For the ordinance


Last Thursday, I received, a letter from Mr. Tony Sabino, as did probably the rest of the voters. He attempted to explain to me why I should vote against the proposed airport use ordinance - Douglas County Question No. 1.

However, what I have read in the paper about this subject is confusing. One side states that if the question is passed, nothing will basically change at the airport and surrounding areas. The other side states that our skies will be inundated with big noisy jets disrupting our valley. I was not yet sure how to vote on this issue.

Mr. Sabino's letter basically is in line with those of others that oppose this ordinance. However, he misstates a key provision in Section 3 when he misrepresents the purpose of the ordinance is to raise the weight limit at the airport. He forgot to add that it requires the vote of the people to do so.

Mr. Sabino also makes another misstatement. He states that the FAA will continue to provide money to maintain the airport even if County Question 1 is defeated. That's simply untrue. The FAA has already suspended any further funding of airport maintenance and will not reinstate it if Question 1 is defeated. Guess who will have to take over that financial burden - yes, you the taxpayer.

Like the rest of the opposition, Mr. Sabino has taken portions of this proposed ordinance out of context and presents them as complete truths.

In reality, he ignores the complete body of the ordinance engaging in half truths and misdirection of the real issues and questions - like the others who do so.

I have read the actual proposed ordinance. I invite you to do the same. It is available on line at or at the county office if you want to look at it.

We have a nice community airport. The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain it as such and have the FAA continue its funding, not the taxpayers. The airport is otherwise self-sufficient and does not require county money for its support. It is significant that all but one of the airport businesses support this proposed ordinance (22 out of 23). The one that doesn't is Tony Sabino. He certainly doesn't represent the rest of us.

Vote yes on County Question 1.

Ed Court



Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment