Against ordinance

EDITOR:

Kelly Rosser, Letter to the Editor Oct. 10, did not understand my position in favor of limited government as it pertains to opposition to question No. 1, the airport ordinance. I am concerned that question 1 is a vote in favor of airport expansion and bigger government due to increased financial dependence on FAA funding to build and maintain a $12.5 million expanded airport. I am concerned that our county government used flawed pavement studies to create the argument that our current airport ordinance is discriminatory, and, therefore, unenforceable. I am concerned that our county government has not been transparent in laying out our options to cure our unenforceability dilemma. I am concerned that the voters of Douglas County are being manipulated into believing that we have to pass Question 1 in order to get back FAA funding. Limited government occurs when educated voters reject ordinances that lead to more government strings. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The credibility of the pavement studies is at the heart of the manipulation that is being perpetrated upon the voters of Douglas County.

Rosser believes the pavement studies that were performed by NDOT are credible, whereas the review of these studies by a local engineer were not. She denigrates the engineer, Wayne Ferree, when she writes, "Let alone believe some local 'engineer' is more expert than those employed by NDOT, twice."

Wayne Ferree, (see R-C Letter to the Editor Oct. 20) is not just some local engineer. He is an airport pavement specialist who has disproved NDOT's pavement studies of our airport. Because of Ferree's work, the FAA said the studies prepared by NDOT in 2002 and 2005 were not acceptable, and, the FAA offered Douglas County $100,000 to perform another study.

This FAA repudiation of the NDOT studies and offer of financial assistance for another study has never been acknowledged by the county, airport administration, or any of the proponents of the airport ordinance, such as Kelly Rosser. I am strongly in favor of using FAA money to correct the flawed pavement studies because there are no strings attached to correcting the record and getting to the truth. A new weight study will tell us the capacity strength of the taxiways and aprons, which the FAA would allow to be used to cure the discrimination complaint of our existing ordinance.

Ferree also pointed out that airport management violated our current airport ordinance when they clandestinely increased the strength of Runway 16-34 under the guise of repair.

This clandestine strengthening of Runway 16-34 is the loophole in the proposed airport ordinance that is so objectionable to opponents of Question 1. If Question 1 is approved, the higher capacity strength of Runway 16-34 can be used to increase the capacity strength of the taxiways and aprons without approval by the voters, ergo opening the door to more frequent large jet traffic.

If you are in favor of limited government and are against clandestine, misleading backdoor airport expansion, then vote against Question No. 1.

Jeanne Shizuru

Gardnerville