IBJNews

Airport challenging judge’s decision on parking lot

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Airport Authority is asking a judge to reconsider his decision that paves the way for a Cincinnati-based developer to build a 2,000-space parking lot near the airport.

The appeal, known as a motion to correct errors, challenges Marion Superior Court Judge Michael Keele’s ruling in late August upholding a February decision by the Metropolitan Development Commission.

The MDC decision gave Chavez Properties approval to build a “Fast Park & Relax” lot at 8550 Stansted Road on a 31-acre site in the Ameriplex development on the city’s west side.

The airport authority filed a complaint in March to stop the development after the MDC voted 6-2 in favor of the project following an emotional three-hour hearing.

In its appeal filed Friday, the airport authority takes issue with the judge’s ruling that the MDC has the legal authority to amend a zoning ordinance. The authority claims the panel can only recommend proposed changes to the City-County Council.

“This conclusion is overly broad and purports to grant the MDC carte blanche authority to change the location of uses in a [special commercial district] without regard for any limitation placed on the district by the City-County Council,” the authority wrote in its appeal.

Chavez said the $15 million project will create 45 jobs and it would “soon” begin construction on the development.

Airport officials say they fear the project could hurt their parking operation, and they argue a parking lot is not the best use of the land.

The project also has been opposed by nearby Plainfield-based Park Ride & Fly, the city of Indianapolis and some surrounding residents.

If the judge denies the airport authority’s motion to correct errors, it could take its argument to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The airport authority so far has spent about $100,000 on the case, the authority’s executive director, Robert Duncan, told a City-County Council committee.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Not as dumb as you think
    The alternative use for this site would be industrial, not office of retail. A commercial use for parking would generate about the same proposed tax revenue as a 500,000 SF warehouse. 98% of the neighbors that border the site have a preference to see a 10' car port parking operation vs a 40' tall warehouse having 300 +/- semi trucks coming in and out. The airport has good pricing, offsite parking opt is unlikely to significantly change consumer opinion or behavior. Although, consumers should expect to have options available. It doesn't seem very smart for the Airport to continue to incur legal expense and mgt time. So which is really the dumber move, pursuing a competitive legitimate business plan, or incurring expense and bad PR fighting a project that has local neighborhood support, generates immediate tax revenue similar to a whse operation, was approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission and whose decision was upheld in the court. Everyone is looking out for their best interest, but Airport is unjustifiably paranoid.
  • Airport Parking service is the worst
    I fly 3 to 4 times per month out of Indy. I can say this. The airport parking (not park & fly) has TERRIBLE service everytime. You have to wait forever most times...I wait 22 minutes once for a pickup. They you wait again to go back to your car and then you ride the bus forever to get to your car...Then you walk forever from the bus to you car. No offense but to be compete the metro parking needs to at least DOUBLE the amount of buses running at all hours. That's why I refuse to use airport parking and either get dropped off, hire a car or use park & fly. By the way Park & fly's service is amazing. Airport parking...well putting them out of business entirely would not be a bad thing.
  • Not needed
    Why use highly developable land for a low density, low investment, low jobs and low property tax generating use? And a use that will cause the airport to have to find revenues elsewhere to support operations that are crucial to the entire region's economic development? Dumb dumb dumb, but the idiots are celebrating. And there is no monopoly! Open your eyes.
    • Welcome to the Real World
      Welcome to the real world... its called competition! The airport needs to focus on providing a more superior product/service at a fair market rate and stop wasting money on attorneys! How about a toll gate so people have to pay a toll to pickup/drop off because these people are not parking cars?! Airport quit your crying!
    • Monopoly
      The only way a monopoly can exist in a free market is through government intervention. This article is exhibit A in how that happens. I'm also very disappointed in PRF's opposition as well. If you can't beat 'em just get the government to eliminate your competition.
    • Competition?
      The airport is really saying "Compertition? We don't need no stinkin' competition."

    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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

    2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

    3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

    4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

    5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

    ADVERTISEMENT