Four facts on airport

EDITOR:

I have been watching the debate over the proposed airport ordinance.

There seem to be four basic recurring facts stated by the proponents of the ordinance.

First, the existing ordinance is worse than no ordinance because it is unenforceable and the FAA has suspended funding until the "discriminatory" weight ordinance is fixed.

Second, as voters, our earlier effort to control the airport failed because the District Attorney cannot enforce the existing weight ordinance since it has no engineering foundation.

Third, there have been three independent weight studies done by engineering professionals confirming the weights that would become the basis for enforcement.

Fourth, airport maintenance to the tune of $5 million will become the responsibility of the county (we taxpayers are the county) if the proposed ordinance is not adopted.

The opponents continue to talk about: unsubstantiated weight studies, "jet invasions," the "death of soaring," conspiracies, and a bunch of other speculations and unsupported feelings. This all rings of working to confuse and scare the uniformed voter. I resent this kind of campaigning and political smoke.

I have yet to hear a fact to support why no ordinance is better than having some legal control over our airport. Until I hear facts as to why I shouldn't support the proposed ordinance I am voting "yes" on county Question No. 1.

Dave Monti

Gardnerville