Opinion: Airport idea does not fly

In an area already committed to cleaning up pollutants and other environmental dangers, it makes little sense to build an airport on the Homestead Airforce Base site.

What should be done with Homestead Air Force Base? Two proposals have been made for the 1,600-acre base, which was devastated by Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and is no longer needed by the military. One group wants to convert the base to an airport for cargo and passengers; the other wants to build a mixed-use office and recreation complex.

Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas and a group of developers argue for the airport, saying it is needed to invigorate the Homestead economy. Neighborhood groups and environmentalists want the mixed-use project, saying an airport will bring pollution and urban sprawl. The choice might be a close call except for one fact: The base lies between two national parks.

It is hard to imagine a trickier spot for development. A couple of miles to the east of the base is Biscayne National Park, which includes Florida's longest stretch of mangrove forest, more than 40 of the northernmost islands in the Florida Keys and a living coral reef. About 12 miles to the west is Everglades National Park, where an $8-billion restoration project was recently approved by Congress and President Clinton.

A recent study by the Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration concluded that neither project would harm the environment. But environmentalists, including the Sierra Club, aren't so sure. They say fuel spills, potentially hazardous cargo and air pollution and noise from airplane engines all threaten the two national parks. The biggest threat could come from urban sprawl around the airport that could spread to the edge of the Everglades.

They have reason to be skeptical. The military left behind 500 sites contaminated by jet fuel and chemicals, costing $45-million to clean up. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found hazardous materials in a canal that flowed from the base into the bay at Biscayne National Park. An airport and industrial area would produce similar pollutants.

The alternative project would feature an aquarium, office buildings, two hotels, a retail complex, RV park and two golf courses. While any development carries some environmental risk, it would be much less with this project, which is supported by a long list of neighborhood associations, elected officials, environmental groups, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and EPA Administrator Carol Browner.

The Air Force will make its decision on the proposed projects within a month and Clinton will have time to make the final selection before leaving office. (President-elect Bush has not expressed an opinion on the matter).

Both projects would create jobs and spark economic activity, but only one -- the airport -- poses a significant environmental threat to the two nearby national parks. It would make little sense to build an airport on the edge of the Everglades at the same time taxpayers are sinking $8-billion into repairing environmental damage there. The choice should be clear: No airport between the Everglades and Biscayne Bay.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page