More El Toro Opinions Aired

Professor Arthur De Vany’s solutions in “Balancing El Toro Airport’s Costs, Benefits,” Feb. 2, come straight from the ivory tower in which he has been too long ensconced.

He recommends that those of us who own property in the “environmentally impacted areas” (screaming takeoffs and landings, polluted air, gridlocked traffic, etc.) be paid “a monthly fee for the noise it inflicts on the property.” How much does the professor think is a reasonable monthly sum for the utter destruction of the quality of life for which we invested our life savings?

Would he “lease” a home from the “airport operator” who might “purchase the property within the noise zone and lease . . . to other, less noise sensitive individuals”? I think not. “Grant homeowners within the district a generous tax rebate”? Get real!

I live in Leisure World, Laguna Hills, a community of nearly 20,000 independent seniors who came here beginning in 1965 to live out our lives in peace and dignity.

Should this abomination come to pass and the professor’s recommendations be implemented, would he invest his retirement pension to become my neighbor? What, and leave that cozy ivory tower? No way!

MATT SCHWARTZ

Laguna Hills

* Clarence Turner’s Orange County Voices column on Feb. 2 had all the sincerity I have come to expect.

He was one of the most vocal proponents for commercialization since his city [of Newport Beach] and developers stand to gain the most. I am sure that he and other proponents would take a personal interest in lobbying federal agencies and politicians to limit the size and use of El Toro. Most likely ensuring just the opposite.

Arthur De Vany’s idea of tax credits for those in the affected area are a joke! Not even considering that Orange County has marginally lifted itself out of bankruptcy, the county can now be sued by every homeowner who sells at a loss due to the Board of Supervisors’ vote. De Vany was right in his comment that it would flop as a private venture, which is precisely why the proponents put it on the countywide ballot and promised unrealistic benefits for everyone.

If you see odd-looking sheep coming down the road with pointed ears, big teeth and drooling, you can be sure it’s not in your best interest to believe them when their lips move. This is still a special interest project. Wake up and smell the coffee!

DEREK QUINN

Laguna Niguel

* Most letters against an El Toro airport seem to be filled with ridiculous threats or whining gibberish. I believe I have figured out what those writers really mean.

* “Boycott North County” means: “I buy mail order anyway because of the crowded roads caused by the exploding South County development.”

* “Let’s secede and form our own county” means: “Vote for me, I plan to run for mayor of Irvine, El Toro, etc.”

* “Expand John Wayne Airport” means: “Never mind that the lion’s share of expansion in Orange County has been and will be in South County, we won’t share the burden. Let Newport Beach suffer even more.”

* “We won’t stand for any airport at El Toro” means: “Even though the new airport will be quieter than the one that’s always been here, imagine how our property values will skyrocket with no airport at all.”

Solution along lines of the thinking above: South Countians stay off North County roads and out of John Wayne and we won’t need any new roads or airports, period.

MICHAEL STEINER

Costa Mesa

* The debate over the reuse of El Toro Marine Corps Air Station will continue until we secure a nonaviation use. However, with regard to county financial decisions, there is need for clarification in respect to a recent vote by the Board of Supervisors and select misinformation that only harms our fight to preserve the quality of life for all of Orange County.

This misinformation concerns the board’s vote to refinance an outstanding pension obligation bond. This vote did not dramatically increase the county’s cash flow. On the contrary, it prevented a ballooning of payments for a bond which would have critically depleted the general fund, thus causing deleterious effects for many needed existing programs. This money could not be used for any “pro-airport services,” simply for the fact that it is not extra money.

Contrary to assertions that airport opponents suggested we vote against the refinancing, no such testimony was presented at the board hearing for the pension obligation bonds. Why? The two issues are not connected. It is analogous to saying the county should not encourage fiscal discretion in procuring office supplies because any such savings could benefit airport proponents. That thought process is wrong.

THOMAS W. WILSON

Supervisor

5th District