Should El Toro Airport Planning Continue?

* The May 14 editorial, “Get a Plan Before Voting,” gives several compelling reasons why the Board of Supervisors should not rush us into another election on El Toro in November.

Add the following to the list.

By passing Measure F, the people directed the county to define a specific plan for El Toro, hold public hearings if and when they do so, and then seek two-thirds voter ratification before spending our money.

Another vote at this time that attempts to bypass this process can only be viewed as a device to circumvent the will of the people.

Three pro-airport supervisors seem unwilling to give the voters the choice that was overwhelmingly mandated into law through Measure F.

However, they must not plunge us into another costly, divisive, energy-wasting political campaign.

Special-interest groups that bankroll the pro-airport politics are said to be drafting a new airport initiative. The plan is for their three allies on the board to put it on the ballot without a requirement for the gathering of signatures on petitions.

That would be an insult to the volunteers who gathered the signatures and the 192,000 voters who signed the Measure F petitions.

The Times editorial overlooked a significant point, indicating that there has been “very little movement on the [airport] issue over time.”

In fact, there has been very significant anti-airport movement.

LEONARD KRANSER

Dana Point

* The Times is to be commended for its editorial encouraging the consideration of an alternative aviation plan for the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.

Although the El Toro site is clearly too small and too cramped by rising terrain to safely accommodate a major commercial airport, it is well-suited for a general aviation facility handling small private aircraft.

By consigning the light craft now congesting flight operations and causing runway “close calls” at John Wayne Airport (May 5) to a dedicated facility at El Toro, the current safety problem at John Wayne could be eliminated and its capacity for handling commercial traffic increased at no public expense.

Such a “least-cost” alternative would constitute optimum responsible planning for Orange County taxpayers.

Since the light aircraft create relatively low noise and never fly at night if they can avoid it, nearby residents (of which I am one) should find them acceptable neighbors.

LEON GREEN JR.

Laguna Woods

* The Times editorial questions a November vote on an airport at El Toro.

Let’s get to the bottom line: There should not be an airport at El Toro, period. It is unneeded and unwanted.

Saying that the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority is “raising credible questions about future regional airport demand” is like saying there seems to be some question whether South County supports the airport.

There is no question.

Using available Los Angeles International Airport, John Wayne Airport and national airline passenger growth data, Orange County use of LAX will grow to 8 million to 9 million passengers a year, from 5 million annual passengers today, by 2020. Use of John Wayne will grow to 12 million to 13 million annual passengers.

Approximately 40% of Orange County passengers will continue to prefer LAX over John Wayne, for reasons of location, choice of destination, frequency of flights, cost and safety. The Los Angeles World Airways study published in February reaches similar conclusions.

The county draft environmental impact report concludes that an El Toro airport will not cause problems with safety, air quality, noise or traffic.

The few who believe this nonsense also believe in the Easter Bunny. Ask the people who live near John Wayne--or near airports in Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Dallas, Memphis and San Francisco.

All have safety or serious local public relations problems. So will an El Toro airport.

MICHAEL E. SMITH

Mission Viejo

* The letters to the editor seem to imply that everybody who voted for Measure F was anti-airport at El Toro.

That is not the case. I just thought that requiring a two-thirds vote on an airport as well as some other major projects was a good idea. This includes the school bond issues.

I figured that if enough people are convinced that a project is worthwhile, they should be able to get the required two-thirds majority.

TOM ORR

Placentia

* Linda Jones wrote on May 3 that larger airports should be “built away from communities, with transportation to them. . . .”

She says we should “keep the El Toro area a beautiful addition to Orange County” by providing “bus service to LAX and Ontario.”

Does she think LAX and Ontario are “away from communities?”

I don’t think the folks who live around those two airports, which already have serious noise problems, would think very favorably of her proposal.

It’s past time for Orange County to stop exporting its air transportation problem to other jurisdictions and assumed its rightful share of that burden--at El Toro.

NORM EWERS

Irvine

* Re “New El Toro Runway Idea to Be Urged for Study,” May 12:

Heck, anyone with brains knows that in the unlikely event that we have an airport down here, the aircraft will take off into the prevailing winds.

I must believe that the pro-airport supervisors knew this all the time. They just figured it would be a more viable sell going with the “tail wind scam.”

I saw Air Force Two with Vice President Al Gore aboard depart over Leisure World and Laguna last time he visited. That’s what I would want my pilot to do save when the Santa Ana winds are blowing.

New idea my foot!

PHILIP HORN

Mission Viejo

* The proposed runway operation described in the article is similar to that of the “V Configuration” being championed for some time by Charles Griffin and Russell Niewiarowski (Orange County Voices, May 16, 1999).

The plan was even included in a recent El Toro reuse environmental report--the major difference being the lack of the second new runway in this alternative.

Lacking the second runway, this alternative would not even have the capacity of the V Configuration. Therefore it offers little increase in capacity.

The plan also suffers from other facets, making it an unworkable solution.

Whereas San Diego’s international airport is dreaded by pilots and passengers because of its steep drop during the landing approach, this plan would essentially replicate the approach by proposing an airport with a similar dropping approach over Loma Ridge.

DAVID MELVOLD

Irvine

* If the snake oil won’t sell, put it in another bottle to disguise it.

What is going on?

Pro-airport groups now intend to ask our Board of Supervisors to consider a different approach for an airport at El Toro. Why?

It is the only option that has a chance to pass for safety reasons with the Federal Aviation Administration.

The county has spent $40 million chasing after a plan which two-thirds of its citizens have told them they don’t want.

Thank goodness for Measure F. It will restrict future spending for what seems to be endless plans for an airport. How soon can we have that final vote to put this “white elephant” of an airport to rest?

If 67% of the voters in Orange County means nothing to our elected officials, then we will yell louder. It seems that Supervisors Chuck Smith, Cynthia P. Coad and Jim Silva have not only lost touch, but their hearing as well.

MARY SCHWARTZ

Santa Ana

* I am truly tired of reading articles quoting various quasi-experts and letters from various readers regarding takeoff and landing patterns from the proposed future airport at El Toro.

The fact is, there is no way to determine anywhere near exactly how pilots will take off at some future date from an airport at El Toro.

For takeoff facts, one needs only to look at LAX. Los Angeles years ago purchased and cleared off homes in Playa del Rey at the end of the runways at LAX, providing jets with opportunity to take off over completely open land and then directly over the Pacific Ocean. Sounds good right?

Wrong. I own an apartment house in the residential community of Westchester, north of LAX. A major current issue in the LAX area is that the pilots, to save time and fuel, are making short right turns over Westchester and short left turns over El Segundo, causing noise problems in both of those areas.

So let’s stop pretending that anyone can predict, or even legislate, takeoff patterns.

MARTIN A. BROWER

Corona del Mar

* We may never know what prompted Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Otero to do an about-face May 4 on allowing Measure A spending to resume, but we do know that short of a vote to specifically recall Measure A the pro-airport special interests get to continue their agenda unabated.

While Measure A was not well understood, it passed by 1% of voters, with the intent to remove the affected communities entirely from the decision-making process.

Measure F, which was well understood, passed by 67.3% of the voters, was intended to begin the transfer of decision-making regarding El Toro back to what the base reuse process intended.

So much for the will of the people.

DEREK QUINN

Laguna Niguel

* Judge Otero rules that the language in Measure F is vague regarding spending limits on El Toro.

This is interpreted by Supervisor Chuck Smith, Bruce Nestande and other airport supporters as a signal to restart the planning process. How much more money will they waste on this?

With more than 67% of the voters in Orange County approving Measure F, I have one suggestion: We send each one of the pro-airport supervisors and their staffs a T-shirt that reads, “What part of no don’t you understand?”

W.D. GROTH

Laguna Beach