The Everglades Jetport Was Supposed To Be a World Wonder. Now It's 'Alligator Alcatraz.'
Our dreams have fallen from supersonic world travel to jailing migrants who've hurt no one.

The government of Florida is proud of how quickly it built a new prison for immigrants. "Eight days, Mr. President," said Gov. Ron DeSantis, grinning, as he stood next to President Donald Trump on the tarmac of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, which has been converted into a rapid deportation camp. Footage of the camp shared by conservative influencer Benny Johnson showed cages full of bunk beds inside a bare tent.
The airfield was originally designed for much greater things. Founded in the 1960s, the Everglades Jetport was slated to be the largest airport in the world and a hub for supersonic travel. Environmental concerns and the decline of the supersonic jet industry killed the jetport project; only one out of six planned runways was built, and the airport was converted into a training airfield. The final fate of the project—a place for jailing people over bureaucratic offenses—shows just how badly America's political class has forgotten how to dream.
For all its problems, the Cold War was a time of optimism about the high-tech future to come. In the field of air travel, the United States, Europe, and the Soviet Union were all working on supersonic passenger jets; the working assumption on both sides of the Atlantic was that almost all long-haul flights would be supersonic soon. New York and Los Angeles broke ground on airport expansion projects to accommodate supersonic jets. The problem, however, was that these flights caused loud, disruptive sonic booms, a nuisance for anyone living nearby.
Enter the Dade County Port Authority. Officials hoped that the Everglades would be an ideal trans-Atlantic flight hub, both far enough from Miami to avoid sonic booms over populated areas and close enough to service passengers from those areas. Planners envisioned a massive road and rail corridor running from the Atlantic Coast to the Gulf of Mexico through the jetport. The airport itself, carved out of 39 square miles of swampland, would be five times larger than John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.
"There are five other states competing for this Jetport," County Commissioner E.W. "Bud" Weaver said at the time. "And we in Palm Beach County are mainly concerned in seeing it does not go out of Florida." A 1968 pamphlet advertising the jetport, which began construction that year, promised that Miami-area airports would serve 35 million passengers by 1985. But construction was shut down two years later. A one-two punch of regulatory concerns killed the project.
First, an unlikely coalition of hunters, environmentalists, and native Miccosukee tribes warned that the transit project "and its attendant facilities" would "inexorably destroy the south Florida ecosystem and thus the Everglades National Park," in the words of a 1969 report commissioned by the Department of the Interior. The website of the National Park Services brags that the 1969 report was the "first ever environmental impact study for the state of Florida."
Second, more general fears about noise pollution dampened enthusiasm for supersonic travel. In 1964, the U.S. Air Force tried to show the public that sonic booms were no big deal by flying supersonic jets over Oklahoma City repeatedly. The experiment backfired, leading to mounting public opposition to supersonic air travel. Congress cut funding for supersonic research in 1971, and the Federal Aviation Administration banned all civilian supersonic flights over land two years later, making the jetport redundant.
Maybe the jetport was never a good idea to begin with. A massive government program to destroy the Everglades sounds like more trouble than it's worth; a better location could have been found. And the world was not yet ready for supersonic air travel, at least economically. The only commercial jet to actually operate regular passenger flights, the Concorde, relied heavily on subsidies from the British and French governments during its time in service from 1976 to 2003.
Still, the dream of supersonic flight for the masses was a noble one. (And some private entrepreneurs think they can get it right this time.) Whether or not the specific location and size made sense, the jetport represented a time when Americans dreamed about a world made more open, better connected, and more efficient by technology.
Alligator Alcatraz represents quite a different vision of efficiency. "You'll be able to bring people in, they'll get processed, they have an order of removal, then they can be queued and the federal government can fly—right on the runway, right there, you literally drive them 2,000 feet, put them on a plane and then they're gone," DeSantis said. Given trends in the Trump administration's deportation strategy, a majority of those people will be migrants who were never convicted of a crime and simply lack papers.
We might not be able to build great things anymore, but we're very good at enforcing paperwork now—and ruining livelihoods in the process.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Environmental concerns and the decline of the supersonic jet industry killed the jetport project;
Now we turned it into something useful.
Petti is having a tantrum. Much like and angry toddler in need of a diaper change and a nap.
>jailing migrants who've hurt no one
Except for the people they set on fire, raped, and stole.their apartments from.
Indeed. Not to mention the fentanyl they trafficked.
The native-born are ALSO threats to the Sacred Pubic Welfare! Some of them DO cummit murders!!! Send them ALL, these DIRTY invaders, back UP the birth canals that they came from!!!
Shit never ceases to amaze me, how the "logic" of the brutal cave-dwellers justifies just about ANYTHING that they want to do! Hey... Timmy McVeigh was a mass murderer and A WHITE DUDE!!! Therefor, let us send to El Salvador, without trial, for duly deserved TORTUROUS PUNISHMENT, all of the white dudes!!!
Fallacy of composition for the win!
Denial of criminality continues with this one.
No serious person denies that SOME of them have committed violent crimes.
The problem is, your team assumes that most if not all of them are just as bad as violent criminals. Heaven forfend anyone around here stick up for migrants being treated humanely, before some asshat starts chanting "Laken Riley... Laken Riley..." The penniless Guatemalan coming here for a better life, and the monster who murdered Laken Riley, have absolutely nothing in common, other than they both walked over the same border. That's it. But you and your team want to treat ALL of them as if they all murdered Laken Riley. It's wrong.
Why do we want any of them in our country? We really don't need more people. Especially from non-compatible cultures.
Why should the state dictate who gets to go where?
If you wanted to move to a new town, should the residents of that town get to vote on whether or not you are permitted to come?
If you wanted to sell your house, should your neighbors get a vote to approve your sale of the house to someone they may or may not approve of?
So, to directly answer your question: It isn't a question of whether we "want" them here or not, just like it isn't a question of whether we "want" your speech, or we "want" you to own a gun or not.
Oh this stupid old argument again.
OK John Lennon, "imagine there's no countries."
No, countries can control their borders and who comes in.
Oh, the false choice fallacy again. "If you don't agree with the state strictly controlling who can cross borders, then you don't agree with borders at all."
I view borders as the extent of a sovereign's jurisdiction. That's it. US law applies within US borders. Mexican law applies within Mexican borders. That's the meaning that I give to borders.
I don't view borders as prison walls that should substantially burden the free movement of goods and people. Again, I place the liberty of the individual ahead of the interests of the state. The state should exist to serve the liberties of the people, not the other way around.
"But every other nation does it!" Yes, they do. Every nation does many things that libertarians generally object to. Every nation has some form of a welfare state that libertarians would object to. Every nation has firearm restrictions that libertarians would object to. This is just one more item on that list.
Now I think I have substantially addressed your points. Could you address mine? Why should your neighbors have veto power over who you may or may not sell your house to? Why should the residents of a town have the power to decide whether you may or may not move there?
Because cities are different than countries.
Freedom of movement within a country. Not between countries.
Addressed.
Why? Why doesn't the same principle apply?
If "a nation has the right to control its borders", why doesn't a state, or a city, have the right to control ITS borders by strictly regulating who can come and go?
""If "a nation has the right to control its borders", why doesn't a state, or a city, have the right to control ITS borders by strictly regulating who can come and go?""
It's as if you don't understand federal governments at all.
Does any nation allow states and cities to do that?
I am talking about the *principle* of the matter, not the actual practice.
Look at the right-wing freakout the last several years about "migrants being flown around the country" and the clear implication that in places like Springfield, Ohio, the residents don't really want all of those Haitians there, that they were "imported" by the government against the desires of the residents. Sounds like, based on what transpired, maybe states and cities SHOULD be able to 'control their borders' and decide who may or may not come there. No?
""I am talking about the *principle* of the matter, not the actual practice.""
But if every free nation does it in practice, perhaps it's not a as bad of a principle as you suggest.
If "a nation has the right to control its borders", why doesn't a state, or a city, have the right to control ITS borders by strictly regulating who can come and go?
It's called superceding authority. Sorry that you refuse to learn it. But, dissolve the fed, and no doubt many (if not all) states will do that.
But if every free nation does it in practice, perhaps it's not a as bad of a principle as you suggest.
Every free nation also has some level of restrictions on private firearm ownership. Does that mean restrictions on private firearm ownership are a good idea *in principle*?
Every free nation also has some type of welfare state. Does that mean the welfare state is a good idea *in principle*?
If we accept the status quo as normative, then there's nothing left to do. Just perpetuate the status quo and all of our principles are satisfied. Right?
It's called superceding authority. Sorry that you refuse to learn it. But, dissolve the fed, and no doubt many (if not all) states will do that.
So, your argument is that states and cities do, or at least ought to, have the ability to 'control their borders' by deciding who can come and go, but the federal government is usurping the power of states and cities to do that by preventing them from doing so. Is that correct?
Is that correct?
That is what the commerce clause is actually about. The real reason why that wasn't allowed in the framing is time. The US simply wasn't big enough (size or population) to be effective countries. That will happen sooner than later, and then there will not be a federal government superceding authority.
You are an idiot.
How, pray, does a state know when someone has become subject to their jurisdiction without control of the borders you want to make utterly porous?
Why should your neighbors have veto power over who you may or may not sell your house to?
They don't. My elected representatives do.
Why should the residents of a town have the power to decide whether you may or may not move there?
Because it's THEIR town? But, in reality, they don't.
The right to freedom of association has been perverted so much to the 'inclusion' side of things that business owners are told who they must sell to, that clubs and organizations are often forced to allow people to join them whose stated purpose is to destroy them.
We have forgotten that we have the right to freely associate with each other as we, individually wish--the government has no right whatsoever to force us to associate with those we choose not to associate with.
Your asinine stance on immigration is part and parcel of the perversion of the idea of inclusion.
lol hilarious. The open borders position IS the absolutist freedom of association position.
And US law says enter the country legally, as a visitor or seeking residency. Can we enforce that starting at the border? Or is this one of those inferior unfair laws that elite thinkers get to ignore?
You know who had freedom of movement? Vikings. Attila the Hun. Slave Traders.
We are told that Colonisation by European powers was the worst thing in history. Yet we are supposed to let ourselves be colonized by those that don’t like or respect us or our way of life, and welcome it.
FFS no one is being 'colonized'. Migrants are not conquering land and establishing sovereign states.
But I get it, maybe - you FEEL LIKE you are being 'colonized' when you are asked to accommodate their cultural practices. Would it be fair to say that you wouldn't mind migration if the migrants acted and behaved exactly like you?
FFS no one is being 'colonized'. Migrants are not conquering land and establishing sovereign states.
This guy never heard of “no go zones”.
Maybe you should stop infantilizing and respect them enough to listen to what they say.
The Mexican Flag Wavers, Ilhan Omar and family, Zohran Madamni and his parents, the campus agitators you simp for here -
They all say they want to overthrow Capitalism and Free Speech and our Constitution.
Western Europe has been colonized. There’s no coming back from it
Would it be fair to say that you wouldn't mind migration if the migrants acted and behaved exactly like you?
Speaking only for myself, yes of course. Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha or controversial statement?
Cultural preservation is the WHOLE POINT.
The Mexican Flag Wavers, Ilhan Omar and family, Zohran Madamni and his parents, the campus agitators you simp for here -
They all say they want to overthrow Capitalism and Free Speech and our Constitution.
I think a lot of people say a lot of things that I don't agree with. It doesn't mean that I want to take away their liberties because of their beliefs. That's not 'simping', that's a principled pro-liberty position.
You know what would permit them to enact their supposed agenda to 'overthrow the Constitution'? To undermine the principles of liberty that this nation was founded upon. If the people who claim to stand up for liberty start acting in un-libertarian ways, then it makes the whole basis of liberty ring hollow. They will simply say, "the people who claim to be pro-liberty are a bunch of hypocritical assholes, you can't believe what they say!" And they'd be right.
By the way, what is the difference really between the Mexican flag wavers and the Confederate flag wavers?
Cultural preservation is the WHOLE POINT.
I thought individual liberty was the whole point.
I thought individual liberty was the whole point.
Not at the expense of national sovereignty, protection, and preservation. Or else you end up as some OTHER country where individual liberty is even less.
I think a lot of people say a lot of things that I don't agree with. It doesn't mean that I want to take away their liberties because of their beliefs. That's not 'simping', that's a principled pro-liberty position.
Their 'belief' is that they want to destroy liberty.
I thought individual liberty was the whole point.
Individual liberty IS a cornerstone of our culture --and the people you're simping for want it gone.
So, the vibe here I'm getting, from the two of you, is:
- You want more liberty
- You think that you can't get more liberty at the ballot box by outvoting those who disagree with you
- So therefore you want to oppress those who disagree with you in order that you get more liberty *for yourselves*, and abandon the whole concept of liberty *for all*.
Is that the general thrust of things?
Just remember TiT, Jeffy LOVES this country and its founding principles. So much so, he wants it replaced with some combo of Marxism, Sharia, and Narcoterrorism
Just remember, BSIAPC loves the nation so much that he wants it replaced by an authoritarian fascist state where everyone looks, acts, and believes alike.
See, two can play that game!
Again, I’m going to triple dog dare you, Jeffy, to cross the 49th without stopping at customs and see how far that gets you.
They’re here illegally. The laws says they go home. And for good reason. Full stop.
You just don’t like it. Because you deplore the rule of law.
Project much, Sarc?
Again, you have know idea what the things you write actually mean.
I take shits that know more than you.
Sorry if on some days your poop is your only friend. Just curious: do they actually talk back?
Mister Hanky is fiction, dumbass. Even my turds know that.
True, it you use your shit to attract SQRLSY. One of your few friends. Along with the child molester, and the morbidly obese child molester.
Seems like a good repurposing of an abandoned runway into something useful.
At least the taxpayers won't be forced at gunpoint to pay for expensive hotels in N.Y. City for illegal aliens to stay.
Looks like a win win to me. Zero capitol investment and only operating expenses borne by the taxpayer. Whether Reason likes it or not we have an immigration system with millions eligible for deportation. I guess we could just dump them in the Gulf of America. But this seems like a more humanitarian alternative.
The Everglades Jetport Was Supposed To Be a World Wonder. Now It's 'Alligator Alcatraz.'
Both things are still true. Alligator Alcatraz, a world wonder!
The final fate of the project—a place for jailing people over bureaucratic offenses—shows just how badly America's political class has forgotten how to dream.
No, it shows how America's dreams had to change in the face of bureaucrats and criminals. Why'd the project end? You said it yourself - environmental claptrap. Now we've got a half-built useless stretch of land.
So, we dreamed a new dream - how to turn it into something this country desperately needs. Especially because our other dream - an America without a bunch of border jumping scumbags - is ALSO frustrated as crybaby leftists stamp their feet in tantrums over our ability to get rid of said scumbags without giving them their dUe PrOcEsS LoL.
"You'll be able to bring people in, they'll get processed, they have an order of removal, then they can be queued and the federal government can fly—right on the runway, right there, you literally drive them 2,000 feet, put them on a plane and then they're gone," DeSantis said.
And you really refuse to see that as American dreams coming true.
Also, whose livelihoods are we ruining????
Shut up Matt.
Teen Reason clowns have no principles beyond Orange Man Bad
If this Airport in the swamp were proposed today, it would be an Abomination, unnecessary pork, wasteful spending.
Now it’s repurposed for pennies into something we need
And if this airport had been proposed by Biden, or, better yet, Saint Barry, and tagged as "green", they would have demanded hundreds of billions of pork dollars and probably a new cabinet office.
No concern for all the natives whose lives were disrupted by illegal immigrants who came for the free handouts? No concern when Obama refused to deport illegal immigrants whose families included young children, also illegal?
Immigrants who came for the free handouts, or because they were bums or criminals, or because they were virtually kidnapped from refugee camps, did not know where they were going, and did not like where they ended up. Sorry, not sorry. This country was built by hard-working immigrants, not bums, and not refugees who hate the country.
"Migrants." "Enforcing paperwork."
This is a peculiar strain of libertarianism that I really loathe. Detest. Hate. Open-border libertarians must really hate America.
Libertarians who favor the free movement of goods and people place the liberty of the individual above the priorities of the state. Is that "hating America"? I see it as upholding the greatest revolutionary principle that America manifested in the world, the declaration that all people have inalienable rights that a just government is duty-bound to respect.
I love the principles America was founded upon.
I detest the practice of jingoistic, shallow flagwaving in the name of America, while advocating for authoritarian crap that directly contradicts those principles upon which America was founded.
I love the principles America was founded upon.
No, Jeffy, you don’t, and you’ve demonstrated it time and time again within this very comment section for years.
"Papers Please"... You can't be a legal human without them... Can't be married, or divorced, or even a dead legal human... Can't be a cat, or a dog, in many places... Can't be an interior decorator, can't be a house, a barn, or an outhouse... Can't be a drug, food, or a drink without proper paper labels... Twat CAN we BE, any moah, without PROPER PAPERS? Can I be a proper pooper without proper-pooper-papers?
"Can I be a proper pooper without proper-pooper-papers?"
I've decided that I'll no longer give a shit! Shit's the ONLY way to be sure!
“Libertarians who favor the free movement of goods and people place the liberty of the individual above the priorities of the state”
You are not a libertarian. And America is more than a marketplace, it’s a country with defined borders, and citizens. Of course, these things are anathema to a morbidly obese, child grooming Sorosite, such as yourself.
You represent everything dark and evil in the world.
'reason' really is beyond parody. As much fun as it is to laugh at 'reason' writers, it's like shooting extremely stupid fish in an extremely shallow barrel. And it's become what Catholics call an occasion of sin. So, except for one comment I have if Fiona evers posts another slobber over illegal aliens, I'm done here.
Incidentally, why don't I capitalize 'reason'? Because it my opinion it's not a proper noun.
I like to think of it as ‘tReason’.
Is this the new land acknowledgement statement?
This is because our bureaucracy has not been good at enforcing our immigration laws and has created an intolerable state of affairs with millions of people in a legal grey zone at best. This has been the effect of the lawless policies Petti has favored.
Good Lord, this emotionally manipulative and self-indulgent article should be an embarrassment to the author and Reason as a publication.
There's a very easy way to get rid of the 'legal grey zone' of all of those migrants...
“Forgotten how to dream”?!?
When I go to SoFL, I like flying into Miami or Ft LAuderdale, not the Everglades.
Why add $100 to the Uber ride to the cruise terminal?
Matthew...
Give it a freakin' rest. This article shows how desperate Reason is to legitimize the behavior of their favorite scofflaws--Cheap illegal immigrant labor.
If you use the term migrant instead of illegal aliens then you're lying and are part of the problem.
"Migrant" is a morally neutral term that refers to any person who travels. It doesn't have to be legal travel only.
No, those people are travelers. Migrants are moving to a new place.
Migratory birds are moving to a new place ALL of the time, back and forth. Shall we shoot all of these cuntstantly-migrating and invading vermin from the skies? Would THAT satisfy Your PervFected Punish-Shit-Ment Lusts?
PS, they are even REPRODUCING themselves and their alien cultures, on OUR lands!!!
Intentionally.
shows just how badly America's political class has forgotten how to dream.
Libertarians for MAGA-like taxpayer projects?
I don't know whether to welcome you or laugh at your own failure to principle.
Libertarians for MAGA-like taxpayer projects, yes! Such ass Trump's endless trade-war escalations and tariff-taxes escalations, which will make us all RICH!!! RICH beyond our wildest dreams!!! Thanks for Your PervFected Taxes; may I have another?
"Libertarians for MAGA-like taxpayer projects?"
I don't know if this is sarcasm or abject stupidity.
So Petti is lamenting that a project from the fucking 60s that never got off the ground and now, many many decades later, it is finally being used for something.
Wow. Great article.
More spending for prisons?
I have a better idea: Send all the illegals to CECOT in El Salvador, and let that country sort them out.
Plus, how about sending all the violent criminals in US federal custody to CECOT too?
The American taxpayers could use a break.
Libertarians for a USA police state, giant nation-spanning prison, and the exporting of ACCUSED criminals, without trial, to foreign Gulags!!!
Kill them all, and let Government Almighty sort them out, in Statist Heaven/Hell/Purgatory!
That's not what I said, Einstein.
Those already convicted of violent crimes on the federal level should go to CECOT as well as the illegals.
Except if they are YOUR sons, daughters, friends, or fiends, no doubt! Or YOU! Butt PervFected YE can never IMAGINE that Government Almighty will cum for YOU, can You?
Make illegal immigration a capital crime. Then you know for sure that they're not coming back. I'm sure most if not all MAGAs would approve.
'The final fate of the project—a place for jailing people over bureaucratic offenses—shows just how badly America's political class has forgotten how to dream.'
No, our political class continues to dream, along with their WEF-Aspen-Davos comrades. And what they dream (for us) does NOT include air travel--or much travel at all.
Murder is not a bureaucratic offense.
Rape is not a bureaucratic offense.
Theft is not a bureaucratic offense.
Extortion is not a bureaucratic offense.
Dealing drugs is not a bureaucratic offense.
You'll only be able to go as far as you can walk and when you can't walk anymore you can take advantage of MAID.
Reality check, Matt.
They are not immigrants.
They are not migrants.
They are criminals.
There actions in crossing the border ILLEGALLY hurts everyone.
You should see all the memes coming out...some of them are downright hilarious.
Alligators be rappin' an sheit!
Great article, the GOP has fallen hard and embracing fascistic tactics to try and change American into a dictatorship. First they came for the illegal immigrants to get a foot in the door, next it's reporters/bloggers who speak the truth. It's all about small incremental fascist policy advances to slow broil the MAGA frogs.
Define fascist. I don't think it means what you think it means because your comment doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Yeah, this is the claim 'Trump is going to take our freedom' by shitstains who never quite get around to specifics, simply hoping the imbecilic claims will somehow be taken as valid by those not TDS-addled slimy piles of shit (like In Canis Credimus).
No, TDS-addled slimy pile of lying shit, your lies are not accepted.
Migrants can avoid detention simply by going home.
Gee, the plumber channeled the leak into a basin to prevent harm to the building, and you are blaming the plumber for the leak?
If you are not familiar with the phrase "TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit", it is because you ARE a TDS-addles steaming pile of lefty shit, asswipe.