El Toro Editorial Incurs Pro-Airport Wrath

Re “Coad Threat to Base’s Future,” editorial, June 16:

Your editorial misses the point. Three months ago The Times complimented Supervisor Cynthia P. Coad for her vote to cede El Toro to Irvine. Coad’s vote was predicated on one simple issue--she wanted an ironclad commitment from Irvine that $800,000 per year from El Toro’s development would be earmarked for North County parks. The deal, brokered by Supervisor Todd Spitzer, was viewed as a turning point in the El Toro airport debate. Irvine agreed to it and Coad, Spitzer and Irvine’s representatives shook hands.

She held up her end of the bargain. An era of peace, love and flower power was ushered in. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has dealt with the city of Irvine on the El Toro issue that the “ironclad” deal was not forthcoming.

The park money from Irvine is as illusive as the Great Park. Coad’s intentions are noble. She thought a deal was a deal. Unfortunately, she’s not dealing with noble people.

David Ellis

Newport Beach

*

Only a dyed-in-the-wool anti-El Toro International Airport writer could have written your editorial. I thought you were worried about the airport, but no, your priorities were with housing developments and diploma mills that keep popping up as proposals in and around the former El Toro military base.

We need the planned El Toro International Airport. It is a natural airport site and the Southern California Assn. of Governments has not backed down on its assessment of 30 million annual Orange County airline passengers by 2005. Also, there was no mention in your editorial of pending litigation against Measure W, which may well deflate the balloon of local control, as it did with its predecessor, Measure F.

Meanwhile, we must consider the roles of Sacramento and Washington in the battle for El Toro. The state Assembly has passed AB 2333, an airport bill, and Congress is taking up national zoning legislation in the House and Senate. So much for local control when it becomes irresponsible control.

Donald Nyre

Newport Beach

*

Coad, a visionary with the highest integrity who is looking out for the interests of citizens in north Orange County, should be applauded. Officials in Irvine promised funding for parks in northern Orange County in exchange for her support. Now, the city might not make good on its promise. This shouldn’t be surprising because the city might not make good on its promise of a Great Park either. We now see new El Toro plans from Irvine that are in the “spirit” or “likeness” of Measure W. The Great Park and Measure W were a bait and switch to kill the airport, plain and simple.

It appears now that there is no viably sound financial plan for the Great Park. Measure W is being legally challenged. All parties should pause and let our legal system work. Remember that Measure F was rendered invalid by the courts.

Your editorial also implies that if El Toro is not annexed by Irvine and remains in the county’s jurisdiction, the county somehow will be responsible for developing the Great Park. Not true. Annexation provides only zoning control. Land ownership is a separate matter. The ultimate landowners will develop the property, under the zoning restrictions placed upon the land by the governing authority--whichever government body that is.

Your editorial reminds us that the airport was rejected by the voters. It is important to mention that due to the very low voter turnout in March, only about 10% of the county’s population voted to reject the airport plan. That small percentage made a land-use decision for the entire county. Be prudent and let the court system decide the legality of all of this.

Gary Simon

Huntington Beach

*

Your editorial stating that Coad is threatening the future of the El Toro Marine air base is pure poppycock. Coad is trying to salvage a legacy from her years as an ardent supporter for a commercial airport at the El Toro Marine air base and is grasping at straws to reward her constituents with more North County park areas after she is replaced by an unknown college history teacher who was financed by Irvine and other south Orange County political institutions.

The decision regarding the use of El Toro is not yet at an end. There is a lawsuit underway challenging the passage of Measure W on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Measure W will be overturned just as Measure F was declared unconstitutional, despite the utterances of The Times’ editorial staff. Even with the stampede of articles and editorials and actions by South County politicians, the U.S. Navy requires a formal plan before it will transfer the base.

Irvine has already tried to annex the base as a method of gaining complete control. The Irvine Co., which owns all the land surrounding El Toro, is exerting pressure by building on land outside the airport noise buffer zone. There is little doubt that the power of this combination will have significant influence on county supervisors after Coad is out of office.

The Times editorial again ignores the air passenger demand predicted for Southern California that, within a few years, will swamp Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario International Airport and John Wayne Airport. Those predictions assigned 30 million passengers per year to the El Toro commercial airport.

What is left to handle Orange County’s growing air passenger demand is John Wayne Airport with one 5,700-foot runway and a nighttime curfew that is subject to the whimsical nature of the FAA. The future of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Tustin, with no noise buffer zone, is little better than the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Inglewood, El Segundo and Westchester.

I urge Coad to rescind her vote to join Irvine Mayor Larry Agran and his south Orange County cohorts and await outcome of the Measure W lawsuit.

Ralph P. Morgan

Costa Mesa

*

In this editorial were some clear truths. Unfortunately, your premises and, therefore, your conclusions were fatally flawed.

You said Coad “wrongly” tied her support to Irvine’s providing $800,000 a year for 100 years to help fund park improvements in the north. The only “wrongly” in her requirement was that she asked for far too little.

That $800,000 is about the price of one acre of land at today’s market price. If Irvine were to pony it up every year for 100 years it would represent only 100 measly acres of equivalent parkland.

George Margolin

Newport Beach