By parrotpaul (66.81.24.137 - 66.81.24.137) on Wednesday, August 01,
2001 - 05:47 am:
Judge's Ruling Another Setback for Great Park
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000062610aug01.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
El Toro: Supporters are told they must start over to collect signatures
to put an initiative on the
March ballot. Jurist calls its wording 'misleading.'
By JEAN O. PASCO and DAVID REYES, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
An Orange County judge declared Tuesday that supporters of a plan to
build a large urban park
instead of an international airport must start from scratch collecting
voter signatures to put an
initiative on the March ballot.
It is the fourth time since May that supporters of the park at the former
El Toro Marine base will be
forced to restart their signature drive, raising serious doubts about
whether they have enough time to
collect the required 71,206 valid signatures to meet a Sept. 18 deadline.
But initiative supporters vowed Tuesday to appeal the decision. They
said they'll continue collecting
signatures with the current wording. The timing of the election is
critical for airport foes. The
Department of the Navy is scheduled to approve the county's airport
plans next June and opponents
want the park plan approved by voters before then. In his ruling Tuesday,
Judge James Gray barred
initiative proponents from using the 50,000 signatures they say they
have collected. He said the ballot
title and summary for the Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve
Initiative was
"affirmatively misleading."
The judge ordered a new title and summary to be written to replace the
one prepared by County
Counsel Laurence M. Watson's office. Gray suggested the parties meet
with Watson's office to agree
on final wording.
"We're going to keep going," initiative spokesman Leonard Kranser of
Dana Point said. "We feel quite
confident the appeals court will not stop this effort."
Pro-airport attorney Fredric D. Woocher said airport foes will ignore
the judge's order at their own
peril. He said Gray was "quite firm" that new wording was necessary
to lawfully describe the measure
and that the current signatures are invalid.
"What this reaction suggests is that they know they can't regroup in
time for March," Woocher said.
"This is really a harbinger of things to come, and that is that their
initiative is flawed."
The initiative would replace airport zoning, approved by voters in 1994,
with designations for parkland
and a nature preserve. A specific plan for the base, called the Great
Park, was developed by Irvine city
leaders and is supported by a coalition of Orange County cities.
Supporters of the initiative have previously been forced to restart
their signature campaign three
times, most recently having to dump an estimated 30,000 signatures
after it was determined that a
map was missing from documents sent to the county.
Woocher represents Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, which sued the
county in June over the
ballot title and summary. Attorney Barbara Lichman, representing the
Airport Working Group of
Orange County, argued during an airport debate last month that the
measure includes language that
could allow whoever develops the land to build on much of the site.
A portion of the initiative states: "Areas identified [as] open space
are not necessarily committed to
permanent open space uses. Certain property within the open space category
is committed, through
public or private ownership, to remain as open space, but other property,
due to market pressures to
serve a growing county population, may ultimately be developed in other
ways."
Supervisor Chuck Smith, a strong airport supporter, said that despite
the favorable court ruling, he
was not going to gloat.
"I've seen enough of these things come back and if [anti-airport forces]
have enough money--and
they do--they can come back," Smith said. "But it's just another pebble
strewn along El Toro's rocky
way."
Supervisor Todd Spitzer, an airport opponent, called the judge's ruling
a "serious setback" given the
amount of time left to gather signatures.
With 50,000 signatures already collected, Spitzer said, it is the responsibility
of the county counsel's
office to clear up the initiative's title and summary through an agreement
among the parties. Watson
should urge the Board of Supervisors to put the measure on the ballot,
Spitzer suggested.
"County counsel has to implore the board that they have an obligation
to put this on the ballot
themselves," Spitzer said.
The board has been split on El Toro's fate for years, favoring the airport
by a 3-2 vote.
Initiative supporters suffered other setbacks earlier in the signature
gathering process. They first held
off launching the effort to fix technical problems, then a set of documents
submitted contained
typographical and other errors. When a second set of documents was
submitted, the map wasn't
included, registrar officials said.
State law requires a ballot title and summary to be drafted by county
attorneys and to be included on
each petition circulated for signatures.
By parrotpaul (66.81.24.137 - 66.81.24.137) on Wednesday, August
01, 2001 - 06:06 am:
Judge grounds anti-El Toro drive
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0021583aug01.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
Ruling makes a March initiative for a park at the closed Marine base
unlikely, airport supporters say.
Opponents vow to press on.
By Mathis Winkler
SANTA ANA -- Dealing a major blow to opponents of an airport at El Toro,
an Orange County Superior
Court judge on Tuesday halted their plans to have voters decide in
March whether the land should be
used as a park instead.
The ruling by Superior Court Judge James Gray came less than a month
after airport supporters had
filed a lawsuit against Orange County Counsel Lon Watson, alleging
that his official title and summary
for the "Orange County Central Park" initiative failed to inform voters
about proposed development at
El Toro.
Gray ruled that Watson's summary did not accurately describe the initiative
and that, therefore, the
signatures gathered were invalid. Under state law, any proposed initiative
must be reviewed by the
county counsel's office, which then prepares a ballot title and summary
of the measure. The summary
and title must be displayed on initiative petitions.
At the time of the filing of the lawsuit on July 4, park supporters
criticized the lawsuit as a ploy to kill
the initiative, which would prevent an airport and bring a park, as
well as cultural and educational
institutions, to El Toro if approved by voters.
El Toro airport supporters said Tuesday that the ruling showed they
had been right all along.
"We took this to court because we believe, obviously, that a summary
of an initiative ought to
accurately reflect the initiative," said Bruce Nestande, the lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit and president and
chief executive of Citizens for Jobs and the Economy. "The judge completely
agreed with our
position."
Newport Beach Councilman Gary Proctor, who has been a major player in
the airport debate, said
Tuesday's ruling made it virtually impossible for park supporters to
get enough signatures for a March
2002 ballot measure because they would have to start collecting them
all over again.
"I think that they have encountered the worst nightmares of a pilot,"
Proctor said. "That's when you
run out of altitude, air speed and ideas."
Supporters of the initiative acknowledged that the judge's ruling set
them back a little.
"Obviously thousands of citizens who have been collecting signatures
for the initiative are
disappointed by today's ruling," said Leonard Kranser, a member of
the Committee for Safe and
Healthy Communities, the group circulating the petitions.
Kranzer said the group's lawyers will ask the appeals court to overturn
the decision. He added that
members of the group will continue to collect signatures as before
because they are confident they
will win the case on appeal.
A March ballot measure is also still possible.
"We will be on the March ballot," Kranser said, adding that he didn't
know how many signatures had
been gathered so far. "We're confident."
According to comments in court, the group had collected about 50,000
signatures by July 13, said
Fredric Woocher, the plaintiffs' lawyer.
Park supporters have "obviously concluded that there is no way to get
[enough new] signatures until
March," Woocher said. "There is no way to save it."
* Mathis Winkler covers Newport Beach. He may be reached at (949) 574-4232
or by e-mail at
mathis.winkler@latimes.com .
By parrotpaul (66.81.24.137 - 66.81.24.137) on Wednesday, August
01, 2001 - 06:16 am:
El Toro park petitions thrown out
http://www.ocregister.com/news/toro00801cci3.shtml
Courts: A judge agrees with airport backers that the title and summary of the plan are misleading.
August 1, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
More than 50,000 petition signatures gathered for a huge park at El
Toro are invalid, a judge ruled
Tuesday - creating questions about whether popular opposition to an
airport there will be enough to
overcome legal obstacles and put an initiative on the March ballot.
Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray sided with airport backers
who sued, arguing that
the title and summary of the Central Park and Nature Preserve Initiative
tout open space, but do not
disclose development that the initiative might allow.
Gray agreed that the title and summary are misleading, and that all
signatures gathered to date
should be discarded.
Park backers promised to appeal, and to keep using the current petitions.
Those backing an El Toro airport say the ruling has derailed the park initiative for now.
The initiative drive has taken since May to gather more than 50,000
signatures. Starting over, getting
a new title and summary approved and making a mid-September deadline
for 71,000 new signatures
could be hard.
"I don't think we're looking at a March election, anymore," said Fredric
Woocher, an attorney for
Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, which filed the lawsuit.
Proponents of a park at the former Marine base may get discouraged by
the ruling, said John Phelan,
the petition drive's Laguna Woods area captain. But he said most won't.
"I would say there will be more who will rise up in anger," Phelan said.
Initiative backers say the signature drive will go on - with hopes that the appeal will succeed.
"We're on schedule to qualify for the March ballot, and we're confident
that we will do so," said Len
Kranser, initiative spokesman, who wouldn't say how many signatures
have been gathered - only that
it's more than 50,000.
The ruling Tuesday was the latest in a series of stumbles. Since the
ballot measure made its debut in
May, legal and technical errors forced its backers to start over three
times.
This time, the flaw exploited by airport advocates was the work of county attorneys, the judge ruled.
The summary prepared by the County Counsel's Office did not adequately
describe the initiative, Gray
ruled.
The initiative allows certain kinds of development at the former Marine
Corps Air Station, but the
summary did not adequately spell that out, airport backers have argued.
Newport Beach Councilman Gary Proctor, long a supporter of an El Toro
airport, said he believes
chances are slim that the measure now will make it onto the March ballot.
"I think it puts them back to the drawing board," Proctor said.
But in the neighborhoods where petition gatherers have worked for weeks,
the latest setback brought
a mix of disappointment, anger and resolve.
"I think if anything, it will strengthen us," said John Berry, the Aliso
Viejo area captain for the petition
drive.
"Most people know that the lawsuit came from George Argyros' camp,"
Berry said of the Newport
Beach businessman who has bankrolled the drive for an airport. "They
see this as an attack against
something that the people are behind."
Phelan said he expects the news to get two reactions in Laguna Woods.
"One is, 'Oh, hell, you can't beat money,' " Phelan said. "And second
is being so angry they'd like to
strangle somebody."
By parrotpaul (66.81.24.137 - 66.81.24.137) on Wednesday, August
01, 2001 - 06:35 am:
Ambassadorship in limbo as Argyros firm is probed
Politics: Financier's nomination to the post in Spain was sent to the
Senate more than two months
ago.
August 1, 2001
http://www.ocregister.com/local/argyros00801cci.shtml
By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register
WASHINGTON Newport Beach financier George Argyros' nomination as U.S.
ambassador to Spain is
still on hold, more than two months since the White House sent his
name to the Senate for
confirmation
.
Meanwhile, California's attorney general also continues to investigate
charges that Argyros' real
estate-management company illegally withheld deposits from renters.
As Congress readies for a monthlong recess, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee has been
working quickly to act on President George W. Bush's ambassador appointments.
Last week, 13
nominees cleared the committee. Eight more confirmation hearings were
held Tuesday.
Argyros' nomination was announced April 25 and sent to the Senate on
May 17. Only Bush's nominee
for United Nations ambassador, John Negroponte, has waited longer than
Argyros for a hearing.
Democrats delayed Negroponte's hearing so they would have more time
to prepare questions about
his tenure as ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s. During that time,
he helped supervise the U.S.
effort to arm the contras fighting Nicaragua's Sandinista government.
Argyros, a Republican multimillionaire who helped raise tens of millions
for Bush's campaign and the
GOP, has been unwilling to comment on the progress of his nomination
and could not be reached this
week. The White House routinely admonishes its nominees not to speak
publicly until they receive
Senate approval.
However, committee staffers have been saying for weeks that Argyros' file "was not complete."
"We are aware that there's a proceeding in California, and, of course,
a lot of that information has
been made public," said Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for the Foreign Relations
Committee.
"Additional information that has been requested by the committee is
being gathered and will be
provided to the committee in the very near future," a White House spokesman
said.
Argyros' company, Arnel Management Co., is under investigation for illegally
withholding renters'
deposits and overcharging them for repairs when they move out.
Arnel, which owns and manages 18 complexes with 4,535 apartments in
Orange County, engaged in
an "unlawful, routine and arbitrary withholding of tenants' security
deposits," according to internal
district attorney files.
The District Attorney's Office filed a consumer-protection civil lawsuit
against Arnel in February, but
pulled it 90 minutes later after District Attorney Tony Rackauckas
found out about the filing.
Rackauckas has said he did that to save taxpayers from a costly court battle.
Amid public accusations that he was trying to help a campaign donor,
Rackauckas asked the Attorney
General's Office to handle the probe. In May 1998, Argyros' firm gave
$1,000 -- the county limit -- to
the Rackauckas campaign.
A spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer would not comment on the
status of the probe or
which federal officials have asked about the investigation.
So far, 48 Bush ambassador nominees have had hearings -- 21 of whom
have been confirmed by the
full Senate. Fifteen more are awaiting hearings. But all those nominees
- except Argyros and
Negroponte - were not officially nominated until this month. A dozen
more ambassador candidates
have been announced but their nominations not yet made official.
Register staff writer Bill Rams contributed to this report.
By gail in LN (64.0.146.247 - 64.0.146.247) on Wednesday, August
01, 2001 - 10:59 pm:
I think the pro-aps are sabotaging King George's nomination. They want
him and his money to stay in
town. I wouldn't put it past the pro-aps. Let's start a committee to
get King George to Spain ASAP!
By parrotpaul (66.81.54.23 - 66.81.54.23) on Thursday, August
02, 2001 - 03:37 am:
Airport Foes' Setback Bigger Than Thought
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000062899aug02.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Organizers of a proposed initiative to build a park instead of an airport
at El Toro said Wednesday that
a judge's order invalidating petitions collected so far would affect
128,000 signatures, much more
than the 50,000 originally believed.
Len Kranser of Citizens for Safe and Healthy Communities said organizers
did a more thorough count
of the petitions after Superior Court Judge James Gray ruled Tuesday
that the current signatures
were invalid. That count found that organizers were much further along
in the process than first
believed.
Gray said the measure's ballot title and summary were misleading and
that organizers must start
from scratch with new wording. He said county attorneys who prepared
the title and summary should
have noted that the measure allows development and that the base would
not be left entirely as open
space. A pro-airport group, Citizens for Jobs and the Economy, sued
over the wording, saying it didn't
adequately describe the impact of the initiative. The measure needs
71,206 valid signatures of
registered voters to qualify for the March ballot.
Petition organizers said they'll appeal Gray's ruling and vowed to continue
collecting signatures on the
current petitions.
By parrotpaul (66.81.54.23 - 66.81.54.23) on Thursday, August
02, 2001 - 03:48 am:
El Toro backers see shift in momentum
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0021618aug02.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
Clinton A string of rulings for the pro-airport camp come as support
appears to be growing for the
proposed airfield.
By Paul Clinton
NEWPORT-MESA -- The proponents of an airport at the closed El Toro Marine
Corps Air Station were
flying high Wednesday, a day after an Orange County Superior Court
judge knocked the legs out from
under a South County anti-airport ballot measure.
In the Tuesday decision, Superior Court Judge James Gray invalidated
some 50,000 signatures
collected for an initiative that would turn the 4,700-acre base into
a Great Park instead of a
commercial airport.
The ruling was the second major court victory since December, when a
judge threw out Measure F.
That initiative, which passed overwhelmingly in March 2000, would have
required a two-thirds public
approval for any new airport, jail or landfill. Taken together, the
rulings represent a momentum shift
from a time in the late 1990s when South County won a string of court
battles, airport backers said.
"These victories that we have had have been self-imposed by the opposition"
to an airport, said Bruce
Nestande, the president and chief executive of Citizens for Jobs and
the Economy who filed the claims
against both initiatives. "It's how they've run their operation, based
on a lot of self-deception. And the
courts aren't buying it."
Gray's ruling invalidated the signatures for the Orange County Central
Park initiative because the ballot
title and summary were "affirmatively misleading."
South County spokeswoman Meg Waters said the fault doesn't lie with
initiative writers, but rather
with County Counsel Laurence Watson, who wrote the summary.
"The court victories are going to be Pyrrhic victories," Waters said.
"There's going to be a backlash of
people getting angry at the courts and at the county. Look who wrote
the ballot summary."
Growing public support for an airport at El Toro has gone hand in hand
with the court victories, even
though county residents still seem to widely support the park plan.
In a poll released July 25, Cal State Fullerton found a 7% increase
in support for an airport between
March and June. The poll showed 46.8% support for an airport. When
asked a separate question,
62.4% said they would vote for the central park initiative.
Newport Beach Councilman Dennis O'Neil cautioned against too much optimism
in the pro-airport
camp.
"Right now, all of the efforts show that the pro-airport position is
prevailing," O'Neil said. "Until
something is finalized, it's in motion. It's so fluid."
Airport backers credited efforts by the Airport Working Group over the
past several months as helping
to turn the tide. The group, with a $3.6-million grant from Newport
Beach, has produced a handful of
mailers and television spots deriding the park as an economic drain
on the county.
The ads have used a weasel and a bunny munching on a $100 bill to attack
the park.
The court decisions, along with the ads, have swung the pendulum toward
the pro-airport side, said
Barbara Lichman, the group's executive director.
It has been a shift from the successful challenges by the El Toro Reuse
Planning Authority to the
county's environmental report and other aspects of the project, she
added.
"They won in a courtroom," Lichman acknowledged. "But winning some of
the battles doesn't mean
you'll win the war. Take World War II. Hitler won a few battles. [Tuesday's
ruling] was their
Stalingrad."
-- Paul Clinton covers the environment and John Wayne Airport. He may
be reached at (949)
764-4330 or by e-mail at paul.clinton@latimes.com .
By parrotpaul (66.81.54.23 - 66.81.54.23) on Thursday, August
02, 2001 - 03:53 am:
Group rallies airport support in Costa Mesa
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0021619aug02.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
At meeting, councilman Gary Monahan asks for advice to get City Council
motivated on issue.
By Lolita Harper
COSTA MESA -- Members of the Airport Working Group hosted a meeting
Tuesday night at the
downtown community center not only to gain support for an El Toro airport
-- and their organization
-- but to voice disapproval with the City Council regarding the matter.
Major expansions at John Wayne Airport, bringing increased noise and
traffic to the residents of the
city, are inevitable if an airport is not built at the closed El Toro
Marine Corps Air Station, the Newport
Beach-based group contended.
"We can't understand why Costa Mesa -- who will get absolutely creamed
-- has not joined the fight
to support El Toro," said Tom Anderson, a member of the group. "To
have only two council members
here is pathetic." Councilmen Gary Monahan and Chris Steel, along with
about 120 members of the
community, were at the meeting.
"Let us know how you would like us to get involved," Monahan said. "Costa
Mesa City Council has
not really jumped into the fray or dedicated any time or money to the
issue. Apparently we need a
little more motivation."
Costa Mesa resident Rachel Perez-Hamilton took the councilman's cue
and circulated a petition at the
meeting in hopes of sending a message to the City Council, she said.
By the end of the meeting, more
than 80 residents had signed it.
The petition expressed "dissatisfaction" with the council in regard
to both John Wayne and El Toro
airports and demanded that the council "donate $600,000 to agencies
who are educating the citizens
of Orange County and supporting the John Wayne and El Toro airports."
In May, the council approved a $15,000 grant to the Airport Working
Group for the purpose of
informing Costa Mesa residents about the dangers of expanding John
Wayne Airport. Later that
month, the group gave the money back because the city would not allow
them to publicly support an
El Toro airport.
Councilwoman Linda Dixon said she did not attend the Airport Working
Group gathering because she
thinks the city-hosted informational meeting is a more appropriate
place to hear the opinions and
concerns of the residents. Costa Mesa is planning to hold a public
meeting on airport issues in the fall,
she said.
"This is a meeting with no council members coming there with their agenda
to preach their beliefs.
This is an opportunity for the public to come and speak their minds,"
Dixon said.
Councilwoman Karen Robinson was at a Redevelopment and Residential Rehabilitation
Committee
meeting Tuesday night and was unable to attend, she said.
"I was very frustrated that the meeting was scheduled on the same night
of another very important
committee meeting," she said. "I am looking forward to hearing opinions
about the airport -- and
regional airport issues -- at the meetings that the city is planning."
Mayor Libby Cowan was unavailable for comment.
Aside from bashing the City Council, the purpose of the meeting was
to inform residents of Costa
Mesa about the issues surrounding John Wayne Airport. President Tom
Naughton explained the
regional demand for another airport and Gen. Art Bloomer of the Orange
County Regional Airport
Authority addressed what he called "misinformation" being disseminated
about the proposed airport
at El Toro.
Vice President Rick Taylor's presentation sparked the most interest.
Taylor detailed the effects of the
county's two alternative expansion plans for John Wayne Airport, which
would be implemented if
another airport is not built, he said.
"Day in and day out jets fly over our homes and we just endure it for
the good of the county while all
the clean air is reserved for the folks in South County," Taylor said.
"You can go home and do nothing
and it will grow like a cancer in your body. Just rest assured that
every night while you sleep, one
more plane is flying overhead."
By parrotpaul (66.81.20.194 - 66.81.20.194) on Thursday, August
02, 2001 - 04:02 am:
Rejected park petition signed by 128,000
http://www.ocregister.com/local/toro00802cci6.shtml
Organizers say they will continue to collect signatures while appealing the judge's Tuesday ruling.
August 2, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
In the past month, about 128,000 people signed the latest initiative
petitions to build a park instead of
an airport at El Toro, its backers said Wednesday, a day after a judge
invalidated the petitions.
The judge ruled that there were errors in the legal description of the
measure. Initiative backers have
started their drives three times since May because of legal and technical
errors.
Initiative leaders had refused to say Tuesday how many people signed
- fearing their opponents could
somehow use that number against them, said Len Kranser, a spokesman
for the campaign.
"We thought in view of (Tuesday's) development in court that it was
important for the public to
understand how tremendously popular this initiative is," Kranser said.
"The other side can file all the lawsuits they want, but we are determined
to get the question of
whether El Toro becomes an airport or a park before the voters,'' he
said.
Their hopes for that on the March ballot now shift to an appeals court,
where they will seek to reverse
the decision of Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray.
Their pro-airport opponents said the number of signatures gathered doesn't
change the ruling that the
ballot title and summary - which by state law were prepared by county
attorneys - were improper.
Fredric Woocher, an attorney for the group that filed the lawsuit heard
by Gray, said the judge ruled
properly that the title and summary did not "factually describe what
the initiative does." He said he
believes the appeals court will uphold that ruling.
Kranser said the campaign will continue to gather signatures on the
expectation that they will win the
appeal.
About 71,000 valid signatures must be gathered by mid-September to qualify
a measure for the
March election.
By parrotpaul (66.81.25.127 - 66.81.25.127) on Saturday, August
04, 2001 - 07:41 am:
STEVE SMITH -- What's up
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/columnists/la-dp0021664aug04.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dcolumnists
El Toro meeting doesn't live up to billing
The Airport Working Group presentation Tuesday night at the Lions Park
Community Center was billed
as "the most important community meeting of 2001," but it drew only
a small audience. Costa Mesa
residents saw through the headline and spent their time elsewhere.
That was a smart move, because the charts and graphs were nothing more
than an encore
performance of the pre-Measure F dog and pony show that spokesman Tom
Wall led about 18
months ago. The biggest difference was that Wall, an experienced speaker,
knew enough to smile
once in awhile. Wall did his job so well, in fact, that it took four
speakers to replace him last Tuesday.
One by one, working group mouthpieces dragged out the same, tired old
statistics proving
conclusively that without a big, smelly, noisy new airport in El Toro,
the county will perish. They told
us about how the expansion of John Wayne Airport will bring a lot more
pollution to our area. That
half-truth failed to include the fact that an El Toro airport will
pollute even more. Listening to them,
you'd think they figured out how to build and operate the world's first
fuel-cell airport. Yes sir, at El
Toro there won't be any pollution anywhere from the thousands of additional
planes, cars and trucks.
A couple of the speakers even had trouble getting their story straight.
Costa Mesa city councilman
Gary Monahan told us that "without an airport at El Toro, there will
be an expansion of John Wayne."
That's about as certain as one could be about anything, but hold on.
Only a few minutes later,
speaker Tom Naughton said, "Without El Toro it will be a real difficult
chore to keep John Wayne
intact."
With apologies to the late Gilda Radner's Emily Litella, "That's very
different!"
Several times during the evening, there was a direct challenge to those
of us who believe that the big,
smelly, noisy airport belongs outside of the county and who also hold
that John Wayne should not be
expanded. "Ask these people what they are doing to stop John Wayne"
came the challenge.
It's an excellent idea. Outside of a few voices who have maintained
this position from the start and
have not only let their local representatives know how they feel but
also promoted and supported last
year's olive branch extended by the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority,
too few people have voiced
their support of a no El Toro, no new John Wayne strategy.
So please meet the working group's challenge and call the county board
of supervisors, your local city
council and any other relevant parties listed in the front of your
white pages and tell them you are
opposed to both El Toro and the expansion of John Wayne. They need
to hear your voice on this
sensible position. Thanks to the working group for lighting that fire.
Halfway through the presentation, the large screen on the stage showed
a quote from last February
by planning authority executive director Paul Eckles declaring that
John Wayne's expansion is the
cheapest and fastest way to meet the county's aviation needs. That
half-truth did not include the
information that Eckles' quote was made a full year after the group
passed a resolution supporting
efforts to limit John Wayne. That was the olive branch; their way of
bringing the El Toro mess to a
close.
But the pro-airport folks refused to budge and after a year of frustration
the anti-El Toro crowd, fed
up with the arrogance from the pro-airport crowd, rescinded its offer.
That's when Eckles spoke.
The working group is not optimistic about the chances of stopping John
Wayne's expansion. The fact
is, if John Wayne's capacity is increased they will have to bear a
large part of the blame. The working
group, along with other pro-El Toro forces, has put all of its eggs
in the El Toro basket and stubbornly
refused any solution except a big, smelly, noisy airport nine miles
away.
This strategy has taken far longer than they anticipated and has now
run up against the ticking John
Wayne clock. Desperate for a scapegoat, the pro-airport forces are
pointing fingers, even naming
names, in a shameful effort to absolve themselves of any responsibility.
Tuesday's show was a sorry, last ditch, failed attempt to shift the
burden of responsibility to those
who want to protect the county from the type of airport that brings
a lower standard of living, not a
higher one. Orange County is no place for a large new international
airport, particularly when other
viable options exist.
That sentiment was best expressed by the gentleman sitting to my right.
After examining the regional
map supplied by the working group, he turned to his wife and said,
"Why don't they just build it at
Camp Pendleton?"
Oh, and please bring back Tom Wall. He's a really good speaker.
* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and freelance writer. Readers
may leave a message for him
on the Daily Pilot hotline at (949) 642-6086.
By parrotpaul (66.81.29.147 - 66.81.29.147) on Sunday, August
05, 2001 - 05:18 am:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
More Flak Over El Toro Airport
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000063774aug05.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
El Toro airport promoters argue that every county should build its own
airport. But what is so special
about counties? Why should arbitrary political boundaries on a map
determine where airports are
located?
My birthplace, New York City, has roughly the same population as greater
Los Angeles and consists of
five counties. Only two of these counties house commercial airports
within their boundaries. Millions of
New Yorkers use Newark Airport, across the state line in New Jersey.
The New York Daily News recently reported on improved train service
coming to Newark, JFK and
LaGuardia airports. The paper says "the train to the plane" will "enable
countless airline passengers to
reach their flights without ever having to set foot in a car or a bus.
The new service also will relieve
traffic on highways and reduce air pollution." Outlying airports, with
good ground connections, are the
way of the future. The Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve
Initiative, heading for the
March ballot, will convert El Toro into parks, schools, health care
facilities, cultural and recreational
attractions. It also allows space for a transportation center, where
Orange County residents can leave
their cars, check their bags and take express buses to airports.
No one suggests putting a landing strip in New York's Central Park,
and we don't want one in the
heart of Orange County's Central Park either.
Leonard Kranser
Dana Point
*
South County residents wrongly berate county supervisors for going forward
with the El Toro airport
project and for spending money to educate voters about it. Obviously,
they are ignorant about some
important facts.
Measure A and Measure S were approved by a majority of Orange County
voters, mandating that our
supervisors begin planning an airport on the El Toro site. They would
be going against the will of the
voters if they did not do so. Measure F was approved, but it was not
presented to the public as solely
an airport initiative, and it eventually was judged to be illegal.
South County cities used millions of taxpayer dollars to create brochures
that went to all county
residents and contained one-sided, anti-airport propaganda that stretched
the truth to the point of
fiction. The supervisors would be irresponsible not to refute that
misinformation and replace it with
facts regarding an El Toro airport.
I am sure some people would be happy to let voters continue to believe
the incorrect and incomplete
statements contained in those anti-airport brochures. That scheme did
cause people to question the
airport plan. However, I believe fairness demands the public know the
whole truth, and I applaud the
supervisors for their efforts to provide it.
Anna Krone
Anaheim
*
Re "Judge's Ruling Another Setback for Great Park," Aug. 1:
I'm wondering if Judge James Gray and the Orange County Board of Supervisors'
majority are familiar
with the term "civil servant," or has it taken on a new meaning?
It is disgraceful that in a country that purports to practice democracy,
this constant, self-serving,
disruptive behavior is practiced and tolerated. As one Orange County
citizen who has donated his time
to collect signatures for the initiative that will replace airport
zoning approved by voters in 1994 with
designations for parkland and a nature preserve, I can attest that
our citizens are disgusted with
these elected officials. Our resolve will only be strengthened to ensure
that the will of the people will
prevail!
Supervisor Chuck Smith for once got it right and said he was not going
to gloat over this temporary
voter setback. Pro-airport attorney Fredric D. Woocher, on the other
hand, will soon learn that
despite the numerous destructive tactics employed by the special-interest
groups, we will not give up.
These dirty tricks will only elicit more support for the signatures
we need to ensure that we, the
citizens of Orange County, will decide how our money is spent and what
kind of a community we wish
to preserve and build.
Hans J. Roehricht
Lake Forest
*
Re: "Taking Off on County's El Toro Airport 'Facts,' " Letters to the
Editor, July 29:
Arlene Button uses questionable thinking when she extols the wonders
of the San Clemente Ocean
Festival and then decries being "bombarded by the 'Stop the El Toro
Development' solicitors."
Might I suggest that if we don't stop the El Toro airport from happening,
she will be bombarded by
both the noise and visual pollution of planes flying overhead, not
to mention the degradation of air
quality over all of Orange County. I doubt she will be able to enjoy
future San Clemente festivals then.
Bette Harper
Laguna Beach
*
Button's complaint is, at best, a stretch. It may be her opinion but
is hardly supported by the facts.
We believe we were performing a public service by being there to gather
signatures for the Orange
County Central Park Initiative. It would bring the El Toro airport
question to a vote in March, and we
were not there to debate the issue. And indeed, attendees really got
the message! Over 1,500
voluntarily signed the petition, and at least another 1,500 said they
had already signed it! Moreover,
many thanked us for being there, and thus we believe the case for "public
service" speaks for itself.
Our congratulations go to the people of San Clemente and other cities,
who now realize how
damaging 24-hour overflights to El Toro would be to their way of life.
They put their names on the
line.
Jim Davy
San Clemente
*
Button characterized the petitioners as a rude and disruptive intrusion
to "a very special event."
As a resident of San Clemente, I also look forward to our ocean festival
that brings families and
people of all ages to our beautiful "village by the sea." As always,
the surfers, swimmers, sandcastle
sculptors, artists and woodies were there to the delight of all.
I can think of nothing that would be more disruptive or intrusive to
our gorgeous San Clemente than
the noise and pollution of a proposed airport that calls for 824 operations
per day, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
Perhaps some of our residents still harbor the notion that we are far
from the noxious airport and can
stick our heads in our beachfront sand. However, Orange County is planning
for northward-departing
aircraft to turn right, away from central Orange County, and head down
this way, crossing the coast
somewhere at or near San Clemente. In addition, all landing aircraft
will approach from South County.
I was thrilled to see the many diligent volunteers who relinquished
their ocean festival weekend to
gather the signatures to stop a disastrous El Toro airport that would
ruin not just one glorious
summer weekend but our entire quality of life. Let's all work together
to keep it!
Jan Kozick
San Clemente
By parrotpaul (66.81.18.10 - 66.81.18.10) on Monday, August 06,
2001 - 05:36 am:
The Buzz
http://www.ocregister.com/local/buzz00806cci.shtml
A recent KCRW/89.9 FM debate on El Toro drew a raucous crowd of about
500 -- including about 50
whose bus from Inglewood to Irvine was paid for by an anonymous El
Toro airport backer.
Mike Stevens, head of LAX Expansion No! -- which sees an El Toro airport
as a key to less growth at
LAX -- refused to name the donor.
"It was a guy who called us,'' Stevens said. "This was a rich guy --
I could tell, because I saw his
watch. I thanked him and I gave him a T-shirt.''
So who was the mystery man? Stevens isn't telling. David Ellis, a pro-airport
consultant, said it wasn't
him, or anyone of whom he knows.
Which leaves us at this: keeping an eye out for a guy with an expensive
watch wearing a T-shirt that
says "LAX No! El Toro Yes!"
• After Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray upended the latest
anti-airport petition drive
on Tuesday, a pack of attorneys descended on the court reporter, thrusting
their business cards at
her, asking to get an official transcript the very next day.
No such luck. The reporter was leaving the next morning on a vacation
cruise. While time ticks away
on petition deadlines, the transcripts must await her return on Aug.
13.
• Two Orange County lawmakers were among a group of 20 called to the
White House on Thursday.
"He said he wanted to invite over the 'nonwhiners,' " quipped Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington
Beach. He and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, were among the small group
that schmoozed with the
president while drinking ice tea and lemonade.
By parrotpaul (66.81.51.79 - 66.81.51.79) on Tuesday, August 07,
2001 - 06:05 am:
Another El Toro airport plan filed
http://www.ocregister.com/local/toro00807cci.shtml
Proposal would use a different alignment of runways and serve fewer passengers.
August 7, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
Backers of an alternate El Toro airport plan filed initiative papers
Monday, launching a long-shot bid to
rearrange the runways and flight patterns from those proposed in the
official county plan.
"I think the average person would support what we're doing because it's
more reasonable and less
threatening," said Russell Niewiarowski, one of the authors of the
proposal known as the V-plan for
the shape of the runways it would create at El Toro.
Their plan would serve a third fewer passengers than the county's and
assuage fears that the
county's airport plan might allow flights over Irvine and Orange, he
said.
"I call it airport lite," said Villa Park Councilman Bob McGowan of
the plan that would build an El Toro
airport eventually to serve 18.8 million annual passengers, instead
of the county proposal for 28.8
million passengers.
Niewiarowski said the initiative would provide voters with a middle
ground between the county airport
proposal and an anti-airport initiative petition to convert most of
the base to a huge park.
The Reasonable Alternative Airport initiative would draw a new footprint
for an airport - one that
would have aircraft land from the north and take off to the south over
land that for now is largely
undeveloped.
With the petition filing, V-plan supporters asked the county to extend
the signature-gathering deadline
for the March election to mid- October, McGowan said.
Niewiarowski and McGowan said they are realistic about their chances
of gathering the 71,000
signatures required to get the plan on the March ballot, and plan to
ask county supervisors to place
the measure on the ballot directly - and to do the same for the park
initiative, to give voters a choice.
Board Chairwoman Cynthia Coad was noncommittal about the initiative filing Monday.
"After the certification (of environmental studies) and the Federal
Aviation Administration report, there
might be some changes that would be made," said Coad, who previously
has suggested that the
airport be downsized to about 18 million annual passengers.
"But at this point, I'm acquainted with the flight plans that are in
the environmental-impact report, and
I'm satisfied with the process," she said.
By parrotpaul (66.81.51.79 - 66.81.51.79) on Tuesday, August 07,
2001 - 06:10 am:
El Toro Appeal to Be Filed Today
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000064201aug07.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Airport: As park proponents rush to have petitions reinstated in time
for March ballot, new plan
surfaces to realign runways.
By JEAN O. PASCO, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Supporters of an urban park instead of an airport at the former El Toro
Marine base will appeal a
judge's ruling today that voided petitions with 128,000 signatures
aimed at putting a park initiative
before the county's voters in March.
Meanwhile, people who want an El Toro airport but with different runway
alignments on Monday
presented their proposed initiative language to county officials for
review.
A week ago, Superior Court Judge James Gray threw out a ballot title
and summary prepared by the
county counsel's office for the proposed Orange County Central Park
and Nature Preserve Initiative.
The wording was misleading, the judge ruled, because it didn't tell
voters that development could
occur within the proposed park. If unchallenged, Gray's ruling could
demolish hopes by airport foes to
meet a Sept. 18 deadline to place the measure on the March 2002 ballot.
County supervisors are scheduled to approve the final El Toro airport
project in late September. The
Navy would review that plan and make a decision by June.
Supporters of a realigned airport face the same deadline for their proposed
ballot measure. Villa Park
City Councilman Robert E. McGowan said his group is offering a third
alternative to the county's plan
and to the park initiative developed by Irvine.
To qualify for the ballot, both measures need verified signatures from
71,206 registered Orange
County voters.
The process of appealing Gray's ruling could extend beyond Sept. 18.
The appeal will be filed with the
Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, which this year recused
itself from hearing a previous El
Toro-related case. In that appeal, San Diego appellate judges will
decide whether to overturn a
December ruling by a Los Angeles County judge declaring last year's
anti-airport effort
unconstitutional.
Airport opponent Len Kranser said his group will ask the court to order
a special election if the issue
isn't resolved by the March ballot. To force a special election on
an initiative, twice as many
signatures--142,412--are needed.
"We're nearly there," Kranser said.
The new proposal to realign proposed runways, dubbed the Reasonable
Airport Alternative, is starting
late to collect signatures. Without enough money for paid circulators,
the group is relying on
volunteers. If proponents don't qualify for the March ballot, they
will try for November's, McGowan
said.
Meanwhile, airport foes on Monday also questioned whether Judge Gray
should have disclosed that
he once considered hiring a political consulting firm co-owned by pro-airport
consultant and campaign
architect David Ellis.
Ellis and his former partner, Scott Hart, said Gray met with Hart to
discuss hiring the firm in 1998. The
judge ultimately chose a different firm to manage his unsuccessful
Republican congressional bid. A
review of Gray's 1998 campaign reports show no payments to Ellis or
Hart.
Gray did receive a $250 contribution for his race from developer George
Argyros, the airport's leading
benefactor. State law allows contributions to judges of up to $250.
The canon of judicial ethics states that judges in trial proceedings
"shall disclose on the record
information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might
consider relevant to the
question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no
actual basis for disqualification."
Gray at first declined to comment because technically the case is still
before him. But when told the
allegations involved his possible relationship with Ellis, Gray said,
"Who's that?"
Robert Pugsley, a professor at Southwestern University School of Law,
said judges have discretion to
disclose relationships if they believe those relationships might raise
an appearance of impropriety later.
"The better course is always to recuse yourself," Pugsley said. "These
questions always put a certain
cloud over the integrity of the decision."
Attorney Rob Thornton, representing park proponents, said Gray's possible
relationship won't be
raised as an issue in the appeal. He said he'll ask the court to vacate
Gray's order on several grounds,
including using an incorrect legal standard to determine the adequacy
of the ballot title and summary.
Thornton said the county's general plan already includes wording that
allows development to occur in
certain open-space areas. The initiative, he said, calls for such uses
as museums, housing for
universities and "park-compatible" uses, as well as adding language
to keep the open-space zones
from being developed in other ways.
By parrotpaul (66.81.51.79 - 66.81.51.79) on Tuesday, August 07,
2001 - 06:18 am:
Group submits pro-airport initiative
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0021737aug07.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
V-plan backers now need county supervisorial support or 71,206 signatures
to land it on the ballot.
By Paul Clinton
NEWPORT-MESA -- Vowing to turn over airport planning at the closed El
Toro Marine Corps Air Station
to the people of Orange County, Charles Griffin submitted his V-plan
initiative to the registrar of
voters on Monday.
The Newport Beach resident submitted the measure, known as the Reasonable
Alternative Airport
Initiative, as a way to steer the Orange County Board of Supervisors
away from the airport plan now
on the county's table.
The board now supports a 28.8-million annual passenger airport at the
base by a slim 3-2 majority.
The measure would alter the zoning at the base to allow the board to
tear out the existing east-west
runway. Under the concept, colloquially known as the V-plan, a second
runway would be built off the
northwestern edge of the north-south runway to form a "V" pattern.
Griffin brushed off criticism that the V-plan, which would send departures
south instead of the
county's proposed north, wouldn't work.
"It will work at the existing [north-south] runway and under existing
FAA terminal approach procedure
standards," said Griffin, a retired engineer.
Homeowners living in the unincorporated community of Newport Coast comprise
one group that
doesn't support the plan.
In a July 23 letter to the Newport Beach City Council, four leaders
of the community promised to
support the city's desire to move the community into Supervisor Jim
Silva's district in exchange for
opposition to the V-plan. Under the V-plan, planes would head over
Newport Coast. Newport Beach is
already on record against it.
The county studied the concept in its environmental analysis of an airport
as an alternative and then
dismissed it as unworkable.
Airport backers have said the V-plan would slow the Navy's transfer
of the base to the county. They
have also said it doesn't have many backers. The New Millennium Group
is mounting the initiative
drive.
"There's just no support for the V-plan," said Dave Ellis, spokesman
for the Airport Working Group.
"They have not concocted a better mousetrap."
With the submission of the initiative Monday, the group now has until
Sept. 18 to collect 71,206 valid
signatures, or 10% of those who voted in 1998, to qualify it for the
March ballot.
The group also applied for a 30-day extension to continue gathering
names. They are not expected to
get it, Registrar Rosalyn Lever said.
"I don't have 30 days to give them if they want it on the March ballot,"
Lever said.
Griffin said he hopes the supervisors decide to put the V-plan initiative
on the ballot for the group. The
board would have until Dec. 7 to do that, Lever said.
By parrotpaul (66.81.20.227 - 66.81.20.227) on Wednesday, August
08, 2001 - 03:20 am:
Supervisors Can't Decide on Appeal
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000064409aug08.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
El Toro: With Smith absent, vote is 2-2 on whether to demand a review
of ruling on Great Park
petitions.
By DAVID REYES, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Orange County supervisors deadlocked Tuesday on whether to order an
appeal of a judge's ruling
that voided petitions on the Great Park ballot initiative.
With Supervisor Chuck Smith out of town on county business, the remaining
four supervisors split on
the issue, which frustrated Supervisor Todd Spitzer because the appeal
was recommended by the
county's chief executive, Michael Schumacher, and county counsel, Laurence
M. Watson. "They can't
let their politics interfere," Spitzer said.
Proponents of an initiative to convert the closed El Toro Marine base
into a urban park instead of a
commercial airport, were dealt a setback last week when Superior Court
Judge James P. Gray
invalidated their petitions. The judge ruled that the ballot title
and summary prepared by the county
counsel's office were faulty and misleading. As a result, about 128,000
signatures gathered by the
initiative's proponents to qualify the ballot for the March election
were voided.
Spitzer said Board Chairwoman Cynthia P. Coad and Supervisor Jim Silva,
who with Smith support an
airport, allowed their political agenda to cloud the decision.
"How often has the board ever not followed the recommendation of county
counsel? Not very often,"
Spitzer said. "How can these supervisors say they support our county
counsel?"
Coad would not say how she voted during Tuesday's closed session, saying
she believed any action
should have been delayed, given the importance of the issue.
"I said it was premature and that we needed to wait because Supervisor
Smith was out of town,"
Coad said.
"You look at my record," Coad said. "I've admired Lon Watson's work.
I think he did a good job on
this initiative, but Judge Gray ruled against it and Supervisor Smith
was out of town." The issue will be
on the agenda for next week's board meeting, which Smith can attend.
Some South County residents were angry at the county counsel's office
for its role in the preparation
of the ballot documents that Gray faulted. If unchallenged, Gray's
ruling would squash airport foes'
hopes to meet a Sept. 18 deadline to place the measure on the ballot.
In related action Tuesday, airport opponents filed their own appeal
of Gray's decision.
But Spitzer, who is an attorney, raised concerns that lack of official
county involvement would be "a
very chilling statement" to an appeals court.
By law, Spitzer said, when residents seek a ballot initiative and go
through the petition process, the
ballot summary and title must be prepared by the county counsel's office.
"The public has no option here. They must use the counsel's office,"
he said.
Supervisors Tom Wilson, who is an airport critic, and Silva could not be reached for comment.
By parrotpaul (66.81.20.227 - 66.81.20.227) on Wednesday, August
08, 2001 - 03:32 am:
Group submits pro-airport initiative
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0021737aug07.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
V-plan backers now need county supervisorial support or 71,206 signatures to land it on the ballot.
By Paul Clinton
NEWPORT-MESA -- Vowing to turn over airport planning at the closed El
Toro Marine Corps Air Station
to the people of Orange County, Charles Griffin submitted his V-plan
initiative to the registrar of
voters on Monday.
The Newport Beach resident submitted the measure, known as the Reasonable
Alternative Airport
Initiative, as a way to steer the Orange County Board of Supervisors
away from the airport plan now
on the county's table.
The board now supports a 28.8-million annual passenger airport at the
base by a slim 3-2 majority.
The measure would alter the zoning at the base to allow the board to
tear out the existing east-west
runway. Under the concept, colloquially known as the V-plan, a second
runway would be built off the
northwestern edge of the north-south runway to form a "V" pattern.
Griffin brushed off criticism that the V-plan, which would send departures
south instead of the
county's proposed north, wouldn't work.
"It will work at the existing [north-south] runway and under existing
FAA terminal approach procedure
standards," said Griffin, a retired engineer.
Homeowners living in the unincorporated community of Newport Coast comprise
one group that
doesn't support the plan.
In a July 23 letter to the Newport Beach City Council, four leaders
of the community promised to
support the city's desire to move the community into Supervisor Jim
Silva's district in exchange for
opposition to the V-plan. Under the V-plan, planes would head over
Newport Coast. Newport Beach is
already on record against it.
The county studied the concept in its environmental analysis of an airport
as an alternative and then
dismissed it as unworkable.
Airport backers have said the V-plan would slow the Navy's transfer
of the base to the county. They
have also said it doesn't have many backers. The New Millennium Group
is mounting the initiative
drive.
"There's just no support for the V-plan," said Dave Ellis, spokesman
for the Airport Working Group.
"They have not concocted a better mousetrap."
With the submission of the initiative Monday, the group now has until
Sept. 18 to collect 71,206 valid
signatures, or 10% of those who voted in 1998, to qualify it for the
March ballot.
The group also applied for a 30-day extension to continue gathering
names. They are not expected to
get it, Registrar Rosalyn Lever said.
"I don't have 30 days to give them if they want it on the March ballot,"
Lever said.
Griffin said he hopes the supervisors decide to put the V-plan initiative
on the ballot for the group. The
board would have until Dec. 7 to do that, Lever said.
By parrotpaul (66.81.20.227 - 66.81.20.227) on Wednesday, August
08, 2001 - 04:44 am:
Sorry..Above is yesterday's news
By EDITOR (24.4.255.248 - 24.4.255.248) on Wednesday, August 08,
2001 - 07:53 am:
OC Register, August 8, 2001
Language in park petition is valid, county counsel says El Toro: Supervisors
deadlock on
whether to appeal judge's ruling against airport foes.
August 8, 2001
By PETER LARSEN The Orange County Register
The county's top attorney wants to appeal a ruling last week that tossed
out signatures
gathered for an initiative to build a park instead of an airport at
the former El Toro Marine
base.
County supervisors, however, deadlocked, 2-2, Tuesday on whether to
approve such an
appeal, which could create the unusual scenario of pro-airport county
officials seeming to aid
the latest effort to kill the El Toro airport.
Supervisors plan to revisit the issue next week with a fifth supervisor,
Charles Smith, in
attendance.
If it stands, the ruling by Superior Court Judge James Gray could make
worthless the
signatures of 140,000 and counting. Airport foes filed their appeal
Tuesday.
County Counsel Laurence M. Watson landed in the middle of the dispute
because it was the
work of his staff - writing the official title and summary as required
by law - that was
challenged by a pro-airport group in the lawsuit that led to the ruling.
Though a board majority favors the airport, Watson said Tuesday he wants
to appeal, and
that the title and summary are proper.
Anti-airport supervisors Todd Spitzer and Tom Wilson wanted the appeal.
Their pro-airport
counterparts, supervisors Cynthia Coad and Jim Silva, wanted to wait
until Smith was back in
town.
"It sends a very bad message that we are not willing to support county
counsel's legal work,''
Spitzer said. "The pro-airport supervisors are confusing the airport
issue with the issue of the
credibility of the county counsel.''
But Coad said she did not want to decide on the appeal without the full board.
"To me, when it's such an important issue, it's just wise to have all
five of us,'' Coad said. "It
will be a fresh look at the situation next week.''
By parrotpaul (66.81.57.172 - 66.81.57.172) on Thursday, August
09, 2001 - 03:17 pm:
No Guarantees
Airport supporter offers opponents free advice on the Great Park
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/01/49/news-pignataro.shtml
by Anthony Pignataro
If you support the idea of a Great Park because you see it as (a) a
much-needed public resource
and/or (b) a stake through the cold, black heart of the county’s proposed
El Toro International
Airport, please give a round of applause to one of your opponents,
attorney Barbara Lichman.
Lichman is one of the airport’s most articulate—and occasionally shrillest—boosters.
But on KCRW’s
July 17 Which Way LA? debate on El Toro, she gave backers of the Great
Park a huge gift.
In the broadcast’s most dramatic moment, Lichman revealed the tactic
El Toro supporters will deploy
in coming months: she denounced the Great Park Initiative as a Trojan
horse for massive commercial
and residential development of the abandoned Marine Corps Air Station.
"There will be no park," she stated unequivocally. "Whether or not the
people of Orange County vote
for it, there will be no park [at El Toro]—not under this initiative."
Lichman was being her normal hyperbolic self, incorrectly insisting
that the initiative "allows anything
that Irvine wants to put in it." It doesn’t. But she’s right about
one thing: the Great Park Initiative
does not guarantee a big public park would be built at El Toro. And
it allows future politicians
tremendous latitude in approving dubious "park-related" commercial
and residential uses for the site.
And Lichman proved not only right but also prophetic: on July 31, Judge
James Gray accepted the
arguments of airport backers, including Lichman, that the initiative’s
ballot summary and title did not
accurately reflect the commercial development that might take place
following passage of the Great
Park Initiative. He told the park’s backers to throw out the 128,000
signatures they had already
gathered and draft a new summary and title.
In fact, the title and summary aren’t flawed; the initiative is. That’s
because park backers inexplicably
used the county’s pro-development General Plan as the foundation for
their Great Park Initiative. The
same ambiguous, pro-development planning language that makes up the
county General Plan runs
throughout the Great Park Initiative. Read that sprawling initiative,
and you’ll run across language like
the following, straight from the General Plan: "Areas identified Open
Space (5) are not necessarily
committed to permanent open space uses. Certain property within the
Open Space category is
committed, through public or private ownership, to remain as open space,
but other property, due to
market pressures to serve a growing County population, may ultimately
be developed in other ways."
In other words, we’re calling it a park now, but it’s possible that
vaguely defined "market pressures"
may lead future officials to conclude that tract housing and office
complexes are more vital than a
grand public park.
Such language is scary, which is why Lichman read that passage during
the radio debate. "If they
really wanted it to stay a park forever, they would have changed that
language," Lichman said in a
later interview.
Irvine planners and officials say Lichman is dead wrong that the initiative
will allow any development
on the base. That’s because the initiative also designates certain
"overlays"—think of them as
additional layers of restrictions—that drop over the "Open Space (5)"
designation. One of them, called
"Open Space Reserve," covers most of the base. According to the initiative,
any lands covered by the
Open Space Reserve overlay "are permanently preserved as and restricted
to open space and open
space compatible uses."
Irvine planners and officials say the Open Space Reserve overlay protects
the park from open-ended
development. "Can you put strip malls in there? I don’t see that in
the language," said city planner
Glen Worthington. "That Open Space Reserve overlay makes clear that
this land is for specified park
purposes."
Irvine Mayor Larry Agran agreed. "When you designate something Open
Space Reserve, people don’t
let you screw with that," he said. "People are very protective of open
space once they know it’s
there."
But skeptics might also observe that the Great Park Initiative’s Open
Space Reserve is actually much
weaker than the county’s General Plan. Modeling the Great Park after
such urban parks as New York’s
Central Park and San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, they lowered the
county’s open space reserve
standards so that much larger structures (such as museums) and parking
lots can be built in the
Great Park—structures unusual by the standards of the county’s open-space
provisions. And in one
part of the Marine base—the southern and southwestern portions not
covered by the Open Space
Reserve overlay—just about anything can and will go: high-tech business
parks, high-density housing,
movie theaters—almost anything that can be defined as an "entertainment
facility" or a facility "built
and maintained for public use."
"This allows for future legislative bodies to plan with some flexibility,"
said Agran, adding that the Great
Park includes museums, libraries and various concessions. "Remember
that all of the base’s 4,700
acres will not be manicured parkland. Can you put in food courts? I
guess so—but certainly not a
Home Depot. After all, there are commercial activities in New York’s
Central Park."
But Lichman is right, and park supporters had better listen: search
through the initiative’s many
overlays and designations, and you’ll never find a park guarantee.
Instead, you’ll find
phrases—"open-space compatible," "market forces," "entertainment,"
"public use"—that are so
ill-defined that any future government might indeed declare a Home
Depot store compatible with
open space, economically necessary, entertaining, and open to the public.
Such legal vagueness will
be the developers’ back door.
If you don’t think that will happen—if, like Agran, you believe county
officials would never mess with
"permanently" preserved open space—consider the county’s recent action
on existing parks.
One-third of all county parkland (about 10,000 acres) lacks the sorts
of restrictions that would
permanently ban development. But county supes have been loath to close
that massive loophole,
one that has already been exploited by developers. Instead, they’ve
delayed four votes to amend the
park deeds and permanently preserve the parks.
A solution? Replace the Great Park Initiative with one that has an iron-clad
guarantee that the word
"park" means just that: no commercial development can ever take place
within its boundaries
By parrotpaul (216.115.226.91 - 216.115.226.91) on Friday, August
10, 2001 - 05:12 am:
El Toro foes vocal at meeting
http://www.ocregister.com/local/toro00810cci6.shtml
County officials get little support for pitch.
August 10, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
ANAHEIM -- The county's campaign for an El Toro airport hit the road
Thursday for the first in a series
of 10 community meetings, but likely won few converts to the cause.
Airport foes made up at least half of the audience of 120, and they
loudly and enthusiastically
challenged almost everything Orange County supervisors, staff and consultants
had to say.
"How can you talk to the public when their minds are already made up?"
one El Toro opponent asked.
"That's a big reason why we're here tonight," said Gary Simon, the county's
El Toro director, gamely
trying to keep control of the session.
Before the meeting started, it seemed clear that though some people
in attendance favored an
airport, their voices would be overwhelmed by the opposition - many
of whom had driven from cities
in south county, where sentiment against El Toro runs high.
As people filed into the Anaheim Community Center, some airport foes
solicited signatures on a
petition for an anti-airport initiative that is now embroiled in legal
disputes - and even got a few people
to sign.
After an hour allowed for the public to browse information stations
set up by the county, Simon and
county consultant Tom Wall gave a presentation on the county's airport
plan.
Simon then drew names out of a box, and those called were allowed to
ask questions, though many
instead made angry speeches against the airport. The county staff's
answers were not always to the
satisfaction of those asking.
After repeated pleas for civility, Simon threatened to pull the plug if people could not be polite.
"If this crowd is uncivil, I will cancel the remaining county open houses,"
he said after one man refused
to leave the podium because he felt his question had not been answered.
After 20 people took their turns at the podium - with all but two or
three expressing opposition to the
airport - the meeting ended.
"Thank you for being generally well-behaved," Simon said with a smile and a look of relief.
By parrotpaul (216.115.226.91 - 216.115.226.91) on Friday, August
10, 2001 - 05:18 am:
Airport Planners Meet the People at Forum
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000064890aug10.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
El Toro: County presents its case, but opponents turn out in force and
the hearing gets tense.
By DAVID REYES, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Orange County rolled out its public relations campaign on the proposed
El Toro airport at a forum
Thursday night, heavily emphasizing the need for an international airport
at the closed Marine base
and downplaying noise, traffic and other concerns.
Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Cynthia P. Coad, an airport supporter
who welcomed the more
than 150 concerned residents in attendance at the Anaheim Community
Center, explained that the
county's $3-million informational program was to counter the "misinformation"
that residents have
been bombarded with by anti-airport "zealots."
"We feel certain that we will be able to dispel the propaganda that
El Toro would be unsafe, unwanted
and unneeded," Coad said. But despite the North County location, anti-airport
people were out in
force, peppering the panel of airport consultants with tough questions
and their opinions.
Immediately into the question-and-answer period, an outraged Robert
Mead of Mission Viejo asked
Coad why the supervisors haven't paid attention to what he called the
will of the people, a majority of
whom voted for an anti-airport initiative in March 2000.
When Mead was told by the moderator that his question was inappropriate
and would not be
answered, he persisted: "I'm a resident of this county. I won't leave
here without an answer."
After several more attempts by Mead to have his question answered, moderator
Gary Simon,
executive director of the El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority, moved
to another speaker.
Mead's questions apparently violated the ground rules that Simon had
laid out only moments before:
that the county would not tolerate outbursts that interrupted the meeting.
"You will be asked to
leave. . . . We're here to answer ordinary questions for ordinary people,"
Simon said.
At one point, Simon threatened to cancel the remaining nine forums.
But that only brought a round of
applause.
On Sept. 4, the Board of Supervisors will begin hearing public testimony
on the latest environmental
impact report on the airport plan. The board will vote on the EIR on
Sept. 17.
At the forum, tables had been loaded with maps, brochures and posters
on the proposed airport.
The format of the forums is brief opening remarks, then a 45-minute
presentation. Thursday night,
airport supporter and former El Toro Marine pilot Tom Wall led the
discussion.
Joan Burke, an Anaheim real estate broker, left the meeting confirmed
in her belief that the county
needs another airport.
"This Great Park that they want to put there, why do I need to go to
Irvine for a park?" Burke said,
referring to the latest attempt for an anti-airport ballot initiative
that would call for an urban park at
the 4,700-acre former base.
But Ron Bengochea, a lifelong Anaheim resident, said he believes an
El Toro airport has a heavy cost.
"It's too much. Go put it somewhere else," he told the forum panel,
drawing a round of applause.
By parrotpaul (66.81.59.50 - 66.81.59.50) on Saturday, August
11, 2001 - 05:51 am:
Official, seeing threat, alerts authorities to airport postings
http://www.ocregister.com/local/toro00811cci6.shtml
Message on anti-El Toro Web site mentions 'armed insurrection.' The
author says it was just banter
between buddies.
August 11, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
Comments posted on an anti-airport Web site recently alarmed county
El Toro director Gary Simon
enough that he warned the Board of Supervisors and the sheriff about
them.
"The postings indicate planning for large-scale demonstrations with
potentially violent acts," Simon
wrote in an e-mail to county officials.
He quoted samples from the message board at www.eltoroairport.org, including
one person who
wrote: "Armed insurrection seems to be the only thing these trolls
will understand. As has been said
before: 'blood has been spilled in O.C. for far less.'"
As that online conversation unfolded, others expressed similar sentiments
- though more people
spoke against violence and for peaceful demonstrations.
Simon and other county officials said they have to take such messages seriously.
But Donald Duca, who posted the "armed insurrection" message, said the
postings were just jests
among message-board buddies, not threats.
"I'm goosing them," said Duca, of Laguna Niguel. "That's just the boys
talking. There's nobody oiling
up guns or anything. There was no malice intended. I don't see the
residents of south Orange County
being militant about anything, frankly, except maybe a parking space
at South Coast Plaza."
In any event, county officials are nervous about the next open house
they've planned as part of the
$3 million Just the Facts campaign for an airport at the former Marine
base. It's set for 6:30 p.m.
Wednesday at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest before what is expected
to be a large crowd of
airport foes. Anti-airport supervisors Todd Spitzer and Tom Wilson,
co-hosts of the program, mailed
80,000 postcards alerting constituents to the event, Spitzer said.
Sheriff's deputies will be there, and Spitzer vowed to run a tight meeting.
"If people want to protest and have signs outside, people are free to
do what they want to do," he
said. "But I will tell people right up front, if you're rude, violent
or threatening ... you will be removed."
Len Kranser, who runs the anti-airport Web site, said leaders of the
airport opposition are adamant
that the open house be "an orderly rally that doesn't bring any type
of discredit on the movement."
By parrotpaul (66.81.25.175 - 66.81.25.175) on Sunday, August
12, 2001 - 06:23 am:
MCAS El Toro Reuse Debate
At the mercy of bureaucrats and high bidders
Leonard Kranser--Op-Ed OC Regsiter 8/12/01
The Register, repeatedly - and most recently in an August 3 editorial
-
urges that El Toro be sold "to the highest bidder and let the market
determine the best uses of the property." I called the editorial writer
to question how this could possibly be accomplished, when the County
General Plan specifies the permitted land uses.
I was told that Congressman Chris Cox thinks that it can be done. If
so, we'd like to know how the auction would be run.
There are three things that can happen to El Toro:
One. If the voters don't stop them, Supervisors Smith, Silva and Coad
will spend whatever it takes and develop El Toro as a commercial
airport. That is because the Orange County General Plan, which is on
the
books, presently designates that the land will be used for that purpose.
Once it is transferred from the federal government to County control,
we
expect to see flights being shifted from John Wayne to El Toro.
Two. However, if the voters approve the Orange County Central Park and
Nature Preserve Initiative, the County General Plan will be amended
to
cancel the airport use designation. The land will be redesignated for
a
mix of schools, parks, recreational and cultural uses, health care
facilities, open space and other purposes that meet strict standards
for
"Park compatible uses".
Three. The federal government could suddenly reverse course and decide
to not give the land to the County, much to the dismay of an army of
lobbyists who stand to be paid a huge bonus by the County for completing
the transfer. This is an unlikely outcome, given the federal decision
to close the base and dispose of the land.
In the unlikely event that the federal government did not give the land
to the County for the public's choice of an airport or park, there
are
several sub-options:
The government could bring back Marine Corps aviation. However, one
of
the military's main reasons for closing MCAS El Toro was that the
surrounding residential neighborhoods make it too difficult to carry
out
the military's mission. Furthermore, after closing the base, the
Department of Navy gave up its avigation easement rights to fly low
over
Leisure World.
The government could sit on the land, losing money for no good reason.
The government could sell the land, as urged by the Register and
Congressman Cox. But sell it for what?
Would a developer invest billions of dollars to buy the land to build
thousands of houses, knowing that the County General Plan does not
permit such use? Would a developer buy the land to build commercial
projects, factories and malls, knowing that the County General Plan
does
not allow it? No! The highest bidder will not risk the investment
without approval of his or her project.
Do the people of Orange County want the future use of this land, in
heart of the County, left to bureaucrats and the wishes of the high
bidder? I think not.
If the high bidder is to decide what we do with publicly owned land,
then we might as well auction off Huntington State Beach, the Cleveland
National Forest and school campuses for other uses that produce a higher
cash return on investment.
The people must decide what we do with the El Toro land. They should
be
allowed to choose between the two most likely alternatives, airport
or
park. jets or trees.
If we do not pass the park initiative, there will be an airport. That
is
the only option likely to be presented to the voters before it is too
late. The County government's current Base Reuse Plan, and the existing
General Plan land use designation, calls for a polluting,
traffic-generating airport at El Toro, importing passengers from all
of
the surrounding counties. That's what we get unless we vote otherwise.
To think that there will be other choices is wishful thinking. It only
helps pro-airports supervisors Smith, Silva and Coad to take us further
down the road to an unneeded second county airport
By parrotpaul (66.81.25.107 - 66.81.25.107) on Tuesday, August
14, 2001 - 05:08 am:
Coad may face anti-airport challenger
http://www.ocregister.com/local/toro00814cci3.shtml
Politics: Fullerton Councilman Norby says north county is not pro-airport,
and he might run for
supervisor on the El Toro issue.
August 14, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
A longtime north Orange County political figure is considering a challenge
to Supervisor Cynthia Coad -
fueled in large part by his belief that an El Toro airport is not necessary
and that north-county voters
will back a candidate who stands for that.
A victory next year by Chris Norby, a Fullerton city councilman since
1984, could shift the balance of
power on the Board of Supervisors, currently 3-2 in favor of an El
Toro airport.
Norby, 51, established a new e-mail address Monday - Norby2002@aol.com
- after a surge of
interest created by his letters to the editor published last week saying
north county is not as
pro-airport as it is often portrayed.
"It's an issue that has consumed south Orange County,'' Norby said of
his decision to write to weekly
newspapers in that part of the county. "The impression that I got was
that people down there
thought anyone living north of the 22 is automatically for it, and
that's just not the case."
Norby said he will decide whether to run after assessing his ability
to raise money - and after county
supervisors take their final vote today on proposed supervisorial boundaries
that would move
Fullerton into Coad's district.
Coad, 67, said she expects to win re-election and that the fate of the
former El Toro Marine base -
perhaps the most polarizing issue in the county today - will not influence
the race.
"I don't think it will make any difference," Coad said of El Toro and
the possibility that Norby - or
anyone else - might challenge her as an anti-airport candidate.
Norby said he believes most north-county voters are not airport supporters,
saying, "Most people in
Fullerton, to my knowledge, are against it or don't care."
The Fullerton City Council has voted twice on whether to withdraw from
a coalition of pro-airport
cities - deadlocking 2-2 the most recent time.
About 58 percent of Fullerton voters backed the anti-airport Measure
F, which was approved in March
2000 with two-thirds support countywide but was later ruled unconstitutional
by a judge.
When Coad was elected in 1998, opponent Lou Lopez, an Anaheim councilman,
shared her
pro-airport stance.
She said she believes voters in her district do - or will - support
an El Toro airport, particularly if it is
downsized from the 28.8 million annual passengers in the county's current
plan to about 18 million a
year, as she has suggested.
"I just feel that my idea is very doable and that (people) will be able
to see the advantages,'' she said.
Norby said that beyond the final vote on redistricting, his main concern
is the ability to raise the
money to compete with Coad, who spent $470,000 for her successful 1998
race - most of it her
own money.
"The bottom line is how would such a campaign be funded,'' said Norby,
a high school history teacher.
"My concern is that campaigns are becoming more and more an exercise
in self-funding, and that's
something a public-school teacher can't do."
His stance on El Toro could benefit campaign fund raising, though. In
1998, pro-airport Supervisor Jim
Silva was challenged by Huntington Beach Councilman Dave Sullivan,
whose anti-airport stance helped
him bring in more than $300,000 from south Orange County residents.
As such, Norby's letters to the editors of south-county newspapers concluded
on a note certain to
appeal to many of those who wrote checks to Sullivan: "Changing the
makeup of the board is the
surest way to move on to a nonairport solution."
But Coad said she has demonstrated her ability to represent the district.
"I wish people would recognize that there are 75 to 100 issues on my
plate that I very energetically
devote a lot of time and effort to," she said. "District 4 never has
been, nor will it ever be, a one-issue
district."
By parrotpaul (66.81.53.48 - 66.81.53.48) on Wednesday, August 15, 2001
- 06:41 am:
O.C. won't appeal park-petitions ruling Politics: Supervisors favoring
an airport at El Toro carry a vote
not to contest invalidation of signatures for park initiative.
http://www.ocregister.com/local/toro00815cci.shtml
August 15, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
County supervisors shot down a request by their top attorney Tuesday
and voted, 3-2, not to appeal
a court ruling against petitions for an initiative to build a park
instead of an airport at El Toro.
A judge ruled last month that county lawyers had not properly written
a legal description of the
Central Park and Nature Preserve Initiative, a decision that invalidated
the signatures of more than
140,000 people - about twice the number needed to qualify it for the
March ballot.
County Counsel Laurence M. Watson and County Executive Michael Schumacher
recommended that
the county appeal the decision. Last week, initiative backers filed
their own appeal.
But supervisors - voting along the usual El Toro split - told Watson not to defend his work further.
"The major reason was, it's already being appealed, so why should the
county spend money?'' said
Supervisor Charles V. Smith, who favors an El Toro airport.
Supervisor Tom Wilson, who opposes the airport, said the board majority
put airport politics above
defending the county legal staff's credibility.
"If the county counsel is being challenged publicly by a judge, and
if he feels he has performed his
task, then he should be allowed to take issue with that,'' Wilson said.
"It's weak on the part of the Board of Supervisors,'' he said. "I see
it as the board making self-serving
decisions, or decisions that are issue-driven, instead of listening
to the good, sound advice of
employees who report to us.''
Smith said he agrees with the decision of Orange County Superior Court
Judge James Gray that the
official title and summary of the initiative were flawed.
"I'm very much in favor of not allowing that to go on the ballot,''
Smith said. "And I'm very much in
favor of having an airport.''
By parrotpaul (66.81.53.48 - 66.81.53.48) on Wednesday, August
15, 2001 - 06:50 am:
Supervisors Won't Appeal El Toro Ruling
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000066180aug15.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Courts: The O.C. board's pro-airport majority goes against county staff
on the voided petition for a
'Great Park.'
By DAVID REYES, TIMES STAFF WRITER
The Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday decided not to appeal
a judge's ruling that
voided petitions with about 128,000 signatures on an initiative that
calls for a sprawling urban park
rather than a commercial airport at the closed El Toro Marine base.
The initiative, if successful, could block plans for an airport at the
mothballed base. Tuesday's 3-2 vote
mirrors the historic split on the board in favor of an airport there.
Supervisor Chuck Smith, an ardent airport advocate, made the motion
directing the county counsel
not to appeal the judge's ruling--even though County Executive Officer
Michael Schumacher and
County Counsel Laurence M. Watson recommended doing so. Smith was joined
in his vote by board
Chairwoman Cynthia P. Coad and Supervisor Jim Silva. Opposed were Supervisors
Tom Wilson and
Todd Spitzer.
Sponsors of the initiative were dealt a setback two weeks ago when Superior
Court Judge James P.
Gray invalidated the petitions.
The judge ruled that the ballot title and summary--both prepared by
the county counsel's office--were
faulty and misleading. As a result, the roughly 128,000 signatures
gathered to qualify the ballot for
the March election were voided.
A coalition of nine South County cities has appealed the judge's ruling
and is gathering more
signatures.
Proponents of a "Great Park" must meet a Sept. 18 deadline to get the
initiative on the March ballot.
Smith said that with the proponents' appeal already filed, there was
no need for the county to "waste
money" and duplicate the effort.
Spitzer had argued a week ago that the initiative's organizers had no
recourse under the law to
depending on the county counsel's office. They had to submit their
initiative to that office for review,
and the office was responsible for drafting the initiative's title
and summary. Spitzer did not comment
after Tuesday's vote.
Voting on the same question last week, the board split 2-2 because Smith
was out of town on county
business.
"The county is under no obligation to appeal," Coad said in a prepared
statement after Tuesday's
vote. "The county has nothing to gain from an appeal."
The county counsel is already redrafting the title and summary and is
holding meetings with interested
parties, Coad said.
By parrotpaul (66.81.55.191 - 66.81.55.191) on Thursday, August
16, 2001 - 05:39 am:
O.C.'s El Toro PR Squad Hits Flak at Forum
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000066437aug16.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Airport: First venture into South County turf meets hostile reception
of 1,500 led by Supervisors
Wilson and Spitzer.
By JEAN O. PASCO and EVAN HALPER, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
Facing boos and hisses, Orange County's El Toro publicity team ventured
behind enemy lines
Wednesday night to address an estimated 1,500 people for the second
of nine public forums on the
county's plans to build an airport at the closed Marine base.
The forum was the first to be held in South County, which solidly opposes
the proposed airport. It
was the only opportunity for residents to be heard on El Toro's fate
before a public hearing on the
airport in Santa Ana next month.
Anti-airport Supervisor Tom Wilson, who hosted the meeting with like-minded
colleague Supervisor
Todd Spitzer, immediately set the tone by questioning past statements
of the county's experts on
traffic, air pollution, safety and noise from the proposed airport.
"If they lived in our homes, would
they be satisfied with the information they're giving us tonight?"
Wilson asked to hearty applause
from a nearly full auditorium at Saddleback Valley Community Church
in Lake Forest.
A final vote on the airport is scheduled Sept. 17. The Department of
the Navy is expected to certify its
own environmental review after that, which is a preliminary step for
the property to be turned over to
the county. The board has backed the airport on 3-2 votes for the past
five years.
Resentment against supervisors and the airport peaked this month when
a Superior Court judge
threw out petitions to place an anti-airport measure on the March ballot,
ruling that the petition's title
and summary were faulty and misleading. The proposed Orange County
Central Park and Nature
Preserve Initiative would replace airport zoning on the 4,700-acre
base with a nature preserve, a
large urban park and "compatible" development.
If Judge James P. Gray's ruling stands, it would invalidate more than
140,000 signatures that
organizers said they have collected to comply with a Sept. 18 submission
deadline. Airport foes have
challenged Gray's ruling before the 4th District Court of Appeal, but
supervisors on Tuesday voted
against joining the appeal.
Wednesday evening's first question was from a woman who wanted to know
where each of the
county consultants live. El Toro program manager Gary Simon declined
to be specific, saying only that
most of them live in Orange County.
Many of the questions dealt with the erosion of the quality of life
of South County residents if an
airport were built at El Toro. Several of the county's experts attempted
to answer questions about
the technical aspects of the airport. That didn't quiet the crowd,
who countered most answers with
loud boos and hisses.
"The EIR [environmental impact report] didn't look specifically at quality
of life," Simon said. The
crowd rose in a standing ovation.
Simon's team wasn't the only traveling road show to hit Lake Forest
on Wednesday night.
Two busloads of residents who live near Los Angeles International Airport
also came to the hearing,
wearing T-shirts emblazoned with "El Toro Yes." The group, called LAX
Expansion No, supports
building an airport at El Toro to relieve pressure on LAX to expand.
The L.A. group quickly shuffled inside the church and took seats as
hundred of anti-airport activists
hooted and hollered in a rally outside.
Group spokesman Mike Stevens, frustrated at not being able to ask more
than one question, held a
Bible in his hand and said, "Where in this good book does it say that
I'm supposed to carry your
burdens?"
Another member of the Los Angeles contingent, Anthony Bryant, said he
lives in the LAX flight path
and his house already shakes every 15 seconds when planes fly overhead.
There's no reason he
should suffer any more, he said.
"We've already got enough," he said. "We don't need more air traffic
and pollution and toxins."
Bryant and his fellow homeowners received little sympathy, however.
As they walked inside the
church, 11-year-old Vanessa Basgall greeted them with a sign that read:
"NO LAX IN OC. WE'RE THE
FOLKS WHO LEFT LA."
Even before Wednesday's public forum began about 400 people--mostly
airport opponents--gathered
outside the church, eager to voice their opinions.
Several demonstrators walked through the crowd waving American flags
and handing out tea bags,
comparing their anti-airport campaign to the Boston Tea Party.
"We're going to have a tea party tonight," said Cheryl Heinecke, of
Citizens for Safe and Healthy
Communities. She was joined by Jon Pack, who was dressed in Revolutionary
War fatigues.
Orange County is spending $3 million on its public information blitz
on what officials have begun calling
the El Toro Airport and Open Space Master Plan. The redevelopment plan
was changed in 1998 to add
a park around the 2,000-acre airport. The remaining 1,000 acres have
always been envisioned for a
federal wildlife preserve.
The first public forum, held last week, drew about 150 people to the
Anaheim Community Center. It
was hosted by board Chairwoman Cynthia P. Coad, an airport supporter.
Anticipating a rowdy crowd,
organizers beefed up security with three police officers.
Despite the North County location, anti-airport people were out in force,
peppering Simon and a panel
of airport consultants with tough questions or their opinions. The
questioning became so terse that, at
one point, Simon threatened to cancel the remaining nine forums if
it continued.
By parrotpaul (66.81.55.191 - 66.81.55.191) on Thursday, August
16, 2001 - 05:44 am:
NEWPORT BEACH
EDITORIAL
Newport Coast should share Silva's leadership
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/opinion/la-dp0022006aug16.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews%2Dopinion
The main headline in Wednesday's Daily Pilot surely raised cheers from
56th Street to One Ford Road:
"Silva takes over Newport Beach.'
With this week's switch of county supervisors, Newport Beach now falls
under the influence of 2nd
District Supervisor Jim Silva, a decidedly pro-El Toro politician.
Gone is the 5th District's Tom Wilson,
who to a great extent served his Newport Beach constituents well, save
when it came to the biggest
issue hanging over the city's skies.
But while Newport Beach residents can celebrate, their neighbors in
Newport Coast aren't so lucky.
Thanks to governmental red tape, that unincorporated county land still
falls within Wilson's district.
And residents there aren't happy. They shouldn't be.
Both Newport Beach and Newport Coast -- set to be annexed by the city
as soon as January --
would be ill-served by having two supervisors. It would divide the
city's focus on county issues. It
would force city leaders to go to one supervisor for certain issues,
another for others. It is also useful
to remember that Newport Coast leaders are anxious to avoid being split
between two council
members, let alone two supervisors.
And then there's El Toro.
Little more needs to be said about how Newport Beach and Newport Coast
feel about plans at the
closed Marine base or how frustrated city leaders have been with having
their supervisor be one of
the two against the proposal. With a redrawing of a line, these concerns
can be alleviated.
Newport Coast residents have been vocal in their desire to be included
in the district with the city they
are destined to join. Newport Beach Mayor Gary Adams reiterated the
same in a letter to board
Chairwoman Cynthia Coad.
The supervisors should listen to them, and do whatever they can to bring
Newport Coast in line with
Newport Beach.
By parrotpaul (66.81.55.191 - 66.81.55.191) on Thursday, August
16, 2001 - 06:14 am:
El Toro airport foes turn out in force
http://www.ocregister.com/news/toro00816cci3.shtml
Most of 1,600 residents at a public forum vent frustration, saying plans ignore quality of life issues.
August 16, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
LAKE FOREST -- The county's El Toro airport team ventured into south
county Wednesday night to
take questions - and a healthy dose of verbal abuse - from airport
foes, with a month to go before
county supervisors take a final vote on the project.
More than 1,600 people turned out - making it the largest public meeting
ever held on El Toro - nearly
all of them airport foes who saw the forum at Saddleback Church as
their last, best chance to be
heard.
The frustration airport foes have felt for years spilled over in questions
that turned into statements,
often more emotional than technical in nature.
"What do you think we are - stupid?" asked Judi Blackburn of Mission
Viejo. "How are we supposed to
believe your data?"
Anti-airport Supervisors Todd Spitzer and Tom Wilson hosted the county
team - though as the two
anti-airport supervisors, they expressed nearly as much skepticism
about the answers provided by
county consultants as did the audience.
Supervisors will hold a public hearing Sept. 4 on building an airport
at the former El Toro Marine base,
taking comments but providing no responses.
On Sept. 17, they are expected to vote on it, and given the longstanding
3-2 pro-airport majority,
the project is expected to be approved.
Nearly every question asked of the El Toro team Wednesday was an attack
or criticism of the plan,
and the answers seldom satisfied the askers.
"What study evaluated how the county's lifestyle and cultural environment
would change?" asked
Simon Turner of Lake Forest.
"Environmental impact reports don't look specifically at quality of
life," replied Gary Simon, the
county's El Toro director, drawing a round of catcalls and boos from
the crowd.
Others asked questions about everything from how jet fuel would be delivered,
to the flight paths that
aircraft would take, to the safety and noise impacts of those proposed
routes.
Irv Engel of Lake Forest raised the issue of how safe flights would
be - given the rising terrain on
departure corridors, which has prompted the nation's largest pilots
union to oppose the county plan.
"The pilots say a lot of things," Simon said, dismissing their opposition
as not as important as the
ruling expected soon from the Federal Aviation Administration on the
flight paths.
Scattered throughout the audience were a few airport backers, who stood
to voice support for the
project.
"What are we going to do if we don't have El Toro?" asked Norm Ewars
of Irvine, expressing his belief
that the county will need more airport capacity in the future than
John Wayne Airport can provide.
"Compassion for my community is the question for all of you," said Derek
Leason, pleading for limits
on the growth of John Wayne Airport near his home in Santa Ana Heights.
But the overwhelming sentiment of the evening was one of frustration
- at the progress of the
project despite strong opposition, as well as at efforts by airport
backers to use lawsuits supported
by pro- airport supervisors to stop ballot measures aimed at killing
the plan.
"The one thing that completely puzzles me is why is it not possible
to ask a simple question: What do
the people want?" said Lawrence Blank of Lake Forest, drawing cheers
and a standing ovation.
"We want now a sweet, kind world, where people are listened to," he said.
By EDITOR (24.4.255.248 - 24.4.255.248) on Thursday, August 16,
2001 - 09:41 am:
LA Times Correction, August 16
In case you missed it, the retraction obtained by George Symogyi from
the Times appears on Page 2
of the first section under FOR THE RECORD.
It states: "El Toro- An August 1 story on an El Toro urban park initiative
did not make clear the source
of wording in the proposed ballot measure.. A passage that says some
of the parkland may be
developed in other ways was taken from the county's general plan. But
park supporters say their
initiative adds wording that woulld limit development."
Both major papers had handled Barbara Lichman's statement as though it was factual.
By p (66.81.31.30 - 66.81.31.30) on Friday, August 17, 2001 -
06:46 am:
Anaheim Official May Run for Board
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000066780aug17.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Politics: Councilwoman Shirley McCracken confirms she is interested
in Supervisor Todd Spitzer's
seat.
By DAVID REYES TIMES STAFF WRITER
August 17 2001
Anaheim Councilwoman Shirley McCracken, an El Toro airport advocate,
confirmed Thursday that she
is considering a run for the Board of Supervisors to replace Todd Spitzer,
who plans to run for
Assembly in 2002.
"I'm keeping my options open," said McCracken, who mentioned her interest
privately to associates
at a Kiwanis breakfast Thursday. McCracken has been on the City Council
six years, three as mayor
pro tem. Because of the city's bylaws, she is ineligible to run for
mayor in the next election. Her term
expires in 2004 and because of term limits, she cannot run again. She
also serves on the board of the
Orange County Sanitation District, as a representative to the Southern
California Assn. of
Governments and on a statewide committee on housing for the League
of California Cities.
"I know the regional issues and I'm up to a challenge," said McCracken,
a Republican and retired
schoolteacher.
The new supervisorial district boundaries approved this week by the
Board of Supervisors have
moved Irvine, which has led the fight against an El Toro airport, from
Supervisor Tom Wilson's 5th
District to Spitzer's 3rd District.
Spitzer and Wilson make up the five-member board's anti-airport minority.
Although it's too early to take out candidacy papers, McCracken is not
the first to declare interest in a
seat on the board.
Assemblyman Bill Campbell (R-Villa Park) also has expressed a desire
to succeed Spitzer, should
Spitzer win election to Campbell's seat in the Legislature and voters
approve Measure V. That
measure would, in part, allow for a district election if Spitzer wins.
Campbell, who is losing his Assembly seat because of term limits, prefers
an urban park, the so-called
Great Park, over an airport at El Toro.
"Candidly, I have not made up my mind" whether to run," Campbell said.
"For right now, I want to do
my best to represent the people in the 71st [Assembly District], and
now I'm keeping my options
open."
Voters still must approve Spitzer's Measure V, the charter initiative
on the March ballot that would
allow 3rd District voters to elect his successor if he wins. Under
existing law, Democratic Gov. Gray
Davis would appoint Spitzer's replacement, possibly a Democrat. Spitzer
is a Republican, as are the
other four supervisors. The position is officially nonpartisan.
This week, Fullerton Councilman Chris Norby, an El Toro airport opponent,
also said he is thinking
about a run for supervisor. The change in district boundaries moved
Norby's Fullerton residence from
Spitzer's district into that of board Chairwoman Cynthia P. Coad, who
is pro-airport.
By parrotpaul (66.81.52.28 - 66.81.52.28) on Saturday, August
18, 2001 - 06:02 am:
Building El Toro May Hurt Air Quality
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000067021aug18.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Environment: Revised report says construction of an airport at the closed
base would create dust and
raise nitrogen dioxide levels.
By DAVID REYES, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Building a commercial airport at El Toro would probably worsen air quality,
according to the latest
version of the project's environmental report released Friday.
The report comes a month before the Board of Supervisors is scheduled
to vote on whether to move
forward with planning for the airport at the closed Marine base.
County officials said the latest document--in 14 thick volumes--does
not make many changes from
an earlier draft. The original report said any air pollution created
by the airport could be reduced to the
point of insignificance.
But the new report said diesel engine exhaust during airport construction
would result in short-term
concentrations of dust and nitrogen dioxide levels. The amount of pollutants
would exceed state
standards but fall within federal standards, the report said.
Officials said another change in the air quality findings was due not
to new data but to a typographical
error in the original document.
Gary Simon, the El Toro program manager, said the county plans next
week to release the report's
comments section, which includes more than 8,000 answers to questions
submitted by the public
during the environmental study.
Copies of the full report will be distributed to local libraries.
"To our point of view, the documents are not worthwhile until you see
how they resolve to answer
the questions posed," said Meg Waters, a spokeswoman for a group that
opposes an airport at El
Toro. "Really the report is only 20% final because 80% of it is the
responses the county must have to
comments for it to be a finished product."
First of 2 Hearings Is Set for Sept. 4
On Sept. 4, the Board of Supervisors is planning the first of two hearings
on the report, Simon said.
The environmental report is designed to measure how the proposed airport
would affect the
surrounding community. A draft copy of the report was released last
year.
The supervisors are divided 3 to 2 in favor of building an airport that
by 2020 could handle 28 million
passengers per year.
Residents who live around the base oppose an airport, saying it will bring noise, traffic and pollution.
By parrotpaul (66.81.52.28 - 66.81.52.28) on Saturday, August
18, 2001 - 06:27 am:
Alternative takeoff plan for El Toro gets raves
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0022073aug18.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
V-plan pitched to Eastbluff crowd, and supporters say it is catching
steam.
By Paul Clinton,
NEWPORT BEACH -- Supporters of the V-plan were buzzing with excitement
after a community
meeting in Eastbluff where they said local residents showed an increased
level of interest in the
concept.
The meeting, held at the North Bluffs clubhouse Wednesday evening, drew
a modest crowd of about
50 residents, according to those who attended it.
"It was a full house, and people were very enthusiastic and wanted to
know why people don't know
more about it," said Ann Watt, a supporter of the plan. The plan, crafted
by retired aviation engineer
and Newport Beach resident Charles Griffin, would open the door for
the county to relocate the
base's east-west runway into a V-shaped pattern off the edge of the
north-south runway.
Watt and other members of the New Millennium Group, many of whom live
in Santa Ana Heights,
have launched an initiative drive to pave the way for their plan to
realign the runways at the former El
Toro Marine Corps Air Station.
Members of the group have submitted the measure, known as the Reasonable
Alternative Airport
Initiative, to Orange County for a title and summary so they may begin
collecting names.
The group must collect 71,206 valid names by Sept. 18 if they want it
put on the county ballot in
March.
The group has been lobbying city officials and other groups for support.
Supporters said they are
working to secure the support of those who successfully launched the
slow-growth Greenlight
measure, which passed overwhelmingly in Newport Beach in November.
Members of the group have also said they are hopeful the Board of Supervisors
will place their
measure on the ballot if they cannot collect enough names.
Supervisor Tom Wilson, who represents the unincorporated community of
Newport Coast, said that
scenario isn't likely to unfold.
"I think they're really fighting an uphill battle," Wilson said Thursday.
"I'd be highly skeptical that the
Board of Supervisors would put that on the ballot."
While the plan has not enjoyed widespread support, several elected officials
in other North County
cities have endorsed it. No member of the Newport Beach council supports
it.
City officials have steadfastly supported the county's own plan for
the base -- a 28.8-million annual
passenger facility -- though some have said they'd favor a smaller
airport supporting about 19 million
passengers. The county board is set to certify the final environmental
review on the project at its
Sept. 17 meeting. After that, the county will turn its attention toward
Washington, D.C., to lobby the
Department of Defense to formally hand over the base.
The county analyzed the V-plan during its environmental review but discarded
it.
"I don't know if there's that much interest in it citywide," Councilman
Dennis O'Neil said. "It's an
alternative plan, but it's not on the drawing board."
By parrotpaul (66.81.31.145 - 66.81.31.145) on Sunday, August
19, 2001 - 06:07 am:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
War of Words Continues Over El Toro's Future
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000067310aug19.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
I have watched John Wayne Airport grow from a shack in an open field
since 1966. It was a
private-plane airport and is still an airport for private planes in
addition to commercial flights.
As a compromise, how about using a portion of the El Toro site for private
planes only, and moving
that portion of traffic away from John Wayne? That will allow John
Wayne to grow to accommodate
more commercial aircraft if needed and still allow the El Toro site
to accommodate recreational,
commercial and housing growth that would be good for South County.
Craig Neslage Costa Mesa
*
Re "Airport Planners Meet the People at Forum," Aug. 10:
Rude and rowdy best describes the anti-airport group that disrupted
the county's community meeting
in Anaheim. They came in droves from their expensive manicured homes
in South County cities to
convince any undecided people in the audience that an airport at El
Toro is a bad idea.
They would like us to buy into their "Great Park" plan, but the price
tag is way too high. Why should
Anaheim residents, or any North or Central County citizens, forfeit
their own hard-earned money to
buy a big park for South County residents to use?
I resent their tactics, and there is no way I will vote for the self-serving
initiative they plan to put on
the ballot.
Since they have their minds made up on the issue, I hope they will stay
home and let others hear the
facts so they have the opportunity to make up their own minds.
M.A. Olson
Anaheim
*
A cynic once said that truth is such a precious commodity it must be
doled out only in small portions.
This seems to be the operating credo of the Airport Working Group and
its current taxpayer-funded
effort to "educate" the public about El Toro. To date, they have issued
four mailers: two attacking the
"Great Park" and two trying to frighten people with an expanded John
Wayne Airport. None of them
has educated us about the (apparently elusive) benefits of an airport
at El Toro.
The latest mailer, however, has crossed the line. It depicts a ludicrous
and impractical expansion of
John Wayne Airport, complete with bulldozed homes, businesses and schools.
In large letters across
the top, it is labeled as "South County's" plan to expand John Wayne.
In fact, as the small print notes, the plan (Alternative G) comes from
the county's environmental
impact report and has always been vociferously opposed by South County
and the El Toro Reuse
Planning Authority. Several years ago, Supervisor Tom Wilson, at the
urging of the authority, tried to
have Alternative G removed from the report.
He recognized that the plan was unworkable and that it would only serve
to needlessly alarm people.
The Airport Working Group, the city of Newport Beach and the pro-airport
supervisors insisted that it
stay in, precisely because of its value as propaganda.
Arnold Burke
Lake Forest
*
After many years of debate as to whether we should build an airport
at the former El Toro base, there
are unanswered questions, but one issue seems very clear. A county
the size of Orange needs a
larger airport.
There is a lot of talk about using other airports, but the closest of
those choices is about an hour from
central Orange County. Even if you put aside the inconvenience, one
cannot deny it puts a huge
amount of excess traffic on our already crowded freeways.
We are always looking for ways to reduce traffic problems. Eliminating
an estimated 15 million trips to
and from LAX and Ontario airports could be a good start.
I say build El Toro airport so that my morning drive to work will not
include being stuck in freeway
jams and inhaling fumes my lungs don't need. I can cope far better
with intermittent airplanes way
over my head than the increased car and truck traffic.
Ed Banuelos
Santa Ana
*
Just when Orange County citizens think they have seen everything that
can be done to build an
unwanted international airport at El Toro, the county and its special-interest
airport supporters strike
again.
The anti-airport groups come up with an idea that would actually give
the voters a choice of an airport
or something else. And the county attorneys mess up the work of creating
the initiative petitions as
prescribed by state law. The pro-airport groups then file suit to reject
those petitions.
I feel as if my freedoms, as given by the Constitution, have been denied
me by the very people who
are supposed to protect them.
Tom Buick
Mission Viejo
*
The county has crossed the line. There is no doubt that the pro-airport
county has conspired with
their pro-airport supporters to write a summary and title for the El
Toro park initiative that would not
stand up in court.
They first tried to derail the initiative by "misplacing" a map that
was sent in with a previous initiative.
Those signed petitions were thrown out, but the park supporters came
back and collected more than
the required number of signatures on the corrected initiative.
Now those have been disqualified because of the county counsel's summary
and title. Coincidence?
Not a chance.
The county knows it cannot win the airport vs. park argument with its
"Just the Facts" campaign. No
matter how often they say the air quality will improve with 747s flying
overhead, we're just not going
to believe it.
Gail Brunell
Laguna Niguel
*
I was waiting to pick up my wife and grandson at the Irvine train terminal.
Standing on the
second-story steel overpass, I had a good overview of the defunct air
facility.
The place is huge. If one would take a template of John Wayne Airport
and lay it over one end of the
runway I am certain it would hardly be noticed.
I own my own airplane and have many times flown in and out of John Wayne
and over El Toro. I
certainly couldn't see housing within any close distance of the entire
property. It's all commercial in all
directions. If the commercial airliners can't make it over the puny
hills at the end of the runways, they
should all be retired from service.
As far as making a "Great Park" out of the whole thing, I don't think
all of Home Depot's facilities
could furnish enough sod to cover the place in the next 20 years. And
who will pay to maintain this
fantasy park?
LAX is a mess and is only going to get worse. John Wayne can't take
a whole lot more.
So why not do the sensible thing and cut out all the hysteria surrounding
the greatest opportunity that
has come up and will ever come up to enlarge our airport system in
the L.A. Basin?
This is just too good a chance to pass up.
Albert Neal
Huntington Beach
*
Re "Plan Would Ease Noise in Cities Northwest of El Toro," July 15:
As an airline captain with more
than 25 years' experience, I get more enraged every time I read another
article exhibiting the lack of
safety considerations in the planning of El Toro airport.
The article concerning right turns after departures to the northwest
on Runway 34 is a prime
example.
In an effort to appease, or rather deceive, the residents of Tustin,
Villa Park, Orange, Santa Ana and
other north Orange County cities, the airport planners are promising
right turns toward the highest
points of the Santa Ana Mountains. This plan exhibits the highest disregard
for safety and will not be
followed by any airline captain with regard for the safety of his flight.
I am suspicious of Gary Simon's words when he claims that right turns
will be made "whenever
possible." In reality, the only time these right turns will be possible
is when safety is compromised.
The residents of these north Orange County cities would be naive to
believe that they will not hear the
roar of jet engines over their houses.
The planners of El Toro airport still refuse to consult with airline
pilots, air traffic controllers and airlines
to create a plan for maximizing the safety and efficiency of this airport.
Instead, they choose to bully
through their politically motivated planning process, hoping it will
satisfy the "minimum" requirements
for Federal Aviation Administration approval.
These county supervisors and airport planners are approaching safety
as a black or white issue, either
safe or unsafe. This is a very unwise perspective. The airport should
be planned with "maximum"
safety considerations. This allows for a margin of error for pilots
having to deal with marginal weather
or mechanical problems.
George Serniak
Monarch Beach
*
Re "More Volleys in the Airport vs. Park Campaign," July 22:
It seems that we should not mind pausing on the telephone or missing
the punch line on a TV show
from jet noise as the letter writer who referred to growing up in Queens,
N.Y., did.
Perhaps his parents would have loved a home in another location. As
a kid we accept what we can't
do anything about.
People moved to Orange County to avoid living under an international
airport flight path. If you want
to weigh jobs against noise pollution, unhealthful air quality and
traffic congestion that can't be
mitigated; increased risk of asthma, cancer and other health problems;
decreased home values; and
the reason you live and work where you do, then I suggest moving back
to Queens or adjacent to
LAX.
Give me the jobs of a park, recreational facilities, and library and
university.
Mary Schwartz
Santa Ana
By parrotpaul (66.81.29.248 - 66.81.29.248) on Monday, August
20, 2001 - 08:06 am:
The Buzz
August 20, 2001
Don't expect to see Anaheim join cities clamoring to host the Democratic
and Republican national
conventions in 2004. Early reports indicate a number of cities are
making first-ever bids, including
Orlando, Fla. But Mayor Tom Daly says there are two reasons his city
never bids. No. 1: "We don't
need a political convention in Anaheim in July or August because the
rooms are already full of happy
tourists." No. 2: Party officials seek taxpayer-paid goodies before
committing, and "we don't do that
in Anaheim."
Daly also cites another factor -- one you might not expect from a fellow
in his 13th year of elected
office. When it comes to hosting a national party convention, Daly
dryly notes, "The prestige factor is
uncertain."
Is God anti-airport? One might get that impression from the welcome
Pastor Rick Warren gave 1,600
people at an El Toro airport forum last week in Lake Forest.
"I bring you greetings from the 53,000 voters - I mean attenders - of
Saddleback Church," Warren
said to the delight of the crowd, nearly all airport foes. "I just
want to say thank you for coming to
the world's largest church under a flight path.'' Divine support may
come with strings attached: "I see
many new faces here tonight," Warren said. "I expect to see you all
again on Sunday.''
El Toro politics also hit the Orange County Fire Authority. Assemblyman
Ken Maddox, R-Garden
Grove, and Joe Kerr, president of the firefighters' union, protested
a $350,000 PR contract for the
authority as a waste of fire funds. But there were also suggestions
that the PR firm -- Waters &
Faubel -- was a bad choice given its work for a coalition of anti-airport
cities.
"The fire union has alleged that this is a payoff for anti-airport cities
-- nothing could be more
ludicrous," Roger Faubel said.
The board vote -- 20-2, with a number of pro-airport cities supporting -- seems to back Faubel up.
• Assemblyman John Campbell, R-Irvine, received the National Freshman
Legislator of the Year Award
last week from the National Republican Legislators Association. Campbell
was recommended for the
award by Assembly Republican Leader Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks.
"As far as I'm concerned, the sky's the limit for John Campbell," Cox said.
Compiled by Chris Reed, Peter Larsen and Martin Wisckol.
By parrotpaul (66.81.56.246 - 66.81.56.246) on Tuesday, August
21, 2001 - 06:05 am:
County redistricting not done after all
http://www.ocregister.com/local/redistrict00821cci.shtml
August 21, 2001
The Orange County Register
County supervisors will take up redistricting again at today's board
meeting after being told by
Secretary of State Bill Jones that Aug. 28 is the deadline for adopting
new political borders based on
the 2000 census.
The board last week adopted a plan that it thought was the final word
on new district lines, based on
letters from Jones' office.
The plan prompted an official complaint from Newport Beach, which wants
a Newport Coast
neighborhood it is preparing to annex put in Supervisor Jim Silva's
district with the rest of the city. The
neighborhood is in Tom Wilson's district under the board's map.
Board Chairwoman Cynthia Coad said she was unsure whether she would
support the Newport Coast
revision since that would put the Wilson district in danger of having
too few people to meet federal
rules requiring that each district be about the same size.
Further revisions could lead to more cities being split between two
districts, which the board has
sought to avoid.
Only two of the county's 34 cities fall into two districts in the current plan.
The board meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. in the hearing room at the county
Hall of Administration, 10
Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana.
By parrotpaul (66.81.57.184 - 66.81.57.184) on Wednesday, August
22, 2001 - 06:11 am:
Redistricting work finished
http://www.ocregister.com/local/index.shtml
August 22, 2001
Orange County supervisors finished work on redistricting Tuesday, sticking
with borders adopted last
week.
A plan to shift a Newport Coast community from Tom Wilson's 5th District
to Jim Silva's 2nd District,
which includes Newport Beach, was dropped because it would violate
federal requirements that the
districts have similar populations.
Also rejected was Chairwoman Cynthia Coad's request to shift about 3,000
Anaheim residents from
Todd Spitzer's 3rd District, which includes Anaheim Hills, to her 4th
District, which includes Anaheim.
By parrotpaul (66.81.57.184 - 66.81.57.184) on Wednesday, August
22, 2001 - 06:27 am:
Supervisors' El Toro Win Comes at a Price: a Black Eye From Judge Gray
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000068089aug22.column?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Dana Parsons
He's taken on Bob Dornan. He's taken on Brad Gates. When it comes to
speaking his mind, Judge Jim
Gray usually doesn't cramp up.
So it shouldn't have been surprising to read what His Eminence had to
say about the Orange County
Board of Supervisors and the fumble-fingered way it has handled the
El Toro airport issue in recent
years.
On the other hand, talk about your easy targets. I'm reading a transcript
of Gray's words now, and
there's not a single "whereas" anywhere in there.
It's language anyone can understand and, if it came with a drawing,
it would be of the judge with
steam coming out of his ears.
The occasion was Gray's ruling on whether anti-airport advocates used
misleading language on a
petition drive for which they'd already collected 128,000 signatures.
Did I describe what Gray submitted as a "ruling"? I should have said
a "trashing."
"You're welcome to sit down if you want," he said to the assembled lawyers
for both sides. "But don't
get too comfortable."
Lawyers start to squirm when judges begin their remarks like that. About
the best they can hope for
after that is that the judge doesn't mention them by name in open court.
Gray didn't. What he did in his opening remarks was less legalese and
more the judicial equivalent of a
long, low wail that could have come from any corner of Orange County.
"I don't think I've ever done this before, but I am going to anyway,
out of a sense of frustration [of
mine] and probably everybody else in the county that is a taxpayer
and a voter," he said.
Amen, brother.
"The county has a magnificent opportunity to have 4,700 or so acres
of prime land handed back to it
by the federal government and this county has received the total disservice
of the officials in Orange
County as to that issue," Gray said.
"There has never been a neutral study talking about options [or] weighing
benefits and limitations
openly and honestly as to those options. Instead, what we have is probably
the most fractionated
issue in my time here in Orange County."
Picture a chorus of Orange County citizens--who have gone to the polls
three times already on the
airport and probably aren't done yet--screaming, "Yes, judge, yes!"
Acknowledging that North County and South County generally have been
divided over the proposed
airport, the judge said, "From a geographical standpoint, it depends
where you live as to how you
want this to happen.
"Now, that's fine from a political standpoint. People are elected to
represent geographical areas and
that's the way the system is, and I have no quarrel with it, but here
we have supposedly nonpartisan
elected officials called upon to perform neutral judicial functions
representing the entire county and
they are not doing it, in my view, and that is shown by the record."
The judge then threw a curveball by ruling against the anti-airport
group. He said its petition touting a
large park and open space instead of an airport was misleading both
in title and summary of what it
would provide.
In other words, Gray actually ruled for the three-member board majority
that wants an airport.
Yet, I doubt the three were cheering their good fortune.
Gray is a veteran judge who was in the forefront locally several years
ago in questioning America's
"war on drugs." As such, Gray rankled longtime Sheriff Brad Gates.
Gray remained outspoken on the
issue, however, and wrote the recently published book, "Why Our Drug
Laws Have Failed and What
We Can Do About It."
In 1998, he challenged the combative Dornan in the Republican primary
race for Congress. Gray
finished third, behind Dornan and runner-up Lisa Hughes.
Earlier this week, the pro-airport board majority carried the day in
a 3-2 vote not to appeal Gray's
ruling.
On the other side, the anti-airport group behind the petition drive
said it will appeal Gray's ruling,
rather than start the signature-collecting process over again. If it
eventually does that, however, it
likely wouldn't be able to do so in time for the March ballot, as it
hoped.
But while the three-member majority doesn't want to appeal Gray's ruling,
it no doubt would love to
have his broadside about the board's performance stricken from the
record.
No such luck.
But that's the way it goes with the supervisors when it comes to El
Toro: Even when they win, they
lose.
By parrotpaul (66.81.57.184 - 66.81.57.184) on Wednesday, August
22, 2001 - 06:34 am:
V-plan backers to hit the streets
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0022176aug22.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
But proponents of an alternative plan for El Toro don't expect to get
it on a countywide ballot until
November 2002.
By Paul Clinton
NEWPORT BEACH -- They hope "V" stands for victory.
Organizers of an alternative runway plan for an airport at the closed
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
are ready to hit the streets to gather names for their proposed countywide
ballot measure.
"We're excited about giving people a reasonable alternative to two bad
choices," said Ann Watt, a
Santa Ana Heights resident and supporter of the plan. They just might
not get that alternative to the
people quite as quickly as they'd originally hoped.
The so-called V-plan would realign the airfield's two crossbar runways
into a "V" pattern. The
east-west runway would be removed and moved to the northwest.
Watt and other members of the New Millennium Group submitted their Reasonable
Airport Initiative to
the county clerk on Aug. 6. On Monday, the group received a ballot
title and summary from the
county counsel's office.
They vowed to hit the streets as early as today to begin collecting
names.
However, group members are now backing off promises to have the initiative
on the March ballot.
The group must submit 71,206 valid names to get the initiative put
on a county ballot. They will have
180 days to collect the names to make the November 2002 election.
Getting on the March ballot -- when a South County alternative to build
a park at the base instead of
an airport could go before voters -- has become highly unlikely because
supporters would need to
meet a Sept. 18 deadline to submit the names. The county's Board of
Supervisors could also put the
initiative on the ballot, but Supervisor Tom Wilson has said he doesn't
expect that to happen.
In technical terms, the initiative would change county zoning around
the base. Even if it qualifies and is
passed, there is no guarantee it would be implemented.
"Generally, people will sign anything," said Dave Ellis, spokesman for
the Newport Beach-based Airport
Working Group. "They've got a big, tall order ahead of them."
The group will use a small band of 100 volunteers to collect the names.
They'll try to collect some
names later this week at the Balboa Pier and other areas of the city,
group members said.
While a handful of elected officials have voiced support for the V-plan,
there are powerful forces
against it. County airport boosters, Newport Beach and South County
anti-aiport leaders have all said
they oppose it.
County airport planners studied the V-plan in their environmental review
of a 28.8-million annual
passenger airport at the base, but discarded it as unworkable.
By EDITOR (24.4.255.248 - 24.4.255.248) on Wednesday, August 22,
2001 - 08:44 am:
Burglar alarm at home adds to supervisor's discomfort
August 22, 2001
By PETER LARSEN The Orange County Register
ANAHEIM County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Cynthia Coad, already
rattled by recent attacks
via e-mail and Web site postings, rushed home after the board meeting
Tuesday when a burglar alarm
was triggered.
A sheriff's spokesman said deputies did not believe a burglary had taken
place at her Anaheim home.
But Coad wondered whether the incident might be related to her role
as a supervisor up for election -
and particularly her backing of an El Toro airport.
"It's campaign time,'' Coad said. "They could have been intent on stealing.
They could have been
intent on planting something.
"But in line with the airport, I have been getting some very nasty e-mails.''
Sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said it "was definitely not a burglary.''
Nothing was missing and
the alarm likely went off by accident.
Gary Simon, head of the county's plan for an airport at the former El
Toro Marine base, has warned
supervisors that he is concerned about the tenor of messages on Web
sites opposed to the project.
By parrotpaul (66.81.57.114 - 66.81.57.114) on Thursday, August
23, 2001 - 04:10 am:
Caltrans questions El Toro planning
http://www.ocregister.com/news/toro00823cci3.shtml
August 23, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
The county's plan to build an El Toro airport underestimates traffic
and relies on roadwork that hasn't
been funded or approved, according to state highway department documents
released Wednesday.
Engineers say traffic as far south as Ortega (74) Highway has not been
addressed in a study to be
considered by the Board of Supervisors next month.
"Caltrans does not believe the mitigation measures presented ... will
mitigate the project impacts to
the freeway system to an acceptable level,'' wrote Robert F. Joseph,
a planning manager for the
California Department of Transportation.
His letter was one of hundreds the county addressed in documents issued Wednesday.
Bob Peterson, county El Toro transportation manager, said an unfunded
state program to make
freeways more efficient without major construction is expected to get
money in future years "and is
an appropriate way to address congestion and choke points, in our opinion.''
As for Caltrans' criticism of traffic projections and not considering
effects on interchanges farther
south, Peterson said the county disagrees.
He and El Toro chief Gary Simon will meet next week with local Caltrans
director Cindy Quon to
discuss those issues.
Metrolink officials expressed concern that airport traffic on Sand Canyon
Avenue would cause
"tremendous" problems with traffic and safety. The county said that
if future studies show a need, it
will help pay for a bridge to separate train and road traffic there.
By parrotpaul (66.81.57.114 - 66.81.57.114) on Thursday, August
23, 2001 - 04:21 am:
Beek launches anti-annexation campaign
Slow-growth advocate wants a city vote on whether Newport Beach should
incorporate Newport
Coast.
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0022211aug23.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
By Deepa Bharath,
NEWPORT BEACH -- The Newport Coast annexation issue has been on the
City Council agenda about
22 times over the past two years, officials say.
But community activist Allan Beek says he still wants to know what the
voters really think about the
city's proposal to annex the wealthy neighborhood south of the city,
home to about 2,600 people.
"People need to get a chance to vote on the issue," he said Wednesday.
The council "has considered
it a done deal and avoided it all along." This week, Beek circulated
fliers in the community asking the
public to call Mayor Gary Adams to ask him to hold a special meeting
before Friday to put the issue
on the Nov. 20 ballot.
Among Beek's concerns are whether the added neighborhoods would support
plans for an airport at
the closed El Toro Marine Air Base and if they would be accessible
to grass-roots campaigns, such as
the one he helped orchestrate last year in support of the city's slow-growth
Greenlight initiative.
City officials counter that putting the 30-year-old issue to a vote
would have a "chilling effect" on the
annexation.
And City Manager Homer Bludau said Newport Coast residents are already
part of the fabric of the
city.
"Their children go to our schools," he said. "They use our facilities,
our beaches, parks and libraries.
Over the years, several Newport Beach residents have moved over to
Newport Coast."
In September, council members unanimously approved plans to annex Newport
Coast, Santa Ana
Heights and Bay Knolls. Annexation of the latter two areas has been
pushed back to mid-2002, but
Newport Coast could become part of the city by Jan. 1.
The city filed its application to annex all three communities in March.
City staff expects a hearing
before the Local Agency Formation Commission about the Newport Coast
portion of the application in
September.
Residents who live in the unincorporated territory must still vote on
the plan later this year after the
commission makes a decision on Newport Beach's application.
Beek made his opinion on the issue public in April when he told council
members that the annexation
would drastically change the character of Newport Beach.
Beek said he believes annexation would hurt the city because Newport
Coast voters will "dilute our
votes," they are likely to be against an airport in El Toro and their
gated communities would hamper
door-to-door campaigns, the lifeline of any grass-roots movement.
"We absolutely can't communicate with them," he said.
Not so, says Assistant City Manager Dave Kiff.
"That's what homeowners associations are for," he said. "They are easily
approachable, and their
meetings are open to anybody who wants to talk to them."
Kiff added that Newport Coast residents have often approached him on
city issues and have shown
him that they are genuinely concerned about what goes on in Newport
Beach.
Council members said they found Beek's flier offensive and misinformed.
"I ran on a platform of pro-annexation," Councilman Tod Ridgeway said.
"I have never heard any
objections voiced so far, maybe just one. There were plenty of opportunities
for people to oppose
the annexation, but nobody did."
Adams said he believes it would be a bad idea to put the issue up for
a vote.
"This issue has been in the public eye for more than 20 years," he said.
"I'm surprised all of a sudden
it's a new issue stirred up with a lot of sensational rhetoric and
misinformation to advance [Beek's]
own agenda."
By parrotpaul (66.81.57.114 - 66.81.57.114) on Thursday, August
23, 2001 - 05:05 am:
County responds to airport questions
http://www.ocregister.com/news/toro0q0823cci6.shtml
Documents released Wednesday include answers to about 8,000 queries
on proposed project.
August 23, 2001
By JIM RADCLIFFE and PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
The county released to the public on Wednesday its last major batch
of paperwork before county
supervisors decide next month whether to build an El Toro airport.
The documents included 11,500
pages of questions and answers concerning the project.
As part of the environmental process, public agencies and residents
- about 550 in all - asked airport
planners to explain or justify nearly every aspect of the project.
The county provided answers to
about 8,000 questions.
Many of the e-mails and letters sent to the Hall of Administration were
outright attacks on the
proposal, while others supported an airport at the former Marine Corps
base.
As expected, neither the county nor airport opponents conceded any ground.
"It looks like they've just blown off everybody's concerns,'' said Paul
Eckles, the top administrator for
the coalition fighting the airport.
"We've done our best - and done right by the public,'' said Michelle
Emard, a spokeswoman for the El
Toro team.
Supervisors are scheduled to hold a public hearing Sept. 4 and vote on the project Sept. 17.
Below are a few of the questions raised by Orange County residents, and the county's answers:
Q: At what altitude would jets fly above my house in the Niguel Summit area of Laguna Niguel?
- Kai and Carolyn Wulff, Laguna Niguel
-
A: 2,100 feet
Q: Will Hong Kong flights be available?
-Valerie Wolf, Irvine
A: Generally not, in part because the runways aren't long enough to
handle the heavy passenger jets
that would usually make such long flights.
Q: How many tanker loads of jet fuel would be needed daily?
- Eddie and Shannon Hill, Aliso Viejo
-
A: 244 by 2020, unless a proposal to deliver the fuel by pipeline eliminates
the trips.
Q: Can the federal government change the flight pattern, so that jets
would fly over Irvine and other
cities more often than projected by county officials?
- Michael Yanko, Irvine
-
A: The Federal Aviation Administration would establish flight patterns
before approving an airport. "It is
unlikely that the FAA would want to change the flight patterns once
the airport is built.''
Q: What is the minimum number of passengers required to generate enough
money to pay off the
bonds on the $3 billion airport?
- Arnold Burke, Lake Forest
-
A: The county did not say how many passengers would be needed, but
instead replied that bonds
would be issued annually to cover construction for that year - to match
development with demand.
Q: What would be done to make certain that birds hovering about the
Frank R. Bowerman Landfill
near Irvine stay clear of the jets? ("Pilots tell me that birds and
jet engines don't mix real well.")
-Dan Wooldridge, Lake Forest, a staffer on the anti-airport coalition
A: "The proposed flight tracks are adequately separated from the landfill site.''
Q: How will residents be compensated for soundproofing their homes against jet noise?
-Thomas and Rosmary Grisafe, Lake Forest
A: The FAA only funds soundproofing when noise exceeds a certain level,
the county replied, citing
studies that show that no homes would be subject to the noise level
that meets the criteria.
By parrotpaul (66.81.76.249 - 66.81.76.249) on Friday, August
24, 2001 - 06:16 am:
Timing of airport review criticized
http://www.ocregister.com/news/toro00824cci2.shtml
ugust 24, 2001
By PETER LARSEN and CHRIS REED
The Orange County Register
Key players in the El Toro airport debate say the county has turned
a marathon of planning into a
sprint to the finish, releasing thousands of pages of documents this
week and scheduling hearings and
votes before the public can understand the new material.
Among those frustrated by the schedule heading into a final vote by
county supervisors Sept. 17:
county planning commissioners who were shocked to find almost no one
showed up at a hearing on
the plan Tuesday - apparently because key documents being reviewed
had not yet been released.
"Why doesn't the public know about it?" said Planning Commissioner Brian
Fisk, also the planning
director for Westminster. "I'm just disappointed that people haven't
been alerted to the fact that an
airport the size of Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix is about to be dropped
at the El Toro 'Y.'"
Typically, documents like the 11,500 pages of county responses to comments
from the public would
be available before such a hearing. The documents were released Wednesday.
Fisk, an appointee of anti-airport supervisor Tom Wilson, argued successfully
that the meeting
continue Sept. 11 so the public - and commissioners, too - would have
access to the new
information.
County airport officials say they have provided enough time for review.
"In my mind, the county has exceeded all legal requirements," said El
Toro project director Gary
Simon.
But others involved in the El Toro debate - especially those who oppose
all or part of the county plan
- cried foul at the rapid succession of events the county has scheduled:
documents released this
week, a Board of Supervisors hearing Sept. 4, and a final vote by supervisors
Sept. 17.
"We are not given the time that we need to adequately address their
responses and educate my
people back in Washington," said Jon Russell, regional spokesman for
the nation's largest pilots' union,
which does not oppose an airport at the former Marine Corps base, but
also does not like the way
the county has designed it.
According to Simon, state law requires that the county provide responses
to comments by public
agencies only - and the county has "gone the extra mile by responding
publicly to individual residents'
comments."
And the responses to public agencies are only required by law to be
released 10 days before a final
vote, he said.
"The minimum requirement was for us to get responses out by Sept. 7,"
Simon said - a date that
would fall after the final Board of Supervisors hearing set for Sept.
4.
There's a difference between following legal requirements and showing
good faith, a University of
Southern California planning expert said.
Supervisors should acknowledge the "immense volume and technical complexities
of the material,"
said USC professor Jefferey Miller, and push back the Sept. 17 vote.
Airport foes say the county has stuck to the goal of a September vote
for another reason altogether:
to provide time for federal officials to complete their El Toro studies
- and possibly turn over the base
to the county - before March, when another anti-airport initiative
could go before voters.
"They're absolutely hell-bent on getting (the property transferred)
as soon as possible," said
Supervisor Todd Spitzer, an airport foe.
The Planning Commission now finds itself in an unusual position, Fisk
said - voting on its
recommendation for El Toro between the supervisors public hearing on
Sept. 4 and the Sept. 17 vote.
But Planning Commissioner Shirley Commons Long, an appointee of pro-airport
Supervisor Jim Silva,
said she believes that will be OK.
Waiting until then "hopefully will give us all the time that we need
before we make our final
recommendation," said Long, who added she does not believe the commission
is rushed.
"There were some 8,000 comments that were responded to," she said. "It
seems to me that
everybody has had their opportunity to make their comment."
By EDITOR (24.4.255.248 - 24.4.255.248) on Friday, August 24,
2001 - 08:26 am:
OC Register
El Toro not in path of traffic plan
Caltrans says a control strategy only addresses existing freeway congestion, not any added load.
August 24, 2001
By HEATHER LOURIE and PETER LARSEN The Orange County Register
A statewide Caltrans strategy to manage existing traffic on freeways
was not meant to ease
congestion from new land-use projects, such as the proposed El Toro
airport in Orange County,
engineers said Thursday.
Officials planning an airport at the former El Toro Marine base this
week released documents showing
that they are relying on the statewide Caltrans effort to ease traffic
added in Orange County by 28.8
million passengers a year at an El Toro airport.
But the program, called Traffic Operations Strategies, or TOPS, focuses
on making the state's existing
freeways and roads work better with existing demand, engineers said.
"It's a system management philosophy," said John Wolf, California Department
of Transportation
manager of the TOPS program. "We want to operate (current infrastructure)
in a way that fully
utilizes (resources) in the most efficient and effective way possible."
But he warned: "Even if we are perfect in how we operate the facility,
... the minute you get more
demand than you can handle, the whole thing breaks down."
Some key TOPS elements: traveler information programs that put up-to-the-
minute traffic
information on Web sites and phones; traffic- management centers that
monitor wrecks and dispatch
help; limited roadwork to fix bottlenecks, auxiliary lanes and ramp
configurations; and detailed
analysis of current traffic conditions to seek smart solutions.
But the program is not funded or designed to ease burdens of added traffic,
engineers said in a letter
released this week.
Caltrans planners also said that the El Toro project underestimates
traffic and fails to study added
congestion as far south as Ortega (74) Highway.
"TOPS should not be viewed as a replacement for the need for infrastructure
expansion resulting from
project impacts," wrote Robert F. Joseph, a Caltrans planning manager.
Bob Peterson, county El Toro transportation manager, said Wolf has told
him that TOPS could
increase freeway capacity by up to 30 percent.
"These freeway systems are going to fail whether this project happens
or not," Peterson said. "We're
contributing traffic to the freeway system just like any other developer
would.
"We would be paying our pro rata share of what Caltrans thinks is appropriate
for those sections of
the freeway that are impacted," he said.
That, too, is a point of debate between Caltrans and the county. In
his letter, Joseph said the county
has underestimated how much it should contribute to freeway interchange
upgrades, given the effect
of an airport on the freeway ramps.
"I think they'd like 100 percent," Peterson said. "But we can't pay
for everybody's share of those
future impacts."
By parrotpaul (66.81.48.175 - 66.81.48.175) on Saturday, August
25, 2001 - 05:24 am:
El Toro park petitions get new life in court ruling
http://www.ocregister.com/news/toro00825cci3.shtml
Appeals panel allows ballot effort to continue, pending a final decision.
August 25, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
The grass-roots drive to kill an El Toro airport in favor of a huge
park gained new life Friday with an
appeals-court order that puts 160,000 signatures on park petitions
back in play.
"Hallelujah!" Elizabeth Smith, an initiative volunteer from Foothill
Ranch, said when she learned of the
court's decision. "This will definitely be a boost.
"People won't feel vindicated - because it's not an outright victory
- but they'll certainly feel the gang
of pro-airport people have been thwarted.''
The action by the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego suspended
an earlier ruling by Orange
County Superior Court Judge James Gray that invalidated the petition
signatures.
It means that while the appeals court mulls its final decision on the
case, initiative backers will be
allowed to file their petitions and signatures with the Orange County
registrar of voters and have
them counted and checked. Otherwise, they would have been turned away.
About 71,000 valid signatures are required to win a spot on the March ballot.
Without the relief granted by the appeals court Friday, the initiative
campaign might have missed its
shot at a March vote - considered essential because it could deal the
airport plan a death blow before
the county is able to secure the land from the federal government and
start work on the project.
Now the petition signatures are safe - pending a final ruling by the
appeals court on whether to allow
the ballot effort to go forward.
Fredric D. Woocher, attorney for the pro-airport group that sued to
try to block the initiative, said the
order by the appeals court is the fair thing to do while the case continues.
"We would have preferred, no doubt, for them to have said Judge Gray
was clearly right - case over,''
Woocher said. "But given that they've decided to hear the case - and
it's an important case - the stay
order makes sense.''
In July, Woocher filed a lawsuit for the pro-airport Citizens for Jobs
and the Economy, arguing that
the official title and summary on the initiative - prepared by county
attorneys, as required by law - did
not adequately describe the amount of the development that could be
allowed.
On July 31, Gray agreed.
The initiative advocates and county attorneys argued that the legal
description was proper. Initiative
backers filed an appeal, but the pro-airport majority on the Board
of Supervisors rejected a request
by county attorneys to join the appeal.
Attorney Rob Thornton, who wrote the initiative and filed the appeal,
said the appeals-court decision is
a good sign for the chances of a favorable final decision.
"In my view, the court would not have granted our request for a stay
if they didn't believe we had a
good case,'' Thornton said. "In probably 90 percent of these cases,
they deny them without getting
to this stage, so we're quite encouraged.''
The appeals court gave both sides until mid-September to file written
arguments and request any oral
arguments before the court. Thornton and Woocher said it is uncertain
when the court will issue its
final ruling.
The order Friday represents one more bump in the runway for those who
favor an airport at the
former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.
"My feeling is, you can build a park in the hills, but you can't build
an airport in the hills,'' said H.B.
Corcorran of Santa Ana.
"To me, El Toro just makes a whole heck of a lot of sense as an airport.''
But the volunteers working for the ballot measure found the ruling reason to cheer.
"There is no question that over the last four weeks (since Gray's ruling),
the momentum was slowed,
but not stopped,'' said Frank Lunding of Irvine, who coordinates 150
signature gatherers there. "The
attitude was, 'Well, if the court's going to tell us that this one
is wrong, we'll come back and do it
again.' "
By parrotpaul (66.81.48.175 - 66.81.48.175) on Saturday, August
25, 2001 - 05:38 am:
Court Ruling Helps 'Great Park' Cause
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000068911aug25.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
El Toro: Decision means the petition still could go forward. Both sides
insist victory is possible
By DAVID REYES and JEAN O. PASCO, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
A San Diego court of appeal on Friday breathed new life into the effort
to build an urban park at the El
Toro Marine base, staying a lower court ruling that effectively killed
the efforts to place the issue on
the March ballot.
The preliminary ruling means that the 128,000 signatures gathered to
place the "Great Park" plan on
the ballot can be submitted to the county registrar for certification.
But the appellate court has yet to decide whether those signatures are
valid, so the fate of the park
petition likely won't be known until September. The action comes two
weeks after Orange County
Superior Court Judge James Gray ruled that the ballot title and summary
on the petitions were
misleading and therefore the signatures should be thrown out.
The decision Friday by the 4th District Court of Appeal won applause
in South County, where officials
see the park as a way of sidetracking efforts by the Board of Supervisors
to build a commercial
airport at the closed military base.
"Thank God for the appellate court," said Susan Withrow, mayor pro tem
of Mission Viejo, who is on
the board of the coalition of nine anti-airport cities in South County.
Withrow and others said they will immediately submit the signatures
to the county as they wait for
the appellate court to decide. The measure needs 71,206 valid signatures
to be placed on the March
ballot.
The initiative would require the county to scrap the airport plan and
instead create a massive park and
nature preserve at the 4,700-acre base. The so-called Great Park would
include universities,
museums and commercial development.
Airport supporters said they remain optimistic that the appellate courts
will rule in their favor. "The
court clearly wants to hear the case," said Fredric Woocher, a pro-airport
attorney.
But Richard Jacobs, an anti-airport attorney, called the court's action
"nearly a slam-dunk. . . . This
order would not have been written if the [judges] weren't sure that
the title and summary are valid."
The initiative was challenged by Bruce Nestande, former supervisor and
now a pro-airport activist.
Nestande said County Counsel Laurence M. Watson failed to disclose that
the proposed park initiative
would allow extensive development on the former base. The title prepared
by Watson's office says
the measure would designate the base for open-space uses.
Gray ruled that the ballot title and summary were faulty and misleading.
As a result, the signatures
were invalidated.
The county plans an international airport at El Toro that by 2020 could
accommodate 28 million
passengers yearly. A majority of supervisors support the plan. Most
South County residents oppose
it.
By parrotpaul (66.81.48.175 - 66.81.48.175) on Saturday, August
25, 2001 - 05:45 am:
County Counsel's Lively Tenure Ends
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000068913aug25.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Government: Laurence M. Watson got the job after the 1994 O.C. bankruptcy
and leaves at a signal
moment in the battle over El Toro.
By DAVID REYES, TIMES STAFF WRITER
His bags were supposed to have been packed last month. But July 31 came
and went, and County
Counsel Laurence M. Watson still found himself at his desk this week,
signing off on legal documents.
Not only had the Orange County Board of Supervisors been unable to hire
a successor, which it finally
did last week, but a judge had ruled against an initiative sought by
opponents of an El Toro airport
because its ballot title and summary--completed by Watson's office--were
faulty.
Watson was promoted to the job, the county's top legal post, after the
1994 county bankruptcy. And
he is leaving at another flash point: the battle over the initiative,
which proposes a "Great Park" and
could alter the county's plans for a commercial airport at the 4,700-acre
former El Toro Marine base.
The latest turnaround came Friday, when an appellate court stayed that
earlier ruling.
Apparently, Watson couldn't manage to leave the building quietly.
"On July 31, all these friends of mine called telling me there's an
adjustment period," Watson recalled.
"I told them, 'Funny, it's just like work,' because it was."
Last week, county supervisors hired Assistant County Counsel Benjamin
de Mayo, 51, as Watson's
replacement; de Mayo took over the legal reins Friday and Watson was
finally able to depart. De
Mayo will head an office that has grown to a staff of 98, including
61 attorneys.
Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Cynthia P. Coad, an airport advocate,
praised Watson, saying,
"We're losing a good attorney."
Former County Administrative Officer Ernie Schneider called Watson an
"unbelievable gentleman, and
one of the finest lawyers" he has worked with.
Gaddi Vasquez, a former county supervisor and now President Bush's nominee
to head the Peace
Corps, said Watson had a "can-do attitude in terms of giving us good,
sound legal advice and always
providing the board needed research to make a sound decision."
But like many careers in the county, Watson's may be forever linked
to the El Toro airport fight.
For anti-airport leaders, Superior Court Judge James P. Gray's ruling
earlier this month that voided the
"Great Park" initiative petitions, with 128,000 signatures, was a severe
blow. The initiative's ballot
language, which Gray found misleading, was challenged by Bruce Nestande,
a former county
supervisor and an airport proponent, along with the pro-airport Citizens
for Jobs and the Economy.
Gray's ruling angered anti-airport volunteers such as Jack and Clea
Lynch, a retired couple from Dana
Point who had never before donated to a political campaign or gathered
signatures. They say the
ruling, the county's and Watson's role in it, and the subsequent decision
by the pro-airport majority
on the Board of Supervisors not to appeal Gray's ruling has embittered
them.
"This is not a dignified way to leave your post. I wouldn't want to
retire in that way," Clea Lynch said
of Watson.
On Friday, an appellate court in San Diego stayed Gray's ruling, based
on an appeal by airport foes.
The decision allows the organizers to use the disputed signatures to
qualify the initiative for the March
2002 ballot, said an anti-airport attorney.
Watson is the first to say that the airport is an incredibly divisive
issue and that both sides watch
every comment on it that his office makes.
"It's an emotional issue and our office has been scrutinized nearly
every time we issue an opinion," he
said. "And, like other issues, both our opinion and competency are
called into question."
Watson, who lives in Mission Viejo, where anti-airport sentiment runs
high, says he is often asked his
opinion on the airport and whether he believes it will ever be built.
"My opinion is irrelevant," he said he tells them, adding that the office
is apolitical. "We don't try to
influence or set policy. We just try to get answers to questions. That's
the role of this office."
Indeed, even Watson's critics note that he urged supervisors to appeal
Gray's ruling on the initiative.
During his tenure, Watson defended the county in several high-profile,
and sometimes oddball, cases.
Among them: that of former Supervisor Bob Battin, convicted in 1976
of felony misuse of staff for
political purposes, and the county assessor's office seeking a much
higher property valuation on
former President Nixon's Western White House in San Clemente.
Then there was the case about jalapeno peppers. More than 400 jail inmates
petitioned for the hot
peppers, saying that they had a constitutional right to them and that
not being served the peppers
was tantamount to ethnic discrimination.
The inmates didn't get their peppers.
"This has been a ride, an unbelievable ride," Watson said.
By parrotpaul (66.81.34.250 - 66.81.34.250) on Sunday, August
26, 2001 - 04:40 am:
O.C. Rebel in a Robe Not Afraid of a Fray
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000069137aug26.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Law: El Toro ruling, church molestation case put the spotlight on Superior
Court Judge James P. Gray.
By MONTE MORIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
He describes himself as a conservative judge in a conservative county.
But many of those who have
watched the career of Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray
said his approach to the
job is anything but traditional.
Part rebel, part reformer, part conciliator, he has put together a record
that keeps him in the limelight.
Gray's views make him a frequent target. A decade ago, Gray's call for
the legalization of drugs
prompted now-retired Sheriff Brad Gates to lash out to reporters: "What
was this guy smoking? It's
crazy. What kind of role model is he?" And a fellow judge has openly
questioned Gray's impartiality on
the drug issue.
But Gray hasn't backed down. And now he finds himself at the center
of two high-profile cases that
keep him on center stage.
Last week, he brokered a landmark $5.2-million settlement between the
Catholic Church and a teen
who says he was molested by a priest. By all accounts, it was Gray's
handling of settlement
talks--one part delicate, one part firm--that led not only to one of
the largest payouts by the church
but also to a slate of church reforms aimed at preventing molestation
by priests.
Gray also entered the battle over whether to build an airport at El
Toro, shocking both sides by
throwing out a new voter referendum on the issue. (A court of appeal
overturned his ruling Friday.)
Gray even played a bit part this month in the case of a former college
classmate accused of murder.
Far from the fuzzy-haired radical many expect, Gray is tall, clean-cut
and lean-limbed. He'd appear
much younger than his 56 years if not for a preponderance of gray hair.
Gray speaks curtly and eyes his subject intensely when listening. His
single-mindedness is something
he shares with his late father, another Orange County legal legend
credited with helping reform the
jails.
"The way I was raised was, you speak out if something is wrong," Gray
said.
When he was first appointed a judge 17 years ago, Gray immediately endured
the close attention of
legal peers because of the actions of his father, U.S. District Court
Judge William P. Gray. At the time,
the elder Gray was butting heads with county officials over his rulings
on jail overcrowding and
prisoners' rights--a battle that would last for years.
"When you've just become a municipal court judge and your father is
holding all the county
supervisors in contempt of court [because of jail overcrowding], it's
hard to be inconspicuous," Gray
said.
Gray, an accomplished musician who enjoys singing and songwriting, said
he was influenced by his
father's persistence and sense of right and wrong. His dad was a loud
critic of McCarthyism while
serving as president of the Los Angeles County Bar, the younger Gray
noted.
When announcing the settlement in the Catholic Church case, lawyers
on both sides credited Gray
with working out a deal by demanding repeated conferences and personally
mediating discussions.
Gray said the plaintiffs were able to achieve much more than they would
have at a trial.
"Had the plaintiffs gone to trial, maybe they would have won more money
than they got, but they
would have given up a lot too," Gray said. "Here, they were able to
get a settlement and other
promises from the defendant. There's no way in creation that that could
have been accomplished by
going to trial."
Lawyers say Gray's willingness to dive into such frays is rare among
judges.
"It used to be that all judges held settlement conferences," said defense
lawyer Mike Trotter. "Now
they just set a trial date and don't move it. Judge Gray becomes a
part of the process. He says to
one side, 'What do you want and why?' and then says the same to the
other side. It really works. It
works better than yelling from the bench, 'Settle it!' "
Gray's passion for the give-and-take of negotiating was showcased this
month when he disclosed
that he had sought unsuccessfully to arrange the surrender of a former
law-school classmate and
friend accused of murder.
Hugh "Randy" McDonald, a former Newport Beach attorney, is accused of
killing a Villa Park woman,
then faking his suicide off the Golden Gate Bridge. He was captured
this month after being on the run
for three years, authorities said.
Gray said that before the arrest, he twice attempted to arrange a surrender
through the woman
McDonald was living with and said he was ready to personally walk his
friend into the sheriff's station.
In an interview two weeks ago, Gray said: "You don't turn your back
on old friends." The judge,
however, declined to comment further in an interview last Thursday.
"I've said all I'm going to say
about it," he said.
Gray also found himself drawn into the debate over a proposal to build
a commercial airport at the
now-closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. He threw out more than
128,000 signatures on
petitions calling for a vote on whether a park rather than an airport
should be built at El Toro. He ruled
that the title and summary of the petition were misleading and that
people who signed might have
been misled.
The decision was a major blow to airport opponents, some of whom suggested
Gray's verdict was
influenced by his living in Newport Beach, a city that strongly supports
a new airport.
Gray said he bristled at the criticism.
"I was wounded by it," Gray said. "It never occurred to me that where
I lived would trouble people. . .
. Some people basically look for conspiracies on anything."
But the issue that has focused the most attention on Gray during his
career is his opposition to the
nation's drug war and his insistence that the government regulate distribution
of drugs. Gray voiced
this view in the face of criticism almost 10 years ago. Several months
ago, he published a book on
the issue, "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About
It."
Gray, who said he neither uses nor approves of drugs, has also created
a Web site and posts regular
items condemning a drug war that he believes has only made drug trafficking
more lucrative, violent
and widespread. The Web site is http://www.judgejimgray.com.
Many attorneys who have appeared before him in court describe Gray as
a hard-working, principled
man who rarely suffers fools.
"He will let you have the truth with both barrels," said Tustin attorney
Christopher J. Day. "People who
know him know he's courageous and that he always follows the letter
of the law. When you're a
lawyer in front of him, all those things are in the back of your mind."
The father of three grown children, one of whom was adopted from Vietnam,
Gray was born in
Washington, D.C., but moved to the Los Angeles area soon after. He
attended UCLA, and when he
graduated in 1966, he joined the Peace Corps and was assigned to work
in a small town in Costa
Rica.
When he finished there, he returned to Southern California and entered
law school at USC. After
passing the bar examination, Gray served four years in the Navy as
a defense attorney and staff
judge advocate. From the Navy, Gray joined the U.S. attorney's office
in Los Angeles, where he
headed a unit that prosecuted housing loan fraud against the government.
In 1978, Gray went into private practice in Los Angeles and was appointed
to a position on the
Municipal Court bench in 1984 by then-Gov. George Deukmejian. Five
years later, the governor
appointed him to the Superior Court, where he is today, hearing mostly
civil cases.
Gray said it's unlikely he will be appointed to a higher seat because
of his outspokenness on the drug
issue. That's OK with him, however, as frequent speaking engagements
and radio and television
appearances on the subject keep him busy.
"Talking about the nation's failed drug war and what should be done
about it is really my second job,"
Gray said. "It takes up a lot of time."
By parrotpaul (66.81.34.250 - 66.81.34.250) on Sunday, August
26, 2001 - 05:13 am:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000069196aug26.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Emotions Running High Over El Toro Airport
Thanks to Dana Parsons for publishing the apparent frustrations and
personal opinions of Superior
Court Judge James Gray in his ruling on whether opponents of an El
Toro airport used misleading
language on a petition drive for which they had already collected 128,000
signatures (Aug. 22).
Gray's opinion that "there has never been a neutral study talking about
options [or] weighing benefits
and limitations openly and honestly as to those options" is certainly
not complimentary to the Orange
County Board of Supervisors.
Instead, the supervisors have wasted millions of our tax dollars to
spread misinformation and serve
their own goals. What is the legal remedy for the citizens of Orange
County to be represented fairly
and not have something crammed down our throats without being heard
or being represented
properly?
Why are we denied our constitutional rights to express our wishes because
of the "misleading
information" regarding the proposed park while the board moves forward
with their unpopular and
misleading airport plans?
The bottom line is that Gray, in his ruling, favored the three-member
board majority and has thus
denied us the opportunity to legally voice our opinions by ballot in
March.
I hope this strange sort of democracy will be ameliorated in time so
that the will of the people will
prevail.
Hans J. Roehricht
Lake Forest
*
The account of the Aug. 15 public forum about El Toro in The Times described
a classic example of
bad manners and lack of consideration for the 80% of Orange County's
population outside of South
County on the part of South County.
Supervisors Todd Spitzer and Tom Wilson were the jeer leaders, coaching
the audience to shout and
rant and rave so that nothing the visiting experts said could be heard.
Wilson asked, "If they lived in our homes, would they be satisfied with
the information they are giving
us tonight?" That same question could be asked of the thousands of
homes in Tustin, Santa Ana,
Costa Mesa and Newport Beach that are much closer to the flight paths
of planes from John Wayne
Airport than any homes in South County are to the El Toro flight paths.
In North County, John Wayne Airport has expanded several times, each
time moving closer to
existing homes. The last expansion was required to handle the increased
flight loads from affluent
South County.
In contrast, South County residents willingly and knowingly bought next
to the large 14,000-acre
buffer zone of an existing airport that was operational when they moved
in.
Because of the buffer zone, no houses are directly under the flight
paths as are the homes near John
Wayne. The passenger demand generated by South County is increasing
at a rapid rate. There are
14,500 homes going into a planned city on the O'Neill ranch; there
is a 380-acre business park
planned for Lake Forest. An even bigger commercial development by the
Irvine Co. and Irvine
Spectrum is picking up steam.
By the time all the open land in the holdings of the Irvine Co. is built
up, combined with the building
planned by the remaining land holders in South County, South County
will certainly grow.
Since most of the new air demand will come from South County, and since
a well-designed airport
exists already in South County, it would boggle the minds of any regional
planners to consider plowing
El Toro under and shifting all passenger and freight demand to the
freeways and nearby and more
distant airports.
In view of these projections it is time to reopen El Toro airport.
William J. Kearns
Costa Mesa
*
I cannot imagine what religious, educational or cultural background
would cause people to boo or hiss
at our important meeting.
They are displaying a lack of knowledge or a total disregard of ordinary
courtesy. Surely they don't
believe it helps their cause.
Laura B. Heiser
Laguna Woods
*
Opponents of a commercial airport at the site of the abandoned military
airport at El Toro repeat that
airports create noise, air pollution and hazards of engine malfunction
for nearby residents and schools
in spite of the size of the base and buffer zone and 10,000-foot runways.
However, none would close John Wayne Airport to commercial traffic even
though the five schools
and thousands of homes are nearer to noise and air pollution than any
schools or homes near El
Toro.
Also, John Wayne's 5,700-foot runways are more dangerous if an engine
malfunctions. So far, the
only airborne planes in trouble made it to a longer runway.
Opponents contend that El Toro is unneeded because John Wayne is not
used to capacity. Do
emotions obscure logic, or do such airport opponents lack integrity?
Roy B. Woolsey
Newport Beach
*
It is becoming more obvious that the will of the people means nothing
to the gruesome threesome
on the Board of Supervisors.
They ignored the message the citizens sent when they voted against an
international airport at El
Toro and passed Measure F by an overwhelming 67% majority. Now they
have failed to join the
appeal to put the Great Park initiative on the ballot.
Their strategy to dump an airport in the area is to do everything they
can to prevent the taxpayers
from exercising their voting power. Let's face it: No one wants to
live next to an airport.
The neighbors at LAX are fighting an expansion; Newport Beach is fighting
hard to put an airport at El
Toro because in 2005 the settlement agreement with the county on flight
restrictions at John Wayne
Airport expires and cannot be extended, therefore allowing flights
24 hours a day. And neighbors at El
Toro don't want an international airport that operates 24 hours a day
in their bedroom community.
But Ontario has an airport and wants more utilization. Stop the nonsense
of wasting more millions on
these fights and work with the officials of Ontario to make it a destination.
Listen to the taxpayers and stop wasting money on these battles. Those
millions would be better
spent on a light-rail system to transport passengers to Ontario.
Glenda Maddox
Irvine
*
I am so tired of all the whining by South County residents over El Toro
Airport. They claim pilots say it
is unsafe. Wrong.
There is a major difference between "unsafe" and "not perfect." The
fact is John Wayne Airport has
far more safety concerns than El Toro, yet residents in South County
cities use it the most.
The complainers say it will ruin their quality of life. Wrong. There
is no evidence of that. There might be
a change from perfection to some annoyances, but "ruined"? No way.
Every single resident made the
choice to buy his home fully aware of the military planes overhead
or that El Toro Airport was in their
future.
Ann Bratt
Anaheim
By parrotpaul (66.81.34.250 - 66.81.34.250) on Sunday, August
26, 2001 - 05:56 am:
El Toro Reuse
Op-ed OC Register 8/26/01
Great Park's a great perk for O.C.
By: Pam Julien Houchen, mayor of Huntington Beach
Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray issued a ruling that
invalidated the signatures of
123,000 Orange County residents who signed petitions to place the Orange
County Central Park and
Nature Preserve Initiative on the March 2002 ballot. The ruling has
been appealed and hopefully will be
reversed.
The Register claims, "supporters of the park don't necessarily know
what they are supporting" ["El
Toro plan thrown into reverse," Opinion, Aug.3]. I disagree. We passed
anti-airport Measure F in
March 2000 with a 67 per cent "yes" vote countywide. It passed in my
city and in each supervisorial
district. Every recent public-opinion poll has shown that about two-thirds
of Orange County residents
oppose an airport at El Toro and support an alternative plan featuring
a great metropolitan park.
The Great Park will create no risk or liability for county taxpayers.
The city of Irvine is willing to annex
the property and take full financial responsibility for its development.
The Marine Corps left more than 1,000 single-family houses and more
than 3 million square feet of
commercial and industrial space vacant. Economists conservatively estimate
the net revenue from
leasing these buildings would be between $20.3 million to $22 million
annually. Setting aside $5 million
per year for maintenance, a surplus of $250 million is reasonable.
This surplus will create an
endowment for future development, upkeep and operation of the Great
Park.
In addition to these funds millions of dollars in private donations,
state bond funds and federal grants
to fund major metropolitan parks are available. We in Orange County
are not getting our fair share
because unlike San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, we don't have
a major park.
Every metropolitan area that has a great park has benefited environmentally
and economically.
Consider Balboa Park in San Diego. It has become a tourist destination
and cultural center with 15
museums and the world-famous San Diego Zoo. Balboa Park's museums are
privately funded and are
maintained by non-profit foundations. San Diego businesses and taxpayers
benefit from millions of
dollars generated annually by Balboa Park and its attractions.
A Great Park at El Toro will be more than an economic boon for Orange
County. It will protect our
environment and enhance our quality of life for generations.
By parrotpaul (66.81.34.250 - 66.81.34.250) on Sunday, August
26, 2001 - 06:13 am:
ORANGE COUNTY COMMENTARY
Case of the Reluctant D.A.
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000069197aug26.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
By D. ELIZABETH PIERSON, D. Elizabeth Pierson is president/CEO of the
Fair Housing Council of
Orange County.
Complaints about the retention of security deposits make up 12% of the
landlord-tenant calls
received by the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, a private nonprofit
agency that provides
information about housing laws to both landlords and tenants. This
amounts to more than 3,000 calls
a year about security deposits alone. The state law governing security
deposits is simple. Landlords
may retain a tenant's security deposit for unpaid rent, reasonable
cleaning costs and damages beyond
normal wear and tear.
So why do we receive so many complaints about security deposits from
former tenants of
apartments managed by Arnel Management Co.? The company, owned by George
Argyros, has been
accused by former tenants and an investigator for the Orange County
district attorney's office of
stealing security deposits from tenants for bogus damage claims and
excessive repair costs. Argyros
is a major Republican party fund-raiser and was recently nominated
by President Bush as ambassador
to Spain.
Don't most landlords at some time have a security deposit dispute with
prior tenants? Probably. So
why did the district attorney's office investigate what is normally
a civil dispute? The differences are
the number of complaints, the consistency of the complaints, the amount
of money in dispute in each
complaint and the total amount of money involved in this case. If you
add up all the disputes, this
case involves potentially millions of dollars allegedly taken from
thousands of people over a 15-to
20-year period.
Over the years, the council received a disproportionate number of security
deposit complaints from
former Arnel Management tenants, and the amounts in dispute were consistently
larger than other
security deposit disputes. This by itself is not proof of wrongdoing,
but it does raise concerns.
The Fair Housing Council addressed these concerns by providing complaining
tenants with information
about their rights under landlord-tenant laws and advised them of their
option of resolving disputes
through Small Claims Court and mediation. We also assisted former Arnel
Management tenants with
making complaints to the district attorney's office.
The office investigated, according to a July 29 column in The Times
by Dana Parsons, who interviewed
Steve Douglass, the district attorney's lead investigator in the case.
Douglass said he believed the
evidence warranted filing charges against both Argyros and Arnel Management
but that Dist. Atty.
Tony Rackauckas refused to include Argyros' name in the complaint.
The district attorney later
withdrew the complaint against Arnel Management altogether, saying
it had been filed prematurely.
This unusual procedure and the actions of Rackauckas should be addressed
by the state attorney
general's office. According to the column, Rackauckas said the case
had been filed in error when
negotiations were not complete, and he ordered Argyros' name removed
because he did not believe
the evidence warranted naming him. He also said he believed that including
Argyros' name would
weaken the case.
Argyros contributed to Rackauckas' 1998 political campaign. The issue
now is, will Argyros and Arnel
Management be held to the same standards as other citizens without
political influence?
At this point, a class-action lawsuit for $96 million has been filed
by former tenants based upon the
same allegations originally made by the district attorney's office.
Because there was a perception of a conflict of interest in the district
attorney's office, Rackauckas
referred the case to the state attorney general's office in April.
Rackauckas should now cooperate
fully and encourage the state to continue the investigation and resolve
the case. The attorney general
should also investigate whether the actions of Rackauckas were within
the parameters of his job.
Argyros should not be treated differently than any other person.
The guilt or innocence of Arnel Management should be left to the justice
system. It is wrong to
convict anyone based on media reports. We must keep an open mind, because
the accusations have
not been proved. On the other hand, the residents of Orange County
have a right to have charges
heard by a court if evidence exists as outlined in the complaint filed,
then withdrawn, by the district
attorney's office.
In any event, Arnel Management should do the right thing now and agree
to revamp their policy
regarding security deposits, permit random monitoring of their files
by an independent agency and
ultimately provide restitution to former tenants.
By parrotpaul (66.81.23.77 - 66.81.23.77) on Monday, August 27,
2001 - 05:35 am:
El Toro poll picks park over airport
http://www.ocregister.com/news/toro00827cci2.shtml
Survey: But cost is an issue, and residents don't want to be taxed for
their greenery.
August 27, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
A solid majority of Orange County voters prefer a park over an airport
at El Toro - but they don't
believe promises that tax dollars won't be required to build it, and
they don't want to pick up the tab,
a new poll says.
"In a general sense, the public is saying no to an airport, and maybe
to a park - depending on ...
who's going to pay for it,'' said Christian Collet, a University of
California, Irvine, professor and
director of The Pacific Poll.
Sixty-one percent back an anti-airport initiative proposed for the March
ballot that calls for a large El
Toro park, the poll found.
But 52 percent said taxes would have to be raised to pay for the park,
and 62 percent said they don't
want to pay more taxes for it.
Initiative backers say they can build a central park without taxes by
making money off the former
Marine base with leases to create a park endowment.
"Within a decade of reuse of the property, it will generate a nest egg
of about $300 million,'' said
Irvine Councilman Chris Mears. "This is actually a cash cow.''
David Ellis, a spokesman for the Airport Working Group - which favors
an El Toro airport - said the poll
shows that his group's campaign to portray the El Toro park as a money
pit for taxes resonates.
"That being said, we've still got a long way to go to educate people
about the airport and the park,''
Ellis said.
By parrotpaul (66.81.23.77 - 66.81.23.77) on Monday, August 27,
2001 - 05:40 am:
Poll: Survey also suggests support for an airport has leveled off.
August 27, 2001
By PETER LARSEN
The Orange County Register
A new poll on the future of the former El Toro Marine base finds that
county voters are confused and
untrusting of the PR spin - whether for or against an airport - that
they have been subjected to.
Among the findings of The Pacific Poll, released today:
Support for an airport has plateaued while undecided voters are moving toward airport opposition.
In the poll of 1,444 registered voters, 35 percent said they back an
El Toro airport - same as in a UCI
Annual Survey from May 2000.
At the same time, airport opposition increased from 54 percent to 60
percent, as undecided voters
moved off the fence.
"I think it once again validates the premise that a significant majority
of folks in this county do not
want to decimate their quality of life by building an airport,'' said
Supervisor Tom Wilson, an airport
foe.
But airport backer David Ellis, a spokesman for the Airport Working
Group, said airport support has
stalled because of an imbalance in the PR wars over El Toro - foes
have spent millions on anti- airport
PR while the Airport Working Group and the county have only recently
budgeted and begun to spend
millions of dollars on pro-airport PR.
"The county has still to get their outreach program under way,'' Ellis
said. "They've had a couple of
community meetings, but there's not been any aggressive direct mail
out of the county yet.''
A majority of residents do not trust what either side says in the El Toro debate.
Thirty-six percent say neither side is truthful about El Toro. Twenty-eight
percent believe airport
opponents are more truthful, while 19 percent say the pro-airport side
is more truthful, and 17
percent don't know who is more truthful.
"If you combine the people who say they trust neither side with the
people who say they don't know
who to trust, you've got a majority of the people,'' said Christian
Collet, the UCI professor who heads
The Pacific Poll. "That's a pretty telling number.
"With only 19 percent believing the pro-airport side, that's undermining
the credibility of information
out there,'' he said.
Support for the park initiative is not as strong as it seems at first
glance. Sixty- one percent of voters
polled said they would back a park initiative if it were on the ballot
today. But once those numbers
were adjusted to reflect those most likely to vote in a March election,
the lines of support diverged:
55 percent of those likely to vote would support the park initiative
- but of those who voted
absentee, 51 percent would vote against the park.
"I think the notion that's been floating around - that the park is overwhelmingly
favored among the
public - is only true on a superficial level,'' Collet said.
"Once you look a little deeper into the issue, you see that passing
the measure in March would be an
outright war,'' he said of the tighter race indicated by the likely-voter
calculation.
The poll was conducted Aug. 7-13 in both English and Spanish. It has
a margin of error of 2.6
percentage points.
By parrotpaul (66.81.23.77 - 66.81.23.77) on Monday, August 27,
2001 - 05:54 am:
O.C. Residents Favor Park, Not Planes, Poll Says
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000069421aug27.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange
Land use: Most still oppose an airport at the former Marine base, but
tax concerns may curb
recreation plans.
By JEAN O. PASCO, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Less than a month before Orange County supervisors take a final vote
on the fate of the former El
Toro Marine base, a new poll shows that most county residents continue
to prefer building a park
there instead of an airport.
Only 35% of registered voters in the independent Pacific Opinions poll
said they support the
airport--the use preferred for El Toro by three of the five supervisors.
The group, based in Irvine,
queried 1,444 county voters this month.
The results are similar to responses to a Chapman University survey
in May that found that 65% of
Orange County residents favored the park. Both polls indicate that
residents have firm opinions about
the county's plans for an airport. But opposition to the airport doesn't
mean an easy road for the
park, said Christian Collet, director of the Pacific poll and a visiting
UC Irvine professor in political
science. Most voters see the park as an antidote for the airport, rather
than supporting it outright, he
said.
Moreover, an analysis of the poll results showed that primary election
voters and those who vote by
absentee ballots--voters more inclined to participate in a future election--were
more likely to vote
against a measure replacing the county's airport plan with a park.
"Opinion is pretty stuck against the airport, but we're only beginning
to unpeel the layers of thought
on the park," Collet said. "What we're seeing is more anti-airport
than it is pro-park."
The reluctance to fully embrace the park may be rooted in the county's
traditional loathing of new
taxes. Most voters--52%--said they believe that taxes would have to
be raised to build the park. Six
in 10 voters said they wouldn't pay that extra tax.
Another 41% of voters said they wouldn't visit a park at El Toro, even
though a vast majority said
the county should provide more open space. The poll was paid for by
Pacific Opinions, which surveys
public attitudes in Orange and San Diego counties.
County voters approved an airport at the Marine base in 1994, five years
before the base closed. In
1996, supervisors approved further study of an airport to serve 28.8
million people a year by 2020. A
final vote by supervisors on that airport plan is scheduled Sept. 14.
The city of Irvine and a coalition of anti-airport groups are touting
a "Great Park" plan for El Toro
through a proposed ballot measure they hope to place on the March ballot.
The plan proposes to eventually build a park twice as large as Balboa
Park in San Diego and as
extensive as Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.
This month, a Superior Court judge ruled that voters may have been misled
into signing petitions for
the measure, a measure called the Orange County Central Park and Nature
Preserve Initiative.
But an appellate court Friday refused to stop county officials from
accepting the petitions and agreed
to review the lower court ruling.
Meanwhile, petitions for a third option for El Toro began circulating
last week. That plan calls for a
different configuration of landings and takeoffs at a future airport.
By parrotpaul (66.81.23.77 - 66.81.23.77) on Monday, August 27,
2001 - 06:00 am:
El Toro foes blast county's environmental report
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0022336aug27.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
Among other groups responding to the proposed airport's impacts is the
Irvine Co., which voices
concern about water runoff.
By Paul Clinton,
NEWPORT BEACH -- South County leaders weren't shy about lowering their
sights on Orange
County's responses to questions about the proposed airport at the closed
El Toro Marine Corps Air
Station.
Not long after the county's Local Redevelopment Authority released 17
volumes of responses,
totaling some 11,500 pages, the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority weighed
in on the subject.
A handful of other groups had also submitted comments and concerns,
including Newport Beach,
supporters of a runway alternative created by a retired Newport Beach
engineer, the Irvine Co. and
dozens or other groups and individuals. Not surprisingly, Newport Beach
threw its support behind the
report, saying it is "thorough and accurate" and applauding the county
for demonstrating "great
sensitivity to the surrounding communities."
About half of the city's residents are affected by noise from flights
operating at John Wayne Airport.
Bob Caustin, the founder of Defend the Bay, couldn't help noticing what
he said was a glaring irony in
some of the comments submitted by the Irvine Co.
In the comments, the company voiced concerns about the possibility of
runoff from the base
affecting water quality in Back Bay. Pollution from that area of the
county has been known to flow
down San Diego Creek into the Upper Newport Bay watershed, which dumps
into the bay.
Caustin sued the company in June to halt a high-density industrial project
planned for an area to the
west of the base.
"Everything they've talked about on their properties, they're saying
about [the county's plan],"
Caustin said. "They're basically arguing against the great park. ...
They're advocating making that
thing a developed property."
The company has not taken an official position on the airport. Heiress
Joan Irvine Smith, however,
endorses the South County proposal to install a central park at the
base.
"I would love to see it as a park quite frankly," Irvine Smith said.
"It could be something quite
magnificent."
On Friday, Paul Eckles, the executive director of the planning authority,
rapped the county's responses
as inadequate.
"They're just plain not being honest," Eckles said. "They're not dealing
from a full deck."
Eckles accused the county of dodging many of South County's concerns
-- submitted in the form of
more than 1,000 comments in response to the county's Environmental
Impact Report 573.
He also said the report underestimates the traffic and air-traffic impacts
of the proposed airport on
the communities surrounding the base -- situated at the northern borders
of Irvine and Lake Forest.
County airport planners were quick to refute the claims as political
maneuvering.
"Airport opponents clearly have a strategy to delay, delay and sue,
sue," said Gary Simon, the Local
Redevelopment Agency's executive director. "[The planning authority]
is going to criticize and try to
destroy [the report] any way they can."
The authority successfully challenged the county's earlier environmental
analysis, forcing a
court-ordered revamp of the traffic and air-quality impacts.
By EDITOR (24.4.255.248 - 24.4.255.248) on Monday, August 27,
2001 - 08:14 am:
OC Register,
The Buzz
Coad rival may get some extra backing.
August 27, 2001
Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Cynthia Coad already has the anti-airport
crowd backing her
challenger - Fullerton City Councilman Chris Norby - in the March election.
Now will the non- union
construction crowd get behind Norby, too?
Some background, first: In January 2000, the pro-airport board majority,
which includes Coad,
approved a pact with construction unions that provided them with the
bulk of work on large county
contracts. Non-union contractors were outraged, and accused the board
of putting airport politics -
because the contractors saw the deal as a way to get unions behind
the airport - ahead of traditional
Republican values.
Last week, Republican activist Art Pedroza Jr. of Santa Ana wrote an
e-mail - circulated by the head
of a state group fighting such union deals - calling on those angered
by the deal to back Norby with
campaign cash.
"Selling out to the unions was too high a price to pay for an airport
that most people in our county
don't want anyway!" Pedroza wrote. "Now it is time to pay (Coad) back!"
The county Board of Supervisors wound up 10 months of work on redistricting
last week in wacky
fashion. Supervisor Jim Silva seconded Chairwoman Cynthia Coad's 11th-hour
request to add an
Anaheim industrial area to her 4th District, then voted against it.
Tom Wilson delivered an impassioned
monologue against Coad's proposal, then voted for it. The plan died
on a 2-2 vote. The redistricting
debate also was memorable for the elaborate math formula offered up
by Wilson to detail how good
a job supervisors are doing: "99 percent of the 3 million people of
Orange County have been served
well by the five of us on the majority of issues," he said.
Consider it one of the first stealth flights at El Toro since the Marines
left town: Last Monday, a Florida
congressman who chairs the House aviation subcommittee took an aerial
tour of the closed base.
Despite initially wanting no coverage of his visit, U.S. Rep. John
Mica, R-Fla, apparently agreed during
his visit to make his comments public. A news release then announced
the visit and the Florida
Republican's verdict: "I am convinced there is no better choice for
an airport than this site," he said.
Of course, if Mica wants to wade into battles over building airports
at closed military bases, he's got
one a lot closer to home. In Homestead, Fla., they've been fighting
over a proposal to build a new
Miami-area airport at a closed Air Force base for years. Thus far,
the foes are winning.
Compiled by Register staff writers Chris Reed and Peter Larsen.
By parrotpaul (66.81.30.70 - 66.81.30.70) on Tuesday, August 28,
2001 - 05:58 am:
El Toro polls are leaving him down for the count
http://www.ocregister.com/local/dill00828cci.shtml
August 28, 2001
By GORDON DILLOW
Orange
County Register
The latest poll numbers on the El Toro airport vs. El Toro park controversy
are in. And once again the
results have left me scratching my head and muttering, "Huh?"
The poll in question was conducted by the Pacific Poll, an independent
polling project headed by UC
Irvine political-science professor Christian Collet. The pollsters
interviewed 1,444 Orange County
registered voters, in English or Spanish, and this is what they found:
Thirty-five percent are in favor of an airport at the old El Toro Marine
base, while 60 percent are
opposed; the remaining 5 percent don't know what the heck to think.
As for building a park at El
Toro, 61 percent are for it, while 35 percent are against it; 4 percent
responded with some version of
"I dunno."
But wait. Of the 61 percent that would vote for a park, only 34 percent
really want a park. Almost
half (48 percent) of the 61 percent who said they'd vote for a park
would do so because it's a way to
stop the airport. But if building the park means higher taxes, then
62 percent of the people polled say,
"Whoa! Forget the park!"
Like I said, it's pretty confusing. What makes it even more confusing
is the poll seems to be at odds
with earlier polls by other outfits.
For example, a poll last month showed support for an airport at 47 percent,
not the miserable 35
percent shown in the latest poll. Meanwhile, another poll showed that
55 percent believe an airport
will be built, even though a whopping 68 percent said they'd rather
have a park.
In short, the polls are all over the map. All of which makes me wonder
yet again whether I should
believe what I see in any poll, on any subject, by anyone.
And even the director of the latest El Toro poll, the aforementioned
Professor Collet, acknowledges
that I'm not alone. More and more people, it seems, are giving polls
and pollsters the fisheye.
"The public is getting cynical" about polls, the professor told me -
largely because "a lot of people in
the business tend to manipulate and exaggerate findings."
So how do you decide which poll is credible and which is not? According
to the professor, you look at
the number of people polled, who did the polling, and the questions
that were asked, and then make
up your own mind whether it's bogus.
True, sometimes people question a poll simply because they disagree
with the results - as the
professor found out last week when he released a poll showing that
54 percent of Orange County
registered voters favor amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Frankly, I had a hard time believing that one, too. But the professor
insists that his methods were
sound, and he just calls 'em as he sees 'em.
I guess that's all we can ask of a pollster. Meanwhile, if anybody asks
me where people in Orange
County stand on the airport vs. park issue, I'll tell them I'm 94 percent
certain that 87 percent of the
people are 99 percent confused and fed up with the whole miserable
mess.
Just look at the polls.
By JWA24/7 (12.13.238.141 - 12.13.238.141) on Tuesday, August
28, 2001 - 11:58 am:
Hahn Seeks to Shift Flights to Ontario Airport
Following through on a closely watched campaign pledge, Los Angeles
Mayor James K. Hahn on
Monday called on the city's new Airport Commission to lower landing
and parking fees and to create a
shuttle service to redirect passengers and flights from overcrowded
Los Angeles International Airport
to the growing airport in Ontario.
The suggestions are a good start, aviation experts said, but they added
that more must be done to
attract additional flights to underutilized Ontario International Airport,
35 miles from downtown Los
Angeles.
"In this day and age when everyone is reducing the size of their fleet,
the thing that really works is a
straight-out economic guarantee," said Jack Keady, a Playa del Rey-based
aviation consultant. "Either
we will pay you money to fly out of this city, or we will guarantee
you a certain amount of revenue or
profit." Hahn outlined his proposal in a letter sent to airport commissioners
before their first meeting
today. The Ontario facility, which served 6.7 million passengers last
year, is considered the region's
best hope to help relieve overcrowding at Los Angeles International
Airport.
"Ontario International Airport is uniquely positioned to provide badly
needed airport capacity in
Southern California," Hahn wrote. "I'm urging you to take action on
the following initiatives to attract
and retain as much new air service as possible to Ontario International
Airport, while relieving
congestion and pressure at LAX."
The move is a signal from Hahn that he intends to abide by a pledge
he signed during the mayoral
campaign not to support a major expansion plan for Los Angeles International.
The mayor has
repeatedly said he favors a regional approach to accommodate a projected
doubling of air passengers
by 2020.
In the letter, Hahn said he would be in touch with the commission with
suggestions about what it
could do to attract flights to Palmdale Regional Airport, a third facility
run by the city's airport agency.
Palmdale currently has no commercial air service.
Among the initiatives Hahn suggests in the letter is lowering landing
fees at the Ontario airport. In a
controversial move, the outgoing Airport Commission voted at its last
meeting in July to increase
landing fees there by 59% from $1.25 to $1.99 per 1,000 pounds of "landed
weight."
The commission should also take action to lower public parking rates
at Ontario, Hahn wrote. In fact,
long-term parking rates at the airport are scheduled to increase on
Sept. 15 from $10 to $16 per day
at Lots 2 and 4. Rates at Lot 3 are to increase from $7 to $12 per
day.
Airport operators said lowering landing fees and parking rates would
require a balancing act to ensure
such changes don't have an adverse effect on airlines that use the
facility.
"We have to balance the business aspect with the need for supporting
a regional solution," said Lydia
H. Kennard, executive director of Los Angeles World Airports, the city
agency that operates Ontario,
LAX and Palmdale. "We are positive we can accomplish both."
The commission should also create a FlyAway bus service from the San
Fernando and San Gabriel
valleys to the Ontario airport, and work to address parking shortages
at the Van Nuys FlyAway, Hahn
wrote.
That suggestion doesn't go far enough, Keady said, adding that commissioners
should consider a
shuttle service from Orange County and one from LAX.
Commissioners should call on airlines to ensure that tickets to fly
out of Ontario and LAX cost the
same, Hahn suggested. Because Ontario has fewer flights than LAX, it
often doesn't have the range of
pricing choices that LAX has, experts said. Residents will also be
able to find more discounted seats at
LAX because of greater competition there, Keady said.
Southwest Airlines, which has 63 flights a day out of Ontario, said
its prices are the same at both
facilities, adding that consumers often have the perception it's cheaper
to fly out of LAX because there
are more airlines there.
By EDITOR (24.4.255.248 - 24.4.255.248) on Wednesday, August 29,
2001 - 08:34 pm:
OC Register Commentary
John Graham
Camp Pendleton's ideal location for a three-county major international airport
The reality that the El Toro Airport locomotive is still roaring down
the tracks toward south county is
clearly communicated in the technicolor of the "Just the Facts" materials
handed out at the recent
county planners' presentation of the details of the imminent airport
at El Toro.
The anti-airport demonstrators had organized just before going in "to
listen." But, their "boos" and
Boston Tea Party references better embodied their actual intent. Also
among the 1,600 South County
residents in attendance were a few dozen Angelenos representing the
anti-LAX expansion folks. There
was an odd empathy expressed by the former for the latter's plight
despite their opposing stands on
El Toro. It's complicated. People are mad, very mad.
The shame of all this is that a panacea for all the El Toro angst exists
just 20 miles south at Camp
Pendleton. Let me explain.
The southern part of Camp Pendleton has been a recommended spot for
an airport in all the air
transportation studies done during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. It's
smack in the center of the 7
million folks in San Diego, Orange and Riverside counties. It's served
by Interstate 5, Highways 76 and
78 and, most important, Amtrak. It's far enough away from LAX to justify
a major international
airport that's large enough to serve passengers efficiently and to
attract the airlines. There's room for
big east-west runways affording safe, over-water takeoffs for 747s
and A380s.
Let's consider who'll be happy with this cure-all. First, international
business travelers at firms like
Fluor-Daniel and Qualcomm will love the convenience. So will international
vacationers and recent
immigrants visiting far-away loved ones, all able to avoid the mess
of LAX. Disney tourists will take
the Amtrak up to Anaheim. North county folks can also make the easy
commute to service jobs at
Pendleton International, particularly if rail passes are included in
labor contracts. Indeed, the entire
West Coast air travel system will benefit by the added capacity possible
at a Dulles-sized Pendleton
International.
A major airport at Pendleton obviates the pipsqueak one planned for
El Toro - so the south county
folks will be pleased. A major airport at Pendleton will also reduce
the pressure for longer hours of
operation at John Wayne and proposed expansions at LAX and at Lindbergh
Field in San Diego.
Supervisors Coad and Silva will be off the hot seat if plans proceed
with Pendleton International.
They've been talking to their San Diego counterparts for years about
the possibility. Indeed, Mr. Silva
broached the subject with the commandant of the Marine Corp in Washington
some years back, but
was then rebuked.
All of this, of course, depends on the president and our congressional
representatives. The president
has already said he is in favor of new military base reductions. U.S.
Rep. Christopher Cox has stated
that a commercial airport at Camp Pendleton should be considered. Rep.
Darrell Issa has voiced
opposition to the plan, but we should all realize that the former tank
commander's California home is
in Vista, a small north San Diego County town under the landing pattern
of the proposed Pendleton
International.
However, even Issa will respond to the will of the people. Please write
him, President Bush and other
Southern California congressional representatives as well. Rather than
toss tea into Newport Bay, I
suggest dropping a note about Pendleton International to Supervisors
Coad and Silva.
By parrotpaul (66.81.60.225 - 66.81.60.225) on Friday, August
31, 2001 - 05:51 am:
Airport backers bus up support
http://www.latimes.com/tcn/pilot/news/la-dp0022453aug31.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dpilot%2Dnews
Pro-El Toro group is putting together a group demonstration for Tuesday's
supervisor meeting on the
planned airport.
By Paul Clinton,
NEWPORT BEACH -- Come Tuesday, airport supporters say they will be
ready to load up their own
magic bus.
On that day, members of the Airport Working Group plan to send four
buses to the Orange County
Board of Supervisors meeting. The board is holding a public hearing
on its environmental analysis of
the airport for the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.
"It's a show of support," said Dave Ellis, the group's spokesman. "It's
a culmination of eight years of
hard work." The base was tagged for closure in 1993, even though the
Marines didn't leave until
1998. In that time, the working group has been at the forefront of
efforts to put a commercial airport
at the base.
The buses, set to leave in pairs at 8 and 8:30 a.m., are the culmination
of a recent public-relations
blitz by the group.
In the past week, the group has sent out gift bags of goodies -- pens,
bumper stickers and T-shirts.
They all carry messages on a similar theme. "El Toro Airport . . .
For the Future of Orange County" is
one slogan.
Before heading to the board meeting, airport supporters will eat breakfast
at the Newport Dunes
Resort. The buses will then "whisk you away to a day of live democracy,"
according to an invitation.
They are also promised "a wonderful lunch" and a bus ride back home.
The group's program is being funded by a $3.6-million grant given to
the group by Newport Beach in
March.
Ellis said a broad group of North County leaders will attend the breakfast
and ride the buses.
At the Tuesday meeting, expected to run for most of the day, the board
will take public testimony
about the environmental review. A final vote on a possible airport
at the base is set for Sept. 17.
The public comment period for the report has already ended, so comments
heard Tuesday are not
likely to affect the outcome. State law requires the county to hold
a hearing before certifying the
report.
South County leaders also said they would attend the Tuesday hearing
but with less enthusiasm.
"It's extremely sad and unfortunate that the county has made a shambles
of the environmental
review," South County spokeswoman Meg Waters said. "What happens [on
Tuesday] isn't the end of
the game. It's just a sideshow."
By EDITOR (24.4.255.248 - 24.4.255.248) on Friday, August 31,
2001 - 07:34 am:
Hahn proposes moving LAX flights to Ontario
By Ian Gregor STAFF WRITER
------------------------- ----
Mayor James Hahn on Monday proposed shifting flights from LAX to the
city-owned airport in Ontario
through immediate measures ranging from cheaper air fares to cuts in
fees that airlines and travelers
pay to use the Inland Empire facility.
The plan is aimed at easing the air traffic burden on Los Angeles International
Airport, which served 68
million passengers last year although it was designed for only 40 million.
Hahn announced the following initiatives to increase flights at Ontario
International Airport, which is
about 35 miles east of downtown Los Angeles:
Slashing fees airlines pay to land there. Hahn has criticized the former
airport commission's July
decision to raise airline landing fees there by a whopping 59 percent.
Cutting parking rates within 60 days.
Encouraging airlines to offer flights at the same price there and at LAX.
Spending an additional $1 million in the next year to market Ontario throughout the country.
Moving forward immediately with a new master plan for Ontario that should
examine building a third
passenger terminal and exploring the possibility of a third runway.
Creating new bus shuttle service from the San Fernando and San Gabriel
valleys to make it easier for
people to get to Ontario.
Hahn described the proposals as the first steps to increasing business
at Ontario and said he wants
the commission to start working on them during its meeting this morning.
“Ontario International Airport is uniquely positioned to provide badly
needed airport capacity in
Southern California,” Hahn wrote in a letter to the Board of Airport
Commissioners.
“I am urging you to take action . . . to attract and retain as much
new air service as possible to (the
airport), while relieving congestion and pressure at LAX.”
While most of these proposals are within the city's control, ticket
pricing is entirely up to the airlines,
which generally offer cheaper fares out of LAX.
Hilda Delgado, a Hahn spokeswoman, said the incentives and marketing
program should help grow
airlines' business at Ontario, which in turn will encourage them to
offer more competitively priced
tickets.
Airlines are wild card
“The mayor wants to reduce congestion at LAX and increase the use of
Ontario but we cannot force
the airlines to do so,” Delgado said.
Hahn also pledged quickly to forward to the seven-member commission
additional ideas to generate
flights into Palmdale Regional Airport. LAX, Ontario, Palmdale and
Van Nuys airports all are operated
by a city agency called Los Angeles World Airports.
Hahn was on vacation Monday and could not be reached for comment.
Several airport commissioners and representatives of the Air Transport
Association also could not be
reached late Monday to comment on Hahn's proposals.
The mayor's plan for Ontario, which the Daily Breeze first reported
last week, seems to confirm his
commitment to developing a regional system of airports to absorb future
air traffic increases. Hahn
has said he opposes a plan championed by his predecessor, Richard Riordan,
to spend $11.4 billion
expanding LAX so it could serve up to 89 million passengers a year
by 2015.
Ontario, by contrast, has excess capacity. It can handle an estimated
12 million passengers a year
but served fewer than 7 million in 2000, according to airport statistics.
LAWA officials have argued that they are aggressively marketing Ontario,
citing, among other things,
their five-year, $50 million partnership with the Los Angeles Convention
and Visitors Bureau to
internationally advertise Ontario, LAX and Palmdale.
Others disagree.
Marketing an option
Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, whose district includes
areas around LAX, praised
Hahn for moving so quickly to improve use of Ontario International
Airport, but suggested he also ask
for an aggressive program to market the facility in the southland.
“The airlines always try to weasel out of serving Ontario by saying
there's not enough demand,”
Galanter said. “We all know demand is very much determined by marketing.”
El Segundo Mayor Mike Gordon, another leading LAX expansion opponent,
said Hahn's proposals
show he understands the role Ontario can play in a regional air traffic
solution. But surrounding
communities are waiting for the mayor to formally declare that the
LAX expansion is dead.
“Then the airlines will recognize that if they're to meet the demand
in Southern California they'll have
to use other airports in the region,” Gordon said.