Editorial on San Diego Airport Situation
Sunday, March 5, 2006, 19:31 —by Tostie14
This item was posted in General category and has 4 Comments so far.
In response to this morning’s article in the San Diego Union-Tribune, I have written an editorial about my issues with putting the future San Diego airport in Imperial County. You can read it at kevintostado.com.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Subscribe to San Diego News
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
Featured San Diego Video
Warning: Attempt to assign property of non-object in /usr/www/users/artlung/sandiegoblog.com/wordpress/wp-includes/rss.php on line 440
JeSais said on Monday, March 6, 2006, 17:39
There’s a local group that wants to put the airport off-shore:
http://www.offshoreairport.org/Home.aspx
My big question is…. why do we need a bigger airport? Not that I think we need to be this little po-dunk city, but how hard is it to get to LAX? There are commuter flights every 1/2 hour.
Howie in Lakeside said on Tuesday, March 7, 2006, 6:09
Well aside from the obvious need for a new airport—Lindbergh is just too small, you say “why†since all you have to do is jump on a commuter plane and fly up to an already clogged LAX. Great! Now when LAX directs the airlines to cut back on some of these commuter flights just how convenient will it be then? Let’s say LAX evaluates their flight schedules and determines that instead of 24 commuter flights out of San Diego they will allow only 6 per day? No so convenient anymore is it? And yes that has been discussed at LAX. The thinking there is that San Diego can build it’s own airport and quit clogging up LAX.
PETE in SAN DIEGO said on Monday, August 6, 2007, 17:37
SAN DIEGO SEEM TO BE RUNNING OUT OF SPACE TO BUILD A SATISFACTORY AIRPORT. SEEMINGLY SAN DIEGO CITY LEADERS REPUTATION OF IDIOTIC DECISION MAKING DATES BACK TO 1954. IS SAN DIEGO REALLY ON THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY…,IE SAN DIEGO CITY PENSION FUND, UNABLE TO PAY SDPD, SDFD BETTER WAGES, NOT BEING ABLE TO REPAIR STREETS. WHY IS THE CITY TRYING TO INCREASE THE CITY SUPERVISOR’S PAY AND THE OTHER SUPERVISOR WHEN ALL OTHERS ARE REQUIRED TO EITHER TAKE A PAY CUT OR GET LAYED OFF. THE PEOPLE IN MUCH NEED OF PAY INCREASES ARE NOT GETTING IT, I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE CITY SHOULD VOTE ON WHO SHOULD GET PAY RAISES AND AT WHAT PERCENTAGE(S). I DON’T MEAN WE VOTE FOR A SUPERVISOR WHOM THEN SELECTS COUNSEL MEMBERS WHO THEN VOTES FOR WHO IN THE COUNSEL OR THE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE SHOULD GET WHAT PERCENTAGE OF A PAY RAISE. I MEAN THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY SHOULD VOTE ON WHO SHOULD GET A PAY RAISE. THE PAY RAISE SHOULD ALSO BE BASED ON THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OR HER DUTIES. I REALLY DO THINK THAT THE SUPERVISORS CAN DO A MUCH BETTER JOB OUT THERE. I’VE SEEN AND HEARD OF CITY WORKERS DOING POOR JOBS, SLEEPING TAKING LONG BREAKS BECAUSE EITHER THERE IS NO SUPERVISION AND OR THE SUPERVISORS DON’T CARE. I THINK THE CITY SHOULD START OVER WITH A NEW CITY COUNSEL. BRAND NEW CITY COUNSEL. I THINK THE CITY SHOULD VOTE (THE PEOPLE OF SAN DIEGO) SHOULD VOTE ON THE WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES THE SUPERVISORS AND CITY COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE. I THINK THE SUPERVISOR’S AND CITY COUNSEL HAVE TO HAVE AN APPROVAL RATING OF EIGHTY PERCENT OR BETTER OUT OF THE TOTAL SAN DIEGO POPULATION FOR PAY RAISES, BUILDING STADIUMS, AIRPORTS, SKYSCRAPERS, BRIDGES AND OTHER SORTS OF THE SAME LIKE MAGNITUDES. THESE THINGS AFFECT OUR WAY OF LIFE AND LIVELIHOODS. THESE DECISIONS SHOULDN’T GO TO JUST A FEW PEOPLE ON A BOARD THAT WHOM HAVE STAKE ON FINANCIAL GAIN AND NOT HONESTLY DECISIVELY MADE IN GOOD JUDGEMENT FOR THE PEOPLE OF SAN DIEGO. I’M SORRY THAT I ROUTED MY THOUGHTS OUT OF TRACK BUT JUST HAD TO PROJECT MY VIEWS. I’VE MADE MISTAKES MYSELF BUT I’M HUMAN, NOT CONNIVING.
Howiek in Lakeside said on Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 6:11
I think 1954 is about right! No, San Diego has no other viable location to build an airport other than Miramar—period! I doubt if San Diego is close to bankruptcy (BK)—out of funds yes. But what many don’t understand is that if San Diego were to declare a BK then an unelected judge would be in charge of all matters concerning the city, the judge could do just about whatever he/she wanted to do as far a funding is concerned, like raise taxes to cover the shortfall. Voting on pay raises is a non-starter Pete—not gonna happen now or any other time, the unions controlling the city employee’s would never allow it. Not sure of what you mean by city “supervisorâ€. As far as the city is concerned it’s City Counsel along with the mayor who run the show—that is why they were elected. But San Diego has been playing a shell game with the money it receives for years—for example, taking money from the water department and putting it into the General fund when the fund came up short. The fiscal BS finally caught up with the city. The city is not broke so a BK is not going to happen, but there has to be an increase in the revenue stream to pay for every thing, simply outsourcing or laying people off is not going to help, it’s called raising taxes to pay for the necessities (which would include increasing the pay to police/fire people) and paying to have the infrastructure fixed, maintained, improved whatever!