Residents Remain Divided Over El Toro

* I flew into John Wayne Airport on the Saturday afternoon after Thanksgiving, the busiest travel weekend of the year. Leaving New York’s La Guardia was a zoo, arriving at John Wayne was a ghost town. Where is all this demand the El Toro airport proponents are crying about?

MICHAEL CHIEFFO

Lake Forest

*

* At last, substantiated rhetoric from the FAA that El Toro is safe for commercial flights. I was delighted by the articles published on Nov. 2 and 3. I hope this means we won’t have to continue watching anti-airport ads on TV showing telephoto runway images that disproportionately increase the height of the background mountains.

I saw the Senate hearings on air traffic control (Sept. 14) chaired by Sen. John McCain. FAA Administrator Jane Garvey stated in those hearings that the primary role of her agency is to ensure safe flight operations. I am inclined to believe Senate testimony before listening to anti-airport statements. As a matter of fact, I am thoroughly, technically insulted by the fliers and statements by airport opponents and don’t believe anything they say anymore. The FAA letter certainly vindicates the three pro-airport supervisors who made statements that commercial flights from El Toro are safe.

JAMES SACHTSCHALE

Newport Beach

*

* A Times article on Nov. 12 reported that developer George Argyros and the pro-airport board majority suddenly were considering new proposals for a “friendly neighborly airport,” serving between 10.5 million and 14 million passengers annually with curfew restrictions similar to John Wayne Airport.

Their belated recognition that a small airport will suffice is a bogus argument. The fact of the matter is that for the past six years the board majority consistently has supported plans for an airport serving either 39 million annual passengers or 28.8 million annual passengers at El Toro. So Argyros, as a member of the Citizens Advisory Council, consistently was in favor of the county’s airport proposals.

Furthermore, let me remind airport proponents that during the board’s deliberations in 1996, Supervisor Bill Steiner suggested 18 million annual passengers as the preferred capacity. But it was rejected on the basis that such a small airport is economically not viable. The board selected instead the 28.8 million annual passengers airport as its preferred option.

In addition, Supervisor Chuck Smith, about two years ago, publicly opposed curfew restrictions for the 28.8-million annual passenger airport on the basis that it would restrict nightly cargo flights, and as a consequence jeopardized the airport’s economic viability.

In other words, the economic viability of a small airport with few restrictions cannot be justified unless the project guarantees its future expansion.

Incremental progression is a classic political ploy that is used to camouflage its long-term intent. This 11th-hour political maneuver to sway voters is too transparent to be swallowed by the people of Orange County.

Finally, why should a small airport even be considered since its economic benefit is so inferior when compared to the Millennium Plan?

PAUL WILLIAMS

Laguna Niguel

*

* Why in heaven’s name should the taxpayers of Orange County subsidize a few parents, a few horse owners, a few RV owners, and a few hundred golfers to the tune of $11,000 every day of the year? That’s a third of a million dollars every month for the foreseeable future?

Padlock the place if those using it can’t afford to pay the fees necessary for it to be self-supporting. Allow it to sit vacant until such time as it can be put to good use at no cost to the taxpayer. That use would not be an airport or a “Great Park,” either of which would be far more costly than the present wasteful use.

JACK WEBER

Irvine