Rohrabacher’s El Toro Stance Touches a Nerve

Re “Foes of an Airport at El Toro Have Their NIMBY Blinders On,” Commentary, June 4:

As a military pilot and an airline captain with over 30 years’ experience, I am quite offended with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher alluding to airline pilots as a bunch of complainers with unwarranted arguments concerning the unsafe conditions at the El Toro airport. His comments go beyond misrepresentations and half-truths. They are outright lies.

Rohrabacher comments that the military safely used El Toro for 40 years. It is ludicrous to compare the performance of a military fighter jet with an afterburner to that of a commercial airliner. It is laughable that this man would try to deceive the public by saying that the proposed flight patterns at El Toro would be safe based on a comparison with the former military operations.

Rohrabacher tells only half of the story concerning President Nixon’s use of El Toro. What he cleverly omits is that the records show that Air Force One refused to take off in an unsafe departure toward the mountains.

Air Force One was granted the special privilege of departing in a safe direction away from the mountains and into the wind. The current plan for El Toro will not afford us this privilege. The comment Rohrabacher makes about the crash of the military version of a Boeing 707 in 1965 being pilot error may be true; however, if this pilot had departed in a “safe” direction, away from the mountains, this accident would not have occurred.

While airline pilots are a highly trained and skilled professional group, they are susceptible to human error like everyone else. The enviable safety record of the airline industry in this country results from this pilot force working in concert with a remarkable group of engineers, planners and builders of aircraft; the air traffic control system; and airports. Safety should be paramount in the planning process and not an afterthought. A properly planned airport builds in a margin of safety to allow for pilot error. The primary error this pilot made was accepting a takeoff on a marginally safe runway.

This is where Rohrabacher and the Board of Supervisors are failing the public. El Toro could be planned and runways constructed to avoid downwind takeoffs toward the mountains. They refuse to take the approach where safety is the primary consideration because it would redirect airport traffic over North County and erode their support for the project.

When it comes to El Toro, politics is the primary concern, not safety.

George Serniak

Dana Point

*

Dana Rohrabacher falls prey to the temptation to put political platitudes before logic.

He suggests that a new airport will create jobs, increase property values and reduce pollution from cars driving from Orange County to Los Angeles International Airport. However, because Orange County has very low unemployment, the people working the new minimum-wage jobs at the new airport would not be from Orange County, would be unable to afford to move into the more expensive properties, and would have to drive from surrounding counties to their new job in the heart of Orange County, completely evaporating the supposed benefits envisioned by Rohrabacher.

John B. Taylor

Irvine

*

Leave it to Rohrabacher, with a League of Conservation Voters’ environmental score of 10%, to preach for more cement, asphalt and noise in Orange County.

Unfortunately, Rohrabacher and the Republican Party always equate any human progress as a dollar sign for the few: their deep-pocket developer buddies.

This El Toro land belongs to the citizens, and the citizens have said over and over that open space, parks and recreation can be an important part of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

In 1999, the California Department of Boating and Waterways commissioned the “Fiscal Impact of Beaches” report, prepared by Philip King of San Francisco State University. Some of the highlights are mind-boggling:

In 1998 California beaches generated $10 billion in direct revenue and $73 billion of indirect revenue to the national economy. California beaches generated 883,000 jobs nationwide.

Unfortunately, California ranked eighth in terms of federal appropriations for shore protection on its 1,100-mile coastline--just ahead of Delaware. That works out to only $12,000 per mile, compared with $800,000 for the New York and New Jersey coastlines.

California is a destination resort! We have 28 national parks, monuments and recreational areas in our state. What’s wrong with keeping federal land as open space and recreation areas to be used for generations?

Instead of worrying about cliche NIMBYs, Rohrabacher and the rest of the California congressional delegation should be working harder to bring more of those tax dollars back to California.

Keep El Toro open space, stop the toll roads through our parks, and invest in our beaches and coastline.

Donald Slaven

Huntington Beach

*

Unfortunately, Rohrabacher either forgot to send this message five years ago and just now got around to it or he had it ghost-written by the factually challenged Supervisor Chuck Smith.

Rohrabacher’s pro-airport arguments have long ago been waylaid by the facts. Especially untrue are the statements that “the airport will produce less exhaust than the amount now spewing from the millions of cars driven between Orange County and LAX each year,” “property values will rise,” the airport will create “good jobs,” and “then as now, safety wasn’t an issue.”

The laughable examples of President Nixon flying safely in and out of El Toro is important only if we know the takeoff routes of this aircraft. Want to bet that the pilot always flew west over Newport Beach and not over Loma Ridge or the Santa Ana Mountains?

Finally, one wonders if the good representative is committing political suicide. When 67% of voters voted against the airport in support of Measure F, it isn’t too bright to then label them as “environmental extremists,” “insidious” and “irrational,” especially when you’re an elected official.

His meritless message only helps to highlight that two-thirds of voters believe the airport to be unnecessary, unworkable and a lousy idea.

Bob Rennie

Mission Viejo

*

Rohrabacher’s piece regarding the “Great Park” at El Toro touches on all the reasons it is a bad idea. However, as he says himself, “the public is buying that insidious propaganda” regarding the park, and his hard-hitting column is not likely to change anyone’s mind.

He and the other airport supporters would be better served to fight fire with fire, or they might as well roll over as they did in the last election that included dumps and jails.

They should put a competing park initiative on the ballot. It should propose to build the Great Park only if it is feasible and doesn’t cost a fortune in tax dollars. And if an airport is needed in the future, a portion of the park could be used. That should blunt the “insidious propaganda” from South County and might win in a landslide.

Michael Steiner

Costa Mesa

*

The coalition of Republicans and “environmental extremist Democrats” that have joined forces is not trying to persuade the people of Orange County that El Toro would be unsafe as a civilian airport.

Those facts have been presented, not by “some airline pilots” as Rohrabacher states, but by both airline pilot associations. Rohrabacher, like three of our county supervisors, chooses to ignore actual aviation experts. I guess if they don’t tell you what you want to hear, don’t listen to them.

The one thing I appreciated his pointing out is that the former Marine base is in “the heart of our county.” It is not in south Orange County, as airport proponents would like you to believe. Therefore, the detrimental effects of an airport will be felt well beyond south Orange County.

It is, however, wonderful to realize that a Great Park would benefit the entire population of Orange County, as the park would be in “the heart of the county.”

Gail Brunell

Laguna Niguel

*

Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher! Finally someone has addressed the folly of the “Great Park.”

Rohrabacher mentioned several sound reasons for an airport as well as the tax drain a Great Park would place on the overburdened taxpayers.

The bonds the NIMBYs allude to for building the park are not free. Also, the NIMBYs have not mentioned how the Great Park will pay for itself, or even return a dime to the local coffers. It really doesn’t take an economic genius to know that such a park will cost taxpayers millions to build and even more to maintain.

Another misleading statement is the NIMBYs’ claim that a majority of the people voted against the airport. The truth is the voters passed Proposition A for the airport. They voted for Proposition F because of all the “hot button” items that were attached, and the NIMBYs know that.

I moved to Orange County in 1958 to try to sell “dream homes” at what is now the intersection of the 22 and 55 freeways. All too often I was told, “This was a nice place, but who wants to live clear out here.”

Hopefully, with an airport at El Toro we won’t return to the days of this cliche, but replace it with “Wow, Orange County is really a great place to live!”

Richard O. Bame

Anaheim Hills

*

I was appalled to read U.S. Rep. Rohrabacher’s condemnation of New York’s beloved Central Park. It was there my husband courted me as we spent our Sunday afternoons strolling through its lovely vistas.

After our marriage we stood in line for tickets to Shakespeare in the Park and enjoyed picnic suppers on the lawn of the Sheep Meadow before concerts of stars of the Metropolitan Opera, all free to the general public.

In the next generation, our niece joined kids from all boroughs of the city in competitive sporting events.

True, the darkened paths and shaded areas are dangerous at night and no one ventures through the park alone. But is this a reason to deny ourselves the pleasures of having a similar park for ourselves and future generations?

Elizabeth Fessel

Laguna Woods