"San Diego Airport Authority flier triggers anger; opponents file complaint"

Thursday, October 5, 2006

Airport agency mailer questioned 
Prop. A opponents call message biased
By Jeff Ristine
The San Diego (CA) Union Tribune


Opponents of the Miramar airport ballot proposal are calling for an
investigation of a mail piece from the Airport Authority that asserts
Lindbergh Field could be reaching capacity. 

The Proposition A opponents said yesterday the mailer, which the airport
agency said complies with laws allowing public funds to be used for an
education campaign, has a political purpose aimed at the Nov. 7 vote. 
 
"They stepped over the line," said retired rear Adm. Bruce R. Boland, a
member of the "No on Prop A" committee. The group plans to file a complaint
with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
 
Both sides drew from opinions of attorneys specializing in election law. 

"The mailer is lawful," said Lance Olson, a Sacramento lawyer. "There is no
actual reference to (Proposition) A in the mailer itself." 

James V. Lacy, a Laguna Niguel lawyer, said the mailer used "biased . . .
and unsupported speculation" to entice voters into supporting Proposition A.


A spokeswoman for the Fair Political Practices Commission declined to
comment on when the agency might respond to a complaint. 

The mailer is the first direct communication most voters have received from
either side in the campaign. The ballot measure asks whether voters want
government officials to work toward obtaining a portion of the Marine Corps
property for a future civilian airport. 

At Spanish Landing yesterday, Boland said the airport agency had used public
funds for "electioneering." San Diego City Council members Jim Madaffer and
Donna Frye, in her first public statement opposing the ballot measure,
agreed. 

Diana Lucero, an Airport Authority spokeswoman, said the four-page mailer
went out beginning last week to 766,400 county households with at least one
registered voter. The cost was $197,000. 

In September, the authority board changed words in the draft to make the
outlook for Lindbergh Field less alarmist. 

The No-on-A group said the edited version - warning that air travelers
"could" experience delays at Lindbergh - was questionable. 

Plans were canceled for a second mailer that would have addressed both the
pros and cons of the Miramar proposal. Lucero said the authority scrapped
the mailer because of editing delays and a review that affected the mailing
schedule.

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************