Disagreements over Biddeford Municipal Airport have been going on for years. More than 20 years ago, the city rejected ambitious plans for a second runway. More recently voters turned down a proposal to shut down the airport.

It’s not hard to read the voters’ intent: Keep the airport as a base for small aircraft. It has survived despite modest income and low-key management, and the opposition of neighbors who object to the buzz of small planes and resent the ambitions of pilots who hope to expand the facility.

We agree that the airport needs strict oversight, but it has been there longer than most of its neighbors, and it is an asset that the city should not discard. The ongoing efforts against it strike us as short-sighted.

Part of the bargain the city made with the Federal Aviation Administration is the obligation to keep it safe and well-maintained. Now it appears that the latest upgrade, funded largely by the FAA, could be jeopardized by an environmental issue ”“ the airport’s pavement apparently exceeds the limit on impervious services specified by state environmental regulations.

Dispute over this point has gotten to the point where some believe the best approach is to begin ripping up some of the airport’s asphalt. Although there is no certainty that removing pavement would solve the problem, the council recently rejected a proposal to hire engineers to work out a comprehensive solution. Further discussion is due next week.

It appears some councilors would prefer to nibble away at the airport, despite voters’ inclination to preserve this municipal asset.

— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.