Spoonman I don't remember the deal in the 90's to get it for free, we all know about the one after WWII. Please site a source or explain the 90's BRAC thing. Are you saying that they would have kept El Toro open and closed Miramar? What about Will O Wisp saying that the training for the guys who land and take off on aircraft carriers is done at Miramar? Why can't this be done at North Island, and could it have been done at El Toro, Brown Field or at the airstrip on Camp Pendelton? This is a fascinating discussion thanks for clearing this long standing issues up guys.


*** Note I have seen military Craft doing operations out of Brown Field what is the deal with that?

Sure! By the way, do you have $30-50 billion+ I could borrow for a bit?

The city actually heavily, heavily lobbied to take over Miramar in the 90s, which was the genesis of what eventually became Prop A in my opinion.

But, in the late 1940's the city did successfully negotiate a joint use agreement for Miramar. SD was stuck in a post-ww2 recession at the time and punted construction the required facilities for years until the Korean War rolled around and the Navy revoked the lease to build up Miramar into a master jet station.

Since I'm dropping just a ton of facts here, let me post a few sources. Here is a detailed history of Miramar, see page 48 for details of the 1940's joint use agreement. And here is a presentation the USMC gave out in 2006 regarding the issues with joint use (the online preview doesn't let you see the notes attached to it, download for more info).

A couple points to add my two cents to the Miramar/Airport debate:

1. The military has their own agenda and it doesn’t necessarily include what’s best for the city. Our elected officials should be thinking about what’s best for our city.

2. Most economic stats I see are for SD County; if Miramar was to be relocated to Pendleton or somewhere else but still be in SD County, then I think there isn’t much of a “the economy is going to collapse because SD is a Military town” argument to make. To be honest, even if Miramar was relocated out of the county I think that argument would be far fetched. It’s kind of like how the Chargers leaving was going to hurt the region really bad economically. It didn’t. That was a scare tactic used to try and get the public to demand that they stay. The military uses similar tactics.

3. In order for the military to have the better argument to stay put, they would need to explain why that specific location has unique benefit that’s vital to national security. Could their operations not be done somewhere else? What is the national security reason they must stay located at Miramar forever even as SD continues to grow and urbanize? I’ve yet to hear a strong, rational argument for this.

4. The vote was in 2006. It was non-binding. That was over a decade ago. We have votes on things that lose again in a few years in this state. Some ballot measures get defeated and they turn around and put it on the ballot again the next year. Who is the one deciding the issue can’t be revisited? If we had strong competent leaders it could and would be re-visited. But San Diego has weak incompetent leaders who NIMBYs love because they are easily manipulated.

In 2050, I just might, haha.

Are we really talking about the airport and Miramar?? It’s not moving guys 🙄 drop it. You’re taking up so much room in the forum about shit that doesn’t even matter anymore, at least not at the moment. We recently spent so much money at SAN and we’re not moving it anytime in the near or far future.

You guys are funny!

Spoken like a San Diego politician. “Don’t worry about it ‘till it happens, man”.

If someone wants to talk about development, great. Until then, seems the airport issue never fails to generate interest among most here.

Hahahahaha, I agree, sounds exactly like our local politicians. Don’t like us talking about anything too big or “scary.” Just shut up and let them pour billions into Lindbergh and don’t ever question it.

If there’s something new development related happening then post it, I’m sure we’d all rather discuss that instead. But not a lot was happening in here so what’s wrong with discussing the airport? Just because it’s not likely to move anytime soon doesn’t mean it’s not a valid topic. It’s a vital piece of infrastructure that has a big impact on our city.

In that case let’s also talk about how we could’ve built a BART- like system for San Diego county but ended up with the light rail system we have today, or how we as a city screwed up by removing our streetcars and extensively built highways in an attempt to rival Los Angeles’. Other topics we could talk about maybe the height limit in mission valley and national city. Increasing density in Hillcrest and North Park.

While buildings above 500' would be great, I think youre looking at the airport situation with a bit of a bias. I'm sure high-rise height is the last thing on their minds. Aside from a barely noticeable lack of office/residential space, I can't think of many other negative impacts on the economy. An airport in close proximity to the city center is a lot more beneficial to a city than having maybe one or two ~700 footers.

I personally don't blame them for improving on Lindbergh. I've flown to quite a few of airports around the world and SAN is one of the best I've experienced. I know the improvements being made now are probably more expensive than necessary, but that's a conversation for another time. Let's be honest with ourselves, re-locating would cost a ridiculous amount more than making admittedly expensive improvements on the current location. Don't fix whats not broken. Especially for billions of extra dollars. Imagine if we used that to fix the homeless issue. Now that would make a real positive change for this city.

Interesting.

My opinion that the airport should be moved is biased, but your opinion that it should remain because you enjoy flying out of it isn’t?

The problem is the money being spent is on everything but additional runway space, since that’s not an option at the current location. We can spend billions to reorganize things, put in more parking, update the terminals, add nicer restaurants, etc .. but the one short runway isn’t changing with all these billions of dollars of improvements (yes, we are spending billions on the current airport).

By 2050 we are projected to have a million more people. Yes, airports in the middle of the city are convenient, but how practical are they for large cities? There’s a reason you don’t see them in the middle of large cities.

There’s also the growth issue. SD is growing and is limited in southern expansion by an international border, western expansion by the Pacific Ocean, eastern expansion by mountains and northern expansion by a military base and OC. The area around Miramar keeps urbanizing and how practical is it to have a military base there? Do Military operations pose a more dangerous/unnecessary danger to an urban area than commercial flight operations?

There’s been several incidents at Miramar including this one where a fighter jet crashed into a house and killed a family in 2011:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sandi...story,amp.html

Does SD really have the luxury of keeping both Lindbergh and Miramar as they are as our region struggles to accommodate a million more people over the next few decades?

I would also argue our airport has hindered the region economically. We have one of the least globally connected airports for a city our size and that influences the relocations/headquartering of companies in many industries here. Some of it is due to proximity to LA, yes, but not all of it. Philadelphia is in close proximity to NYC, but their international network is far greater. It’s a fact we’ve been hindered by being the last major city in the country to obtain overseas flights due to the one short runway at Lindbergh. It’s also a fact that companies consider connectivity when they decide on where to locate. It’s a stated consideration for Amazon’s HQ2 hunt and it’s a consideration for smaller companies too.

I believe our lack of global connectivity has hampered our economy and that we could have received more benefit from foreign investment and tourism here had we been better connected globally.

As far as I am aware, the FAA still has projections for Lindbergh reaching capacity at some point. What then? We have to spend billions relocating the airport after sinking billions into improving Lindbergh. Wouldn’t it be nice if our short-sighted city leaders and residents actually thought long-term for a change? Why does the airport relocation have to come at the last minute when people are scrambling and we are starting to see long waits at Lindbergh? If we wanted to have the airport relocated in the 2050 timeframe, we’d have to start talking about it and planning it now because that’s how long things take, especially something this major. But San Diego prefers to bury our head in the sand and wait until the 11th hour and, as we see on this very board, even tries to discourage people from even discussing it.

By the way, how many times in this post or the recent posts I’ve made regarding the airport have I mentioned building height? None. Because you’ve mischaracterized my opinion about moving the airport to be solely or even largely on wanting the building height downtown raised. That’s not my primary reason, nor would I consider that reason alone to be a valid reason for moving an airport. Knowing this town the airport could move and NIMBYs would still prevent buildings >500 ft from going up.

Finally, you end your post by throwing in a “what if” about an issue unrelated to the airport: the homeless issue. What if, what if, what if. What if instead of spending billions of dollars to give you nicer restaurants and more space to sit and wait at Lindbergh we used THAT to help the homeless issue?? If you want to discuss the homeless issue make a separate thread instead of throwing some random nonsense out in a debate the airport. There are many things our city can be doing better on that issue, but it’s not related to he airport discussions.

what if Brown Field and Tijuana airport worked together as a binational airport given their close proximity. It would be like two airports in one and it would take a load off of SAN, or replace it completely if possible. Just throwing out ideas at this point but it probably would be a stretch

THIS. 1000% Anyone who thinks SAN is a viable long term solution is deluding themselves. But, best not to think about it.

Good thinking. However, San Diego had a chance to do exactly what you mentioned, but shit the bed on that too. Instead, they developed the land into industrial uses, so now there is not sufficient space for such a project.

Thankfully we have the TIJ cross border terminal, thanks to a private developer. Also, the Airport Authority has done a nice job with what they have at SAN, but it isn’t enough long term and has already hurt the city.

@SDCAL

I guess my point is that when our airport will be expected to accommodate the growing population of SD County (projected at closer to 700,000 than 1 million by 2050), ~2050 would be a good time to consider re-location. Until then, in terms of population, SAN reasonably represents the city. Anyone who's flown out of the airport can tell it lacks, for the most part, the crowded hustle and bustle of many other airports. With that being said, a hasty re-location would just be pointless when any real threat to our airport's demographic viability lies decades ahead.

Economically, and I know this discussion is heavily opinionated, but with LA so close, the regional need for a transportation hub is already taken care of. Without trying to re-tread on past discussions too much, I do think it's true that San Diego needs to 'know its place' economically. We'll never be an LA or NYC. We have a relatively stable niche in the economy, and while a healthy amount of ambition is good for any city, we need to be realistic.

My only intent on bringing up the homeless situation is that there are more pressing matters to attend to than an airport re-location.

Wow, what sort of argument hath we unleashed?

@mello: I'm not qualified to speak as to if NAS North Island is suitable or unsuitable for FCLP, you'd need to ask someone more experienced in military flight training. Certainly conducting those sorts of operations regularly would have severe noise impacts on Coronado, Point Loma, and downtown though, I can't stress just how loud those jets are.

The Marines conduct some training at Brown and Long Beach Airports on weekends, holidays, and other times to reduce the noise impacts on the University City area. At Brown it's usually every weekend, to the point it's been nicknamed Miramar South.


@SDCAL: 1. True, but that argument is a dual edged sword. The military's main concern is national security, which means its needs can override local economic concerns.

2. Pendlton and North Island couldn't handle the traffic if Miramar shut down, those units would definitely have to be shifted outside the county. From an economic aspect this would be a far larger deal than losing the Chargers. For the Chargers SD would've had to spend millions upon millions of its own money to build them a new stadium, and much of the resulting resulting income would ultimately come from within SD itself (local fans, etc). The military funds its own facilities, and its income come down from federal taxes. If we assume SD was going to have to pay those anyway regardless of if there was a military base within the region (fairly likely, that's how it works for the rest of the nation after all), you can almost think of military income as free money. LA, NYC, and Huston are paying millions upon millions to local SD construction companies to build new hangers at Miramar, to military contractors to build factories in Sorrento Valley, and to thousands of servicemen for living expenses. All that money flows right into the SD economy, where it pays for a second tier of people to provides services to the above and so on. All told it's over 40% of the SD economy, if the military moved out it's likely half the thread would lose their jobs.

3. Primarily, the fact that both the Navy base and Pendlton are here. The marine guys talk a lot about how necessary that is, the ability to have all their components in one place so they're ready to deploy at any time. They mentioned there's only one other area comparable to SD for them, on the east coast, so SD is holding up America's defense of everything from California to Washington state.

4.There's no rule that it can't be brought up again (I've even heard a rumor the authority is running a study on relocation right now). But the issues haven't changed at all since 2006, a new vote would probably have the same outcome while holding back the development of Lindbergh in the process.


@JerellO: SD's airport issues are like squaring the circle, no matter how you figure it the solution is going to come out a little irrational. Because there isn't an "ideal" answer, or even one significantly superior to the others, all anyone can do is try to argue why the downsides of their particular plan are less than the alternatives. But imo every option is equally crappy, which is why we keep ending up with the status quo.

@spoonman: In addition to the whole "selling off the land" thing, there was a lot of concern about a cross border airport being a major avenue for drug smuggling.

It is absolutely true that tall buildings do not a city make. Because of the height restrictions downtown, San Diego, in a roundabout way, benefits from dense, walkable development closer to the ground in a way that most cities in California and the West fall short.

However, in this day and age, a city's primary airport(s) is more than just a means of travel. It is a significant component of a metro area's economic engine. IMO, this is a major failure of leadership on all levels not to make relocating San Diego's main hub to a larger facility elsewhere their first if not only priority. Other US hubs like DFW, O'Hare, and even LAX contribute massively to the metropolitan economies of their respective regions. One could argue that an airport such as Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta is partially responsible, or at the very least, supportive, of the staggering growth there. The same argument could be made for Dallas-Fort Worth. Such airports have even begun to result in "aerotropolises," which host regional or national headquarters of companies that value ease of air travel for their employees.

San Diego is a top-ten major American city on the Pacific Coast, and straddles the Mexican border. There's no excuse for it to not offer far more direct flights to Asia, Latin America and even Australia. This greatly expands the reach of tourism initiatives for the region, which is already a popular travel destination. It also makes it easier for immigrants from beyond Mexico to migrate, settle in, study in, and generally add to the local culture. Furthermore, this also makes it more attractive to the type of foreign investment that can be credited with boosting the current building boom in downtown Los Angeles. Businesspeople with packed schedules are immediately less interested when connecting flights factor in. Hell, Korean Air was a major player in the construction of the Wilshire Grand Tower. Of course, I'm not saying San Diego needs to or should be anything like LA, but could you imagine the benefits of having a true world-class gateway to the region.

Also, as was said above, there's no way to say for certain that moving the airport would immediately spark an surge of buildings over 500' in the downtown area. To truly consider what that would look like, you'd need to take into account all the other reasons why such towers might not come along, from economics to NIMBYism, to name just a few. Really, moving the airport is just the smart thing to do to advance the region to a greater position on the national and world stage. Simple as that.

Problem with that is that a new airport would take a decade or so of planning and funding and building. SD would probably take longer, just take a look at the Mid-Coast Trolley Extension.

For a major international airport it would take closer to 15-20 years of planning. Denver International, the last airport built in the US, took 15 years 1980-1995. Given current forecasts Lindbergh will reach capacity by 2035, now would be the time to plan (of course, those forecasts are filled with so many assumptions we can't really know when Lindbergh will really reach capacity)

The problem though isn't time, or even money, there just isn't a suitable area left within an acceptable distance of downtown that hasn't already been claimed by the military. Every scrap of flat land west of the peninsular range has been developed already, there's nothing but housing or mountains from the sea to ~45 miles inland. The only exceptions are the military bases, which is why most discussions tend to revolve around taking one of them over. The alternatives are relocating thousands of people and jobs to make space, utterly destroying one of SD's prized beaches or the bay to dredge up new land, or building a multi-billion dollar airport in some farmer's field 2+ hours away from the city it's supposed to serve. None of those are particularly appetizing options, and as we've been discussing there's some pretty serious economic repercussions to taking over Miramar, so SD keep circling around to keeping Lindbergh.