Lesson from Denver airport noise model
The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority has stated that an international airport at Miramar operating 24 hours a day would have minimal noise impact on the surrounding communities as indicated by their calculated noise contours.
When selling a new airport to the voters of Denver in 1988, Mayor Pena stated, “No existing residential areas of Denver, Adams County, and Aurora will be adversely affected by noise.” Within ten months of opening in 1995, Denver International Airport had 66,742 noise complaints, some in areas 30 miles away. This happened despite the airport being built 26 miles from Denver on 53 square miles of rural prairie.
Mr. Pena, then Secretary of Transportation, was forced to acknowledge that the noise contours were invalid. He ordered night flight restrictions and altered flight paths to reduce noise impacts.
The Miramar noise contours similarly underestimate the effect of aircraft noise on surrounding communities. Unfortunately, San Diego most likely will not have an ex-mayor as Secretary of Transportation to come to our rescue. To make sure this does not happen here, vote No On Prop A.
Richard J. Prutow, Ph.D., M.D., University City

Bilbray: ‘Stay the course’
The political cartoon in the Oct. 26 paper gave me a good chuckle (page 6). The mangled pumpkin carved by “Rumsfeld” really sums up the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war. Those of us in the 50th Congressional District should keep this image in mind when we vote on Nov. 7. The Republican candidate Brian Bilbray thinks we should “stay the course” in Iraq. Voters in the 50th sent Bilbray to Washington in June, and the first thing he did was vote himself a raise. Since them he’s also voted to lift the ban on offshore drilled along the California coast and to oppose stem cell research.
Elizabeth Hansen, La Jolla

Congressman Hunter missing in action
Duncan Hunter is the most powerful congressman on the House defense appropriations committee, and professes to be a great lover of the military and the Navy. He’s overseen the appropriation of more than $3 trillion in spending on our military since 2001.
The Navy now needs $160 million to build a new regional headquarters building here in San Diego, but the game has been rigged so that to get one new building, the City of San Diego would be forced to sacrifice the rest of its unique 14-acre site on downtown’s waterfront to commercial development ” and Congressman Hunter appears to be missing in action.
This is a very successful politician who has gotten multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers funded with no problems.
So why won’t Hunter help his good friends in the Navy fund one HQ building in his own hometown?
For less than the price of a few new joint-strike fighter airplanes, the Navy could get its new local regional HQ building here and downtown San Diego could get a new 14-acre park on its waterfront. But so far, Hunter has been ducking this issue, even though as chair of the House military appropriations committee he’s overseeing a pending multi-trillion-dollar defense spending bill. The cost of a new local Naval HQ building would get lost in the rounding of the pending appropriations bill.
Don Wood
Former Member, Bayfront Complex Coordinating Group Public Advisory Board, La Mesa

No on Prop A with amplification
As a retired Naval aviator and former employee at the Naval Electronics Laboratory on Point Loma, I would like to endorse and amplify the points made in the Guest Editorial by Bruce R. Boland (Village News, Oct. 26, page 8).
First of all, the flight pattern around Navy and Marine airports is different from that of commercial airports. i.e., Navy pilots make steep landing approaches (and takeoffs) appropriate for carrier operations, whereas commercial pilots make long, straight-in approaches. This increases the noise pollution over a much larger area so all Mira Mesa residents would be subjected to the same noise problems that have been plaguing Point Loma for many years.
Furthermore, the noise pollution from commercial planes operating out of Miramar would be much greater than it is now for two reasons: 1) there would be more than 10 times the number of takeoffs and landings than presently, and 2) most commercial planes have four engines, whereas the fighter planes now using Miramar are single engine. Thus the noise level would be much greater than it is now and a much larger area would be subject to noticeably increased noise pollution.
The area most affected would be west of the airport over and around Sorrento Valley since the main runway is east-west (because the prevailing wind is from the west). The noise pollution would be much greater west of the airport than east of it because pilots have to take off at full-throttle levels, whereas those approaching for landing are slowly descending at lower throttle settings. Increased noise levels would therefore affect not only Sorrento Valley but also Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve, Carmel Valley, Del Mar, Torrey Pines and even La Jolla.
I urge all residents of Mira Mesa and surrounding areas to vote NO in Proposition A.
Dr. John Northrop. Ph.D.
Retired naval aviator and ancient mariner, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Butts, bikinis: banned list endless
I applaud Dr. Arnold Flick’s viewpoint on not banning smoking on the beach (‘Council bans butts at beaches, public parks,” UC/Golden Triangle News, July 13, page 3). I am not a smoker but resent taking people’s rights away on a public beach. There are many more offenses taking place on the beach.
What if next week the “COUNCIL” decides to ban people from wearing bikinis or thong bathing suits to the beach? What about people playing noisy boom boxes? Doesn’t that fall under noise abatement? What about people setting up elaborate barbeque and picnic areas and littering their debris? The list can be endless.
Why can’t people be fined for littering of all kinds at the beach? And, I agree with Dr. Flick (even though I am not a physician) the smoke is not dangerous in such a large, outdoor area.
Lenore Kaplan, La Jolla