Support the airport

EDITOR:

I read Shizuru's letter of Oct. 13 in amazement. It took me a while to figure out it was about the proposed airport ordinance. She starts off talking about philosophy and individual liberties and then launches into a discussion of weight studies and what she speculates the FAA will do regarding funding.

It is true unenforceability of our current weight ordinance is one of the reasons we need the new proposed ordinance. But to suggest "demanding a pavement study that supports our current" ordinance is ridiculous. The county cannot "demand" a study to come up with some arbitrary numbers. That is how we got in this mess.

NDOT did two studies that confirmed the weight numbers that will be used and the county did a third study to confirm the first two. How much evidence to we need to confirm the weight?

Plus, the FAA has accepted these studies as accurate. It is simply irrational to suggest the county make up numbers to justify the weight. Let alone believe some local "engineer" is more expert than those employed by NDOT, twice. And confirmed by a third engineer.

Besides, it is clear weight is not the best way to control the airport. The voters should have to approve any expansion. That is what the proposed ordinance does. Let's make it so the county cannot arbitrarily expand the airport any more than it could change the weight studies. As a resident I want the control.

"Loopholes?" I'll tell you a loophole. We do not have any legal control over our airport now. She is worried about weaknesses in the proposed ordinance so she would rather have no law to control the airport at all? This is nonsense.

I want some real control over the airport. Get an enforceable ordinance on the books now. We should have done it years ago. Vote yes on 1.

Kelly Rosser

Gardnerville