READERS SPEAK OUT: Aircraft carrier, not a cruise ship

While plans for a cruise ship terminal at Mayport are controversial, the Navy's plans to base a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier there were mostly greeted with enthusiasm. Here's a sampling of reader views:

By The Times-Union
A nuclear carrier at Mayport would be a tremendous boost to the economy, as evidenced by the loss of the John F. Kennedy.

It is a well established fact that between 65 percent and 80 percent of military personnel who retire remain at the place they retire. I have known retired military people who had a tremendous impact on Jacksonville and they would not have been available but for the percentage of retired personnel who remain in the place that they retire. So I say bring on a carrier and the county of Duval will be well rewarded, both in the present and future.
Art Cape

The Navy has finally acknowledged that, just as the West Coast has multiple carrier ports, the East coast also needs multiple carrier ports.
Mayport is unique in that a carrier can get to sea in less than an hour, and without tugboats if required. Conversely, the trip from Norfolk to the open sea is a 4- or 5-hour evolution, and if not mistaken, does require tugboat assist on every trip.
James Weiss

Carrier GREAT! Glad to see the Navy not putting this egg in the Norfolk basket to make an even bigger, more attractive target for terrorists. Good for Mayport, good strategy for the Navy. Cruise ship BAD, BAD, BAD! Don't destroy quaint little Mayport for such a low-class industry. The cruisers can waddle on and off the ship somewhere else.
Joyce Bates

I, for one, am happy that we are getting a cruise terminal as well as a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at the Mayport Naval Station. As for the cruise ships, it will make it so much more convenient and economical for the people of North Florida, as well as Georgia and other neighboring states.
Jim Darrah

I think, as a country, we may have our priorities mixed up. If the goal of our armed forces is defense and our most likely enemies at this time are terrorists, a nuclear carrier makes no sense.
Richard M. Schrader

First of all, there is no comparison between cruise ships and the homeporting of a nuclear carrier. The cruise ship would put waves of people into the community for a brief time; the carrier would bring hundreds of employees permanently. In addition, the crew have families that would require housing, shopping, and educational opportunities. The only commonality between the two is they both would bring dollars into the market, one that would be sustained, the other periodically.
Robert Schellenberg

For ... Jacksonville as a whole, the additions of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and a new cruise ship terminal are very positive developments. Both will contribute to our economy and to the status of Jacksonville.

But from the standpoint of long-time Mayport residents, these developments - especially the cruise ship terminal - are very threatening to a traditional way of life. Their fears are entirely understandable because Mayport will definitely change as a result. It will no longer be a sleepy fishing village. I suspect that the vast majority of Jacksonville residents will see these developments as good. Of course, the vast majority of Jacksonville residents will not be forced to live with the immediate day-to-day impact of more traffic, thousands of visitors, and the loss of some long-time businesses.
John "Jack" A. Mitchell III

The placement of a carrier at Mayport to fill the void left by the departure of the JFK will not only be a morale booster to those in the Navy stationed in Jacksonville but also will cause the restoration of many businesses as well as increase business for those who managed to weather the loss of the JFK and accepted lost/reduced income because of it. Every area will be affected, home rental and purchase, food sales, auto sales, clothing, recreation, etc.

The cruise terminal is a hard pill to swallow. Although it will bring economic gain, it will also bring lifestyle loss.
John Waddell

Bringing a nuclear carrier into Jacksonville means a multitude of new homeowners, consumers and taxpayers, which can only be seen as a plus for the local economy.

It will require the city to look at a variety of needs and to support a relevant expansion of the school facilities in the Beaches area, and perhaps elsewhere, where the new families will reside. However, there is plenty of time to do that.

The proposed cruise ship terminal should also serve the Jacksonville economy well. It will give Jacksonville a chance to build its tourism trade, something that it has not really captured as a Florida city. Ideally, there is enough time to do it right, using what's been learned elsewhere to eliminate the unwanted baggage that can come with an overly zealous development program.
Jim Zambelli

Mayport, for those of us who spent our growing years in Jacksonville and at the Beaches, will never be the same if the Navy's plan for a nuclear carrier and the developers' wish to build a cruise ship terminal there reach fruition. Our local and national politicians who can, if they so desire, examine the impact of these changes on the local residents and small fishing, shrimping and retail enterprises that exist now in Mayport will most likely look the other way while the lobbyists stuff their pockets with favors and/or cash. Surely (as has been rumored) they could not use "eminent domain" as their legal argument, as all of the Mayport residents and business people I have spoken to about this issue are opposed to these changes to their community. Leave Mayport as it is. It's one of the best parts of our history.
Diana Townsend

While we all hate to see historic areas change, it is inevitable that they do. The property on which the Mayport base itself stands was once a privately owned resort that drew movie stars and northern socialites. Few remember this era and its buildings no longer survive, but its story still remains.

And so it goes with the fishing village of Mayport. Those who remember it as it once was and haven't seen it recently may think no change is warranted. But when Mayport's small businesses are failing, schools are threatened with closure due to low attendance and much of the low-income housing near the base has been shuttered due to lack of tenants, it's obvious that an economic boost is needed.

The nuclear carrier is exactly such an economic boost for Mayport and the Beaches. Construction will bring that boost for the next few years, then the carrier itself, its crew members and their families will bring vibrance back to the area.
For those who want to preserve the character of the existing fishing village at Mayport, take lots of pictures and record your stories of it so they may live on in history. The Timucuans who used to inhabit the area could testify to the futility of fighting progress.
Lynn Maria Thompson

The carrier is a good thing for the country and Jacksonville. The cruise terminal is another matter. The terminal will bring few jobs and will destroy the charm and character of that small village along the St. Johns river.

Sensible folk will say it's no more than common sense that a nuclear carrier is a huge positive for Jacksonville while the cruise terminal is just a big zero.
Jim Moore

Offshore drilling can harmoniously exist with nature — and does so

I believe the Asheville Citizen-Times’ editorial, “Expanded offshore drilling is no answer to our energy crisis” (AC-T, July 16), is in desperate need of a response.

It’s one thing to take a position on an issue, but it’s quite another to use as the foundation for your arguments fears that have little basis in reality, and the editorial to which I refer has a few of them.

First and foremost is the assumption that because the North Carolina coast is indeed in “Hurricane Alley” that any drilling rigs off the Carolina coast would be in danger, thus they would pose an immediate threat to the coast of Carolina. Oil companies pay engineers a lot of money to design those rigs to withstand all that Mother Nature can dish out. While they’re not completely foolproof, the rigs do have an outstanding safety record considering what they have to endure.

Rigs withstand storms

In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped through the Gulf of Mexico. At least two dozen active rigs were damaged to some degree, but little oil was lost. A Houston Chronicle article dated Nov. 13, 2005 (“Spills from hurricanes staining the coast”), details the environmental disasters of the those two hurricanes, but a close examination of the article shows that the vast majority of the spills came from damaged storage tanks, not off-shore rigs. In fact, what oil leaked from the rigs is described in the article this way, “The spills are so thin and evaporate so easily that they likely disappeared before anyone could reach them.” In other words, they were of little consequence.

The solution obviously would be that if drilling is to take place of the coast of Carolina, then the storage of whatever crude is produced should be handled somewhere else.

Not really pristine

The second fear — that somehow having oil rigs off the Carolina coast automatically means an end to pristine beaches — is pure hogwash as well. I grew up along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi (which shares the same Gulf waters as rigs off the coast of Louisiana), and never once did I ever see an oil slick at the beach, and the beach was never closed due to any oil-related matter that I can remember. I just returned from a visit to Sunset Beach along the Carolina coast, and it is indeed beautiful, but I wouldn’t call it pristine.

Every day, I found myself picking discarded lures, floats, parts of fishing nets, plastics, Styrofoam and who knows what else off the sand and out of the surf. Should we ban the fishing and shrimping industries too? How about tourists? Certainly, they’re polluting as much, if not more, than the folks who make their living out in the water.

The final fear stated in the AC-T editorial is the fear that the rigs will somehow interrupt or ruin the fishing industry in Carolina and, somehow, bird habitats (that one’s a real stretch). The U.S. has had active rigs in the Gulf of Mexico for decades, and I can personally attest to the fine fishing and abundant seafood to be found there. I have a freezer full of it thanks to a recent trip to my parents’ house in Mississippi.

Abundant marine life

Fishermen along the Gulf have long known that fish love to hang around the artificial reefs represented by the rigs — reefs teeming with marine life that usually mean great fishing. Ask any charter captain along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana or Mississippi where the good fishing is, and he’ll tell you, he’s headed out to the rigs. I’ve been fishing out in the Gulf, and the water is crystal-clear south of the barrier islands off the coast of Mississippi. My point is oil rigs off the coast of Carolina might actually enhance, not ruin, Carolina’s fishing industry.

Perhaps I should invite my colleagues on the editorial staff down to the Gulf on a fact-finding mission. I’m sure it won’t change their minds about drilling off the Carolina coast, but at least they’ll know that offshore drilling can harmoniously exist with nature, and we can eat some great seafood while we’re down there.

Doug Mayer is a multimedia specialist for the Asheville Citizen-Times. He lives in Fletcher.