Letters to the editor
The Boston Herald

8/23/01

Lunacy is Massport's

The editorial assailing a proposal that Massachusetts Port Authority board
members be elected is flat wrong on two points ("Ballot Law Lunacy:  Hits
Massport," Aug. 20).

First, Massport is not a political body.  It was created by the Legislature
as a quasipublic (not financed by the state mainly) and nonpartisan agency
with responsibilities for non-local air and water transportation of goods
and people.  The partisan nature of the beast comes about via the
appointment of members by the incumbent governor and a dumping ground of
political patronage that has developed over the decades since the beast was
created.

Secondly, the current Massport administration has demonstrated, since
Virginia Buckingham was named executive director, that it has virtually
abandoned commmunication with many of the publics that live, work and play
within 25 miles of Logan International Airport.

Tom McNiff, Winthrop

======================
8/24/01
Let democracy soar

In your editorial ("Ballot law lunacy hits Massport," Aug. 20), you refer to
the petition to reorganize Massport's board of directors into an elected
body as a "ploy from the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) crowd."  I am one of
the 10 cosponsors of this initiative, and my Somerville home has no back
yard.  The divisiveness that Massport and the media are so fond of fostering
is increasingly being rejected by residents of diverse communities who are
joining to advocate coherent, humane transportation planning.

In my community, Massport's idea of how to "spread the burden" has consisted
of allotting residents the bulk of their so-called fair share of air traffic
during early-morning, late-night and weekend hours for three of the year's
four seasons.  Other communities are assaulted with overflights at a rate of
two per minute.  If these abusive, arrogant behaviors represent how "Masport
has attempted to do right," then you must be referring to its commitment to
do right by the airlines, whose bottom, middle and top lines are profit,
profit and profit, respectively.

That you find citizens' desire to participate in decisions affecting their
own lives to be "truly stunning" is a sorry indicator of the deterioration
of our democracy.

Allison Stieber, Somerville

=========================
8/24/01
New airport needed

Massport has been treated like a political plum by both parties in this
state, with choice bites going to the winner.  This has resulted in poor
planning and management, and in scandals such as the "Booze Cruise" affair
of two summers ago.

Massport needs to help address issues which will affect our state's economy
and prosperity in the coming decades.  The development of a regional
transportation plan, which takes into account air and rail options, should
be top priority.  Because over 25 percent of the flights in and out of Logan
are to or from Northeast Corridor cities, we shold have real transportation
alternatives.

Massachusetts needs a new hub airport.  We cannot continue to ignore this
fact by offering band-aid solutions, such as a new Logan runway that is too
short for regional jets, or by creating a commercial airport in the midst of
densely populated areas.

Massport, as it is currently constituted, cannot and will not make these
important decisions. It is time to hold Massport directly responsible to the
public.

Sumin Tchen, Concord

==========

[Note from Marty Pepper Aisenberg @ Save Our Heritage: Following is a letter I sent to the Boston Herald.  The bracketed language is what they cut; the rest is what they printed. (The headline is, of course, the Herald's, not mine.)]

8/27/01
All hoot against Logan

It is long past time for the Herald to give up the canard that Hanscom's
neighbors "don't give two hoots about expansion at Logan." ("Ballot law
lunacy hits Massport," Aug. 20).  The Herald is well aware of the alliance,
forged over a year ago, among Hanscom- and Logan-area groups.  Citizens
Against Runway Expansion, Safeguarding the Historic Hanscom Area's
Irreplaceable Resources, and Save Our Heritage have jointly called for a
moratorium on expansion at Logan and Hanscom until the development of a
multistate, intermodal, environmentally sound transportation plan that
maximizes the use of high-speed rail and teleconferencing, and minimizes the
harm that airport expansion will inflict on the people and places of
Massachusetts.

[I personally stood up in front of several hundred people at a town meeting
at East Boston High School last January and affirmed our solidarity with
Logan's neighbors against Runway 14/32.  In April, Save Our Heritage
executive director Anna Winter spoke against the runway at the joint
MEPA/FAA public hearing. Your editorial identifies a Concord resident as the
drafter of the ballot question, but conspicuously fails to mention that two
Logan runway opponents are among the 10 initial signers of the petition.]

It's not the Hanscom-area community that doesn't "give two hoots about
expansion at Logan" -- it's the Herald, with its longstanding support for
Runway 14/32.  [If you really cared about the people who live around Logan,
you would support passage of the High Speed Rail Investment Act, which will
enable the Acela Express to travel at 150 mph for most of its run instead of
for just a few miles near Providence.  When that happens, millions of
passengers will desert the Boston-LaGuardia and Boston-DC air shuttles for
the kind of civilized train travel that the Europeans and the Japanese have
enjoyed for decades -- resulting in hundreds of thousands fewer flights a
year over the heads of Logan's long-suffering neighbors -- and Logan's
congestion problem will be permanently solved.]

Marty Pepper Aisenberg, Projects Director
Save Our Heritage, Concord

==========
**NOTICE:  In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.**
==========