El Toro’s Future Propels Debate

We take exception to the comment in the April 29 article “ ‘Apolitical’ Plan for El Toro Base Reuse Sought” by Laguna Hills Councilman Randal J. Bressette that he doesn’t “believe that this process can be apolitical. . . . To believe you can bring the [Building Industry Assn.] in, are you kidding me?”

Bressette was referring to the desire of the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority to seek participation by pro-airport groups in the planning process for the nonaviation alternative reuse plan for the Marine Corps base.

The Building Industry Assn. of Southern California, Orange County Chapter did support Measure A because studying a commercial airport alternative makes economic sense in the reuse planning for the base.

However, as we stated in our public statements in 1994, and it remains true today: Orange County is a national showcase for successfully managing change and growth through enlightened planning. We believe these high standards must be applied to any reuse proposed for El Toro, and we expect the planning process, as well as the political, regulatory and legal processes, will address all reuse planning issues thoroughly, including area residents’ concerns about traffic and noise.

It is the BIA/OC’s intent to continue to lend its expertise in any aviation and nonaviation planning for El Toro, ensuring that sound planning principles are followed, and that appropriate and adequate mitigation measures are recommended. The BIA/OC is a resource that both the planning authority and the County Local Reuse Authority can utilize to bring a real-world, experienced viewpoint into the process.

CHRISTINE DIEMER

Executive Director

BIA/OC

* I was in the audience when 5th District Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson spoke to the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce on April 30.

In his remarks he reiterated his opposition to use of El Toro as a civil airport. He went on to say that he was “cooperating” with ETRPA, the high-sounding name for a rump group of disgruntled South County politicos bent on preventing use of El Toro as a civil airport, and that there were several alternative nonaviation uses of the Marine base worth “detailed study.”

His speech was politely received by the Newport Beach business group. Walking back to my car after the supervisor’s speech it suddenly struck me: Am I missing something here, hasn’t the “alternative use” issue been settled already? Didn’t the county electorate, by its vote on two separate ballot measures, say it wanted El Toro to become a civil airport? Didn’t the county board of supervisors, by a 4-1 vote, determine to develop El Toro as a civil airport? What then is Wilson doing “cooperating” with these people bent on frustrating the public will?

It’s going to take the best efforts of a lot of talented people to convert El Toro to civil use. We can’t afford to waste time, effort and taxpayer money in fruitless study of alternative uses.

Proponents of El Toro International Airport, where are you? It’s time to stand up and “just say no” to all this alternative use foolishness.

NORM EWERS

Irvine

* Whenever an intelligent and caring society reflects on what is in its best interests, it asks the question, “How will this affect our children?”

Now more than ever, that question should be asked about the momentous land-use project in Orange County. But why don’t the bureaucrats and politicians tell Orange County citizens of the studies that show the major economic and technical problems with the Marine Corps Air Station base redevelopment?

Why is it that the power brokers control the fast-track agenda of what happens to El Toro? Simply put, why don’t they [care] about what happens to our children? Because if they did, the children would realize that their parents will be giving them a legacy of debt that would make the bankruptcy a mere weekend shopping spree.

Very frankly, we, the citizens, need to change the mind-set of [those] orchestrating the redevelopment of El Toro.

Since the existing landing and airport facilities and buildings at the air station are unsuitable for commercial airport use, what taxes are we going to impose (directly or indirectly) to pay for redevelopment? Will our children be able to pay for this boondoggle?

Where do two unpaid-for airports operate successfully side by side? Why does the County of Orange want aviation as one of its service provider activities? For whose benefit is the county bureaucracy growing? (Certainly not the children’s.)

Why doesn’t the bureaucracy clearly outline to the citizenry the taxpayer costs of potential litigation resulting from environmental degradation, property value diminution and safety hazards? Is it because they really have no concern for our children’s pocketbook?

Our Orange County children should be told that the so-called jobs we are promising them with the introduction of an international cargo airport are ones in the county bureaucracy and in the low-paying service area sector. More importantly, our children should be informed that private enterprise, not government subsidy, is what made this country great. If the airlines needed the airport, they would finance it. We don’t need corporate welfare here in Orange County.

THOMAS MICHAEL WHALING

Irvine