Airport Control

* Again The Times’ editorial staff misses the mark. The call to “sit down and hammer out their differences once and for all” (“Airport Authority Should Now Court Compromise,” Nov. 9) perpetuates the lack of understanding. When will your paper realize that the dispute between Burbank and the Airport Authority is not over noise. It is over control. If the authority does not appeal Judge [Carl] West’s decision and acknowledges Burbank’s “land use” regulatory power, how does that get Burbank its curfew and caps on flights / noise? The number of gates is not the issue either. Burbank accepts 19 gates if it gets the curfew and caps. Your editorial and West are correct in saying Burbank has the right and responsibility to protect the interests of its residents, but how does winning the suit accomplish that protection? You acknowledge the Airport Authority cannot deliver promises of caps and curfews. What then is there to talk about? . . . Burbank has no compromise proposal as long as it insists on curfews and caps.

If noise is the real issue with Burbank, its representatives should give up on their attempt to control the authority and come to the table to discuss noise, but city officials know that current contour studies prove there is no noise problem in their city. Therefore Burbank officials continue with the game of politics and divert attention from solutions. Your paper supports such diversion tactics when it calls for Glendale and Pasadena to “reconsider Burbank’s compromise proposals,” which are not compromises.

ROBERT W. GARCIN

Glendale