Dispute Over Burbank Airport Expansion

Re “Salvaging an Airport Pact,” Valley Edition Editorials, April 2.

Having reported accurately on the numerous detractors to the proposed Burbank Airport framework for resolution, The Times still finds no fault with the proposal or its authors. Incredibly, The Times continues to ignore the fundamental flaws in the proposal that were really the cause for the proposal’s demise. Instead, sounding like an apologist for [Burbank] Mayor [Stacey] Murphy and Council member [Dave] Golonski (or perhaps a tape recording of same), The Times seems to “blame” this episode on ROAR [Restore Our Airport Rights] and groups like it. The Times seems to think that if it wasn’t for those pesky troublemakers (who are watching their way of life being seriously compromised by the Airport Authority’s plans), all would be well at Burbank Airport.

The Times should consider this alternative to blaming ROAR and other community groups: If the parties to the framework agreement had engaged the affected communities, had not lied about their back-room dealings and had not tried to force this deal down our throats, despite its deep flaws, perhaps we could have saved a lot of wasted time and effort. As it is, at least now perhaps all the affected parties can work together to achieve a fair compromise. And yes, we can do that within the applicable federal laws, The Times’ obtuse sovereignty arguments notwithstanding.

CHRISTOPHER BARNES

Studio City Residents Assn.

Board of Directors

*

I don’t understand how the Burbank Airport expansion continues to be “in dispute.” The issues are basic and fundamental: Safety, size and noise. As it sits now, who can dispute that its design is outdated, it’s unsafe and already plenty noisy. The solutions to these problems should be decided by those directly affected.

We in Burbank are not unsympathetic to the problems we all share. I know firsthand the noise levels one experiences in Studio City and its surrounding area. In general, it’s far worse that what I encounter living in Burbank. However, arguing for easterly takeoffs is not the solution. As I understand it, this is not safe. Why can’t we continue with the voluntary curfew and begin building? Then after the two-year noise study, turn the voluntary into mandatory?

Since Glendale and Pasadena have only to gain from a more broad expansion, night flights, etc., and don’t appear to be adversely affected by their negative consequences, it seems fair that they should bow to the decisions of the citizens of Burbank and trust that responsible action will be taken. The airport agreement that most citizens in Burbank would agree to would be one that should satisfy us all.

KATHY ANAYA

Burbank

*

The latest turn in the ongoing flap over the plans for a new Burbank Airport terminal would be laughable if it wasn’t so discouraging, if not dangerous, to the traveling public. Put it up to a vote of Burbank neighbors who are upset about noise? You know how that will turn out! Emotional NIMBYism will carry the day and the project will suffer further delays. I have a solution: Allow only those locals to vote who have lived there since before the airport was built. Or throw the vote open to all those citizens of the Valley, and Los Angeles County, who depend on that airport for safe, essential and convenient transportation.

JOHN KRIZEK

Valley Glenn