The flames of Nov. 7 are licking higher at Miramar.
In light of an emphatic ‘no’ from military officials on any form of joint-use for a future civilian airport, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s board voted Monday, April 3, to develop concepts for Marine Corps Air Station Miramar East that would involve exclusive use of the land.
The 6-3 vote followed a recommendation from the authority’s Strategic Planning Committee last week and directs staff and consultants to come up with a host of concepts putting a stand-alone civilian airport with two runways on East Miramar land that would hypothetically be annexed from the military.
Until now, the authority has been vetting options involving joint-use with the military on air stations at Miramar, North Island and Camp Pendleton.
An in-depth comparative analysis of those scenarios will be presented to the board within coming weeks and will afford board members the opportunity to compare those options with the two civilian desert sites in the East County with price tags near $20 billion.
“This is not locking us into a particular idea,” said board member Paul Nieto, who voted for the motion. “We have a responsibility, I think, to fully vet the alternatives.”
Board member William Lynch, who also voted in favor of the conceptual study, said the need for an airport within a viable distance of San Diego’s core outweighed the daunting prospect of a military blockade over giving up land or shared-use scenarios.
“This area is going to suffer greatly unless we can work something out with the military,” he said. “We’re willing to pony up dollars. We’re not asking for a big sacrifice.”
But that’s not how the U.S. Department of Defense saw it when it firmly rejected any notion of shared-use between Navy pilot trainees and civilian aircraft through a letter signed by the Secretary of the Navy in February.
Board member Xema Jacobson said the airport delegation also presented ideas on paying for a relocation of Miramar operations to Camp Pendleton, but to no avail.
Lemon Grove Mayor Mary Teresa Sessom referenced the letter before voting against the proposal, saying the foray into stand-alone concepts at East Miramar was a waste of time and resources in light of the military’s stance.
“We’re not going to come up with a solution,” she said.
Sessom suggested pushing Congressional delegates to pick up their cause if the authority ever expects a national decision involving military assets to be made after a finished Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC).
“Significant lobbying is what we need to do,” she said.
While most on the board agreed with that assessment, Lynch said political pressure would only come with the weight of county voters behind it. Basically, if Miramar is put on the ballot and voters overwhelmingly approve it despite military opposition, the county’s elected officials in Washington, D.C., will have no choice but to push for it, or so the reasoning goes.
But if the airport authority pushes for a military installation on the November ballot after it was spared in the BRAC process, airport officials would be sending mixed signals and creating a conundrum for federal officials, Sessom said.
Elected officials would have to walk the fine line of trying to enforce the will of their constituents at a time when military preparedness against terrorism is a top priority and politically sensitive issue.
“What a huge white elephant we’re going to be creating in terms of this study,” Sessom said.
Lynch disagreed, pointing out that the amount of urban infill throughout the county made nearby military installations like Miramar the only economically feasible options despite their operations.
“Do they really need to train pilots 15 minutes from downtown?” he said.