Thursday, Aug. 31, 2006 | In a recent public document “Airport Authority Answers Commentary” Thella F. Bowens, President/CEO San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, made some interesting, however conflicting statements a few of which I’d like to comment on.

In the last sentence of the first paragraph Ms. Bowens states “…it is unknown at this point if relocation of these freeways would ultimately be necessary.” OK that’s great, let us make some assumptions, which will be justified later. “Let’s move the two proposed commercial runways so the east ends align with east end of existing military runways. Then we will slide the proposed commercial runways in a northerly direction until the north proposed commercial runway coincides with the longest military runway. The south proposed runway is now approximately 2000 feet from the freeway, which will have incoming aircraft at an altitude on the order of less than 200 feet. Does this require freeway location? Looking at a map one will note I-15 curves to the east and back as it passes the existing military runway. The airport authority after three years and about $17 million don’t know the runway location, or if the freeways have to be moved. Yet, they want us to vote for their proposed scheme any way. That just doesn’t make sense.

In paragraph four she says “…If only civilian aircraft were flying out of Miramar…” which indicates the desire of the airport authority to force the Marines out of MCAS Miramar later in her summary she says, “There is no attempt by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority to move the military out of Miramar.” Which is it? However, she does validate our assumptions made above on moving the proposed commercial runways.

In the final paragraph, first sentence it is stated “In summary, “There is no attempt by the San Diego Country Regional Airport Authority to move the military out of Miramar.” Sure! However, this statement is in conflict with the statement made earlier, “if only civilian aircraft were flying out of Miramar.” Which is it? We can’t have it both ways or are these conflicting statements intentionally made in an attempt to mislead voters. Remember the chair of the Site Selection Committee has stated publicly that joint use won’t work. Then why is it on the ballot?

There are more points Ms. Bowens made we could comment on, but we will save those for another time.

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.