Friends and Foes of Measure F

Yes, in response to market demand, the Irvine City Council is approving new housing, child care centers and preschools at the Irvine Spectrum, where 50,000 employees work every Monday through Friday (editorial Dec. 5, letters Dec. 19).

As promised, we are simply building out our city in accordance with the Irvine General Plan.

This same General Plan, and our associated proposal to annex El Toro, calls for a 2,000-acre Great Park and habitat preserve at El Toro, a park even larger and more significant than San Diego’s Balboa Park.

It is shameful that since 1995 three members of the Board of Supervisors have arrogantly and illegally excluded the city of Irvine and everyone else from the El Toro reuse planning process.

If the people of Orange County had been included we would have a true choice between two different visions for El Toro: the county’s proposed 24-hour-per-day international airport, and our own proposal for a Millennium Plan and Great Park surrounded by colleges and technical institutes, cultural facilities and, yes, housing, child care centers and preschools.

Regarding the future of John Wayne Airport: The federal government currently sanctions a “dual cap” on the number of annual passengers and the number of daily commercial flights at John Wayne.

This “dual cap” expires in 2005. I personally favor extending the cap on the number of daily flights. This would provide for the more efficient use of John Wayne Airport--allowing the number of air travelers to gradually grow while providing a guarantee to residents of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Tustin that no additional commercial aircraft would take off or land daily.

Interestingly, this protective provision--no expansion of operations at John Wayne airport without two-thirds voter approval countrywide--is written into Measure F, the Safe and Healthy Communities initiative, which is on the March 7 ballot.

This is yet another good reason why voters should support Measure F.

LARRY AGRAN

Irvine City Council member

*

In a letter Dec. 19, Jean Askham writes that the League of Women Voters has taken “no position on El Toro.”

However, she objects to the two-thirds vote requirement of the Safe and Healthy Communities initiative, Measure F.

Supporters of the initiative believe that major decisions, such as where airports, jails and toxic dumps are built, should require two-thirds ratification by the voters because of the severe, permanent quality-of-life damage done to the impacted communities.

Laws frequently require two-thirds votes; for example, for local tax increases since the passage of Proposition 13.

A “yes” on the Safe and Healthy Communities initiative will require the county to disclose its plans for building El Toro airport or expanding John Wayne, along with the costs and environmental impact reports. Two-thirds of the voters must approve.

A “no” will preserve the status quo, and three members of the Board of Supervisors can build either airport with no vote on the plans by the people.

A “yes” will require that the voters must approve any hazardous landfill 1/8or new and expanded jails 3/8. A “no” keeps the decision out of the hands of the voters.

Regardless of how one feels about these projects, one should support the democratic principle that the people should choose.

LEONARD KRASNER

Citizens for Safe and Healthy

Communities--Yes on Measure F

Dana Point

*

The South County-propelled Measure F would allow a minimum of one-third plus one of the county voters to prevent the county placing an airport on county land and openly challenges our constitutional democracy.

Why establish a voting procedure that is alien to simple voting privileges and not congruent with those in other counties of California?

In a recent Granada Hills case, an 8-7 council vote approved a landfill. Why can’t a 3-2 Orange County Board of Supervisors vote suffice, especially after the voters have twice voted favorably on an airport at El Toro?

Where and when does authorized governmental authority begin and where does it cease? How should a minority vote impose its will over a simple majority vote in a county?

Measure F, if passed, would disenfranchise a majority of the voters of Orange County. Is that democracy in action? Or is it political manipulation to stop the development of a critically needed airport at El Toro?

Mixing a revenue-generating, free market-oriented, commercial airport with non-revenue-bearing, fully tax-supported jails and landfills is another fallacy of Measure F.

If the whole state of California operated under the premises behind Measure F, all the jails, landfills and airports would be located in our neighboring states, or in costly, difficult locations.

I believe the San Diego judge was correct in reportedly doubting the constitutional validity of the proposed Measure F. I hope further action in an appeals court will quickly 1/8show 3/8 the fallacy in Measure F.

VICTOR H. JASHINSKI

Corona del Mar

*

Is the letter “F” a pejorative?

Not really. A firmly united anti-airport populace voting yes on “F” will be sending a final message to Supervisors Charles V. Smith, Jim Silva and Cynthia Coad regarding their determination to shove an international airport at El Toro down the throats of citizens.

What that message will say is, “Forget it!”

CAROL SKYDELL

Laguna Woods

*

The so-called “survey” card enclosed with South County’s recent mailer, “Flying in the Face of Safety,” contained five questions which could have been summarized in one: “Do you still beat your wife?”

The manipulative language of the questions was not designed to gather a true public opinion but rather to obtain a desired objective.

I can imagine the “spin” that will be put on the responses to “prove” the true objective, namely that the majority of people in Orange County do not want a commercial airport at El Toro.

I trust the majority will recognize the “spin doctors.”

LEONARD HALL

Newport Beach

*

Talk about sick. I received a “survey” in the mail from the city of Irvine asking my opinion about uses for the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.

Who wouldn’t want a branch of Stanford University or the Smithsonian, 50 soccer fields, or a park like Balboa Park in San Diego?

Did they ask me if a wanted an airport? No, that possibility was not included in the “survey.”

This is not a survey. It is a misleading, anti-airport promotional piece. Irvine wants me to believe that these things might get built.

Well where is the money going to come from? Are there discussions with any entities to provide funding for the uses? Is the city of Irvine going to fund these facilities? Or course not. Show us the money and then we can discuss these wonderful uses.

GERALD A. CATERINA

Huntington Beach

*

There is a simple explanation for the conflicting conclusions of surveys that sought business attitudes about the proposed airport at El Toro (“Business Leaders Polls Apart on El Toro,” Dec. 20).

One study was a result of detached ivory tower research confirming that, indeed, commercial airports are important to business. The second asked local business leaders about this community.

It was clear that business executives in Orange County are well aware of existing airports that can meet their future needs, and therefore viewed a second airport as a nonissue.

HANNA HILL

Irvine