FAA Issues Final Policy on the Use of Airport Hangars

If it were a legitimate question from someone who'd read the provided materials and was curious or confused about what those materials meant, then I might possibly agree with you. In this case, though, I find it almost impossible to read the original question as anything other than a not-so-subtle and terribly misguided political rant about property rights.

In order to get benefits from AIP, the owners have to agree to certain terms that are designed to foster aviation. That means: no fair accepting program money and then using the land for something other than aviation.

I was pointing out that the FAA in this case had (rightly in my opinion) expanded the definition of "aviation activities" so that hangars built on improved airport land can be used for more things than before. And, even, in some cases, for non-aviation activities if those don't have a significant impact on the primary purpose of the AIP. They went further than I think many expected they would.

This is all an improvement in the situation, and being upset that there might still be limitations on the use of one's "own property" strikes me as unnecessarily mean-spirited in the face of positive effort by the FAA to support aviation and listen to the public. When they get things wrong, I agree with criticizing them. But why be rude when they get them right?

I think you've misunderstood the point of having an open message board like this. The purpose is for the discussion of aviation by all who are interested. It's not, as you seem to imagine, merely for the unwashed supplicants to beg for pearls of wisdom from the self-anointed experts.

(And, no, I neither checked nor cared whether the original poster was a certificated pilot. If you were so inclined, I suppose you could look up my info, but, like many others here, I do think you should get off your high horse regarding your precious bodily fluids ... er, I mean ... "flyers." You're doing yourself no favor in credibility, and your repeated off-topic rants are the primary reason you get downvoted into obscurity. It's tedious beyond all practical reason.)

As I read it, not being a scholar or attorney such as yourself, it would seem that the FAA provide as you say "ENFORCEMENT." Under Part 2 "Standards for Aeronautical Use of Hangars " Paragraph f. "This policy applies regardless of whether the hangar occupant leases the hangar from the airport sponsor or developer, or the hangar occupant constructed the hangar at the occupant's own expense while holding a ground lease."

I could be wrong, but does that not provide the FAA with the authority to force the city to evict you, or lose some portion of funding, should the FAA ever determine that your space is being used for non-aeronautical purposes?