Prickly El Toro Airport Questions

* The county is now proposing a friendlier, more public-oriented El Toro planning office (May 24).

I think that is a great idea. But I question why the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority has previously had to sue and utilize the Freedom of Information Act to obtain requested documents.

Furthermore, how can the county be portraying a community- and people-friendly attitude while standing behind the lawsuit against Measure F, which the citizens of Orange County voted for overwhelmingly?

No matter how the airport plan is dressed, South County will continue to oppose an airport at El Toro. We know from the February report of Los Angeles World Airways, which includes Los Angeles International Airport, that an airport is not needed at El Toro.

It should be hard for the county to justify ruining our communities in Aliso Viejo, Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel for the sake of “tourism.”

We are committed to preserving the communities that developers’ glossy brochures sold to us.

If the county continues with plans to build an airport in the middle of our communities, then they should stop advertising communities as being green, clean and great places to live.

MIKE BARON

Aliso Viejo

* Re “New County Office Urged for El Toro,” May 20:

Meg Waters, spokesman for a South County anti-airport coalition, would like to leave readers with the impression that the South County cities are as pure as the driven snow with regards to full disclosure about their activities to thwart the El Toro airport.

Waters says, “We had to sue for every scrap of information that we’ve gotten from the county.”

Waters needs to be reminded that the Kremlin is more forthcoming with information than her group, the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority.

In 1995 I was forced to sue ETRPA because they refused to provide requested documents through the Public Records Act.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Leonard Goldstein ruled that ETRPA violated the Public Records Act, forced ETRPA to pay $10,000 in attorney fees and demanded they provide the documents I requested.

It took six months, a citizen’s lawsuit, thousand of dollars in legal fees and countless hours of time just to get information out of ETRPA.

Maybe Waters does work for the Kremlin; they also engage in revisionist history.

DAVID L. ELLIS

Irvine

* It makes me very angry that the three pro-airport supervisors are still looking to spend additional taxpayers’ money to plan and promote an international airport.

This comes after the overwhelming passage of Measure F. It makes me wonder what these supervisors don’t understand about the word “no.”

Perhaps it’s time for the taxpayers to consider a recall. Maybe this will get them to realize that they cannot continue to disregard the voters’ wishes.

NEIL MORCHOWER

Irvine

* The May 16 public hearing on El Toro once again demonstrated that there are many questions yet to be answered for any of the future uses at El Toro, including the costly environmental remediation necessary for the development of the “no airport” options.

As pointed out by the Board of Supervisors and county staff, Measure A in 1994 authorized an airport to be considered as a part of the county’s General Plan.

Therefore, the airport plan should continue to be thoroughly examined. How else will we be able to make an informed decision one way or the other?

Measure F, full of criteria and policies that are undergoing legal challenge, should not be prematurely considered a mandate for specific change.

It is more likely that it is a message to the supervisors that the public wants to be more informed about plans and expenditures--another reason more study should continue.

The public understandably wants and needs more information when such huge sums of money are being spent on projects of such a controversial nature.

The public hearing was enlightening, and for the first time in years public comment seemed to be evenly balanced on the subject.

The bottom line is that Measure A is still in place. The supervisors have a responsibility to complete the planning process for an airport within the new restrictions of Measure F until determined otherwise by the courts.

JOANNE COONTZ

Mayor, City of Orange

* There were arguments May 16 to the Orange County Board of Supervisors against commercial airport use of El Toro.

They included the effect on schools and learning. No school is within 11,000 feet of the runway at El Toro. Four schools are within 5,500 feet of the end of the John Wayne Airport runway where the worst of the noise begins.

There were arguments that noise pollution at homes will shorten life by two years. No housing development is within 7,000 feet of any runway at El Toro; all within two miles are over 4,000 feet from the flight path. Runways should be realigned for takeoff courses of about 220 degrees so houses are still further away.

At John Wayne hundreds of homes are closer to the runways and within 2,000 feet of the flight path.

As for arguments about air safety, the steeper climb and only throttle-back on takeoff is from John Wayne. As for auto congestion and pollution, without two airports in Orange County, driving distances will cause more congestion and pollution.

The federal government’s giving up El Toro as an airport usable by the military in time of war or other need may be prudent. However, in the interest of national security, development should not be inconsistent with such use.

After substantial non-aviation development of El Toro, Measure F will be amended, billions paid for land and John Wayne expanded. Many airport opponents intend that to happen.

If opponents’ arguments have merit, commercial airport use of John Wayne should terminate whether or not El Toro is a commercial airport. My house is 4.46 miles from the runway at John Wayne, 1,800 feet from the usual takeoff path and 800 feet from the path for landings from the south.

John Wayne is a convenience and adds value to my house. El Toro will add more value to its neighbors and the land is nearly free.

ROY B. WOOLSEY

Newport Beach

* May 7 letters include such statements as “The voters of the county voted overwhelmingly . . . no airport at El Toro,” and “. . . an airport that 67% of the North and South County voters have clearly indicated they do not want.”

Apparently some South County activists didn’t read or understand their own Measure F.

Nowhere did it say that it was a mandate about the commercial airport at El Toro. It did say that a 67% supermajority would be required to approve, among other facilities, the building of a commercial airport near a densely populated area.

The only legitimate way to determine the specifics of El Toro’s conversion would be to have another vote with only that issue clearly spelled out, something our South County neighbors seem nervous about.

Before spending money on such a vote, we should wait for the resolution of Measure F’s legality.

Then we’ll know whether we need 67% or a simple majority to approve converting El Toro to an airport, and the voters will know what they’re voting about.

JOHN KRAUS

Newport Beach

* A seemingly brainwashed community thinks the world will end if an airport goes into El Toro.

As a lifelong resident of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, I have never understood the doomsayers that are creating unnecessary hysteria about an issue that does not warrant it.

When will people figure out that all the hysteria is being created by the city of Irvine as nothing more than a “land grab.”

If there is no airport, who is making the biggest noise and spending the most money, even though they are not the most impacted, to be second in line for the property?

AARON ELDER

Costa Mesa

* Regarding the May 10 article concerning the use of El Toro’s golf course and stables and the possible taxpayer support to keep these open, I ask: Why?

Seems to me if the people using the facility want to keep it, then user fees should be charged sufficiently high enough to keep the people who do not want to use the facility from having to pay for it.

It is ludicrous to use taxpayer dollars to pay for a few people who have the time to spend playing golf or riding their horses.

Get on with the airport, which will provide tax dollars for the county, not use them.

HARVEY J. COHEN

Orange

* Gordon and Betty Pattison of Irvine wrote in their May 7 letter that during the flight demonstrations last year they were in their home with the windows open “listening intently” for aircraft that they never heard.

I’m sure their experience was the same for thousands of Orange County residents who do not live in the flight path. My experience was a little different.

I sat in my home with my double-paned windows firmly shut and could not carry on a conversation inside my home as the planes traveled over.

My 3-year-old, who was deeply napping, awoke terrified, as did friends of ours miles away.

If the Pattisons want to see a “very selfish group of people,” I suggest they look in the mirror.

GEORGE SOMOGYI

Laguna Niguel