The Politics of El Toro

The future of El Toro Marine Corps Air Station figures in several important elections this fall. This is not a new issue, and therefore voters rightly can and should expect much more from candidates and campaigns than general position statements.

The fate of the base has been a subject of spirited community debate, as well as a focus for county reuse planning. Along the way, several key moments have focused community attention and enlivened the discussion. These have included the two ballot measures won by airport supporters and the crucial votes taken by the Board of Supervisors that moved the airport planning process forward. Ahead lies the county’s date with its own future, the departure of the Marines next July.

We are now approaching another of those critical benchmarks, the November election. Specifically, there are two important El Toro questions. The first is, who will win the runoff election in the 2nd Supervisorial District--pro-airport incumbent Jim Silva or airport opponent Dave Sullivan? The second is whether Irvine voters prefer the non-airport Millennium Plan, which will be the subject of a citywide ballot measure.

The community impasse over the future of the air base continued this summer. At a supervisors’ meeting earlier this month, an acoustics expert asserted that residents would not have much to worry about from jet engine noise. According to the consultant’s computer analysis of a Boeing 757, noise would be concentrated on land already within the sphere of the base, leaving little concern for neighboring communities. However, South County residents who were at the Aug. 11 presentation claimed it overlooked the actual mix of aircraft slated for the airport. Planners replied that alarm over noise was unfounded and that the presentation was intended to provide only a snapshot. The county plans to spend $2 million in the fall to conduct noise tests.

So it goes, with other news coming on the public relations front. Cities on both sides are spending substantial amounts to get out their sides of the story. We have seen these initiatives before too. Thus, the summer has offered more competing claims about whether an airport will affect quality of life, and more promotional efforts to turn the tide.

The release last week of a new “greener” plan for an airport is an invitation for a more precise debate as the high season approaches for these pivotal elections. The Silva-Sullivan outcome potentially represents a swing vote on the current 3-2 board majority in favor of an airport. The Irvine measure, while not conclusive, will provide an occasion to get a full public airing of the relatively new non-aviation plan, and subject it to scrutiny in the public arena.

To date, we are not overly impressed with the level of discussion in the 2nd District. Silva and Sullivan did outline the contours of their positions in the spring campaign. However, the public is now at a level of sophistication about the airport issue that it needs to hear concrete blueprints for resolving the county’s continuing conflict.

It is easy to say that the planners and experts are working out the details. But if the county’s political leadership is not involved intimately in designing a resolution, candidates on both sides of the issue effectively get a free pass until after the election. For example, we need to hear more from those who would be supervisor about the concerns of pilots for safe takeoffs, about public subsidy and about the true cost of either the airport or Millennium plans.

As for the Irvine Millennium Plan debate, here is an important opportunity to evaluate alternatives to a commercial airport. While this discussion is taking place in Irvine, it can be useful as well to the county at large, and can set the table for any subsequent discussion of a countywide ballot initiative.

Voters should hold the candidates and the campaigns accountable for detailed and clear discussions. There obviously are other things for the supervisorial candidates to be talking about besides the future of the base. However, it is no secret that this issue is of paramount importance, and the vote of the winner in the 2nd District potentially can make a big difference.

We’d like to see the tough questions asked and answered, both for and against the airport plan in the 2nd Supervisorial race, and for and against the non-aviation plan in the Irvine vote. Only then will the voters have crucial information as the campaign goes forward.