Which Vote Counts Regarding El Toro?

* It appears that I need some help in understanding “the rule of law.” In 1994, Measure A, which squeaked into the books by a razor-thin margin, gave Orange County government a statutory mandate to construct a major international airport at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station without the requirement to consider alternative uses.

Voters were asked to make an important decision about a proposal that would affect a number of surrounding communities and forever change the texture of life in this county without the benefit of any substantive information.

Despite clearly violating Department of Defense military base reuse guidelines, this initiative remained encoded as law until last March, when Measure F was approved by a supermajority of the county’s voters, who were somewhat more informed by general plans for both aviation and nonaviation alternatives.

The initiative--which would have required the Board of Supervisors to present its plans for large-scale land-use projects such as airports, large jails and landfills for ratification by at least a two-thirds majority of the county electorate, recently was struck down by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge S. James Otero on the grounds that it would unduly interfere with the county supervisors’ ability to plan for such projects.

Curious. Measure A forces the county to plan only for an international airport at El Toro whereas Measure F simply requires the county to develop its plan for significant land-use proposals and then present this plan to voters for approval, and the latter initiative is determined to be the more restrictive statute? Apparently the rule of law does not intersect with the rule of logic.

CLAYTON SPADA

Fullerton

*

In regard to your editorial of Dec. 4, “Finding Responsive Leaders,” I find your stance to be extremely biased toward an anti-airport position.

South County tried to correct what it perceives as “deeply flawed leadership of the county” with what the court sees as deeply flawed Measure F. This “flawed” leadership has been governing with respect to the airport question according to guidelines set forth in an unflawed Measure A passed by the Orange County electorate in 1994. Measure S, put out by South County in an attempt to repeal Measure A, was defeated.

South County residents are understandably concerned about the effect of an airport in their backyards, but so are other county residents who live near existing airports. South County residents appear to want to be the controlling factor in the county’s procedure for the management of the El Toro base. All of Orange County has a vested interest in what happens to El Toro, not just South County.

All the South County residents moved to their locations willingly and in full knowledge of the potential noise problems. Should the rest of Orange County be penalized both financially and in inconvenience because people now living near El Toro have changed their minds? Great parks cost; they don’t pay. Orange County taxes definitely will increase if El Toro does not become a viable airport.

WILLIAM J. KEARNS

Costa Mesa

*

Pro-airporters are saying (in light of Otero’s ruling) that Measure F was not a single-issue measure “so there’s no way to know what the voters were thinking when they voted for Measure F.” To prove them wrong, we will be floating a single-issue measure in 2002, which will kill this disgusting airport plan once and for all.

MIKE BARON

Aliso Viejo

*

In response to concerned readers regarding the overturning of Measure F: Are you worried about the worth of your vote and the inability of the “people” to have their voice heard? Are you feeling that your vote was for naught because of some decision by a judge? Consider the following: What about the votes of the majority on the two previous occasions (Measures A and S) that the airport opposition attempted to nullify through the passage of Measure F?

The Constitution guarantees the right to vote for all persons, not just those who agree with just one side of an issue. Put the issue to a vote and move on! I don’t believe that the process was meant to repeat until the whining minority gets what it wants.

VINCENT S. LO BUE

Rancho Santa Margarita

*

Otero stated, “The judiciary should generally not involve itself in the initiative process. However, courts are sometimes compelled to do so when measures such as F are so fundamentally flawed and in violation of the Constitution and laws of this state.” I agree with the judge’s decision and subsequent reprimand.

It is unfortunate that there isn’t a court that also judges the truth of political fliers and material sent to all county citizens. Everyone would also learn of the massive deceptiveness and misinformation contained in the Measure F anti-El Toro airport fliers and pamphlets that peppered our mailboxes for weeks before we voted and continues on television ads we are still forced to endure. Each has been “fundamentally flawed,” and while they may not have violated the Constitution, they violate something equally important--integrity and truth.

ANNA KRONE

Anaheim

*

It’s ironic, isn’t it? The nation waited for the courts to decide whether “every vote counts.” While here in Orange County, the court tells us that none of our votes counts. Go figure.

TOM BUICK

Mission Viejo