NBC apologizes for intrusion
On behalf of KNBC, I want to apologize to our neighbors for the
incident where our news helicopter hovered over residential homes at 6:30
a.m. Tuesday. There is no excuse for what happened, and I regret the
early morning intrusion in your homes.
I assure all our neighbors that something like this will not happen
again. It was a mistake. Thank you for your calls both to me and to your
Elian affected all of us
While this is not a local issue, I think the matter of Elian Gonzalez
is one that we have all been subjected to, for better or worse, and I for
one am glad to see it finally move toward some sort of conclusion.
I am in complete agreement with the Justice Department's desire to
reunite the boy with his father and applaud the government's bold action.
The behavior of those who attempted to hold on to Elian has been nothing
short of despicable and, despite bitter rhetoric of their lawyers and
fawning politicians, it was they, not the Clinton administration, who
have been negotiating in bad faith all along.
After consistently stonewalling all attempts to meet with the father,
and repeatedly challenging the authority of our (and their) government,
Janet Reno was ultimately left with no choice but to use force.
Of course, the obnoxious relatives will not let it rest there, but at
least Elian is out of their clutches. The mentality of those "freedom"
loving Cubans in Miami appears to be no different from that of their
"enemy" Fidel Castro, and has now been exposed as such.
Plenty of aviation history at local museum
Regarding Joe Santo's letter about the lack of Lockheed memorabilia on
display in Burbank, I call your attention to the Gordon Howard Museum at
1015 W. Olive Ave., Burbank. ("Turning our back on aviation heritage,"
The Burbank Historical Society has maintained a large display of
Lockheed photos, models and other items the company donated years ago. I
invite Mr. Santos and the public to visit the museum any Sunday afternoon
from 1 to 4 p.m. at no charge and enjoy this display and those of Warner
Bros., Disney, NBC and others, plus our 12 antique vehicles, three of
which will be in Burbank on Parade.
Enter the parking lot off of Clark Street and Lomita.
How about some real changes at the airport
Has my sense of well-being improved since the bold action by the
Airport Authority to eliminate luxury travel? ("Airport grounds 1st-class
flying," April 19) No, but it would sure help if the Authority worked
half as hard to reduce, rather than increase, the number of hazardous
takeoffs and landings over our congested urban area.
Unfortunately, it will never happen as long as Burbank can be outvoted
two to one by Glendale and Pasadena, the Burbank City Council continues
the myopic view that a regional airport produces more benefits than costs
and the powerful Air Transport Association has more clout with Congress
and the Federal Aviation Administration than do the residents of San
PAUL H. WANGSNESS
A bigger Burbank is not necessarily better
Regarding three segments on the editorial page of Saturday, April 22:
As usual, the cartoon by Chris Crunco was brilliant. In addition to
the insight in his drawing, Mr. Crunco has scooped all the reporters who
cover the airport issue by correctly noting that the proposed new
terminal is 365,000 square feet rather than the 330,000 square feet the
Ostensibly, the difference of 35,000 square feet in the proposed new
terminal is for "administrative space." But, by moving their
administrative offices to an off-site location, the airport could just as
easily use this extra space as a customs facility for international
flights, or to provide room for at least 1 million extra passengers per
Most of us involved in airport issues are well aware that an FAA Part
161 study will be required to gain a curfew, or to gain a limit on the
number of passengers and/or flights. The editorial alongside Mr. Crunco's
cartoon provides a worthwhile glimpse into the 161 process ("161 reasons
to care about the airport,").
What is missing in the editorial, as well as pronouncements from the
airport and the Burbank City Council, is any reference to a limit on the
number of passengers or flights. A curfew alone will not do it. Some
reasonable limit has to be set to prevent Burbank from becoming another
In his letter, Wesley Greene practically squawks with delight when he
proclaims that "FAA Chief Jane Garvey calls the shots." ("The truth is
out at long last.") Where's the news in that statement?
An FAA Part 161 study has been required since Congress passed the
Airport Noise and Capacity Act in 1990. Many were critical of the Burbank
City Council last August when they tried to bypass a Part 161 study and
institute a de facto curfew with their ill-fated "Framework for
I am elated that Mr. Greene has now learned about the 161 process and
the role of the FAA.
What Mr. Greene overlooks though, is that the California Public
Utilities Code provides the city with the absolute right to determine
whether or not a new terminal can be built on the proposed site. This
land use right totally supersedes any rights of the FAA.
If the Burbank council plays our land-use card correctly, they can
obtain both a curfew and some reasonable limit on the number of
passengers or flights. From the tenor of his letter, I have to wonder if
Mr. Greene wants either a curfew or limits. He appears to care only about
a bigger, not a better, Burbank.