Northwest now is supported in part by viewers like you.

Thank you.

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport was a nice little airfield back in the day, but then the modern era hit.

And now it's a classic case of putting 10 pounds of rocks into a 5 pound bag.

Something has got to give.

The security line recently stretched into the short term parking garage.

So enter the state legislature, a new commission and watchdog all trying to find a place to land.

A new airport.

Only one problem.

Nobody seems to want it.

That's the discussion next on Northwest.

Now.

You know who's got a nice big airport?

Denver, which, by the way, is a smaller market than Seattle.

Yes, Denver handles 30% more passengers, but it does it on 1,200% more acres.

Put another way.

DIA has 53 square miles.

Sea-Tac has just four square miles.

Nobody's talking about building a DIA sized monster in western Washington.

But the point is that the era of doing more with less is over.

So the Legislature authorized the creation of the Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission, which works in conjunction with Washington.

David, thanks so much for coming in Northwest now.

Let's start with the base case for this possible new airport.

Nobody wants it.

So I guess we need to explain why we need it.

Sure.

Well, the analysis tells us with population growth that by 2050, we will need what equates to another Sea-Tac like facility or that amount of capacity spread out across the Puget Sound area.

And it's for both air passenger service and for air cargo.

So there's an equal need for air cargo operations as well.

Let me correct myself.

I said nobody wants it.

I think everybody wants it.

They just don't want it where they are.

So I think that's an important distinction here for the people who are following this issue.

Explain the relationship between Washington, which is transportation, obviously, and this commission.

How do they interact?

Who's the boss?

How does it work?

So what?

I was tasked through the legislation to be the administrating body.

So we helped get the meetings together.

We helped meet the needs of the commission members themselves.

It just so happens that I was elected to be the chair of the commission as well.

So we provide all the planning for commission members, the things they request.

We also work with the communications consultants to reach out to people to get input on this work.

So we're connected, but it's not a was a dot project.

It's a governor appointed commission to look at capacity to see if we can come up with recommendations to solve the need out in 2015.

So do the recommendations that are due in June.

Are those binding or are they more advisory?

And then the legislature decides, where does the buck stop?

It's the latter.

So the commission is only going to make a recommendation, and that recommendation will need to go to legislators.

Legislators will have to decide whether or not it needs to be acted on.

There could be recommendations that they wouldn't even need to act on.

But if it's a new airport, rest assured they would need to act on things that come out of that.

Then it would have to go to another phase, which is where the FAA would work with an airport sponsor.

So there's multiple phases to this.

It's not going to happen in the next 5 to 10 years.

We're talking a new airport.

If it goes to a new airport.

We probably won't see that for another 20 plus years down the road.

If it is a new airport, a greenfield site, and right now the only targets on the list are one in Thurston and two in Pierce.

Is there a potential for that to be imposed?

Could there be eminent domain?

Could some of the tools and power of the state be used to say, Sorry, folks, you're going to have to give up a radius of six, six miles.

We got to do it.

We need the capacity.

Here we go.

Is that possible?

I know there will be litigation.

I know there's process.

But is that ultimately possible if some of the do some are.

Some of the fears that folks have about an imposition founded in reality?

Well, it's not something that truly falls under the scope of the commission that's going to be really up to legislators to decide.

When we started this work.

We really wanted to get as much capacity as we could out of existing airports.

I mean, when we went out with our initial surveys back in 2019 or early 2020, that's what people told us.

They wanted us to leverage our existing airports before we moved to a greenfield site.

So we looked at existing airports and what it what it came down to was we weren't going to be able to get out what we need.

It was just existing airports.

Sea-Tac will run out of room.

It can only expand so much pain.

Field is a likely contender to grow commercial service, but they have a finite amount of space.

So with that analysis, it came down to the need of about 27 million annual passengers.

That's the unmet need.

So the question is, do we want to meet that need?

And if so, how are we going to do that?

It could be with a greenfield site.

It could be that we go back and relook existing airports as well.

Last 30 seconds here for you.

I think one of the things people forget is that if we constrain supply, if we can have a constrained airport, prices are only going to go up.

The number of airlines will be constrained and people will actually be bidding for and competing for tickets out of Seattle.

Tacoma.

I don't think that's been out there enough as that is my analysis.

Correct?

Yeah, there will be there will be pressure, especially on Sea-Tac, Paine Field and other airports that have existing air service.

And the things that we've seen at Sea-Tac where, you know, you have days where there's really long lines.

That's just kind of the writing on the wall.

So it's it's a hard dilemma.

It is a big challenge to solve, that's for sure.

David, thanks so much for coming in Northwest now.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

The goal is to identify other airports that can expand to meet demand and or find an entirely new undeveloped site for a new airport.

But none of the preferred so-called greenfield alternatives that have been identified by the commission want a new airport.

Enid Closs squawked and got bumped off the list, but there's a potential site in Thurston County and it's the focus of Don Sonntag, leader of the Stop the Thurston Airport Group and one of the proprietors of the Evergreen Valley Lavender Farm, Thane Barrington, and the mayors of Olympia Elm, Lacy, Rainier, Tumwater, Tenino, Bee, Kota and the Thurston County Commissioners have all come out against it.

So the first question, Thane, is I guess the most basic one, it's only a six mile radius.

Why isn't it worth the growth and the jobs?

What's not to like?

What's not to like?

Pollution.

Just the impact of it alone is not.

It's going to go beyond the six miles.

I have a lavender farm that's going to be right on the edge of their cyclone fence with their razor wire, I'm sure.

And it's going to go out to the Nisqually Reach.

We've got a bunch of sensitive land out there.

The tribe has always been against it.

I've got that same letter to the legislators that you're referring to, and it just goes beyond that six mile reach.

They're talking 3000 acres, which is 600 acres bigger than SeaTac.

Why?

Yeah.

Granted, there's probably a need, but is this the right area for it?

We think not.

So done, everybody.

Pretty much.

I think it's obvious if you go to SeaTac, there's a need.

That airport is landlocked western Washington.

Washington's growing.

If not in a nice little place like Thurston County Central.

If not that site, who's going to get stuck with the thing?

How do we find a solution?

Well, the the solution to the transportation issues in this state are controversial.

Actually.

There are people who are experts who are saying we actually don't need another mega airport or international airport and are suggesting that more flight traffic be distributed among the smaller airports and that high speed rail be developed.

And that to share down with Portland a little bit.

That's kind of one of the things that's been kicked around.

Yes, absolutely.

So that there could be a reduction in air traffic just between Seattle and Portland, for example.

How do we justify these two ideas that we like the rural character, but we also need family wage jobs and we need a place for our kids to go once they're out of school, as opposed to go into the Bay Area or ship in after Snohomish.

I get that.

I just wonder how many jobs they'll actually provide.

Are they going to be bringing in hotels along with this as well?

Is there going to be other contiguous types of properties that are going to need that kind of employment?

Are the kids going to do that or are they going to go elsewhere?

I know when I was working for a restaurant firm for a number of years, we'd heard statistics that there were some 47,000 cars leaving Daily Thurston County to head up to the Pierce and King County businesses.

There's a piece of property that my other farm was near in Tumwater.

That was Briggs Nursery, Briggs Village.

And the concept was much like they had in California, where build the buildings, build the businesses, build the houses around it.

The people that live in those houses will work in those areas.

Didn't happen, didn't it?

Doesn't happen.

So there's a there's no real guarantee that whoever is going to be growing up in that area would continue to work there.

I wouldn't work there.

I mean, there's just no.

Don, I guess same question for you.

When you look at our use of the use of Pierce County or folks growing up here.

It seems like it's not perfect.

But by the same token, it is it is a major investment.

It is something for them to do.

There are family wage jobs that are going to be coming out of that.

How do we how do we way that I know you don't want it, but I think we have to weigh this regionally a little bit to some degree, too, don't we?

Well, I think that we actually have to look at at some much larger issues.

We can talk about creating jobs in this area.

And if you look at at SeaTac, these are a lot of minimum wage jobs.

So is that something that someone's going to want to stay for their career for and those areas end up being undesirable areas to live in because they're near an airport.

And so then we've got this these social equity issues and then we've got the climate change issues.

And so if we if we just keep ignoring that, then our youth are going to have a much bigger issues to deal with in their futures.

And I think we really need to keep that in the in the big picture.

So destroying acres of forest and contaminating aquifers that provide drinking water for the city of Olympia, disrupting a crucial corridor for for wildlife between the Mt.

Rainier area and the National Park and parking.

These are irrevocable losses.

So I think that we need to be really creative in thinking about how how are we going to help our state's economy and jobs without destroying what we have, actually.

And I'm sure you've heard this, the old phrase is thrown around as NIMBY.

Well, here's a bunch of people who are not in my backyard types.

So I'm sure you've had that tossed at you.

How do you answer that saying, well, you're just a NIMBY?

Well, I am.

And it's a fact.

Yeah.

We came up here from San Diego 42 years ago because we wanted more of a rural life.

I finally got it after decades of working hard to get it a nice farm.

We're actually on the tourism board and with the bountiful byway there's a 60 route, 60 mile route throughout Thurston County, and there's a number of there, 30 or 40 of us that are businesses that are on that route that we draw in tourism.

My farm draws from the Columbia basin to the coast to the Canadian border, and I'm a little farm.

But the reality is something like this is going to impact every other business there.

There's Rutledge Farms.

There's all these other businesses out there, the ones in Tenino.

You've got a glide path and you've got to take off path.

Each of those areas are going to be affected greatly.

And of course the temptation then is to put in warehousing and freight handling and to build.

It's already, like you said, you've got the six, eight, six miles.

But then there's a temptation to take advantage of a facility, I guess.

Mm hmm.

Yeah.

One of the threats that's been talked about, too, is this idea of eminent domain.

You know, the commission says we're going to put it somewhere.

I know nobody likes it, but guess what?

Western Washington needs a big airport.

You also have some very real world pocketbook concerns that affect you directly, Don.

Talk a little bit about that.

If if that happens, where we end up with the government sort of taking land, how what are what are your concerns about that?

We could be forced to pay remaining mortgage on our homes while also having to find a new place to live in a very tight housing market, probably not in western Washington or anything close to what you have in terms of neighbors.

Exactly.

There are people whose, you know, their full time business is in their home and it is very much location dependent so that they would lose everything if they are forced to leave.

Yeah.

Last question for you in our last 60 seconds here, how can folks get involved?

How do they find you?

I really get the feeling this a lot the first time.

A lot of folks have heard about this idea that there's this commission looking for a place to site an airport.

How do people find out more?

Give me a quick rundown and how they can get involved.

Tell them WW w stop the airport scam.

It's a groundswell of people that are starting up and folks like these folks and others that we're talking about, they're getting the word out as fast as possible.

I'm all over Facebook.

I've got thousands of connectors on my wall and we've just got a lot of play.

Meanwhile, Pierce County has two potential sites under consideration, one near Graham and the other near Eatonville.

County executive Bruce Dammeier recently penned a joint letter to the Aviation Commission expressing his displeasure.

Bruce, thanks so much for coming to Northwest now and the commission's report is due in June.

I guess the first thing I need you to do is read the tea leaves.

Are you feeling like you can fight it off or do you feel like it's.

Pierce County is very much in play.

What's your take right now as the politics stand?

So, Tom, we've been kind of monitoring the process.

And when there was, you know, ten sites being considered, we were watching it very carefully, but not overly concerned at that point.

There was a process.

But when they narrowed it down to really three Greenfield sites and both Pierce County sites were in the mix at that point, we got concerned and I called a meeting.

I had the opportunity to meet with members of the leadership of the siting commission, the state's commission.

And that meeting left me even more concerned.

At that point, I became convinced that they are intending to site it at one of the Pierce County sites.

And that was at that point, that dynamic changes.

Okay.

If it felt like it was not just a scientific analysis that was going to result in it, but it felt very political to me.

Did it feel a little preordained, even like you think there's been a decision without the decision or what do you think?

Candidly, yes.

You look at their authorizing statute, the law that commissioned the commission picked included King County.

Right, even though their own analysis, the top contender was the site in King County, but they were precluded from doing that.

And when I met with them, they said, well, they based on some actions in the Homepage County, they were going to rule out Snohomish County.

And based on some actions down in the port of Olympia, they were going to kind of rule out Thurston County.

And at that point, you're going, well, who's left who?

So yeah, the music is the music has stopped.

And I don't have a chair exactly.

And it felt like it was a political problem, candidly, felt like it was a political process.

And therefore, we needed in Pierce County, we need to muster our political power to go and defend our county from so much.

How much I can understand a little bit.

People don't realize who aren't from here, how that you're living in a different climate up in Snohomish County.

I mean, it is substantially different than it is in Pierce County.

So that's a piece of that.

But on the broader issue, you know, you and I have sat through and participated in many Tacoma Pierce Chamber of Commerce Horizon's breakfast event, where I do the thing with the economists and we talk about we need family wage jobs and we're tired of everybody getting on 167 and banging up north to get the jobs they need.

We're looking at a 2 to $400 million investment on this thing.

Is it this?

It's you know, yes, we're giving up a six square mile radius.

But is it this the kind of thing we've been wanting, Bruce?

So the answer is yes.

There are some economic benefits.

And I acknowledge that our region needs more airport resources.

The thing that I object to, and I think the people of Pierce County object to, is this is a major commercial airport.

We're not talking about spreading it out, maybe three or four airports supporting the entire region.

We're talking about a 20 million passenger per year, major commercial airport in rural Pierce County.

And that doesn't make sense.

And I think the people of Pierce County understand that to make mass transit makes sense, though, having that scattershot all around the market, if you want to do freight mobility and you want to it into Fredrickson and you want to tie them to the port, I keep seeing these connections and I really don't have an ax to grind one way or the other in the thing.

I just know what our discussions have been about over time and it just seems like it checks a lot of those boxes.

Yeah, the economic benefit, right.

The jobs and the economic activity all come at a very significant cost.

You would be kind of devastating.

The rural nature of that part of our community.

You think about the investment that would be required not only in the airport itself but in the infrastructure.

We don't have any kind of transportation infrastructure coming or going.

Maybe you get it.

Maybe you get the cross base highway.

Bruce Well, who knows?

Maybe because it would take major investment to be able to do this and to get the economic jobs, you've got to be producing hotels and restaurants and all those other things parking structures, everything.

Think of what you see at around SeaTac.

You'd have to recreate that in rural Pierce County, and that is where I see some pluses.

But the consequences are too great for me at this point.

I don't have confidence that they're going to just in a fair way, balance the pluses and minuses for Pierce County.

So here's the tough question for you, because, you know, you'll be asked this.

We need the capacity.

You know, you don't have to be an airport scientist to go to Sea-Tac and realize we're in trouble there when it comes to capacity.

In fact, we're about 10 million passengers from the capacity of 60 billion, and we're going to need another 40 million capacity in about 25 years, which I frankly think is probably undershooting.

We've undershot before when it comes to building our transportation infrastructure here in western Washington.

I think that would be a hard lesson to learn again.

So the question is to do something of scale that will solve our problems.

Keep Western Washington economically engaged and vital.

What do we do?

So I think when you look at kind of major regions to compare us to, you can think of the Bay Area where you've got San Francisco International Airport, you've got you've got Oakland, you've got San Jose or down to the Los Angeles, you've got three or four or five kind of regional airports around there.

That's, I think, the kind of solution that makes sense for our Puget Sound region right now.

They've got kind of an artificial limit up in Paine Field of 4 to 4 million passengers.

I think that's not appropriate.

I think you could take that to ten very easily.

They don't think so.

I understand.

They don't think so.

They think it should be in Pierce.

I guess when I was looking at when you look at the existing airport down in Olympia, it could easily handle 8 million down there.

I think there are other options that they're not looking at that were right for our region because they wanted one airport that can handle 20 million.

I think that focuses the pain and the consequences and doesn't spread the benefits.

All of us would like an airport a little closer to us when we go travel.

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah, there's no question about that.

We want we want the convenient, shiny new dia that we can whip to on a on a mass transit train just somewhere else.

That's the big one.

And the other thing that has been concerning at this point, again, I feel like it is you used the word preordained.

I think that's not an incorrect word at this point.

I am concerned it is preordained.

Well, there's a lot of folks that have not been engaged in this that need to be engaged.

Our local tribes haven't been engaged in a meaningful way.

The I am very concerned about the impact and the consequences of Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

There's a lot of air travel there.

If we put another airport right next to it, what about the conflicting air patterns of there?

What about our national security responsibilities associated with Joint Base Lewis-McChord?

All those things need to be taken into consideration.

So here's a little outside the box thinking somebody I can't remember who discussed this, but I was going, I wonder, is there any chance JB home could be brought into this?

And there's a nice runway there.

And one side of the airport is, you know, National Guard, U.S. Air Force, troop mobility.

The other side is commercial little freight for the whole Parkland Fredrickson thing.

Could that work?

You know, my last duty station was in Pearl Harbor, and there the Air Force Base and Honolulu International Airport share an airport right.

And that is not the only one.

I think there's like four or five, at least in the nation where you've got that combined civilian military use.

So that is, I think, something that has been worth considering.

But one of the things that is very different now, those were all created kind of World War Two, certainly pre 911, pre heightened security around our military installations.

So that is where I think the challenge really becomes.

We've got to maintain security there.

Yeah, there might be a possibility, but the but the base and the military are very concerned about that at this point.

So to find a way to kind of air gap, the military there entrances and it almost might makes some of the efficiencies you'd hope to get by co-locating would maybe go away because of security concerns instead of having one big road coming in.

Now you've got to have two and so you lose some of that maybe.

Yeah, exactly.

So it people see that big long runway and say, well, why can't we?

Well, there are a lot more concerns than when you fly into Tucson or fly into Honolulu.

So where do you go from here?

This this process?

It's it's going to it's supposed to be completed by June.

And, you know, the train is to use it the wrong analogy.

The train is rolling down the tracks.

The airport is airplanes coming down the landing strip.

How do you how do you what's what's the process from here?

What are you thinking?

What's your strategy?

How do you how do you operate?

So at this point, again, I fully anticipate that June will result in one of the Pierce County sites chosen.

So the our strategy at this point is to start marshaling our political resources, to be able to go to battle and represent the people of Pierce County in that siting discussion.

And in the long series of discussions, you know, this is this will not happen quickly.

It could be ten or 20 years later.

But we've got to be positioning Pierce County strongly to contend against it.

And and if it were to come to make sure that the interest of Pierce County and the people of Pierce County are represented well, and if it were to come, we want to fight it.

Yeah, but if that's my question, what needs to be happening in a way that is good for the people of Pierce County, or at least the least bad for the wood?

What do you think you need to get?

And that's just following on to your question.

If they say, Bruce, I'm sorry, this is how it's going to be, what are the things?

Do you have a are you going to work on a checklist?

Well, if that's the case, we've got to have boom, boom and boom not.

Yeah, right now at this point, I know that the consequences of this of a major commercial airport in rural Pierce County are just too great.

So today, the answer is we think it is the wrong decision.

We think you can't mitigate the consequences to our community well enough.

We think we should be looking at different options in different locations.

There may be a time at some point in the future if if, if the state is hell bent on going down this line, there may be a point to pivot.

But right now we've got to make sure that this is the wrong place for a major commercial airport.

We'll end it on that note.

Bruce Dammeier thanks so much for coming on Northwest now.

You bet.

Thank you, Tom.

Washington state needs to do something smart.

Future proof, accessible, bold, green and logical.

The bottom line, that's what's got me so worried, especially when it comes to anything transportation related.

I hope this program got you thinking and talking to watch this program again or to share it with others.

Northwest now can be found on the web at kbtc.org.

And be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter at Northwest.

Now, a Streamable podcast of this program is available under the Northwest Now tab at kbtc.org and on Apple Podcasts by searching Northwest Now.

That's going to do it for this edition of Northwest Now and Till Next Time.

I'm Tom Layson - thanks for watching.