He-man Headline
“Government Gals”???
I don’t ever recall seeing headlines in your publication like:
n Boys of Banking.
n Testosterone Techies.
n Manly Manufacturers.
I look forward to seeing examples like these, however, since you set a precedent with your March 27 issue.
Paulette Wilhelmy
Executive Vice President
Walter Latham
Newport Beach
Trial-Lawyer Agenda
Raises Skepticism
Emotion might open the door, but analysis can slam it shut.
That is the fundamental story behind the public’s overwhelming rejection of Propositions 30 and 31, the California trial lawyers’ attempt to boost their fee income by allowing a new type of lawsuit against insurers. We can only hope the same kind of scrutiny dooms a number of other self-serving trial lawyer schemes still pending in the state.
Take, for example, arbitration. Personal injury lawyers want to make it illegal for an employer to offer a binding arbitration agreement as part of an employment contract. They say they want to “protect” employees by taking more disputes to courts. However, when we examine the fact that employees win more cases through arbitration (63%) than through court battles (15%), we again see that the “protections” the trial lawyers are peddling do not pass the smell test.
The same group of lawyers also wants to ban arbitration agreements in health plan contracts. Has it escaped the trial lawyers that arbitration agreements actually protect those who cannot afford to hire an attorney to represent them in small disputes? The smaller the dispute, the less likely a trial lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis.
Another proposal that won’t stand up to rigorous analysis is the plaintiffs’ bar bill, SB 1254 (Schiff), to virtually kill the confidential protection of documents gathered in lawsuits, but not admitted at trial. Their bill could actually force the release of trade secrets and proprietary business plans; lawyers could root through this information in a quest for new lawsuits. High-tech and biotech companies, with their cutting-edge innovations and high-paying jobs, will think twice about coming to, or staying in, California if this law is passed.
The legislature should take notice that their constituents are applying a new level of scrutiny to the trial lawyers’ so-called consumer agenda. An emotion-based agenda will not succeed where analysis shows consumer problems do not exist.
John H. Sullivan
President
Civil Justice Association of California
Sacramento
El Toro, Cont’d
I read with great interest your March 20 proposal for saving the proposed El Toro International Airport. Even though what you propose is more reasonable than the county’s project,the airport plan is dying and with reason. Consider the following:
n The Navy (Department of Defense) must, by law, make sure that the most affected communities (Irvine, Lake Forest, etc. ) participate in the reuse planning process. These cities will never agree to an airport, of any size. If the Navy does not include them in the reuse process, the Navy will face a lawsuit.
n The Navy also has to endorse the project with the greatest economic benefit to the surrounding communities. Most people agree that the jobs generated by an airport cannot be compared to the jobs offered by non-aviation alternatives. If the Navy does not follow its own procedures, we will have another lawsuit.
n No one can assure that airplanes will never take off to the west , not the FAA and not the county. That decision is made by the pilot. You will never get that concession.
n The Irvine Company, a very influential entity in this county, stated that the county’s EIR was very deficient in addressing critical issues such as noise, air pollution, traffic, etc. The EIR will end up rejected in court again.
n The economics of a new airport for eight million passengers a year, fewer than 10 miles away from another 8 million passengers, is very questionable.
I could go on and on listing the many reasons why this airport will not happen (one of them the fact that 67 % of the voters do not want it), but like you, I am interested in offering something that is constructive.
If you are genuinely interested in assuring additional air transportation for passengers and cargo for Orange County, you should try to facilitate, promote, advertise, etc., existing airports such as Ontario (for passengers) and March AFB (for cargo). They are very interested in getting this business, they need the jobs, they have the facilities and they are ready. Most North County communities are closer to Ontario than to LAX or JWA.
There is one more thing. This El Toro airport project has created a lot of unnecessary fighting between the citizens of this county. You also have some responsibility in this respect. Your proposal was a good start, but I think you can do better.
Fernando De La Fuente
Irvine
I am anxious to hear the final judgement on Measure F from our courts. From the beginning we heard that the measure was badly written and legally flawed.
Polls proved most people were never sure exactly what it meant, some even voted for it thinking they were voting for an airport at El Toro, not against it (and vice versa). Throwing jails and toxic dumps into the issue caused even more doubt as to the reasons for its passage March 7.
Rarely has there been a measure that caused more debate and discussion and yet ultimately left people walking away scratching their heads as to what it really meant. Soon the courts will be involved and I certainly hope clarity and reason prevail in that final arena.
Bonnie O’Neil
