More Criticism of Airport Idea

According to Alternative A in reuse plans now being considered by the county for the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, an international airport would be built with a projected average of 50 landings and takeoffs of jumbo passenger or cargo jets every hour around the clock.

The nerve-racking continuous noise generated by such activity is of particular concern to those of us who live in Leisure World, just south of El Toro. It would ruin our quality of life and drastically reduce the value and marketability of our homes.

Aviation experts [also] have expressed concern about such problems as worsening air traffic congestion over Southern California creating a safety hazard; the danger of easterly takeoffs because of the uphill slope, tail winds and hills at the end of the runway; and air pollution in the area.

Nevertheless, the draft environmental impact report released on Aug. 8 concluded that the best use of El Toro would be the construction of an international airport about the size of San Francisco International. Concerned Citizens of Leisure World, an organization of almost 800 members, joins other South County residents in denouncing the report as a blatantly biased document that glossed over our concerns.

We overwhelmingly support non-aviation reuse of El Toro. Educational and institutional centers, research and development, habitat reserve, open space recreation, a transportation center and other non-aviation uses could be enjoyed by all Orange County residents. Such uses would enhance the community’s social and cultural attractions, which cannot be measured strictly in economic terms.

JAMES C. MOSLEY

Concerned Citizens

of Leisure World

* Congratulations to the Times Orange County for “The El Toro Debate, A Special Report,” Sept. 29. A great impartial review with emphasis on the important facts, both pro and con regarding the establishment of an international airport at that site.

The most important question now is how will the “con” facts get to Washington and the Department of Defense?

We do know that our Board of Supervisors will make sure the “pro” arguments get a hearing in Washington via the multimillion dollar environmental impact report that has been shot through with so many holes by so many respected experts.

This EIR is supposed to address all those serious concerns raised in conjunction with the proposed airport, but will they just be glossed over like so many were at the recent community meetings?

HERBERT FRANKLIN

Laguna Niguel

* Thank you for your special report. The article impartially and clearly presented both sides of the debate. Those of us who live in south Orange County appreciate that kind of coverage. Now we just hope that our Board of Supervisors will take as objective a look at the facts surrounding the reuse of El Toro.

MARK A. HUMPHREYS

Irvine

* As a former traffic controller, the thought of two major airports within 10 miles of each other scares me to death. The see-and-be-seen concept is good only when the weather is ideal, but the minute you have inclement weather, you go to your electronic systems for aid. Any traffic controller will tell you that electronic systems are made up of components that have reliability factors, which can fail, usually at the most inopportune time. Also, in the event of a major disaster, the controller is usually the first to be interrogated. You could not give me a job with those probabilities.

The El Toro mess is just an accident waiting to happen.

MARTY MALLOW

Laguna Hills

* It is unfortunate that safety regarding the potential use of the El Toro base as an international airport was so cavalierly treated in your article on Sept. 29.

It is doubtful the surrounding communities will find much relief or confidence in a report paid by the FAA, the designated arbiter on safety. Is this not the same FAA that authorized flights to such airlines as ValuJet? The same FAA that repeatedly disregards National Transportation Safety Board recommendations because of strong lobby pressure, such as in the helicopter tourist industry?

The FAA is politically driven, and with the entire base closure and reuse a political scheme anyway, FAA involvement in the county’s study will be suspect. For all we know, the FAA is being influenced by the same lot that used its money to influence two voter initiatives on the base’s future use. To even suggest FAA waivers on safety issues is unacceptable.

MARK HELVEY

Foothill Ranch

* Your special report on the “El Toro Debate” was at once the most unsettling and revealing analysis of why Orange County residents feel such mistrust toward their elected officials.

To conclude that building the nation’s fifth largest international airport would be the best way to control noise, traffic, and pollution boggles the imagination. How is it that this ill-conceived and far-fetched position could emerge as the preferred choice of those who would lead us into the next millennium?

The answer is disturbingly simple: Seduced by short-sighted “economic voodoo,” these officials have come to regard the land, and all that lives and grows on it, as nothing more than another opportunity for unfettered development. To them, it seems no loss, but indeed a gain, to employ what remains of county open space to its highest economic return. Ironically, the promise of fat returns was the same lure that plunged Orange County into the nation’s biggest civil bankruptcy.

Now we’re told by these same public officials that a 38.3-million passengers-per-year international airport will be the answer to all our economic concerns. Never mind congestion, pollution, air safety, and crime.

I urge we think twice before buying any more “snake oil.”

RANDY LEWIS

Laguna Beach