In response to “Time for a Solution,” it’s interesting that Dr. Carson’s bona fides are being attacked, but not the substance of his critique of the SDCRAA economic analysis. His critique did not rely on aviation expertise, but economic expertise, and his reading of the analysis. A CPA doesn’t have to be an electrical engineer to audit Qualcomm’s books.

If the SDCRAA can support its economic conclusions, why hasn’t it justified the “air cargo assumption” and addressed the loss of the Marines’ economic contribution in the impact assessment?

The Marine Corps posted a draft study on basing its fighters. It’s less important that they addressed alternatives than that they concluded Miramar was “the only option,” to borrow a phrase from the other side. Prop A proponents have denounced the Marines for not considering the possibility of an alternative to Miramar, and then turned around and maligned them for looking at alternatives and not coming up with the “right” solution. The Marines deserve better.


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Your email address will not be published.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.