Concerns about airport should focus on noise, lead

I am writing to address some of the more misleading assertions in two recent Commentary articles written by Jan Burton in the Daily Camera (“Community shows broad support for airport” from March 14, and “Boulder’s abundant housing possibilities negate airport closure”). First, the “Save the Airport Petion” described in the first article was not an assertion of the community’s feelings. The petition was never sent to all, or perhaps any, of the local residents around the airport or in Boulder, at large, for that matter. Another misleading statement is that the Boulder airport is essential for emergency support. The airport is too small for larger planes (e.g., fire-fighting tankers) and the use for helicopter landings can be accomplished with only a small area and not the entire airport. Finally, I doubt that the City believes that they are flush with enough sites for new residential homes to not consider the airport footprint even if the City decides to develop the Area III Planning Reserve in North Boulder in the near term. I reside in a housing development near the “touch and go” flight paths from Boulder airport. The houses have been there for 40 years, and I have lived there for that long. We are not currently interested in closing the airport (unless it could be relocated further to the east and away from higher population zones). Our concern is with flight noise and lead pollution from the engines. Unfortunately, many of the flights out of Boulder airport do not comply with even the existing guidelines and there is an attitude among the airport users to not even discuss these issues. This is evidenced by the false statement at the end of the first cited commentary: “Given the fast-approaching transition to unleaded fuel and electric flight, noise and pollution concerns will soon be moot.”