Against ordinance

EDITOR:

A famous economist and political philosopher once said that the Constitution cannot safeguard individual liberties unless the prevailing culture favors limited government. To maintain our quality of life and the vitality of our gliding community, we must vote against increasing federal government dependence by voting against the Airport Ordinance (Question 1).

The main argument in favor of Question 1 is the unenforceability of our existing ordinance. This problem can be solved by demanding a pavement study that supports our current 30,000-pound single axle/50,000-pound dual axle weight limits. The FAA will accept our current weight limits, and, therefore, the enforceability of our existing ordinance, because the FAA will accept weight limits based on the weakest areas of the asphalt (i.e., the taxiways.) The weakest areas of our asphalt only support 50,000 pounds. The way to solve the unenforceability of the existing ordinance is to insist that our county direct the FAA to accept weight limits based on our taxiway strength.

Instead, the proponents of Question 1 have threatened that we will lose FAA funding and may be asked to repay previous FAA grants if we don't pass Question 1. The truth is that the FAA would resume and continue current funding levels if a pavement study that supported our current 30,000 and 50,000 pound limits were submitted to them. This fact is the critical lynchpin in the airport ordinance debate. We can resume FAA funding without passing Question 1 if we citizens demand an ordinance and a weight study that support the current weight limits in our existing ordinance.

Despite what anyone tells you, use your head. Read Question 1, and note how the loopholes nullify any protections against airport expansion. If Question 1 passes, it will allow weight bearing limits that are established by any study performed with approved FAA methodology. In our case, the county has a study that allows weights up to 110,000 pounds for a dual axle jet. Since Question 1 does not specify a weight limit, there is no protection to limit pavement strength.

We need a new ordinance that specifies a weight limit of aircraft based on the weaker taxiway strength. This is the best way to limit government and protect our glider community. We must reject Question 1 because it has removed this weight limit, which was our main protection. If we don't vote against Question 1, heavier jets will come and gliders will disappear as pavement strength is increased. We cannot afford to rely on a bankrupt government to build or maintain greater, but unnecessary, pavement strength at our airport.

If the conservative voters of Douglas County do not vote against Question 1, where in America are there people with the resolve to stand up for limited government?

Jeanne Shizuru

Gardnerville