Runways and Spending Ways at El Toro

* Since the Department of the Navy placed Marine Corps Air Station El Toro on its base closure list in 1993, the citizens of Orange County have been subjected to an unprecedented level of propaganda by forces opposed to the use of this valuable property as a commercial airport.

Early this year, the anti-airport forces, in the form of the Millennium Plan, a non-aviation alternative at El Toro, mounted a series of attacks on El Toro with slick political campaign brochures, TV spots and newspaper ads.

The central theme of the Millennium Plan is the issue of aviation safety for commercial aircraft operating from El Toro. For several weeks The Times has run a full-page advertisement funded by the taxpayers of south Orange County questioning the safety of El Toro Airport. This ad contains a quote from my telephone press conference on Feb. 22. It also contains an enhanced photo of Runway 34 at El Toro with Loma Ridge in the background.

This ad is standard procedure for promoters of the Millennium Plan, who do not hesitate to use scare tactics. It grossly distorts the truth about the safety of using El Toro as a commercial airport.

I had previously responded to their TV spot with one of my own because of false information concerning the use of Runway 34 following a tragic military accident in 1965. I was disgusted with their use of this 35-year-old tragedy that claimed the lives of over 80 military personnel, solely for a political purpose.

Subsequent to the initial airing of my TV spot countering the truthfulness of the Millennium Plan claim that since 1965 Marines refused to use Runway 34 as a result of that accident, I held a telephonic press conference.

Millennium Plan supporters selected three words from my interview with the local press to deceive the public.

They made it appear that I said something I did not concerning aviation safety of an El Toro airport. The statement I made concerned the use of Runway 7 at El Toro for commercial aircraft departures.

The ad currently running in Orange County papers was purposely constructed to omit informing the public of my entire statement on the use of this easterly runway.

What I really said was there are “legitimate safety concerns” with the use of Runway 7 as it is currently configured. Furthermore, I stated that I understood the county intended to address this concern by eliminating or reducing the uphill gradient and lengthening the runway by an additional 1,000 feet.

I have since learned that even as it is currently configured, the gradient of Runway 7 meets the requirements of most commercial aircraft, in particular Boeing 757 and Boeing 737 aircraft. At certain times, the prevailing wind component may render the use of Runway 7 unsafe. Under those conditions, Runway 34L or Runway 34R would be available for departures.

In the recent newspaper ad, a photo of Runway 34 with Loma Ridge in the background is used, not the easterly Runway 7 referred to in my press conference.

This is trick photography if I have ever seen it. By the time a commercial airliner is over the point on the runway where this picture was taken, Loma Ridge will only be visible to the flight crew by looking down at it.

WILLIAM A. BLOOMER

Brig. Gen., USMC (Ret.)

Former Irvine City Councilman

* El Toro planning manager Bryan Speegle is quoted as saying the $35 million spent so far on El Toro should be weighed against the value of the land, which he claims is about $3.5 billion.

Speegle says that 1% of the value of the property is not an unreasonable amount to spend “to bring a project from its beginning to where we’re ready to begin construction.”

We’re ready to begin construction? I don’t recall the Federal Aviation Administration giving final approval of the county’s plan. And why is Board of Supervisors Chairman Chuck Smith still talking about different runway configurations and flight paths? How much is Speegle getting paid to make such ridiculous comments?

Let’s not forget it was the county that told us back in December ’96 that El Toro planning would cost only $7 million (now $35 million and counting), construction only $1.5 billion (now $3 billion and counting) and would be capped at 25 million annual passengers (now 29 million).

It’s no wonder support for the airport and confidence in the county is all but gone.

SERGIO PRINCE

Laguna Hills

* The county justifies spending $35 million on planning a destructive and unneeded El Toro airport by saying it’s only 1% of the $3.5 billion land valuation.

No matter to these bureaucrats that the airport is unpopular with the voting public, or that it would devastate the air quality in the surrounding neighborhoods.

No matter that it would sentence thousands of kids and the elderly to aggravated health problems, or that it would end forever the quality of life which draws people to live and work in south Orange County.

No matter that there is absolutely no demonstrated need for a new airport, or that the airport traffic would foul the roads and freeways.

All this is of no concern to these career “public servants” who live their lives at the public trough. It’s all OK to spend the public money on something the public neither needs nor wants, because it’s only 1% of the land value.

I guess we can only thank God that the federal government didn’t give us something worth $3.4 trillion.

MICHAEL SMITH

Mission Viejo

* Whatever the future use of El Toro, we should remember the poor and homeless in Orange County who could use the existing housing on the base.

These homes, as well as those of the nearby Tustin base, could provide shelter for the impoverished homeless who wander our streets, plus the 200 Orange County applicants now awaiting Section 8 placement.

What an outrage that the county supervisors see fit to spend money to avoid emotional distress for the horses in the stables on the base (May 31) while they ignore the needs of our poorest citizens.

In all probability the El Toro homes will be demolished in the future, so why worry about the possibility that they might deteriorate if poor people move into them?

METCHE F. FRANKE

Laguna Woods

* Re “Efforts Increased to Prevent El Toro Ghost Town,” May 24:

Your article states that “numerous advocates asked supervisors to convert up to 853 abandoned base houses into affordable living for homeless families.”

What a wonderful idea, to help get families off the streets and get roofs over their heads.

However, the article ends with “pro-airport forces oppose allowing people to live on the base, arguing that they would become airport foes in future votes on El Toro’s fate.”

How heartless of these relatively well-off people to be ready to deny shelter to the homeless.

JACK HEILPERN

Laguna Woods