Editorial on Airport Ignored Crucial Issues
* I was quite disturbed by your editorial on the Burbank Airport titled “A Headwind of Hostility” (April 9).
The writer represented only one side of the airport problem and did not bother to find out what the concerns were of the vast majority of the people in Burbank, who are not against the airport, but are against the expansion along with the noise, traffic and pollution the expansion will cause.
Of the new City Council to be seated in May, at least four members have stated their opposition to the expansion of the airport. The so-called professional poll that showed 2-to-1 support for a larger terminal had many flaws and in no way reflected the views of the majority of citizens in Burbank.
The Times could do a service for the people of Southern California and push for an airport in the Palmdale-Lancaster area that would be accessible by car, rail or bus from the Los Angeles area. Also, an airport in that area would not have a negative effect as in a metropolitan area such as Burbank.
Our so-called partners, Glendale and Pasadena, gave up their airports and should not have the right to tell the residents in Burbank how to live.
BERNIE JACOBSON
Burbank
* Once more your editorial position on the expansion of the Burbank Airport places profit over people and ignores or trivializes the major concerns of opponents.
* “A hostile Burbank City Council.” Thank heavens that Burbank residents have finally roared back at the ballot box to elect council persons who are not afraid of the bullies who run the Airport Authority. Citizens are saying that they don’t want uncontrolled growth and more noise.
* “The turnaround came just as years of delay seemed to be over.” No, years of bullying and obfuscation by the Airport Authority, who for political reasons refuse to advocate Share the Noise takeoffs by using the east-west runway or turning west over Glendale and Pasadena.
* “The airport is not just a nuisance to people who have chosen to live near it.” Ah, your beautiful choice of words. This writer, critic of expansion and more noise, moved to the East Valley 31 years ago, before the jets. The airport was there, but was a friendly, non-intrusive neighbor. Repeat: I and tens of thousands of my neighbors did not choose to live near a major metropolitan airport.
No one doubts that the airport is a “major economic asset.” But you are not totally candid when you say that the airport “negotiated with airlines and got quieter jets.” Many are, but many are not. Our eyes begin to roll when you say that “it is soundproofing four schools” and that it has arranged a voluntary curfew on flights early in the morning and late at night. Excellent, seal schoolchildren up like money in a vault! How do we soundproof our back yards? And a voluntary curfew, like the one that shatters our quietude every morning and night?
* “The new council needs to take a businesslike approach recognizing that . . . the three-city Airport Authority runs the facility and not the Burbank City Council.” This may be so, but the good people and Airport Authority members of Glendale and Pasadena cannot be too concerned about those who receive all the airport noise. It certainly hasn’t been them.
Hurrah for the citizens of Burbank who have voted with their aching ears to stop this folly of expansion. First, let’s agree to a 50-50 Share the Noise program. Then talk about expansion.
ZANVILLE S. GREEN
Studio City
