Burbank Airport

Re “Valley Perspective Interview: Dave Golonski,” Oct. 3.

If we can get past Burbank Councilman Golonski’s newly found pro-airport growth mania and The Times’ obvious airport boosterism, we might at least begin the dialogue The Times and the councilman purportedly want.

Of course, if Golonski had chosen to have this dialogue before the secret negotiations that led to this back room deal, he might have avoided being surprised by the resistance the deal now faces. Nevertheless, here we are, so let’s start the “dialogue” by getting a few facts straight:

* The thousands of Burbank and Los Angeles residents opposing this deal are not anti-airport fanatics, contrary to The Times’ mischaracterization. We want a fair deal that benefits commerce and residents.

* Safety is not the issue. Once the terminal is moved, flights can safely use runway 8 (as Rep. Henry Waxman correctly notes). Just several years ago, runway 8 was used for all jet traffic when runway 15 was undergoing repairs.

* Finally, when was the last time a federal judge, the Federal Aviation Administration, the ATA [Air Transport Assn.], the impacted communities, three congressmen and the L.A. city attorney all agreed on any one thing?

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Golonski, the stiff opposition you see is because this really is a bad deal.

CHRISTOPHER BARNES

Studio City Residents Assn.

Board of Directors

Studio City

*

If the expanded airport is to be “there for good,” how will residents be told the extent of: more flights; increased risk of crashes; continuing litigation and loss of control by the city; and more corporate jets and helicopters forced out of Van Nuys?

In planning and zoning matters, the city encourages the principle of highest and best use of property compatible with surrounding areas. How does the city abandon that principle with the inefficient use of a huge parcel of valuable land as an airport?

What scientific polls can be cited to back up his claims that Burbank residents want an airport and an expanded terminal?

Instead of a nonbinding vote (sham democracy) on an expanded terminal, why not have a nonbinding vote on whether Burbank residents want an expanded airport or an industrial park?

PAUL H. WANGSNESS

Burbank

*

The solution to the Burbank Airport expansion problem is simple: The wrong cities own the darn thing! Let Sherman Oaks, Studio City, North Hollywood and Valley Glen buy out the interests of Glendale and Pasadena, which are not impacted by the noise and pollution. Then let those other cities work with the city of Burbank to have a mandatory curfew and a complete phase-out of all noisy Stage 2 aircraft.

It’s time to take the airport operations out of the hands of big business and politicians and give it back to the people where it belongs.

WILL RAY

Burbank