Weighing El Toro Airport Plans, Politicking

* Long ago, the Mr. Smith who went to Washington was an upright representative with the highest values.

Now we learn that Orange County’s Mr. Smith, Supervisor Charles V. Smith, has been going there, and elsewhere, under questionable moral and legal ethics, quite unlike the original one (“Travel Budget to Push El Toro Plan Soars,” March 28). Thanks are due to The Times for exposing this previously secret situation.

We learn that our tax dollars are about to be consumed for a travel budget for the pro-airport majority of $98,000, that Supervisor Todd Spitzer talks to the wrong people at the Federal Aviation Administration and legal action was threatened to obtain information due the public, as provided by law. Only then was it released on a partial basis.

It is most troubling that Supervisor Smith has taken the position that there “will be an airport. That decision has already been made.”

Hopefully that will be left in the hands of the people, should currently proposed legislation be enacted.

Meantime, the Board of Supervisors should be fully involved in the process in accordance with the provisions of the federal base reuse guidelines. These are quite clear in that regard and rightfully so, especially since our tax dollars are apparently being consumed in a one-sided fashion.

It is not too much to expect that all supervisors be involved in the decision process for the reuse of El Toro. They should cease this divisive politicking that only demeans those involved and the county.

Orange County citizens clearly deserve better representation than this. If the supervisors want respect, this is not the way to get it.

MARV GONSIOR

Fullerton

* If the powers that be in Washington haven’t questioned these pro-El Toro airport ambassadors about the anti-airport sentiment among their constituents, then the Pentagon is asleep at the helm.

They have received mail from concerned residents in Orange County over the safety, pollution, noise and congestion of an international airport at El Toro.

Living in unincorporated Orange County and strongly opposed to an airport at El Toro, I find it very disturbing that my tax dollars are not representing me.

I would like a refund from the county for sending only the pro-airport representatives to D.C.!

Or to even the playing field for tax dollars spent promoting an airport, the two omitted supervisors should be entitled to take as many trips as the other three have. Then let Washington weigh both sides.

Who knows how those three supervisors may have skewed the sentiment? Have the people had a chance to vote on the type of airport? No. We need to stage a 100,000-person march on Washington. I would plan my summer vacation around such a trip. Let those opposed to the supervisors deciding the fate of El Toro be heard.

MARY SCHWARTZ

Santa Ana

* Now that we have learned Plan C has an enormous problem associated with the “people mover” designed to go between John Wayne Airport and El Toro, I believe Plan B is our best option.

The passenger increase from 24 million per year allowed by Plan C to 28.8 million in Plan B is not a horrendous difference. However, I’m sure we can expect that to be an issue the anti-airport gang will use to once again attack the whole airport project.

Is anyone else growing weary of their self-serving agenda to deprive our county of this much-needed airport, an airport that is our last hope to prepare for the air traffic demands of our future?

It is time they accept the fact that most Orange County citizens want a commercial airport at El Toro for our economic well-being.

A. GALLAGHER

Costa Mesa

* Thank you for a fine editorial on the politicizing of the airport planning (March 28).

The editorial says, “Since this is essentially a pre-approved airport, the public is in the position of having to wait until all the planning is done before it finds out what it is going to get. . . . The county should have had more definitive answers before going forward.”

The Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative requires that projects like airports, large jails and toxic dumps be subjected to analysis and public disclosure before being submitted to the voters for approval.

That was what was wrong with Measure A and what we hope to remedy with the new initiative.

LEONARD KRANSER

Citizens for Safe and

Healthy Communities

Dana Point