El Toro Editorial: ‘Wishful Thinking’
* In your Feb. 13 editorial you made some very valid and factual points, with good depth and breadth, as regards the problems with the proposed airport at El Toro and the county environmental impact report.
But your advice to vote “no” on Measure F and then redo the base closure process was way off base.
The people who stole control of the planning effort with Measure A are the same people who are causing the current problems. The three supervisors are going to vote this flawed, massive public works project in no matter what happens.
To come out against Measure F and against the county supervisors’ policies doesn’t do a thing to solve the problem.
According to The Times, if we do something we are wrong, if we do nothing we are [out of luck]. Your wishful vision, given today’s corrupt county planning process, is worthless words blowing in the wind.
You would better serve the citizens of Orange County by recommending a “yes” vote on F, which would force the county to go back and properly plan the project, including both an aviation and non-aviation plan. Then, and only then, it should be presented to the public for approval.
The only alternative the citizens of Orange County have to fight the corrupt, bankrupt, “airport at any cost” county leadership is at the polls with Measure F. We are exercising our rights as citizens to fix a corrupt planning process.
TOM COONEY
Aliso Viejo
* Your analysis and review of the El Toro “mess” was reasoned and reasonable. Unfortunately, elected officials rarely take any notice of intelligent comment.
Instead, they pursue their own agenda with a view to their personal “bottom line,” that is, whoever is funding their careers and campaigns.
The result is either no action or action contrary to the best interests and wishes of the electorate. Then, as in the earlier case of Proposition 13, what we get is voter rebellion and the passage of an imperfect but effective solution to a problem.
To those who find fault with Measure F, realize that this is far from a perfect world. Look at it as a way to halt the politicians in their tracks while we seek fair and sensible answers that provide benefits without injuring so many of our people.
MARSHALL PEARLMAN
Laguna Hills
* I have to commend you for your great editorial exposing the Orange County Board of Supervisors’ inept planning for an international airport at the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.
However, you also trashed Measure F, with no recommendations other than wishful thinking to stop the supervisors’ present course of action.
I challenge The Times to recommend another course of action that is really available in the limited time before the property is permanently in county hands, to do with as the Board of Supervisors wishes.
ROGER PENNINGTON
Lake Forest
* There were certainly many truths to your editorial regarding the nightmare of El Toro. I am deeply disappointed, however, that you have recklessly documented your negative view of Measure F. The fodder your position will give the county is unconscionable.
The only method that the disenfranchised people who oppose an El Toro airport can use to voice our disapproval of this mess is Measure F. As everyone knows, the county will do everything in their power to ramrod this down everyone’s throats.
How altruistic of you to note that everyone should start over. Your position is a fantasy. Meanwhile, the fox raids the hen house.
If The Times truly feels the way it does, two wrongs don’t make a right. You should have stayed on the sidelines and asked each and every person to vote with his or her mind and heart.
RICHARD BOSWORTH
Laguna Beach
* I applaud The Times for its editorial.
You have correctly identified and addressed the utter failure of the Orange County supervisors to carry out the responsibilities of their office.
However, I am deeply disappointed by your failure to support Measure F, and as such must rate The Times editorial stance a failure of comprehension.
If only the citizens of Orange County in 2000 had the same options as our French counterparts in 1789, the gross negligence continually displayed by the Board of Supervisors would no longer be an issue.
As our votes remain our only defense against failed governments, mine will still be proudly cast in favor of Measure F on March 7.
RICHARD SODEN
Lake Forest
* Your editorial is an unfortunate exercise in wishful thinking.
As abhorrent as ballot box planning may be to all of us, the clear conclusion to your comprehensive analysis should have been “yes” on Measure F to nullify the ballot box planning that created the current El Toro mess.
Instead, you condemn that which may be the only way left to stop the pro-airport special interests, who, you admit, “effectively hijacked the [planning] process.”
With the point of no return rapidly approaching, you suggest alternatives having little practical possibility of being implemented.
Just what do you expect will initiate a “truly regional airport planning process that addresses aviation needs across the Los Angeles basin,” unless politicians are forced into such action as a result of the passage of Measure F?
The only longshot possibility is in finding a sympathetic, apolitical federal court to invalidate the current Local Redevelopment Authority.
The most fortunate impact of your editorial will not be on those who read it carefully. They conclude, as I do, that Measure F must be passed based on your own logic.
Rather, the unfortunate impact is in your giving aid and comfort to the pro-airport forces. They will, simply, use the conclusion that The Times opposes Measure F, out of context, to further their agenda with the multitudes who do not read your editorial page.
TRISTAN KROGIUS
Monarch Beach
* Your editorial was well-written and accurate except for one serious error.
You state: “It seems unthinkable that the directly affected communities, one of which [Irvine] has part of the base within its city limits, have been cut out of the [planning] process.” This statement is incorrect.
Irvine has had countless opportunities to take positive steps in the El Toro planning process, yet has intentionally declined.
I have attended several Irvine City council meetings in which the council members boasted of their strategies to complicate, block and kill El Toro.
I have no sympathy for such self-centered actions. The Irvine City Council continues to turn up its nose to the entire El Toro reuse planning process as long as it entails airplanes.
I formed the New Millennium Group to lobby and market a safer, more efficient and more cost-effective airport plan that Irvine and South County could live with. As proved by their actions, City Council members don’t care if you propose the safest airport in the nation; they won’t swallow their pride to digest it.
Irvine’s campaign to kill El Toro is not really about safety or quality-of-life issues. It is really about thrusting responsibilities and impacts onto others.
Recognizing our alternative could in fact fly, the Irvine City Council quickly rezoned all business and industrial areas in the southwest under our proposed flight paths to residential and other noise-sensitive developments in an attempt to block the only true airport alternative for El Toro.
RUSSELL NIEWIAROWSKI
Newport Beach
* Your editorial provides an excellent analysis as to why Measure F must be approved.
Contrary to the position The Times has taken, opposing Measure F, you have genuinely articulated why this initiative has become a necessity for all of Orange County.
That is because of the failure of the county government--Supervisors Charles V. Smith, Jim Silva and Cynthia Coad--to put forth a proper and representative planning process for reuse of the base at El Toro.
You have articulated well the need to return the Local Redevelopment Authority function to where it rightfully belongs, in accordance with the federal regulations, to the cities of Lake Forest, Irvine and others directly impacted by reuse.
However, The Times fails to recognize that in taking their position, Supervisors Smith, Silva and Coad, as well as their small minority of financial backers who stand to make millions on an airport reuse, will never let that happen.
Thus the essence of why this initiative is absolutely essential for Orange County.
The fact that they have completely failed in the airport planning process leaves no doubt of their inability to execute any responsible planning for jails, landfills or any other project that has such a significant impact on the entire county.
The fact that three people can hold an entire county hostage over such a significant project as this is not what representative government is all about.
The necessity of this initiative is clear. The failure of the county has dictated that this initiative must be supported in the interests of fair government.
This isn’t just about the airport. This is about the future of how all governmental decisions are going to be made at the county level, decisions affecting all of us.
This is about sending a message to those who were given the power to govern, from those who they work for, the people of Orange County.
GARY THOMPSON
City Council Member
Rancho Santa Margarita
* The so-called Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative, Measure F, has nothing to do with either health or safety.
It is merely a veiled attempt to achieve rule by minority. Having failed twice to get a majority to agree with them, a well-funded vocal minority from part of South Orange County is attempting to squelch a much-needed real commercial airport by requiring a super-majority to disagree with the minority.
DAVID FEIGN
Santa Ana
* I find the editorial regarding the El Toro airport planning process very informative.
It does sum up the frustration and concerns of all of Orange County, but I find the recommended actions extremely hopeful.
Measure F is a last resort to bring an out-of-control Board of Supervisors back in line.
They have done everything in their power to shove an airport into El Toro. All input from the affected cities is ignored, and only the board knows what is best for Orange County.
Board Chairman Charles V. Smith seems to enjoy letting all others know he is in charge. He especially demonstrates what is wrong with the process.
It is great to be able to look back and armchair-quarterback this thing, but it’s far too out of whack at this point. Measure F is the only way left to stop the insanity. It is grossly unfair to impact huge numbers of individuals without their consent or even involvement.
DAVID SILVA
Trabuco Canyon
* The editorial was a thoughtful, articulate piece.
It presumes, however, that the pro-airport protagonists in this issue might be persuaded to take a reasoned, objective look at this flawed plan.
Many people, unfortunately, believe that that is not a consideration worth banking on. Thus, Measure F is the only viable way of addressing the issue, be it the correct and proper approach or not.
Some mechanism must be put into place that will preclude three people from ever again determining the destiny of 3 million people. If that’s “ballot box policy making,” so be it.
As for the ludicrous argument being foisted on the citizenry that the airport is an economic necessity, the editorial took a small but incomplete step to debunk that myth.
We are bursting at the seams with economic vitality without the airport. The real issue for the cyber-future seems to be to produce a technologically proficient work force.
We could scarcely handle higher levels of economic vitality with the skills present in our existing work force.
Santa Clara County, otherwise known as the Silicon Valley, is an economic juggernaut that makes Orange County pale by comparison. The economic powerhouse businesses of Santa Clara County do quite nicely with smallish San Jose Airport. There is no movement or plan afoot in that county to build a new airport.
Ask the citizens of Denver about being conned into footing the bill for a $5-billion airport on the strength of all of the wondrous things it would bring. The only beneficiaries of mammoth Denver International are former Mayor Federico Pena and his cronies.
DON MOERY
San Clemente