Sharing Was Never Really the Military's Strong Point

By Lee Moore, Del Cerro

So what is your interest in a bunch of mostly (very) low-paying jobs, Mr.Moore? Do you work for a developer who is lusting after the Lindbergh property or are you just one of those people who thinks, "Gee, a lot of jobs -- that will be good for San Diego and all of us." Sub-par, janitorial and maid jobs at yet-to-be-built hotels are not what San Diego needs. They will put not one dime, nary a centime or farthing in the pockets of 99.99 percent of San Diego's citizens, just those of a few developers and hotel owners who long for the day when no one, but no one driving on Harbor Drive will be able to see a speck of water in the bay because of the Miami Beach-style structures. And what part of "NO" voiced by the voters repeatedly do you not understand? Hmmm?

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
November 5, 2009 11:19 pm

Finally, I agree with everything you had to say . Couldn't have said it better. Those greedy developers want all that land so they can build,build,build all kinds of tacky stuff. San Diego does not need a world class airport-whatever that is. We are at the end of the trip and most of us are quite happy with what we have. The convenience of our airport is unbeatable. I sure don't want to ride a train from the middle of the desert to get back here and even less to spend that time to catch an early morning flight at 6:00 am. Can you imagine what time one would have to get up to get through security? Leo quit being a shill for the land rapists and go back to whatever else you do. We don't want a new airport! This one will last past my lifetime and well beyond.

Posted by Panchy | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 10:29 am

I'm retired, I Worked for a large corporation that had nothing to do with developers. My wife and I are natives, we live in a house built in 1973.. 99% of housing built since 1950 was built by some evil developer. Did you build your house, or did some developer build it. I am proud of what San Diego has become. When I was a boy, downtown was Tattoo parlors and strip joints. My grandfather and parents had a business on State street. We could not go up to Broadway, thats where the Sailors were. San Diego needs jobs. How many foreclosures and rental evictions do we need. I personaly don't like evicting a family with 2 kids because Dad's construction job is gone. I'm working with them. I don't need to. I could evict and have new new tenants next week.

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 4:04 pm

Wow, what a bunch of mostly pathetic posts. What I've read says that many people hate developers, that people taking risks to make money are bad people, that San Diego is a hopeless mess and by the way, we should all give up hope for a better life cause the world is aligned against us. All very negative thoughts. It's a wonder the town is as good as it is given this type of attitude. No city can strive to imporve it's quality of life with attitiudes like those displayed in this comment section. No logic applied to any problem, just sour grapes, that's what I read here. And of course, these will be the same folks who complain in ten years when there isn't enough housing, water, better freeways, or jobs of any kind. These folks are just waiting to win the lottery; pathetic. Enjoy the downward spiral.

Posted by John | reply to this comment
November 7, 2009 10:35 pm

Yeah, its a real shame that Chula Vista didn't shovel a ton of money the bankrupt city doesn't have to Gaylord. Gaylord is teetering now, one can only imagine how they would have proceeded with the Chula Vista development. While we are at it, can you imagine if the Chargers actually developed the Mission Valley site and 7000 condos were scheduled to come on line right next to all the empty condos downtown? Brilliant! Vegas is in the toilet right now and is practically giving away room stays, so what a great time to be competing with them for conventions. The stock value of Gaylord early this year was 90% off its value when courting Chula Vista, and is still off 60% from those levels. How about we just move cargo to Brown? Oops, greedy developers already squashed the sensible solution.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 12:27 am

San Diego is not known for forward thinking. Until the citizens of this area start to think and act like a world class city we will never become one. Everyone wants SD to be a travel destination for those tourism dollars but no one wants to build the infrastructure to attract the tourists. Nothing but NIMBYism in this area. So much potential wasted.

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 7:23 am

Yeah, I'm sure that San Diego is losing millions of dollars of tourist money each year because people don't want to fly into an airport so close to downtown, the zoo, sea world, the beaches or the convention center. It won't be until we move it into the middle of nowhere so that they can spend a hundred bucks on a shuttle that we'll become the "world class" city that people will want to visit. Sheesh.

Posted by larry | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 8:49 am

VERY good point, Larry. Moreover, Jim, who says that everyone wants San Diego to be a world class city? Why? Indeed, it will never be one. It's too big, too crowded, with too much traffic now. What would help San Diego is to lose half its population right away. Well, that won't happen, so we have to live with what we have, but do we have to exacerbate the already miserable situation. Evidently, Jim, you are one of those people to whom I referred above, who join the parade to welcome lots of new jobs, whether menial or not. Neither I, any of my neighbors, nor anyone I know is going to reape one single cent from new jobs created to make developers richer or so you can bask in the glow of a "World Class City." Want that? Go to Paris or Rome. San Diego it ain't.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 10:34 am

An airport 4.5 miles southeast of Miramar's runway-smack in the middle of 64,000 mostly undeveloped acres, affectis Noone with Noise. Perfect for SD Cty. HUB high speed rail transit system, paid for the Feds-as SD has not: rain, sleet, ice, snow, winds, tornados & rarely, floods. Tens of Billions of dollars of new economic REVENUE, Annually! "Mitigation Billions" for roads, lighting, storm sewer, recreation facilities, parks, beaches, etc.-used by 'new visitors.' O'Hare is 7,700 acres. Lindbergh, 660-the most dangerous major airport, worldwide! Why won't anyone look to more than the next '5 yrs.'? Do SD's 'movers & shakers' only see 'short-term profits' for themselves, as they 'give away' Revenues to AZ,CO airports & other CA ones-while LAX & S.CA are so crowded-they turn our sm. flights down! San Diego won't be 'world class' or even first class, only the 'step-child' til WE WAKE UP!

Posted by WAKE UP San Diegans! | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 8:38 am

I'd say you're dreaming, but the way your comment is written makes smoking something the more likely reason. What is with you people and your "world class city" BS? San Diego is not and can never become your idea of a world class city. The reasons are too numerous to list here in 150 words. Just use your common sense. World class cities are NYC, D.C., London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Moscow, Beijing, etc. See little San Diego in the same league with them? Maybe you would like to add another seven or eight million people within the city limits just to try and force that illusion.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 10:43 am

Um, was your post in English?

Posted by Vic | reply to this comment
November 8, 2009 9:32 pm

Well Mr Moore, MCAS Miramar cannot "share" it's runways for several reasons. 1. Runway 24 Left is designated as a carrier training deck. That means it has a to scale carrier deck painted on it and has the landing optics to prepare pilots to land peoperly. 2. All rubway surfaces have arresting gear (the same stuff as the carriers). This gear must remain in a ready status. Large frame planes (737 and up) would destroy the cables and/or the gear must not be in an up status, jeopardizing the trap of that plane. 3. On the south side there is a to scale LHA (helicopter carrier) deck constructed. Removal of that deck would mean that the helos from Miramar would have to transit to Camp Pendleton, and with the tightened budgets and wear & tear on the planes, that ain't gonna happen.

Posted by thegunny | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 9:00 am

I did not mean share the same runways, I meant share some of the space. I have driven a jeep, as a Marine, all over Camp Elliott or East Miramar. There is a lot of space there. There would be no need to affect any current Military runways. I asked why can't they be neighbors, just like all over the country.

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 5:39 pm

So if you were stationed at Miramar, then you would know that the airspace required for large frame planes requires more territory than fighters or helos. When I was at El Toro, there was all kinds of airspace issues between El Toro, Tustin and John Wayne Int'l. Gee those fields were pretty spread out weren't they? Now you figure that you can put a full MCAS AND a Int'l airport on the same property without any airspace issues or confliction? Lee, Miramar is big, but not that big...

Posted by thegunny | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 7:37 pm

Additionally, the cities that you mentioned, have Air National Guard squadrons that are C-130 or KC-135/KC-10 air to air refuelers. You don't see any "sharing" with large frame plans and fighters/helicopters I know the deveolpers have been salivating on getting the unused property between Scripps and Tierrasanta for many years, and it just is not going to happen in your lifetime and mine.

Posted by thegunny | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 9:07 am

The unions chased the Gaylord project off. The unions are destroying California-they are not interested in quality work-just one more person to steal dues from.

Posted by socalgal | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 11:28 am

So many SD haters on this board... People who don't want SD to grow are delusional. It can't be stopped. The only thing we can do is grow intelligently and start to bring some infrastructure to this town that will make it more livable and enrich all of our lives. Major airports bring revenue. Improvements like a new Central Library, Arena, Civic Center, Stadium and trains will make the lives of current and future San DIegans better. Fighting it does nothing. The growth continues unabated and the quality of life diminishes. Wake Up!

Posted by CoolWater | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 4:58 pm

"San Diego haters"? Listen, I was born in Mercy Hospital -- the OLD one, probably before Lee Moore came on the scene, grandparents or not. Graduated from St. Augustine HS in -- well, that's my business. My father and my grandfather owned numerous businesses in San Diego and Coronado. I'm not a San Diego hater, but I do hate what carpetbaggers have made of the place and are continuously trying to push it into being. I repeat, San Diego most definitely is not now, nor will it ever be in the future a so-called "world class city." Stop smoking that pipe. "Major airports bring revenue"? To whom?? Do you plan on cashing in big when all those porter jobs, cabbie positions, or TSP body fondling gigs open? Good luck. Then you can move to Rancho (that's what we used to call Rancho Santa Fe before you could locate SD).

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 7:57 pm

Many have lived here a long time and have heard many improvements touted as making San Diego "great." Instead, they have reduced public access to the bay, burdened us with higher taxes, trashed natural areas and damaged good things about San Diego. Water is short, traffic is horrible and "laid back" San Diego is gone. I see costs and no personal benefit in most proposed projects. Take the football stadium. Why donate public land to a billionaire? Let him and fans pay for it. Yes, growth will happen and profits will primarily provide welfare for the rich. Over the years, I have seen project after project line the pockets of the well-connected. They make millions and maybe I get a penny back on the tax dollar in things that actually benefit me. No thanks. San Diego was better when it wasn't striving for "greatness." Let's try for livable!

Posted by janet | reply to this comment
November 7, 2009 10:54 am

Get real. SD lost its chance to become L.A. in 1915 and that chance is gone for good. The convenience of the airport can only be improved if someone built a new terminal west of 5 on top of the river estuary. That's not as wild as it sounds; the approach would be a breeze, it would not seriously impinge on Lindbergh ops, and new terminals could be linked via trolley or bus. But since the world econ is in the toilet, this is all moot; SD won't recover those lost tourists until their home economies recover enough to afford those folk vacations. We have a long time to wait, kiddies, so the developers can hold their breath just like the real people.

Posted by Vic | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 11:50 pm

It occurs to me that a single runway has a finite amount of capacity. It also occurs to me that when that limit is reached, the airport would become congested. It seems to reason that the remedy is additional capacity. Capacity that cannot be met at Lindbergh Field. People will certainly complain about higher fares, but will the airlines really care? So the question isn't if San Diego needs a new airport. The question is how much are people willing to pay in terms of higher fares only have available Lindbergh Field. Who will care then?

Posted by A dose of reality | reply to this comment
November 7, 2009 1:52 pm

Eureka: make this a livable city! We have a gorgeous temperate natural location on the Pacific Ocean, one hour to snow, one-and-a -half hours to the desert. Becoming livable would mean getting a handle on our debts, fixing the streets and sidewalks and sewers, focusing on genuine "beautification," and ditching cliches like "world-class." It would mean scaling back water-guzzling development that spreads into every corner of remaining open space and provides tinder for epic wildfires. How about let's get a county fire service? Let's fix automobile traffic congestion at Lindbergh Field and leave the rest alone until such time as there's trolley service. And BTW, let's stop fibbing that one runway is insufficient and that the airport is dangerous. The truth is that business at Lindberbgh is down -- not up or at capacity -- and the site is remarkably safe precisely because it's small.

Posted by FO'NZ | reply to this comment
November 7, 2009 8:00 pm

All of this is absolutely true. I want a city that was once a great place to live and has now had its reputation tarnished made into an even greater place to live -- not a ... well, you know THAT term. Some of these people are delusional. Lindbergh will serve us well until the day that commercial aircraft travel is no longer the norm. One of the problems for these "Big Thinkers" is that they tend to congregate at posts like this. As a result, they think that everyone thinks as they do. They are totally surprised when one of their little pet projects comes up for a vote and goes down in flames because, after all, they are a tiny minority.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
November 8, 2009 9:29 am

Is there someone here informed on the type and quantity of air traffic that Lindbergh gets? Can that same person project what Lindbergh needs after 90% of the in-state commuter flights are removed... meaning, nothing, zelch, is run as a commuter flight to this airport? Why, because that is what will happen after high-speed rail arrives in San Diego. To my knowledge, Lindbergh is most lacking with it's length of runway.... which prevents/limits heavier long-distance flights. Lindbergh's problem will not be runway capacity after HSR comes to San Diego.

Posted by Brandon Farley | reply to this comment
November 8, 2009 1:27 pm

The High Speed Rail proponents are like a convocation of vultures squabbling over $ Eight Billion Dollars of stimulus money in this NYT piece: link . The "plan" for San Diego includes a proposed stop at UTC, and an incredibly expensive tunnel that would dump the trains (134 daily) into Rose Canyon then down the 5 to the airport. Somehow, mysteriously, the original proposal to run the line straight down the 15 to a Qualcomm termination diappeared, despite its being much more cost effective. Want to bet that developer interests around Lindberg are the tail wagging this boondoggle?

Posted by Charles Pratt | reply to this comment
November 9, 2009 7:06 am

Speaking of developer interests, unless you are Alex Spanos, why would anyone want a high-speed rail line from the north to end at Qualcomm football stadium? Or did you mean Irwin Jacobs' Qualcomm corporate headquarters? (Same query applies.) Mission Valley is growing, but it has the trolley. Why wouldn't a fast train be routed through a second city-center like UTC near UCSD? And where do you get the figure of 134 trains a day traversing Rose Canyon? That seems like a lotta trains to me.

Posted by Dazed and Confused | reply to this comment
November 9, 2009 12:44 pm

Dazed, 134 trains is a lot, particularly when the line would go by the UC High School and 3 elementary schools. The projection figure's in the HSR's project information and was confirmed at the Tuesday night UC Planning Group meeting. In my view, not only would the I-15 route down to the border be more cost-effective, but it would be more likely to promote development in the Eastern areas in San Diego that sorely need it. A station at UTC would inevitably make the existing traffic and parking problems worse, and also be hugely expensive, particularly when the proposed underground station is accompanied by lengthy tunnels. This alternative needs to be restored to the Project's environmental analysis.

Posted by Charles Pratt | reply to this comment
November 12, 2009 6:00 am

I-15 more cost effective? Versus a corridor that already has rail right-of-way? That is wrong. I-15 would be much more expensive because there is no room. Freeway lanes would be eliminated or relocated at great expense. That says nothing about redesigning/reconstr overpasses or underpasses. Nope, Rose canyon is not only relatively direct to downtown San Diego, but it also has a rail right of way that sould be able to accomodate the tracks.

Posted by Brandon Farley | reply to this comment
November 12, 2009 10:33 pm

Charles, did you really say, "promote development in the Eastern areas of San Diego that sorely need it...?" Isn't that where "development" burned to the ground in the last two devastating wildfires? Isn't that where people like Supervisor Horn are aiding developers(aka his campaign contributors) to get approval for more ticky-tacky houses? There's no water to sustain this kind of urban sprawl and there shouldn't be permission to proceed because of fire risk. Anyway, please ID your source for claiming 134 trains daily will traverse Rose Canyon. And finally, I don't see how you can argue against a fast-train going to Lindbergh Field rather than Qualcomm Stadium. Train travelers in Callfornia want to go to the airport, for pete's sake, not the football venue.

Posted by Dazed | reply to this comment
November 13, 2009 8:16 pm

The California High Speed Rail Authority adopted a preferred alignment in 2004. Many alignments, including the one to Qualcomm, were abondoned. The HSR plan is a system design to take people where they want to go; city center to city center. And, that's exactly why the Lindbergh site should not be pursued, b/c it does not suit that bill. The airport was origionally proposed for the single purpose of making a grandoise idea look better - a mega transit hub for airport users.... essentially to make the idea look brighter. That proposal came from Sanders & Peace. The NYT article points to up & comer regions states jumping on the HSR band-wagon, but CA is the original.

Posted by Brandon Farley | reply to this comment
November 11, 2009 12:07 am

Which will come first? The city allowing new highrises that completely block off Lindbergh's landing pattern and glide path, or new vertical takeoff and landing airliners? I'll bet that the city will finish destroying our airport to keep downtown hotel and office highrise developers happy first. Developers have always run San Diego politics, and I don't see that changing anytime soon no matter what new problems it is causing.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
November 8, 2009 5:55 pm

With LAX 20 minutes away by air, SAN (Lindbergh) is, and shall always remain, the backwater airport it always has been. Even it it DOES someday move to MCAS Miramar, it will still remain the end of the line for most routes. LAX is a hub, SAN is a spoke - and a short one at that.

Posted by Merkin Muffley | reply to this comment
November 8, 2009 7:04 pm

San Diego can certainly be the 'hub' for many of the pacific islander & southern hemisphere countries..as LAX is 'at capacity.' ALL of Southern California IS AT "Capacity,"(within a few short years!) people, except Ontario (expanding as of last yr.) Soon, if you DON'T WAKE UP, both your goods, services AND Airfares will suffer..going sky high..is that what you want? To have the "1/3" of your 'economic business" be Forced to move? Has ANYONE looked at how much more it costs Us to Live here already, as EVERYTHING practically has to come via AIR to LAX or ONTARIO-then by Diesel TRUCK??? How about all the 'whiz kid' Environmentalists? Do they 'care' about WHERE the 'Air and Water Pollution', even on the 'patio furniture' is really coming from??? Look at studies or do your own! DIESEL & CARS are the WORST polluters here! WeFAIL!

Posted by Wake Up! | reply to this comment
November 12, 2009 9:43 pm

It's OK. They'll put all those goods on the High Speed Rail....

Posted by merkin muffley | reply to this comment
November 14, 2009 10:04 pm

Oh yeah - I forgot - Let's put a fully loaded 777 on that 9000 foot runway and send it to Vanuatu. I just hope it doesn't bounce off the rooftops of the homes on Pt. Loma once the ground effect is lost.

Posted by Merkin Muffley | reply to this comment
November 16, 2009 5:53 pm

Enough already, about an airport at Miramar! The voters of San Diego already decided this issue.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
November 11, 2009 3:55 pm

Wrong-Voters did Not vote Against moving the World's Most Dangerous Major Metropolitan Airport. They said 'No' to: 1. moving the military out-esp. during wartime! (1/3 SD pop.!) 2. Putting it at the ridiculous 'media shown' (developer pd. as portrayed-in the two worst spots?) a. 'east miramar' being on military land, slightly east of 15, which would "use up all Federal transportation funding" just to move the I-15, 5 miles 'closer' to the developer-owned housing tract land 3-4 miles from Miramar's runway! or b. 'south miramar' on military land, adding impacts to All of Northern Clairmont's population, Less than a 1/2 mile away from residences(Lindbergh now)! Added to the present Miramar runway, most NIMBY's don't understand that 'commercial jets' would prefer not to take-off heading toward Mt. Soledad (1037 ft.) requiring an Abruptl TURN as the Military Jets now DO! East Elliott=4.5 miles from all!

Posted by Wake Up! | reply to this comment
November 12, 2009 9:31 pm

Speak for yourself, Wake Up--I voted against moving from Lindbergh--we don't need a larger airport, and the Marine Corp is not moving.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
November 16, 2009 4:43 pm

The marines have been here long after generations of our family were. I've spoken for many, in many areas of the city of San Diego over the past 34 yrs. How many do you represent? Do you think you're the only one who has to travel into and out of San Diego? by air? by car? How many studies have you done of the increased costs associated with standing in traffic every day to get to Lindbergh? Of the major source of our 'pollution?' Do you live 'nearby' -so are 'unaffected?' or far away and don't use the airport? How long have you lived here? Is your employment not subject to transportation costs, or are you independently wealthy? Obviously, you're thinking of only self, only short-term. Looked historically at other cities 'revenue sources 'compared' to SD?

Posted by Use your brain.. | reply to this comment
November 16, 2009 7:53 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.