Cargo þights at Moffett: What's in it for us?
I have watched the battles over the use of Moffett with considerable interest. I do not prefer to see that field used for cargo aircraft. Those who live in the flight path for these noisier-than-commercial aircraft will most certainly not be happy about it.
I do agree that this facility is too valuable to be dug up, and that eventually we will have to accept other uses there. The issue with other uses is just who is the entity that will do the accepting? If NASA decides they don't need the entire facility, just who will do the negotiating for what goes in there?
Since it is a federal facility right now, we may have little to say other than to attempt to bring pressure through our well-paid Sunnyvale lobbyist in Washington, D.C. My personal opinion is that we had better be proactive in this matter or we will soon be the sorry owners of the leavings from San Jose--be that cargo and/or private aircraft. The exchange of confrontational letters between the mayors of San Jose and Sunnyvale does nothing to solve the problem.
One proponent of cargo flights says that revenues would accrue to the government if Moffett is used for cargo. In fact, there will be minuscule revenues. The moneys involved with limited cargo flights may run from $3 million to $5 million a year, I was once told. San Jose has been getting, and will continue to get, landing fees, per-passenger fees, local taxes, sales taxes and whatever else per each commercial flight. That is how they were able to pay for the sound-proofing of homes in the flight path. While I don't know the amount involved here, I suspect it to be considerably larger than $3 million to $5 million.
Since Moffett Field is suited for large aircraft, why not get something for the city of Sunnyvale out of this? What is the more acceptable of the options available?
First off, the best for Sunnyvale is that the field stay closed to cargo, private and commercial aircraft. Cargo aircraft give us noise, odd hours of operation and negligible revenue. Private aircraft give us Reid-Hillview problems (and probably their aircraft along with San Jose's). Private aircraft using Moffett's runways is a waste of resources, anyway.
Dealing with our government is not always easy, especially if one is trying to maintain the status quo in the face of a rising tide. We need to do something other than write letters.
What about making Moffett an international terminal for commercial aircraft? The runways can handle it. Federal government aircraft could still land and load Lockheed Martin (and other) government contract cargo. There are some hangars they could use. Fences handle security problems for NASA and the military reserve units. Many reserve units cohabitate on commercial airfields throughout the country now. We would see an increase in local employment--for both some construction and at the airfield when it opened.
We would also see some substantial revenue for the city of Sunnyvale that could allow for the sound-proofing of homes in the flight path and other services for the residents. Cargo aircraft will never provide enough to do that.
The point is that if Sunnyvale has to be impacted by the future use of Moffett, why not get something out of it other than added noise?
J. Creighton Bricker
Lennox Court
Pen pals correspond for more than 60 years
Some time ago, I read with interest the article in The Sun (Nov. 8, 1995) about Hortensia Garcia and Marlies Rielat, who have been pen pals since 1948.
I have had a pen pal since 1934. We correspond regularly and have seen each other twice. Irene is originally from Toulon, France, and during World War II was involved in the French underground. (We were not able to correspond during the war years.) After the war, she married a Scottish serviceman and moved to Wishaw, near Glasgow. We both married men whose last name was Brown, and we both were teachers.
We think 62 years is quite a record. It has been very enjoyable for both of us (obviously). Can anyone top it?
Lois Brown
Dominion Avenue
Proposition 199 hurts mobilehome owners
Many seniors and young families have purchased a mobilehome; however, most of them must rent a space in a mobilehome park. If Proposition 199 becomes law, the rent would escalate to the point that many would lose the equity in their home because every $10-per-month rent raise would reduce their equity by approximately $1,000.
Proposition 199 would remove more than 80 initiatives and laws passed by voters and local officials. It would prohibit voters and local officials from passing any mobilehome rent protection laws. All power would be given to Sacramento politicians.
The AARP, the Legislative Council for Older Americans and the Congress of California Seniors recommend that you vote "no" on Proposition 199.
H.N. Corbett
Plaza Del Rey Mobilehome Park
Vienna Drive
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, February 7, 1996
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.