Debate Over El Toro Airport Continues

* I am outraged by a flier produced by the anti-El Toro airport group El Toro Reuse Planning Authority titled, “Flying in the Face of Safety.”

They dug up various pilots to make statements questioning the safety of the El Toro airport. I suppose one can always find someone to say what you want them to. However, what a slap it is to our county government and Federal Aviation Administration to make people think these agencies would allow El Toro airport to be built and used if there was any question at all about safety.

The flier was nothing more than a deceptive piece of propaganda originated by activists opposed to an alternate airport in Orange County.

Apparently they do not want consumers to have a choice, but instead force us to depend upon the small, inefficient, and overly priced John Wayne Airport.

TIFFANI YOUNG

Santa Ana

* Re “El Toro Fight Pattern,” Nov. 29:

Los Angeles International Airport detractors who want Orange County to share more of the airport burden by developing El Toro as an alternative to LAX are off the mark.

The plans of Los Angeles County are to relocate the LAX freight operations to Ontario Airport and to develop the existing freight area on the south side of LAX as passenger operations.

The plans also are to build an additional runway at Ontario on the south side and to eliminate the general aviation operators, replacing them with the freight operators. General aviation operators will be relocated to Chino Airport.

These plans are well under way. While LAX will need an environmental impact report, Ontario and Chino will not because these operations are covered under the existing airport master plans.

The developments of these airports will proceed as planned anyway; this is cast in stone. So the not-in-my-backyard approach from those around LAX, hoping to offset their anguish and LAX pollution on Orange County, simply is misdirected.

The LAX expansion is already under way and is going to happen regardless of whether the El Toro development occurs at all.

PATRIC BARRY

Irvine

* You reported that the El Segundo mayor has demanded Orange County accommodate its share of passengers using LAX, claiming 20% of them are Orange County travelers.

How, when and by whom was this figure calculated? What were the numbers for the other counties, such as Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino?

Are these residents of Orange County or does it include tourists who split their time here with parts of Los Angeles County? To paint an accurate picture, wouldn’t you need to also know the numbers, not percentages, of people from Los Angeles who use the Orange County airport?

If these things are not researched for their accuracy and placed into proper context, I think you would be breaching some journalistic standards.

To merely print a quote from someone without challenging its authenticity harms the trust of your readers and allows people to use your paper as a tool to spread lies and misconceptions.

CARRIE L. JAMES

Laguna Niguel

* The Irvine City Council is allowing new homes to be built in the Irvine Spectrum, on land that previously was considered too close to the El Toro airport for residential development (“Cities Rethink Land Use by Base,” Nov. 8).

This would seem to indicate either the Irvine City Council isn’t really too concerned about noise from the proposed El Toro airport or it is more eager for property taxes than for the quality of life of residents.

Some have suggested it is another impediment to the El Toro airport, but what does that say about the character of those on the Irvine City Council? Using families as pawns in their battle would certainly indicate they had reached a new low.

CHRIS POSNAR

Anaheim

* It is not surprising that confusion and misunderstanding exist over the proposed Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative.

That is why my opposition to this measure is not based on whether I support or oppose it, but because it is poorly written and likely will not withstand a constitutional challenge in the courts.

The fact that a judge allowed the initiative to be placed on the ballot has no relevance to it ever becoming law.

Neither side in this contentious issue has stated the facts clearly and concisely when trying to persuade voters to support their opposing positions.

The crucial issues deal with establishing the compelling need for a future regional airport, the economic benefit to the most people, the environmental impacts and whether they can be satisfactorily mitigated.

The Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative does not address those issues. I am still waiting to see what the county is going to offer to answer the same questions.

The proposed initiative only muddles the issue further by cynically including toxic dumps and jail facilities in the measure and by not addressing the real issue of the future of El Toro airport.

I just hope, whatever the outcome, that a majority of voters become fully informed and vote rationally and not emotionally.

LEWIS ELIA

San Clemente