Proposed Policies

The following is an analysis of possible policies pertaining to the Homestead Air Force Base and Biscayne National Park. Included is a recommendation by the State of Florida as to which policy would be the most efficient.

On February 1-3 of the year 2000, five public hearings were held to discuss the fate of the former Homestead Air Force Base. The most popular policy discussed at these hearings was referred to as the Mixed Use alternative. Although the description of this policy is somewhat vague, it involves creating a buffer zone between Biscayne National Park and developed land to the North, and selling the remaining land to an interested party. That Party will pledge to follow conservation guidelines set by Biscayne National Park that promote a revitalization of the area while also providing economic opportunities for South Florida. For instance, in order to purchase the surplus lands of the Airforce Base, the Collier Resources Company "proposed a specific exchange of oil and gas rights in Big Cypress National Preserve… to benefit the National Park System." (2). By allowing the organizations involved in the Mixed Use alternative to buy the land that is now Homestead Air Force Base, it estimated that these organizations will in turn create roughly eight thousand to sixteen thousand jobs, and up to $460 million in earnings for the South Miami-Dade County area. Although this economic benefit is less than that which would be associated with the development of the commercial airport, it is still significant growth and is better for the environment at the same time. Furthermore, the Mixed Use Alternative would impose little to no adverse effects on the park. This means no change in the soundscape, no endangerment of area wildlife, and no interruption of aesthetic beauty. The Alternative also includes a reduction of current air pollution (mostly Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from military planes), and a restoration of natural watershed processes made irregular by the Homestead Airforce Base. The only negative aspect of the plan is a 200-500 acres loss of farmland, but when compared to the 800 acres that would be lost with the development of a one strip commercial airport, this seems like another positive.

According to the Department of the Interior, South Florida’s top priority is to restore its unique environment as close to its natural state as possible, whereas economic revitalization is the second focus. It states that "South Florida supports some of the greatest biodiversity in the United States." (1). Because the government is looking for the best balance of the two priorities, the Mixed Use Alternative would be the best option. However, since many parties are interested in purchasing the surplus land, some criteria must be used to decide who gets it. Presumably, the land would go to the highest bidder that can adhere to the conservation guidelines. These guidelines include avoiding impact on the habitat and wildlife, avoiding a change in the natural soundscape, avoiding a change in the natural aesthetic beauty, and allowing the natural watershed process to return. Since all parties interested must comply with these regulations, the highest bidder that could provide the greatest economic benefit should receive the surplus land.

The Department of the Interior recommended the Mixed Use policy because it protects Biscayne National Park while supporting economic revitalization. Another possible policy would be to destroy the Air Force Base and declare the entire land buffer zones for the Park. This policy would be the best possible option for the environment, although it is not very feasible because few people would support such a policy. A third option, at the other end of the spectrum, would be to develop a full blown commercial airport, however this also would not receive much support because of the irreparable harm it would do to Biscayne National Park. A fourth option would be to develop a small-scale commercial airport containing only one airstrip. However, research that has been performed has shown that even one airstrip would increase the number of flights 60 percent over the most recent number at Homestead Air Force Base. The harm that would be done from this action would still be considerable. This leaves the Mixed Use Alternative as the best balance of benefits for everyone involved, and therefore, the most efficient policy.

Click here to take our survey