The Iraqi War Meets Local Land Use Laws in Southern California Gail Heriot

Am I the only one who thought this editorial in the San Diego Union Tribune was rather odd?  Evidently, Blackwater USA (referred to in the essay as “the controversial firm that supplies private security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan”) wants to build a training facility out in the desert near the tiny town of Potrero (pop. 850).  Anti-war activists have turned out in force to protest the war and, among other things, are trying to persuade local authorities (i.e.  the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Diego) to refuse the company the necessary permits.

The Union Tribune is unhappy with the protesters.  Quoth the UT:

“In our view, the ideological debate about Blackwater should be set aside. The firm trains mostly former U.S. military personnel to provide a range of support services to the Pentagon under federal contract. If you don’t like that, or you don’t like defense contractors profiting from the war in Iraq, take your complaints to Washington.”

So far, so good.  Local land use law shouldn’t be driven by such matters.  Nobody with any sense would want to live in a world in which local land use authorities could give thumbs up or thumbs down on a project depending on what they think of the American foreign policy the project will support.  Land use law is supposed to be about … well … land use.  Landowners shouldn’t be denied the right to use their own property as they see fit just because somebody doesn’t like what they are doing in halfway across the globe.

But then the Union Tribune throws in this odd little zinger:

“What the San Diego County Board of Supervisors must decide, however, is whether the training complex makes sense from a land-use perspective in rural Potrero. This question can’t be answered until a full environmental impact assessment is completed in a year or two.”  (Emphasis added.)

Goodness.  Has it really come to that?  Two years?  That ought to be unacceptable for any project, expecially a project that might be vital to the war effort.  Yet the UT expresses no misgivings about it.  Evidently, the folks there think it’s just fine–so long as Blackwater USA isn’t being singled out on account of its involvement in the war.  The UT asks, for example, “will the noise of gunfire destroy the tranquillity of the Potrero Valley, or are there ways to muffle the sound, such as putting the shooting ranges underground or inside soundproof buildings?” 

Blackwater isn’t looking to build a training facility in downtown San Diego.  It’s talking about the desert.  If bureaucratic red tape can’t be cut through quickly in the desert, where can it be? Shouldn’t the UT be urging that the project be put on a fast track? Presumably, Blackwater would liable for any private nuisances they might create.  It’s not like approving the project will give Blackwater blanket immunity.

I wonder if this isn’t one of the downsides of military “out-sourcing.”  I assume that if the U.S. Marines wanted a new training facility that they could bypass local government boards like the San Diego Board of Supervisors.  By contracting with Blackwater instead, the federal government strengthens the local government’s hand.