Claim: Residents can sue to close/limit airports and win routinely.

Litigation outcomes depend on facts; federal preemption and Supremacy Clause principles constrain local regulation of navigable airspace. The Supreme Court decision in City of Burbank v. Lockheed (411 U.S. 624 (1973)) is a leading example where a municipal curfew conflicted with federal authority. Plaintiffs sometimes succeed on narrow grounds (environmental review, permitting), but broad closures are hard to secure via litigation alone.

Legal context: Airports are limited in imposing mandatory operational restrictions because they have accepted federal airport grant funds. City of Longmont

Claim: Why don’t we just stop accepting federal airport grants, then the airport can be closed and we can stop paying for it.

Longmont is part of a much larger system, the National Airspace System. FAA issues AIP funds as reimbursable grants. An airport sponsor is responsible for contributing local matching funds for an AIP project. At airports served by general aviation aircraft, such as Vance Brand Municipal Airport, the local match is most generally 10%. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will automatically pay 5%, thus making the City’s actual matching contribution 5%. For grants that are only state grants, the City’s contribution is 20%. For AIP grants at the Vance Brand Municipal Airport, this 5% is paid by the Colorado Department of Transportation and by revenue generated at the airport.

No general fund money from the City is used to operate or maintain the airport.

Source: City of Longmont