected by jet noise.

That the airport is battling a potential competitor outside of its property has raised the ire of some City-Council Council members.

“I have concerns about their nixing (off-airport) development, particularly anything that they think might be competition to them," councilor Jason Holliday, a Republican, told IBJ last month. "What else will they try to oppose or get stopped?”

Wells contends that the authority, which swapped parcels of land with AmeriPlex developers over the years, was never informed the business park had plans for operations that would directly compete with the airport.

He also said the city helped make infrastructure improvements for AmeriPlex that shouldn’t now be used to effectively compete against the airport.

Wells, a longtime real estate developer, also questioned the need for another off-airport parking lot, noting that air travel is still depressed and thus the need for additional parking is not there.

An attorney for Chavez, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday, previously said that land-use plans dating from the early 1990s showed that some parcels in Ameriplex would be dedicated for aviation-related uses.

Whatever the case, the airport authority has successfully managed to halt construction on the lot for the season.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Horrible parking service
    Not only is the $9/day rate ridiculous but dropping passengers off 100 yards from the actual terminal is absurd.
  • Agreed
    Until Indianapolis Int'l Airport actually competes on an international scale (which probably will never happen), there is no reason for anyone have to pay $9 a day for economy. Remember it used to be $7. Let's face it the IAA is horribly run. Whatever happened to those "land use studies," here's the solution, convert the old airport into an international terminal and start attracting international flights with better flight options than Chicago or New York. I guarantee it'll cost more to tear everything down and rebuild new infrastructure. Stupid!
  • Parking
    Maybe if parking were more reasonable, they would generate more revenue. $9 per day for the economy lot is ridiculous. If the price were lowered, maybe the lot wouldn't always be at least 1/2 empty. And don't use the argument of how other airports like Chicago are much more...this is not Chicago.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. So as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

    2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

    3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

    4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

    5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.

    ADVERTISEMENT