Could Cecil Field reopen as a Navy Air Station?

[vicupstate]

I love how politics play over actual military Strategy. They need to look at in the way its best for our military and not who's pocket is going to get fatter. If its better off in Jax so be it, but the politics need to be pushed out of it. It actually looks as if its gotten worse with the BRAC, who is suppose to be unbiased but are not. The last minute addition of Oceana was a show of that. When the Navy wants it to stay in Vabeach and the BRAC wants it closed shows this. Jeb was the one who actually got it added on the list. But thats politics. You guys are going to get the jets which is fine it is a opportunity for Vabeach to bring in some kind of Biotech park.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How true. It would be great to get the politics out of these decisions, and also the extortion ($250mm from FL and $500mm from VA). However, the "politics" also includes John Warner. In all likelyhood, Oceana should have been closed in '93 instead of Cecil. If indeed that would have been to best decision from a military strategy angle, just think of the untold millions spent de-commissioning Cecil, and now the cost to re-open it. That is the cost of politics.

[vicupstate]

I agree with you Vic, that we all certainly need to hear more information before passing judgment on Cecil feild one way or another.

However, I tend to like the idea of re-opening Cecil for seemingly some of the same reasons that Vic is concerned.

- I like the fact that lots of rural land will be devalued as a result of the base (the jets take off to the West, btw, which is nearly 100% rural ... for now). Suburban residential sprawl is already knocking at the Eastern edges of Cecil, and a new base will help prevent this westward sprawl. Furthermore, since all the western land is still zoned as agricultural, conservation, or rural residential, no one can complain that the jets will prevent them from building their subdivisions.

- I also like the fact that it eliminates an industrial "supersite." If the average incomes from a military base aren't suitable for Jax's economic development, neither is an auto plant!! The last thing Jax needs is an influx of unskilled to semi-skilled unionized industrial workers. Also, supersites aside, I can't take seriously the argument that Jax is lacking in vacant industrial space. Take a drive through the Northside and Northwest Jax in particular.

In the end, which would Jax rather have ... an industrial park (with an unknown level of future occupancy) which absolutely encourages further westward sprawl to accomodate residents and services? Or, a military base which all-but prevents further westward residential sprawl? But as Vic said, there are still tons of unknown financial details.

Of course, this is all moot. The ball is in Virginia's court to keep the base. No one in Florida has any control over that. Plus, if Virginia does lose the base, Jax and Florida will do basically anything to re-open Cecil. And no one will convince them otherwise. The political will is far too strong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My goodness, where to begin...

How would you feel if you OWNED some of that Westside land that was de-valued? What if that was land that was in your family for generations and now your children no longer wanted to live on it because of the noise? How would you feel then?

I understand your opposition to sprawl but consider this. If you put 12,000 people at an Navy base, there is going to be sprawl. Period. It will go south to Clay County and north towards Nassau County. The area between Cecil and currently-urbanized Jax will complete it's transformation from rural to urban. What's the difference?

A Navy base will bring NEW people to the area. None of the military jobs will be filled with people who already live in Jax. An Auto or similiar plant would mostly hire people who ALREADY live in Jacksonville or nearby areas. Every hire in that category creates NO sprawl because they already have a place to live. They will just be making significantly more money. Raising per-capita income is supposedly a goal of the Peyton Administration.

When BMW opened in Greenville, they basically took 5,000 people with NO skills in auto manufacturing, and trained them. The average wage is more than $10k a year higher than the average manufacturing wage, even though the plant is NOT unionized. Most (all?) Foreign owned auto plants in the South are not unioned either.

In addition, BWM's suppliers have added another 5,000 jobs to the economy.

BMW is the kind of name that gets noticed by other companies that are looking for a place to land. Let's not forget that a private owned plant pays PROPERTY TAXES and a navy base pays NONE.

BMW has done phenomenally well since opening it's plant and is now locating it's RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT functions to Greenville as part of an International Automotive Research campus in conjuction with Clemson University. IBM, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems are getting involved with the park as well. Another as-yet-unnamed company is seriously looking at locating in this park as well. The average wage for them will be $85,000.

Now doesn't that sound better than noisy jets flying over a sea of tract housing, Super Walmarts and fast food restaurants?

Jacksonville is going to grow. It must decide WHAT kind of growth that it wants. Does it want to be in the league with Charlotte, Nashville and Austin, or does it want to be a larger version of Fayetteville NC or Mobile AL.

Cecil has already made the short list TWICE for a Mega-project. One of those sites (that it lost out to) is no longer available as a competitor site. If Jeb and John Peyton will pony up the money, Cecil just might land the next one.

Jacksonville needs to start reaching for the next level instead of settling for things it already has. As the Mayor of Charleston, Joe Riley once said, "don't be afraid to hold out for quality".

Don't discount the chance that VA will tell the Navy to take a hike. If the grassroots don't support it, eventually the politicians will catch on and change course as well.

The key now is for the "grassroots" in Jax to find out the real deal on this and stop this if it is indeed not as rosey as Peyton and Jeb want everyone to think.

[rusthebuss]

See Military can actually put you back in years for a cities or regions economy. That is why partially I'm glad you guys are getting the jets now.

[Captain Obvious]

My goodness, where to begin...

How would you feel if you OWNED some of that Westside land that was de-valued?

[RiversideGator]

See Military can actually put you back in years for a cities or regions economy. That is why partially I'm glad you guys are getting the jets now.

How does the presence of the military set a town back years in economic development? Did the presence of military bases in and around Atlanta set it back? What about the old bases in Orlando or Chicago - did it set those cities back? I think the Navy is a positive force, the jets would bring in lots of officers who are paid much more than enlisted men, and the additional population helps to create more of a critical mass which leads to other development. The jet noise is a ridiculous issue. First of all, you get used to it. Secondly, it was there just 10 years ago anyway. And finally, it is the sound of freedom.

[vicupstate]

I wasn't even arguing for the re-opening of Cecil. The only reason I even responded to your post is because I agreed with your initial point ... we need to hear more about the specific financial numbers before we pass judgment one way or another.

However, your real intention was obviously the exact opposite. You wanted to start a discussion about how you already think re-opening Cecil is a terrible idea and how you've already made up your mind. Fair enough. I won't try to change your mind.

But for the purposes of defending myself ...  Your hypothetical couldn't actually happen. If someone owned land for "generations", they were also there 10 years ago, when the jets were there. Their uses can't be devalued from what they currently are - zoning wise. 

The only people who could possibly be upset (or "devalued") are if land speculators bought the rural land for subdivisions. However, no one has rezoned that land yet - for tax purposes- so the city owes them nothing. That's a risk you take when you buy land on the bet that you can rezone it later.

I also think you were misreading my main point - which is that all the Walmart sprawl WON"T happen West of Cecil if it re-opens as a military base. The city will probably refuse to upzone it in the future at the request of the military. The Walmart sprawl WILL happen if it remains an industrial park. But that's just my personal speculation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was commenting on your cavalier attitude regarding the loss of value on one's property, as if it is no big deal. There are several posts in this thread from people who heard the jets when it was a base before. The population density has only risen since then. Also, there will be MORE jets taking off than when the base was open previously. And this time, these will be newer (more powerful) jets that make more noise, at least that's what has been printed.

My mind IS open on Cecil, but frankly I don't trust Peyton and Jeb to tell us ALL the facts, if doing so would hurt them politically.

If someone can show me some legitimate data on how reopening Cecil will improve the per-capita income levels, then I might very well support it. After all it is a bird (almost) in the hand. But show me the numbers, and don't feed me any B.S. about "doubling the per-capita income" ...

How does the presence of the military set a town back years in economic development?  Did the presence of military bases in and around Atlanta set it back?  What about the old bases in Orlando or Chicago - did it set those cities back?  I think the Navy is a positive force, the jets would bring in lots of officers who are paid much more than enlisted men, and the additional population helps to create more of a critical mass which leads to other development.  The jet noise is a ridiculous issue.  First of all, you get used to it.  Secondly, it was there just 10 years ago anyway.  And finally, it is the sound of freedom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many of the 12,000 positions are officers, and what do they make? These will most be enlisted men/women. When Cecil was a base before, it didn't help make the Westside the "ritzy" part of town. As for getting use to it, see my comments above. Would Riverside/Avondale/Ortega be okay with getting use to the sound of freedom? The Navy (at Cecil) was an integral and welcomed part of Jax before, they left of their own accord. Why should $250mm of state and local funds be extorted to bring them back, when they can turn right around and leave again.

[Captain Obvious]

There are several posts in this thread from people who heard the jets when it was a base before.

[jeafl]

You don't have to, just drive out to both and its very clear that NAS Jax is boxed in by more dense development than Cecil is.  There's a SuperTarget, right next to NAS Jax's runway for crying out loud.

On the other hand, there's no development, if any, west of Brannen Chaffee Road, which is still a good distance to the east of the nearest runway at Cecil.  Plus, there's NO development in the path of Cecil's main runway.  In addition, NAS Jax has only two runways, while Cecil has 4 longer runways.

Btw, Brannen Chaffee is designed to one day become an outer loop expressway, to relieve traffic on I-295, Blanding and other congested roads in Northern Clay and St. Johns Counties.  If Cecil reopens, it would make a great cut off line for suburban development.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did the development around Cecil come before or after the base closed? What I wonder about is why do the people who live around Cecil get to complain about re-opening the base but the people who live around NAS were never asked if we wanted all the commercial development that has been put around NAS during the past few years - or the increased jet activity at NAS since Cecil closed.

And if NAS is an area that cannot support much civilian development, wouldn

[jeafl]

After an very illogical statemnt such as that, I will no longer debate you on this topic.  You have just proven beyond any doubt that you fail to comprehend NFL policy.

If my statement is so illogical, I suppose you can document how many people who go to Jaguars home games are from Jacksonville.

And I suppose also that you can document the rate at which each NFL team sells tickets so the Jaguars' ticket sales can be compared with every other team

[jeafl]

hehe, I'm stationed in oceana currently.  I could care less if this base gets shut down, I wouldn't mind comin down to Jax .

Anyways, as far as I know, the stipulation to Oceana closing is that they can stay open if they meet the BRACs demands.  The main thing they want is to remove all exsisting development that classifies as encroachment.  that is, have the city buy the property, and then knock down the houses.  There are houses literally yards from the runways.  Also residents routinely compain about jet noise.  Oceana is VERY boxed in by development.  So it's easy to see why BRAC wants to close this base. 

However, I do think Virginia will do everything it can to meet the BRACs demands & keep Oceana alive.  It's estimated to cost the city around 20 million to buy the property, make necessary improvments, etc.  Yet if the city loses Oceana, it is said to have an impact of over 1 BILLION dollars on the city.  So, you can imagine Virginia is going to scramble to keep Oceana alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If a state has to be the Navy's hooker, I'd rather it be Virginia than Florida.

[Viper]

I told you I'm not debating you further on that topic. Do your homework before making such baseless accusations. Season tickets. 50,000+ sold. To even think that the stadium gets filled with people flying in just to watch the Jags get beat is an asinined theory at best.

Where did I say NAS Jax was unsuitable for jets in that statement?

You don't combine the bases due to mission differences and many, many other factors.

[Captain Obvious]

Councilman Dan Davis has a letter to the Editor opposing the Cecil re-opening. To me, it seems that he's just trying to appease NIMBY homeowners in his district, rather than voicing any real opposition to the Navy. (After looking at the GIS aerial maps, I'm still struggling to find any subdivisions even within a couple miles of the runways - so I still think most of these noise fears are unfouded)

He also oddly mentions that he's the only politician who will vote against the funding. Not exactly a savy way to promote your cause. That further confirms the notion that he's just making an attempt to retain the grace of a select few constituents that even he doesn't regard as a majority.

[jeafl]

I told you I'm not debating you further on that topic.  Do your homework before making such baseless accusations.  Season tickets.  50,000+ sold.  To even think that the stadium gets filled with people flying in just to watch the Jags get beat is an asinined theory at best.

Where did I say NAS Jax was unsuitable for jets in that statement?

You don't combine the bases due to mission differences and many, many other factors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are the one making the claim that the Jaguars do as well as the other teams do as far as their playing skills and ticket sales are concerned. They have lost more games than they have won for half of their completed seasons and they have a 20% home game blackout rate. My conclusions are valid, but if you can produce documentation for what you say, you are welcome to provide it here.

[jeafl]

You know it's amazing: when the city was bending over backwards trying to keep Cecil from closing, I don't remember hearing one single complaint about the noise the base was producing at the time and the neighbors seem to be opposed to now.

And I repeat that the noise at Cecil couldn

[Viper]

You are the one making the claim that the Jaguars do as well as the other teams do as far as their playing skills and ticket sales are concerned.

2004:

rank - city - total home attendance number - average attendance per home game

1. Washington - 625,794 (89,399)

2. NY Giants - 472,538 (78,756)

3. Kansas City - 468,019 (78,003)

4. NY Jets - 467,312 (77,885)

5. Denver - 525,882 (75,126)

6. Carolina - 512,957 (73,279)

7. Cleveland - 512,351 (73,193)

8. Miami - 434,010 (72,335)

9. Buffalo - 500,985 (71,569)

10. Houston - 494,468 (70,638)

11. Atlanta - 493,984 (70,569)

12. Green Bay - 493,963 (70,566)

13. Jacksonville - 489,237 (69,891)

14. Baltimore - 488,751 (69,821)

15. Tennessee - 413,592 (68,932)

16. New England - 481,292 (68,756)

17. Philadelphia - 406,073 (67,678)

18. Seattle - 400,871 (66,811)

19. St. Louis - 395,378 (65,896)

20. Cincinnati - 394,264 (65,710)

21. Tampa Bay - 392,265 (65,377)

22. San Fransico - 389,313 (64,885)

23. Minnesota - 448,658 (64,094)

24. New Orleans - 448,278 (64,039)

25. Dallas - 447,187 (63,883)

26. Pittsburgh - 443,158 (63,308)

27. Detroit - 374,901 (62,483)

28. Chicago - 371,387 (61,897)

29. San Diego - 420,542 (60,077)

30. Indianapolis - 342,221 (57,036)

31. Oakland - 320,525 (53,420)

32. Arizona - 228,547 (38,091)

They have lost more games than they have won for half of their completed seasons

82-78. 82 wins...78 losses....that is more wins than losses. I hope that is simple enough for you to comprehend because I stated this once for you already.

The 20% of blackouts has only been the past 4 years, not team history. It also looks like we'll have zero blackouts this year. Only 3 times in NFL blackout history have no games been blacked out for all teams in all NFL markets.

2004: An NFL blackout flashback.

Week 1: Saints, Bills, Dolphins, Steelers, 49ers, Jets, Bears, Eagles

Week 2: Cardinals, Chargers, Raiders, Saints, Jaguars, Lions, Cowboys, Chiefs

Week 3: Dophins, Colts, Lions, Raiders, Chiefs, Broncos

Week 4: Cardinals, Chargers, Bills, 49ers, Steelers, Dophins

Week 5: Chargers, Saints, 49ers, Colts, Cowboys, Steelers, Broncos

Week 6: Saints, Jaguars, Bills, Raiders, Lions, Cowboys, Bears, Falcons

Week 7: Cardinals, Raiders, Colts, Dolphins, Chiefs

Week 8: Bills, Cowboys, Chiefs, Broncos

Week 9: Chargers, Bills, 49ers, Colts, Dolphins, Lions, Broncos

Week 10: No data

Week 11: Raiders, Saints, Bills, Jaguars, Texans, Bears, Chiefs

Week 12: Cardinals, 49ers, Chiefs, Lions, Cowboys, Steelers

Week 13: Saints, Raiders, Colts, Lions, Dolphins

Do I really need to keep going?

[RiversideGator]

I think you have answered his charges. Look jeafl, if you dont like the NFL or the Jaguars or football, that's fine. But there is no reason to smear the team or the city here.

[asonj23]

Great resarch Viper! There is now way the Jags could look bad after seeing those numbers. I had no idea we compared so strongly to markets 2 or 3 times our size.

I would have never dreamed that Dallas and Pittsburg would have less annual attendance and more blackouts than Jax when they have 2-3 times the market and smaller stadiums!

Go Jags!!!

[RiversideGator]

I agree. What is your source for the figures, Viper? Can you post a link?

[Viper]

The attendence figures are available on ESPN.com plus I've seen them posted right here on UP before.

The blackouts required me to research each teams home page past news articles....hence why I finally stopped after week 13, too damn tedious.

[jeafl]

2004:

rank - city - total home attendance number - average attendance per home game

1. Washington - 625,794 (89,399)

2. NY Giants - 472,538 (78,756)

3. Kansas City - 468,019 (78,003)

4. NY Jets - 467,312 (77,885)

5. Denver - 525,882 (75,126)

6. Carolina - 512,957 (73,279)

7. Cleveland - 512,351 (73,193)

8. Miami - 434,010 (72,335)

9. Buffalo - 500,985 (71,569)

10. Houston - 494,468 (70,638)

11. Atlanta - 493,984 (70,569)

12. Green Bay - 493,963 (70,566)

13. Jacksonville - 489,237 (69,891)

14. Baltimore - 488,751 (69,821)

15. Tennessee - 413,592 (68,932)

16. New England - 481,292 (68,756)

17. Philadelphia - 406,073 (67,678)

18. Seattle - 400,871 (66,811)

19. St. Louis - 395,378 (65,896)

20. Cincinnati - 394,264 (65,710)

21. Tampa Bay - 392,265 (65,377)

22. San Fransico - 389,313 (64,885)

23. Minnesota - 448,658 (64,094)

24. New Orleans - 448,278 (64,039)

25. Dallas - 447,187 (63,883)

26. Pittsburgh - 443,158 (63,308)

27. Detroit - 374,901 (62,483)

28. Chicago - 371,387 (61,897)

29. San Diego - 420,542 (60,077)

30. Indianapolis - 342,221 (57,036)

31. Oakland - 320,525 (53,420)

32. Arizona - 228,547 (38,091)

82-78.  82 wins...78 losses....that is more wins than losses.  I hope that is simple enough for you to comprehend because I stated this once for you already.

The 20% of blackouts has only been the past 4 years, not team history.  It also looks like we'll have zero blackouts this year.  Only 3 times in NFL blackout history have no games been blacked out for all teams in all NFL markets.

2004: An NFL blackout flashback.

Week 1: Saints, Bills, Dolphins, Steelers, 49ers, Jets, Bears, Eagles

Week 2: Cardinals, Chargers, Raiders, Saints, Jaguars, Lions, Cowboys, Chiefs

Week 3: Dophins, Colts, Lions, Raiders, Chiefs, Broncos

Week 4: Cardinals, Chargers, Bills, 49ers, Steelers, Dophins

Week 5: Chargers, Saints, 49ers, Colts, Cowboys, Steelers, Broncos

Week 6: Saints, Jaguars, Bills, Raiders, Lions, Cowboys, Bears, Falcons

Week 7: Cardinals, Raiders, Colts, Dolphins, Chiefs

Week 8: Bills, Cowboys, Chiefs, Broncos

Week 9: Chargers, Bills, 49ers, Colts, Dolphins, Lions, Broncos

Week 10: No data

Week 11: Raiders, Saints, Bills, Jaguars, Texans, Bears, Chiefs

Week 12: Cardinals, 49ers, Chiefs, Lions, Cowboys, Steelers

Week 13: Saints, Raiders, Colts, Lions, Dolphins

Do I really need to keep going?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about providing the seating capacity of each stadium? And since Jacksonville has completed only 10 seasons, are you basing the numbers for the other teams on the last 10 seasons?

And what about the population base for each team? What percentage of Jacksonville residents attend games versus the percentage for the other cities?

If a team sells as many tickets as the Jaguars do, but has a smaller population base, then that team has more fan support than the Jaguars have. Jacksonville has around 735,000 people. If you assume that the same people go to Jaguars games game after game and assume that everyone that goes lives in Jacksonville, then the Jaguars are supported by less than 10% of the population, but 100% of the taxpayers have to subsidize the team.

Contrast Jacksonville with Green Bay. With a population of around 113,000 Green Bay

[Captain Obvious]

jeafl ... you are using city population numbers which are arbitrary. Your calculation would need metro numbers.

Also, you are really digging yourself into an huge hole by bringing that up. Because, based on the measurement you just outlined, Jax should have the THIRD HIGHEST fan support in 2004 as a percentage of metro population ... behind only Green Bay and Buffalo.

I don't have the data for other years, so I can't speak to that.

[RiversideGator]

If a team sells as many tickets as the Jaguars do, but has a smaller population base, then that team has more fan support than the Jaguars have. Jacksonville has around 735,000 people. If you assume that the same people go to Jaguars games game after game and assume that everyone that goes lives in Jacksonville, then the Jaguars are supported by less than 10% of the population, but 100% of the taxpayers have to subsidize the team.

Contrast Jacksonville with Green Bay. With a population of around 113,000 Green Bay

[Viper]

Also, having a winning record does not grant a team to the playoffs. You just proved once again on just how little you understand NFL policy. Please refrain from further discourse on this subject matter as you can only worsen your already deteriorating image.

[jjoshjl]

Personally, I dont care either way about football, but I understand the economics of it. Even though it may look bad on the surface, Jaguars are doing realy well as team in terms of Local Support. We really are doing very well as a football city. All you have to do is Look at the numbers...

But mroe than that, look at the numbers with respect to every other NFL team...

Whether or not they move will not hinge on that aspect i dont think . Furthermore, loosing the Jags will be a serious blow to Jax. I may not be a big Football person, but I understand the importance of keeping them here. and will support them when I can..

Anyway, jsut wanted to throw in my two cents

Josh

[jeafl]

jeafl ... you are using city population numbers which are arbitrary. Your calculation would need metro numbers.

Also, you are really digging yourself into an huge hole by bringing that up. Because, based on the measurement you just outlined, Jax should have the THIRD HIGHEST fan support in 2004 as a percentage of metro population ... behind only Green Bay and Buffalo.

I don't have the data for other years, so I can't speak to that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should metropolitan populations mean anything? Does the city of Jacksonville collect taxes in Orange Park or Fernandina or St. Augustine to pay for the stadium the Jaguars use?

Since sometime in the 1990s Jacksonville's metropolitan population has been at or above 1,000,000. With 69,000 people going to an average home game, the Jaguars have the support of only 6.9% of the metro population. This is even less than 9% figure you get using the population for Jacksonville proper. Using the metro population will likely increase the fan base for any team, but the average attendance figures for home games would not go up as well. So the percentage that supports the team will have to go down.