More Views on Airport Proposal

After relentless howls and protests from South County accusing the city of Newport Beach and the County of Orange of conspiring to diminish the value of their land in and around the proposed El Toro airport, their tactics have taken a decidedly bizarre twist.

In one blink, the city of Irvine and the opponents of the El Toro airport have undertaken plans to build a “sports complex” on the proposed airport site. Forget the fact that the city of Anaheim has spent millions of dollars and years and years in preparation of such a sports complex within the city of Anaheim. Now the city of Irvine and its airport opponents have attempted to cut the throat of one of their Orange County neighbors solely in an effort to protect Irvine’s own selfish vested interests.

Quite frankly, I would find it rather amusing to have a very large sports complex at the proposed El Toro airport site. The thought of intoxicated concert-goers pouring out of the stadium following a heavy metal concert or sports event would, I’m sure, play very well with the homeowners surrounding the airport. That doesn’t take into consideration the congestion, trash, increased crime, as well as the obvious necessity to rent the Coliseum out to pay the costs of such a venture. More likely than not, such a stadium would remain empty 50% of the time and be a complete economic boondoggle and drain on not only the city of Irvine (its promoters), but the County of Orange as well.

RICHARD TAYLOR

Newport Beach

* Because headlines are important, I was dismayed to read the headline of your April 18 article (“Housing Prices Near El Toro Reported Stable”) regarding a study of home sales surrounding the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.

It leads the reader to infer that property values had remained stable, despite the intentions of the Orange County Board of Supervisors to turn the base into a 24-hour, international airport when the base is closed in 1999. It seemed rather strange considering that the article [also] documents how [some] home values have decreased.

The study was done by Experian (formerly TRW Ready Property). I presume that because Experian is a for-profit business, this study was commissioned by some organization. It has been my experience that studies generally support the conclusions of the funding organization (or at least not rule them out).

The study was conducted over a 13-month period, beginning in January 1996. However, the Board of Supervisors’ decision to accept the environmental impact report’s recommendation of an international airport did not occur until December 1996. In all probability, sales figures prior to December would not have been influenced by an airport. Yet these sales figures were included, suggesting a possibility that home values increased, then dropped after the Board of Supervisors’ decision, leading to an average drop in values of 2.2% (an increase of 4% and drop of 6% would average to a 2% loss). Why were these figures included? Lastly, Experian based its estimates on appraised values, which could be and probably are higher than actual sales prices.

CHERYL HEINECKE

Irvine

* Your article does not indicate whether the “study” included comparative information on “time on market to sell,” whether under currently proposed flight paths or not, number of homes on market now versus before, etc. And since the data appears to be averaged, any meaningful information may be lost. The Times’ most recent report on housing sale price changes in Orange County indicated considerable variance between zip code areas. However, if averaged, that probably would have been little if any change--in this study’s vernacular, a “stable” situation.

Regardless, a study of this nature is not a good indicator of future impacts on homes because of the possibility of high distortion created by residents still in denial or confident that the South County cities will prevail in their litigation.

Nima Nattagh’s [Experian] study is not in contrast to the findings that a commercial airport has a negative impact on home values, since we do not as yet have an airport or even a final decision on the airport. Even he admits that it is too early to tell. Possibly more important than whether Nattagh has any ties to groups backing the airport is whether he owns a residence within the study area.

Contrary to his contention that he employed real estate appraiser methods, appraisers furnish comparatives to potential buyers on homes within the same proximity and not between cities. Should the airport go in, I hope Nattagh is around to buy my house at its current value.

DAVID MELVOLD

Irvine

* Re “FAA Investigates 2 Jets Passing Dangerously Close While Flying Over L.A.,” April 18:

The two jets endangered not only crews and passengers but also residents under the flight path. Such are unavoidable events associated with proximity to airports, and this is one reason why airports are normally built in sparsely populated areas.

Such reasoning, apparently, is lost on our supervisors, who voted to build an international airport at El Toro, where the existing Santa Ana Mountains will force jets to fly over densely populated areas in South County. How many more warning signs do our supervisors need before they will realize their mistake?

HANNA HILL

Irvine