More than meets the eye with runway move
Re: “Future of LAX takes shape under airport director’s watch” (Argonaut, Dec. 20).
In the interview with Gina Marie Lindsey, regarding Los Angeles World Airports’ preferred options for Los Angeles International Airport growth, she stated “…move the runway 260 feet closer to the neighborhood; we own all of the property… that doesn’t have a very significant noise change on the north side.”
Contrary to Lindsey’s remarks, LAWA only owns the land in the current buffer zone; it doesn’t own the land or homes within an expanded buffer zone. An expanded buffer zone would be required just to maintain the same relative buffer zone between the community and the noise.
Moving a runway 260 feet is very significant, where historically only a line on a map delineated which homes received LAWA soundproofing and which didn’t. If the source of noise moves 260 feet closer to a neighborhood, the noise buffer zone would also have to move.
But increasing the buffer zone doesn’t solve the problem. While the relative buffer zone would remain the same, all homes on the north side would still suffer an involuntary encroachment from being 260 feet closer to the noise source.
And LAWA does not own any of the airspace above the homes it proposes to encroach on. LAWA’s options to mitigate their noise encroachments will not be acceptable. Additional soundproofing doesn’t address increased noise outside a home, whether in a backyard, or in the neighborhood in general.
A “voluntary” residential acquisition program (i.e. Manchester Square), that slowly creates a blighted community as an incentive for remaining homeowners to “volunteer” to move, will not be embraced. LAWA is not expanding its footprint in this community.
Lindsey is obviously an educated woman, with an arrogant disregard for our community. Soliciting public comment is just an illusion as it doesn’t seem to have had any impact on LAWA’s decision where it competes against financial concerns and business interests.
Playa del Rey
Enough with the faith quibble
Re: “Displays don’t belong here” (Argonaut letters, Dec. 27).
As a longtime atheist I was embarrassed and offended by the tone of the letter to The Argonaut. I found the displays in Santa Monica to be a pleasant reminder that the Christmas season was upon us and did not see them as threatening, intrusive or an attempt to recruit converts.
Most atheists are themselves intensely moral people who don’t need to be part of a club or a movement; it’s simply a world view that many people hold. There’s no need to stigmatize, antagonize or intrude on others who hold different views. By fighting these trivial battles and taking such an antagonistic approach, they confirm a belief that there is a “war on Christmas.”
In terms of comparing an atheist to Rosa Parks, the letter writer compounds his error. Parks was herself a devout Christian, as were most of the brave people who surrounded her in a fight that really mattered. I would remind the letter writer that atheism, like religion, can also be turned into a divisive and cultish force. Stalin did exactly that.
Get a life guys… there are more important things to worry about than Nativity displays in a country which is 75 percent Christian.