Dispute Over Airport Usage

It was discouraging to see your publication of three very negative letters responding to the April 5 article, “Quieter Skies, Emptier Airport.”

As usual, complaints about the control of airport usage boil down to: 1. If you don’t like the airport noise, then why did you buy a house under a flight path in the first place; and 2. How can anybody be selfish enough to rob patrons of the convenience in using the Long Beach Airport over LAX.

What most outsiders don’t understand is that Long Beach Airport was far different 15 years ago than today. When I bought my house in east Long Beach, there were seldom any overflights. Then, commercial flights expanded dramatically and the airport built additional runways.

The second criticism is paraphrased as, “What right do a few people have to put limits on the convenience of many.” I could turn the argument around and ask, “What right do a few airline passengers have to disrupt an entire community?”

The point is, realistic limits must be set on airport growth, even if it does cause inconvenience. Airports are simply not compatible with bedroom communities. Where they coexist, severe limitations must be imposed. Otherwise, local homeowners suffer for those who feel they have some kind of inalienable right to airport services. No such rights exist.

Hopefully, most of us are reaching the conclusion that unrestricted growth is not wise in any aspect of this world. From that standpoint, airports are no different from ozone holes or rain forest burn-off.

KENNETH M. SULLIVAN

Long Beach