Cleveland City Council last week concluded a series of hearings on Mayor Justin Bibb’s proposal to close Burke Lakefront Airport. Members heard competing arguments about whether the 450-acre site on Lake Erie should remain an airport or be redeveloped for other uses.
City officials and the nonprofit North Coast Waterfront Development Corp. described preliminary concepts that include park space, trails, recreation facilities, hotels, a marina and other low-rise development. The discussions were informational, with no immediate vote; federal approval and additional local action would also be required before any closure could move forward.
Development Ideas And Limits
During the hearings, officials outlined concepts they said would increase public access to the waterfront and discussed possible revenue-producing uses. Proposals included large areas for parks, sports complexes, trails and limited commercial development, along with options such as a golf course or campground. City representatives said the concepts are not final designs, but rather early-stage studies intended to guide discussion.
Council members used the hearings to press officials on cost, timing and whether Cleveland could realistically carry out a redevelopment effort at Burke of that scale while pursuing other major projects.
“It all sounds good, but so does being 6’5″ and playing in the NBA,” Councilman Brian Kazy said during a committee hearing. “I really hope we’re not getting everybody’s hopes up.”
Transportation Committee Chair Charles Slife offered a similar note of caution after the sessions, saying the hearings may have tempered expectations about what the Burke site can support.
“What I found to be a productive meeting I understand that others could find maybe sobering,” Slife told Signal Cleveland. “It’s not to say that nothing can be accomplished there. It’s but maybe a little more limited in scale than people would presume right off the bat.”
Competing Views Remain
Public feedback presented by North Coast Waterfront Development Corp., the nonprofit working in favor of redevelopment, indicated 85% of respondants support expanded lakefront access, although the data was based on its own survey. But opponents and skeptics said the city still has not shown clearly enough what would be gained by giving up an existing airport.
Some of the sharpest criticism came from Councilman Mike Polensek, who argued during a hearing that closing Burke would mean discarding a functioning public asset before the city has proved a replacement would deliver stronger economic results.
“You’re lobbying to kill a city asset,” Polensek said during a committee hearing. He added that any redevelopment at Burke would need to function as “an economic engine for the city.”
Questions also remain outside City Hall. In an interview with News 5, U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno said he was not prepared to back closure based on what has been presented so far.
“I haven’t seen enough,” Moreno said. “I don’t think the community has seen enough.”
For all the renderings and revenue projections, the debate still returns to a simpler question. Burke is not just a site on a planning map. For some Clevelanders, it is part of the city as they have long known it. Whether that is reason enough to keep it remains unresolved.
“It’s historical,” Keith Jones told News 5. “If it’s not broke, why fix it?”
Translation. We want your airport and you need to go away.
Still no mention of the fact that the airport is considered by the EPA as a hazmat site, requiring cleanup if airport is closed. All that will require additional funds to accomplish, money the politicians haven’t acknowledged yet!
What no one ever says in any of these articles is that four or five developers can go in together and create a “non-profit group”, hire someone with some secretarial skills and an ability to make nice Instagram reels, and legitimately make it look as if the non-profit group is out there, fightin’ the-man, trying to get dog parks and frisbee golf for the common young couple struggling to get that break in-life…until the airport is closed. Then, the non-profit goes away and the four of five developers that created the 501(c)3 rake in hundreds of millions. I would love for the news organization to do some research and figure out who is funding that non-profit and take that to their next meeting and bring it up. I’m sure it is probably hidden behind several layers of paperwork, but that should be the kind of stuff “news” organizations are researching and publishing.