The Pinocchio Chronicles #8: Palomar, County & FAA, #295

At the May 5, 2021 Board meeting, Supervisor Jim Desmond (JD) grumbled that Carlsbad had no right to usurp county’s right to navigate McClellan-Palomar (Palomar) Airport’s future.

And JD would be right if the facts were with him. They’re not although the Force (county intransigence) may be. Also, JD forgets a precedent from his past.

The Facts

The thorn in JD’s paw? Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172. The permit that county accepted in 1980.

The permit says county must seek Carlsbad approval if county wishes to expand Palomar or convert Palomar from a small FAA-rated B airport to a C or D airport.

County accepted the permit terms because Carlsbad agreed to annex Palomar Airport within city limits so that county could receive Carlsbad city services, including airport fire services.

But, but JD yelped: The permit is 41 years old. Yes, well the U.S. Constitution is more than 200 years old and the California Constitution nearly 150 years old and both still apply.

In short, Carlsbad is usurping nothing. Carlsbad simply asks county to honor the agreement county not only voluntarily accepted but initiated by county’s annexation request.

Does the Board of Supervisors really want to disgrace itself by dishonoring its agreements? If so, county should front the County Administration Building with a sign: Deal with us at your peril. Our words mean nothing.

Changing Neighborhoods

But, but JD continued: Things have changed in 41 years. Yes, they have. Carlsbad population increased from 35,000 in 1980 to 115,000. Now Palomar pollution, traffic, and noise aggravate three times as many people. For precisely that reason, CUP 172 was written to require Carlsbad consent to significant county Palomar changes.

But, but JD (and many others) say: People who buy near airports should know better. Two flaws ground that argument.

First, Carlsbad residents bought properties believing they could rely on the county promise not to expand Palomar without Carlsbad permission. And Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015 (resulting from a people’s initiative petition) gives Carlsbad residents a vote on whether Palomar should expand.

Second, Palomar aircraft impact homes 10 miles from the airport, a long distance but a few minutes of flight time. Apparently, all of Carlsbad should remain empty to accommodate ever larger aircraft serving a few corporate executives who do not even live in Carlsbad.

An Inconvenient Truth: JD’s San Marcos Mayoral Precedent

In about 2007 when Jim Desmond was San Marcos mayor, San Marcos sued the County of San Diego and county landfill operators at the San Marcos site now known as Bradley Park. (See San Marcos v. County, Case No GIC879023). Why? San Marcos said that county and its consultants were not living up to its landfill agreement obligations.

So why the JD “usurping” flip flop? JD well knows that insisting county comply with its agreements is not a usurpation of county rights.

And – by the way – since then Mayor Jim Desmond supported “grassing” the San Marcos landfill for Bradley Field baseball, will he now support beautifying the ugly Palomar Airport slopes, which county says cannot be properly landscaped due to its 3 Palomar Airport landfills?

And if not, should Supervisor Desmond request a conflict of interest opinion? (See Patch article # 294.) What motivates JD to aggressively push a Palomar expansion when so many facts contradict him?