YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Burbank Airport

April 11, 1993

Your editorial "An Airport Windstorm" (April 4) appeared three days late. Surely you intended it to be seen on April Fool's Day. This was one of the cruelest jokes in years.

In your list of detractors to the proposed new Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport terminal building, you mention a "number of Los Angeles City Council members . . . and members of the state Assembly and Congress." You fail to mention perhaps 200,000 citizens impacted by the jet aircraft noise. The "economic benefits" cannot be disputed, but at what price--to make the east and central San Fernando Valley unlivable?

You cite the great growth of LAX as apparent justification for the potential for wonderful things at the Burbank Airport but fail to mention the differences in locations--at LAX airplanes take off over the Pacific Ocean (after hundreds of homes were long since removed) while thousands of homes and apartments surround the Burbank Airport. "Far quieter aircraft"--perhaps some, but, in my opinion, the overall noise impact is as severe as it has ever been.

Your contention is nonsense that "the area around the airport that is exposed to excessive noise has shrunk by 95%." This is the so-called "fingerprint" myth concocted by the Airport Authority. Keep repeating a fable and it will eventually be believed. And, your only solution?--"soundproofing all severely affected schools." Wonderful. Why don't you suggest earplugs for every resident?

The refusal of the Airport Authority to require easterly turns over the city of Burbank has been the shallowest of political maneuvers, a sock-it-to-the-other-guy mentality. If they are not willing to share in the noise burden, they cannot reap all of the benefits.

And, oh yes, the 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew has long been broken. The morning noise deluge starts at 6:45 a.m. The simple truth is that a mammoth airport should not be dropped into a valley of 1.3 million people.


Studio City

Los Angeles Times Articles