More Airport Views Aired

* Contrary to your Oct. 30 editorial criticizing the county’s planning process for reuse of the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, the planning process has been a textbook example of thorough land use analysis, abiding by guidelines set by the Federal Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.

The integrity of the planning process has always been one of the county’s highest priorities. We are very proud of the level of analysis that went into preparing Community Reuse Plan and Environmental Impact Report 563--a level that was higher than the law required.

To suggest that the result of the planning process was predetermined is irresponsible and untrue. And to subsequently suggest that the county was “putting the health and safety of the public at risk,” without providing any examples or reasoning for the accusation, is an unsubstantiated and unprofessional act.

The reuse plan has been studied, analyzed and debated more than any other issue in the history of Orange County. The decision to plan for a modern, vibrant airport community that will allow Orange County to continue to compete in the global economy did not come without years of careful examination.

We encourage public input during the current master planning process and will continue our commitment to thorough and credible planning.

COURTNEY WIERCIOCH

Manager, MCAS El Toro

Master Development Program

* Congratulations on your Oct. 30 editorial.

Finally, an entity with a whole lot of clout has the courage to tell it the way it really is: “The airport has been the choice from the beginning for a powerful group of developers and their supporters in the corridors of county government. All the planning and all the decision making have been a mere window dressing to support a foregone conclusion.”

Thus far it has appeared that the ruling body in Santa Ana could care less about the health and safety of the public.

Many thanks for your timely views on the County of Orange’s cavalier handling of the El Toro airport matter.

KEITH BRIDWELL

Laguna Niguel

* Your statement, “The airport has been a choice from the beginning for a powerful group of developers and their supporters in the corridors of county government,” is a lot of hot air.

The Orange County electorate, in our form of democracy, twice voted and instructed the supervisors to proceed with the El Toro airport option.

Contrary to the views continually expressed by The Times and its covey of “airport opponents,” the Orange County supervisors are doing the job they were elected to do. If a majority of the electorate thinks not, they will have their choice to reelect them or vote them out in the next election.

The Orange County folks who voted in favor of an airport at El Toro stand for something that will benefit everyone in Orange County in some way.

An airport at El Toro would facilitate expanding investments into emerging markets in the world. As we have clearly seen from events these past weeks, these markets will have an increasingly electrifying effect on anyone’s stock and bond portfolio, or job and weekly paycheck.

Getting overly focused on the negative effects of noise, pollution, traffic and the environment, though important to fix, can lead to monumental, needless headaches and a waste of a lot of positive energy.

VICTOR H. JASHINSKI

Newport Beach

* I would feel more in sympathy with Richard F. Taylor’s Nov. 5 letter in favor of an El Toro airport if he lived in its proposed flight path.

Taylor lives in Newport Beach, where pilots put their passengers at risk rather than have noise pollute luxury houses and where restrictions require planes to only fly between certain hours so they don’t disturb the occupants’ sleep.

If Taylor and these strong advocates for an El Toro airport were forced to live in the flight paths, they would all be singing a very different tune.

RITA CHARETTE

Laguna Hills

* Regarding the readers’ response to your Oct. 30 El Toro editorial and the continuing Letters to the Editor battle between North and South County over the El Toro conversion, it’s interesting to note how, at least in quantity, only the North County city of Newport Beach seems to dominate the letter count from the “Northerners.”

So far, based on my seriously unscientific study, the letter count on this topic seems about the same, against or for. The “against” contingent seems broadly represented by the communities of Irvine, Lake Forrest, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, San Clemente, Laguna Beach.

However, the “for” contingent seems heavily represented by Newport Beach only.

It’s very interesting that there are precious few letters of support for the conversion plans, or even indignant outrage at the recent court rulings, from the good citizens of Huntington Beach, Westminster, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Corona Del Mar, Orange.

Newport Beach loves to claim clear victory in no less than two elections on the issue, yet with the claimed clear mandate, one would expect to see more letter-writing action from the other North County cities.

Most folks recognize this whole thing as a not-so-subtle ploy by the Newport elite to move the last remaining nuisance as far as possible from Bayshore Drive and make a few bucks in the process.

BOB MORTON

Monarch Beach