As I understand the issue, the current implementation of reversion allows the owner to de-construct their property at the end of the lease or give it to the airport authority. Presumably, this would give the lease holder some negotiating power to work out an ongoing arrangement beneficial to both parties, ideally one where the hanger owner would retain the longer term benefits of their investment, and the airport would have an opportunity to maintain revenues at a fair market price. The new plan suggests that the airport would automatically get the property. If this becomes policy, the hanger leases will de-value to zero and one can easily predict the outcome. Going forward, very few investments will be made in hangers at the airport. The quality we have now will deteriorate. Anyone that does invest under the new plan will do so minimally. And once the airport authority takes over management, it's to envision them doing a sub-quality job of maintaining hangers with a level of pride the current prideful owners do. While the airport authority can make a case for reversion based on precedence, that does not mean it's right or good. I think we should have significant concern anytime the government has a policy in place to take private property.

I just got a copy of a lease from a friend that owns a hanger at a large airport outside of Dallas in business friendly Texas. It's a multi-decade lease, recently renewed, with no mention of reversion.

Leasing requirements have changed constantly over time at Walker Field and/or GJRA.
This is because of economic conditions and usage needs. Minimum Requirements also change in the same way but tend to fit the needs of the current Tenant. This process of adopting a "New" or "Final" policy will never serve as the end all requirement.
Leases will have to be renewed on existing structures or No One new will come to Grand Junction to build a New Business. The cost of New Construction is to great.