Opinions Fly on an El Toro Airport

How can South County airport foes keep chanting their mantra of “67%”--the number that they claim opposed the airport at El Toro, according to their diabolically clever Proposition F? Has everyone forgotten that the proposition asked whether you would like near your home:

1. A nuclear waste dump.

2. A maximum-security prison.

3. An airport.

My guess is that 60% never read down as far as the innocuous airport before checking the “no” box. The straightforward Proposition A asked if we needed another airport, and the answer was yes.

Anne K. Hayden

Newport Beach

Why would anyone in north Orange County travel south to go to a Great Park? Each community needs a small park where children can be safe and play locally.

This Great Park would not be convenient for children to use daily. South Orange County needs an airport to help ease traffic on freeways close to LAX.

Mike Sherry

Huntington Beach

Re “Irvine’s Buyer-Beware Homes” (Editorial, June 21):

There are two sides to the El Toro question: On the one hand we need open space in which to spread our wings, and that need will increase as the population increases.

On the other hand, there is a thinking, under dispute, that we need more airport space and that the need will increase as the population grows. Perhaps we should bring into the equation the alternatives to each need.

There are three alternatives to more airport space: cars, buses and trains, of which trains can probably carry the most people with the least congestion.

There is no alternative to open space.

Juanita Matassa

Santa Ana

Orange County residents should be outraged at the blatant attempt of the Board of Supervisors to continually place obstacles in the path of the Great Park.

Most residents envision the Great Park to include universities, trade schools, office buildings, housing, veterans memorials, recreation and entertainment facilities.

Orange County residents would support a Great Park, a park like Golden Gate and the Presidio, San Francisco; Balboa Park, San Diego; and Griffith Park, Los Angeles.

The supervisors should represent the will of the people of Orange County. However, their immersion in the politics of Newport Beach obstructs their ability for an impartial evaluation of the pros and cons of an airport at El Toro.

The board apparently has dismissed the professional opinion of the Allied Pilots Assn. and the Air Line Pilots Assn., representing all the pilots of major airlines, who state there are potential safety problems under the present plans for an airport at El Toro.

Grace Steiner

San Juan Capistrano

Re “Irvine Plans Homes, and Airport Tension Builds,” June 24:

Irvine apparently has no mercy or respect for the environment.

I moved to this area almost four years ago after visiting off and on for 10 or so years. I have been amazed and saddened at the way the land in Orange County has been desecrated: Orange groves are a long-ago memory.

There are few places left untouched. I have loved Laguna Canyon Road, so I was appalled to see plans for 2,500 homes there.

I beg Irvine to leave that beautiful area alone.

Patricia C. Micale

Laguna Woods

Is the county Board of Supervisors playing games with potential lease income from El Toro, in order to improve chances of gaining approval to build an airport there?

A November 1999 county report--acquired by the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority only through the Freedom of Information Act from very reluctant county officials--laid out two revenue plans.

One identifies only $20 million in net profit over the next 15 years, the other $293 million in profit from leasing 110 base buildings over the next 15 years.

The supervisors adopted the first plan. The three-person majority on the board has determined to blame the resulting base lease shortcomings on Navy incompetence, claiming a detailed building analysis report (which has never been made public) shows most base facilities are unusable.

If the analysis does exist, why wasn’t it performed as part of the county’s “due diligence” before the county became wedded to the idea of an airport? And why doesn’t the county make this analysis public, so we can all understand the ever-expanding costs at El Toro?

And if the analysis does not exist, why are county officials lying to us on yet another aspect of the ill-conceived plan to convert El Toro into an airport?

Michael Smith

Mission Viejo

Recently, the Irvine Co. announced 12,000 to 13,000 homes are to be built in Orange County, in addition to the thousands of new homes that have been built within the past few years.

Also, a new apartment complex boasts building 1,700 units next to a similar-sized apartment complex on Jamboree Road in Irvine.

When there is not enough electricity to go around, not enough water for every need, not enough room on our overcrowded freeways for additional vehicles, why are these units being built?

Our local streets are already congested to the point that during non-rush hours, one can sometimes wait for a traffic signal to turn green twice before one approaches the corner and has the advantage of being able to make the turn.

I have cut way back on my use of electricity. I have never been a daytime television watcher. Now I plan my laundry chores at night or on weekends.

Nevertheless, we are subject to blackouts. From where will the extra electricity come to furnish our new neighbors their power?

Audrey Wicks

Irvine

The Marines had easements to fly over Laguna Woods. Whether that was fair or not, it was a preexisting condition to Laguna Woods’ incorporation.

Now that the Marines are gone, Laguna Woods has every right to request those easements to expire. If the county wants to build a commercial airport that needs to overfly Laguna Woods, the county must negotiate with Laguna Woods to obtain new easements.

Of course, the county will have to fully disclose the impacts of those overflights and any other local impacts so that the citizens can evaluate the worth of surrendering those easements.

M. Chieffo

Lake Forest