Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(CA) State Legislature to Consider Airport Authority's Future

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 10:55 AM
Original message
(CA) State Legislature to Consider Airport Authority's Future
State Legislature to Consider Airport Authority's Future

Now that the airport authority has chosen Miramar, Sen. Kehoe says it's time to review how the young organization is structured.
By ROB DAVIS Voice Staff Writer

Friday, Sept. 8, 2006

The state Legislature intends to revisit the future of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the second time this year that local politicians have tried to restructure the group. State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, said she wants a more accountable, transparent airport operator with fewer layers.

(snip)

In a letter sent to authority chairman Joe W. Craver, Kehoe said the authority has completed a chief task it was created to undertake: The airport site-selection process, which culminated in June with the choice of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar as the best site to accommodate future air travel needs. (Voters head to the polls Nov. 7 to weigh in on the Miramar initiative.)

(snip)

The letter comes at a precarious time for the authority, when its operations have come under increased scrutiny and it has struggled to find political allies for a ballot measure facing strong pushback from the military and some businesses.

(snip)


http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2006/09/29/econ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. Let me guess, they have a private contractor in mind?
More accountable, transparent airport operator with fewer layers, sound like double speak leading to privatization.

About the Miramar thing, My sister lived just to the south of that base a few miles, Flying in there will not be near as much fun as flying into the current location. Circling down through those building, wings looking like they are ever so close.
I flew in there on a DC-10 one time, the wings looks like they were a few feet from the buildings. The pilot had to do a touch and go landing attempt because a small plane pulled out on the runway.
He got back in the air and came on the sound system and said that we had to make another run at those buildings as we missed them the first time. That was back in the days when flying was enjoyable and they could have a little lite humor in the air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musiclawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. I know nothing about how these things get approved
But it seems that NIMBY forces would be strident in trying to stop this plan. They should make the downtoem airport the local commute airport and send all the long haul flights to the new one. That might help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That NIMBY is nothing less than the US Marines
Currently using Miramar with no intention of vacating, even though the politicians claim that they should either relocate to the desert, for example, or share the space.

Except that once the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, arrives at Miramar, any sharing of air space will be scrapped.

That authority spent millions and finally came up with a Marines base that no one, especially "in time of war," is going to move.

They could have spent the same amount of money and time to study and to promote a high-speed rail to the airports in the inland area that do want to expand and do want more passengers. But, hey, when they designed and built the metro in LA, they stopped it just a few miles short of LA International. Why? Who knows?

Where are the innovative politicians who will decide that aviation has taken us that far, and that we need to invest in efficient rail system for at least short - less than 400 miles - distance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musiclawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. True
There is no reason California should not have 2 high speed rail corridors already. One on the coast, and the other inland and perhaps two links, one in the south the other in the north, But that would take leadership which CA is bereft of. Then you could dramatically free up airports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It's being worked on.
California has a high speed rail authority that is working on the development of a North/South inland corridor which will do exactly what you're describing. One of the upcoming elections is supposed to have a bond issue to start purchasing the land and begin construction.

The inland route was chosen because a coastal route just doesn't make sense. The coast is so rugged that even a high speed train is going to travel fairly slowly, and there's really nowhere that needs a stop between Santa Barbara and the Bay Area. A Central Valley route, on the other hand, can travel much faster thanks to the flat terrain, and there are a number of largish cities along the route that could benefit from stops. As an added bonus, the increased speed of the inland trains, offsets the added delays of the extra stops enough to make travel time comparisons between the routes a wash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. I really don't understand what they think they're doing.
The Marines own Miramar. The Marines have already said, flat out and point blank, that they will NOT even CONSIDER sharing the airbase (they would need to maintain tower control and have the right to shut the runway down to civilan traffic whenever needed, for as long as needed, and that's not something the airlines will deal with). No local or state government has the power to override that decision because it's a federal facility. Miramar cannot be annexed to the city, it cannot be condemned, and it cannot be taken by eminent domain.

It would literally take an act of Congress to make this airport a reality, and there is almost no support at the federal level for what they are trying to do here. Putting the airport at Miramar is not going to happen. These putzes knew that before they selected the site, it was reaffirmed AFTER they selected the site, and yet they are still spending tons of money "planning" this new airport? Why?!?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. there is a really simple solution to this...
Reactivate El Toro and transfer the opperations from Miramar to El Toro.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-29-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. One of the reasons that El Toro was on the base closing list
back in 1993 was because of population encroachment. In contrast to the county of San Diego with a lot of empty space, Orange County was quickly being developed. Back in the mid 80s the commander expressed his opposition to a proposed medical center of only 7 stories, I think, worrying about plan crash. And by the time the list came, the operations were under a curfew - no night flights and no early morning on Sundays.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. "population encroachment" is bullshit
Edited on Sat Sep-30-06 01:52 AM by policypunk
People who buy housing next door to an airport or base should not be a consideration in the opperation of that facility in anything but the most extreme of circumstances.

Short of invading Mexico there are very few good alternatives for a new airport in San Diego other than Miramar. But low and behold only 65 miles away (runway to runway) is El Toro with 2x 8000 foot runways and 2x 10000 foot runways.

Since Orange County (of which I am a resident) has utterly failed to do anything of significant with El Toro since it was decommisioned as a result of a pair of ballot initiatives - the scourge of California politics - I think it is only fair that it be returned to the military to be used in place of Miramar.

Orange County not taking advantage of El Toro is just fucking stupid - the county could bring in hundreds of millions if they were to redevelop Santa Ana\John Wayne and were up for hundreds of millions from Washington if they were to develop a commercial airport at el toro.

But thanks to the spoiled assholes in Nimby Beach we can't build anything here anymore.

Ofcourse, the loudest airplanes in the area are not commercial jets - but 1970's business jets owned by the said assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 23rd 2019, 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC