Wednesday, June 7, 2006 | Councilman Jim Madaffer’s recent e-newsletter came with a big surprise. He and I actually agree on an issue, and it is the airport. He has held his tongue long enough. He is for Lindbergh and against Miramar. I feel the same, but I am sure for much different reasons.

In his newsletter, Mr. Madaffer mentions prominently his home turf of Tierrasanta as among the communities that may expect a negative impact from a Miramar airport. This for him is evidently a case of “not in my backyard.”

His newsletter also linked to a document he titled, “Random Thoughts Regarding the Airport Authority’s Search for a Regional Airport,” by an author he did not credit. The unknown author wrote a paragraph that suggests that there is a direct relationship between a new, larger airport and continued regional growth. This is the true issue of airport relocation – regional growth. My belief and hope is that by keeping the airport at Lindbergh, we may effectively cap San Diego’s population growth. Continuing growth, cloaked in terminology such as “smart growth,” “city of villages,” and “density,” has made this city practically unlivable. A new airport would facilitate the spread of this urban nightmare of central planning to the remaining less developed areas of the county. Our greatest asset, which has traditionally been quality of life, would be gone.

This then is the true surprise of Mr. Madaffer’s newsletter. As I have written previously, our intrepid councilman has seemingly never met a redevelopment project he does not like (unless he does not have his fingers in it). Coming down against Miramar is coming down squarely against the impetus for future redevelopment, which is to allow for continued growth.

That is why I am for Lindbergh. I am hoping that by keeping the current airport that we may keep our population approximately where it is. And that by doing this, perhaps we could maintain some semblance of livability and discontinue the multiple redevelopment projects that have been helping to suck the city’s general fund dry. But that is another story.

Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.