Big money drives airport debate

By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | Friday, November 3, 2006 10:43 PM PST ∞

Big money is fueling both sides of the campaigns for and against a ballot measure to put a civilian airport at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station.

Donor lists paint a picture of a highly contested measure pitting developers fighting for a piece of prime bayfront real estate against a community of Sorrento Valley businesses that don't want commercial jets flying over them ---- and restricting their future expansion options. In this fight, the Marines are on the sidelines.

According to reports filed with the county registrar of voters office, well-known San Diego real estate investor Malin Burnham has donated $49,000 to the pro-airport cause.

Joining him in bankrolling the bid to move San Diego County's airport from Lindbergh Field to Miramar are McMillin Management Services, a San Diego property management firm, and Sempra Energy. They contributed $49,000 and $45,000 respectively, reports show.

On the other side, Qualcomm, one of the county's most prominent companies, contributed $49,999 toward defeating the airport initiative. That's as of Oct. 21, the close of the latest campaign finance reporting period. As well, Irwin Mark Jacobs of La Jolla, the communication giant's chairman of the board and co-founder, donated $5,000 on his own, reports show.

Qualcomm officials have said a Miramar airport would threaten the region's treasured cluster of high-tech and biotech industries in nearby Sorrento Valley by restricting their ability to expand. Burnham ---- investor, philanthropist and the man who brought the America's Cup to San Diego from Australia ---- has said the region needs a modern airport with more capacity than Lindbergh to anchor its expanding $160 billion economy.

In the view of proponents, the situation is urgent.

"Lindbergh, sooner or later, will be inadequate for this region," said John Kern, campaign consultant for the Coalition to Preserve the Economy, the pro-airport group, in an interview last week.

What crisis?

Projections show Lindbergh's single runway could bog down as early as next decade, triggering delays for airline passengers and spiking ticket prices, said Dennis Burks, chairman of the Alliance in Support of Airport Progress in the 21st Century and SeaWorld's former chief executive.

"We're headed for a crisis around 2015," Burks declared, in a downtown San Diego debate one week ago.

That would put the economy at risk, he said. In citing an example, Burks said the county is in position to capture a large chunk of the nation's burgeoning stem-cell research industry because of the area's biotech base, but a constrained airport could prevent that.

Burks' comment was met with skepticism from his opponent in the Lincoln-Douglas-style debate, where speakers ask one another questions.

"I scratch my head wondering how many wide-body jets you need to move stem cells," said Bruce Boland, retired Navy rear admiral and chairman of No on Prop. A.

An electrical engineer who travels frequently said while framing a question for the debaters that Lindbergh isn't that bad.

"It is absolutely the easiest and most convenient airport that I have ever been to," said Ed Holler, who resides in Scripps Ranch.

UC San Diego professor Richard Carson doesn't see a crisis coming, either.

While the number of passengers is rising sharply, Carson stresses the more important number is total takeoffs and landings, which has remained flat in the 200,000- to 220,000-per-year range for a decade. With a little creativity, such as switching out bigger planes for smaller ones, he suggests the life of the little airport on San Diego Bay could be extended for decades.

Others have suggested capacity could be added by nixing Lindbergh's nighttime restriction on departures between 11:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.

At 661 acres, Lindbergh is dwarfed by airports that serve markets of similar size, such as Tampa, Fla., and Oakland. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the agency that put Miramar on the ballot, maintains no matter how one slices the property there isn't room for another runway. The authority says the runway's short length prevents fully loaded 747s from operating there, which limits San Diego's ability to attract international traffic.

As for the flat number of takeoffs and landings, the number is rising now, authority officials say, as passenger traffic rebounds from its post-9/11 dip. And they say Lindbergh can handle no more than 260,000 a year, a threshold likely to be reached between 2015 and 2022.

Target: 3,000 acres

Proposition A is the culmination of years of study of potential new airport sites at a cost of $17 million.

The San Diego Association of Governments and Port of San Diego initiated the undertaking in 2001, spending $2 million. Then the newly created airport authority took over in 2003 and proceeded to spend $15 million, said agency spokesman Steve Shultz.

To make room for twin parallel runways one mile apart, the authority looked for places to carve out a 3,000-acre rectangle. In June, the authority board voted 7-2 to name Miramar its preferred place for doing that.

The law that created the agency in 2002 gave it power to condemn land for an airport, but that did not extend to federal land. As a result, the measure is advisory.

Here's what's on the ballot:

"To provide for San Diego's long-term air transportation needs, shall the airport authority and government officials work to obtain approximately 3,000 of 23,000 acres of MCAS Miramar by 2020 for a commercial airport, provided necessary traffic and freeway improvements are made, military readiness is maintained without expense to the military for modifying or relocating operations, no local taxes are used on the airport, overall noise impacts are reduced, and necessary Lindbergh Field improvements are completed?"

There is disagreement about what the language means.

The pro-airport camp maintains it is not a "joint use" measure, meaning passage would not trigger a Honolulu-like situation where military and commercial aircraft use the same runway. Authority officials say they agree with the Marines' assertion that mixing 747s and fighter jets would pose a danger to civilian passengers and military pilots.

Instead, they say, a 'yes' vote would spur a dialogue with the Marines to see if they could part with a 3,000-acre chunk of Miramar without compromising the mission of defending the United States.

The Marines, say there is nothing to talk about. They say the hilly portion of the base east of Interstate 15 is unusable and that leaves the existing airfield. In other words, they say, it is by default a joint-use proposal.

Kern, the campaign consultant, said one must remember that Miramar's role in national defense has changed in the past.

"We're simply saying, 'Let's look out into the future. If the Department of Defense changes its mind again, we need to make sure that that base is available for a commercial airport.' That's it," he said.

Peace: The debate is over

Proponents and opponents disagree on what the vote will mean.

The No on Prop. A camp says a 'no' vote should put to rest, once and for all, the notion of Miramar becoming San Diego County's next international airport. Proponents, meanwhile, refuse to rule out the possibility of an airport there if the measure fails.

Steve Peace, the former state senator from El Cajon who wrote the law that created the airport authority, said he was aiming to settle the airport question.

"This debate is over on Wednesday, one way or another," Peace said.

If county residents vote 'no,' he said, it will mean Lindbergh is going to be San Diego's airport and the authority will be obligated to make it the best it can be. Peace said the agency's authority to conduct a search for new sites ends with the election.

"This is it," he said. "The airport authority will be obligated under state law to follow the will of the people. In order to go back for another vote they have to go back to the Legislature."

Meanwhile, local leaders in the Legislature, including Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, and Assemblyman George Plescia, R-La Jolla, are considering scaling back the airport board's responsibilities or consolidating the authority with another regional agency.

The county's five congressional representatives, all of whom oppose the measure, say a 'yes' vote would be meaningless because a new law bars using the base for a commercial airport. Proponents pooh-pooh the delegation, noting it already was illegal under federal law to put commercial and military jets on the same runway at Miramar.

"You can change a law," Burks said.

One thing's clear: With the military's and delegation's opposition, it will take more than a 'yes' vote to put an airport at Miramar. Miramar advocates will have to change a lot of people's minds.

Via radio and television spots and brochures sent through the mail, two camps are hoping to change your mind before Tuesday. The advertising war is being waged on the strength of Qualcomm and Burnham and other heavy financial hitters.

Other No on Prop. A contributors include the Associated General Contractors, $10,000; Epsilon Systems Solutions Inc. of San Diego, $10,000; and Biosite of San Diego, $10,000, according to campaign finance reports.

Other pro-airport donors include airport board member Bill Lynch of Rancho Santa Fe, who gave $25,000 through his company; the San Diego Lodging Industry Association, $10,000; Stephen B. Williams, a La Jolla real estate partner, $10,000; C. Terry Brown, president of Atlas Hotels, $10,000; Douglas Wilson Cos., San Diego, $10,000; Bahia Hotel, San Diego, $10,000; and the Lincoln Club of San Diego County, $10,000.

Through Oct. 21, proponents were winning the battle of the war chests.

Total contributions for the Coalition to Preserve the Economy had reached $290,012, reports show. Those included cash contributions of $267,697 and in-kind contributions of $22,315, in donated television production service and radio air time.

No on Prop. A, meanwhile, had brought in $180,781, including $173,849 in cash and $6,932 in nonmonetary contributions. The latter entailed donated catering and special-event services.

The pro-airport campaign had spent $226,942 and No on Prop. A had spent $140,857, reports show.

On Friday, a committee representing passenger and cargo airlines endorsed the Miramar proposition.

Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 740-5442 or ddowney@nctimes.com.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.