Measure F Voided; Will Airport Now Be Built?

* It is a shame that Measure F was ruled illegal. After all, the intent was to fix a real problem with the El Toro redevelopment process. The Department of Defense guidelines for the base closure process explicitly demand to first plan the redevelopment of a base slated for closure and include the surrounding communities in the process, then to let the voters decide between competing plans. That is a common-sense approach.

The reality in Orange County with El Toro was that we voted on pro-airport Measure A in 1994 first and excluded the impacted communities before the planning even started. To this day, the county government considers a razor-thin victory of Measure A a mandate to develop a huge international airport at El Toro.

Now that people are increasingly well informed, a growing majority of Orange County residents, north and south, is opposed to the airport plan. Measure F simply sought to reinstate the proper planning process put in place by the federal government but violated so blatantly in Orange County by allowing the voters, not county bureaucrats, to make the final decision. Sixty-seven percent of the voters wanted to bring back common sense to Orange County government. To throw Measure F out returns Orange County to the days where its government can press full steam ahead against the will of the people and in violation of the base redevelopment laws.

ACHIM KRAUSS

Foothill Ranch

* Re “El Toro Prospects Soar: Judge Voids Measure F,” (Dec. 2):

The reaction to Judge S. James Otero’s ruling regarding Measure F by the myopic and selfish airport supporters from Newport Beach and Costa Mesa who have been trying to force an airport down their neighbors’ throats for years is expected, if still disappointing. Their rhetoric remains unchanged. And the overall lack of passion by residents of the far northern Orange County communities to the El Toro airport issue is understandable.

In general, they will not be directly impacted by an airport at El Toro either positively or negatively, nor do they face the risk of a noxious public works project being foisted upon them by the county, since their communities are largely built out and do not have any unincorporated county land nearby.

However, for the hundreds of thousands of other Orange County residents, Measure F was about the destruction of our quality of lives and property values by a distant county government that will be unaffected by their underhanded decisions. For those of you who don’t live in South County or are celebrating the defeat of Measure F, remember that you are just one back-door deal with special interests, one inaccurate and misleading environmental impact report, and one vote from having a noxious public works project built on the empty county land next to your communities. And there will be nothing you can do about it.

DOUGLAS K. BLAUL

Trabuco Canyon

* Judge Otero made the correct decision about Measure F. Obviously, it had been concocted by opponents of the El Toro airport and listed undesirable developments along with the airport. I’m surprised they didn’t list slaughterhouses and houses of prostitution. The judge saw through their sham and declared Measure F unconstitutional.

GORDON PATTISON

Irvine

* Orange County voters wanted Measure F. Sorry, you can’t have it. Orange County voters wanted Measure H. Sorry, you can’t have that, either. Since the Board of Supervisors clearly doesn’t care what their constituents want, what’s the point of voting for Orange County issues?

COLLEEN NELSON

Santa Ana

* The Times’ editorial “Finding Responsive Leaders” (Dec. 4) admits that three Orange County supervisors provide “deeply flawed leadership,” causing residents to demand “more say in decisions that affect their environments.” Yet The Times continues the charade that “complex land-use planning should not be done at the ballot box.” Would you suggest we await an act of God?

Three north Orange County supervisors are forcing an unneeded and environmentally disastrous airport down the throats of the neighborhoods in two other South County districts. Two-thirds of all county voters agree: no El Toro airport. Voters in the two aggrieved districts cannot recall either the supervisors or the judge. The supervisors can do as they please, and the judge tells us that we cannot “tie the hands of county supervisors in planning.” What happened to “government of the people, by the people, for the people”? This is rule by an oligarchy, not rule by a representative government, and it will not stand.

The Times is right about one thing: We will field an army of volunteers, raise the funds, make the appeals and launch the new measures required to defeat this airport. We will never accept this decision.

MICHAEL SMITH

Mission Viejo

* Thank goodness that the courts have overturned Measure F. Now we can get on with airport planning.

Round-the-clock passenger and freight flights and jumbo jet capability will make the centrally located airport a boon to the Orange County economy. And thanks to the courts, we don’t need to worry about whether some selfish neighboring residents like it or not.

Yes, the expanded John Wayne Airport will be a genuine pleasure to fly in and out of.

BOB CURRIER

San Juan Capistrano

* I may have voted for the last time. I find that I am totally disgusted with the present-day standards. And it’s a shame, because it doesn’t have to be that way. Oh, I’m not referring to the mess in Florida. That will be straightened out and a winner declared. I’m referring to Measure F.

Does anyone need to be told why we have voter apathy? Do you wonder at the low turnouts? I was taught in grammar school that if you didn’t like something, go to the polls and change it. What do we tell children now? Don’t bother, your vote means nothing, anyway. No matter how you vote, the judiciary will tell you what you want.

GENE DERUELLE

Santa Ana

* Shame on Judge Otero. The suspicious timing of his decision has reflected upon a new concept in government that instead of “for the people, by the people, of the people” he has interpreted it to be “for the judges, by the lawyers and of the special-interest groups.”

EDWARD F. GOGIN JR.

Trabuco Canyon