Feds Capitulate to Santa Monica

Palmpilot

Palmpilot

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
22,755
Location
PUDBY
Display Name
Display name:
Richard Palm
WASHINGTON–The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the City of Santa Monica, California have reached a settlement agreement to resolve longstanding litigation over the future of Santa Monica Airport.

The agreement requires the city to maintain continuous and stable operation of the airport for 12 years, until December 31, 2028, and after that the City has the right to close the airport.

In recognition of the city's authority to make decisions about land use, the agreement allows Santa Monica to shorten the airport's single runway to 3,500 feet from its current length of 4,973 feet. The city is obligated to enter into leases with private aeronautical service providers to ensure continuity of those services until the runway is shortened and it decides to provide such services on its own.

"Mutual cooperation between the FAA and the city enabled us to reach this innovative solution, which resolves longstanding legal and regulatory disputes," said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. "This is a fair resolution for all concerned because it strikes an appropriate balance between the public's interest in making local decisions about land use practices and its interests in safe and efficient aviation services."

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_rele...d=21394&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R
 
The Feds always cave in the end. It's all about the money.
 
OMGIFORGOTHOWTOLAND said:
Its not over, but at least we have a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Eh? We have a step in the wrong direction. The closure is now a foregone conclusion and like Chicago, all they'll likely get is a slap on the risk if they violate even the 12 year stay.
 
flyingron said:
Eh? We have a step in the wrong direction. The closure is now a foregone conclusion and like Chicago, all they'll likely get is a slap on the risk if they violate even the 12 year stay.
Click to expand...
You're right. I made that statement off of false information. What you overhear isn't always factual. :)
 
Trump golf course coming soon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I wonder if someone in the Trump administration made it clear to end this.....

Well one step backwards for general aviation.
 
Where can they put another golf course? They already have the one that Harrison Ford infamously landed on at one side of Santa Monica and that little ole Pacific Ocean on the other.

That extra 1400' of runway was just for show anyway, right?
 
This is a huge loss. 3,500' runway will limit who can go in. Several charter ops have minimum lengths and I bet this new length won't meet the requirement.

2028 this place is gone unless the city elects pro-airport council members.

The Feds did not have to cave on this.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't think he's welcome in CA
Click to expand...
Trump National Golf Club. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA... About an hour south of SMO already.

The city is obligated to honor leases until the runway is shortened and they decide to provide services? They might as well bulldoze the runway tonight.
 
ircphoenix said:
Trump National Golf Club. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA... About an hour south of SMO already.

The city is obligated to honor leases until the runway is shortened and they decide to provide services? They might as well bulldoze the runway tonight.
Click to expand...
Of course, it was already there. Just pointing out how the CA wouldn't exactly welcome him now.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Of course, it was already there. Just pointing out how the CA wouldn't exactly welcome him now.
Click to expand...

Don't paint all of California with the same Blue brush. The central valley, where the FOOD comes from is still very Red. They just don't produce as many voters as they do helpful things like crops.

Note - slightly political - apologies in advance
 
Ravioli said:
Don't paint all of California with the same Blue brush. The central valley, where the FOOD comes from is still very Red. They just don't produce as many voters as they do helpful things like crops.

Note - slightly political - apologies in advance
Click to expand...
Well aware of that. I used to live in San Diego.

But I would not consider the particular area under discussion as conservative at all.
 
That knocks out the corporate jets going in there...
 
You think Atlantic has any interest on running the FBO any more with no bizjet traffic? Game over SMO.
 
I really though this was gonna be one case where the FAA stood their ground.

Rather they just continue to fulfill their motto: We're not happy till you're not happy.
 
mondtster said:
I'd be willing to bet that was their intent...
Click to expand...

Yup. When part of the agreement is that the city can tear up 1500 feet of runway effective immediately... that's EXACTLY what the city was after. They kill the bizjets, they kill any interest the FBOs have in being there, GA withers on the vine.
 
MichiPilot said:
lol -- anyone with any sense recognizes it's a bad situation for the airport. NBAA/AOPA: "Airport to remain open through 2028"....gotta give the spin guy a raise.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.
 
Any places in Socal rent HP airplanes with huge, loud-ass props?

You know, just in case I get a 2am itch to fly back and forth across Santa Monica at 1000' AGL with the blue knob fully forward.
 
I think it's wishful thinking that Trump is going to be concerned over this. While there's an overwhelming desire to "undo" everything Obama did, this one is probably in line with the Trump/GOP philosophy anyhow. About the only thing that has it going for Trump action is it is a CALIFORNIA local government involved. Even then, i don't think his revenge motives are THAT strong.
 
hawk25u said:
...Was Trump sandbagged?
http://www.smobserved.com/story/2017/01/...se-it/2550.html
Click to expand...
The article claims that President Trump could override the agreement, but I'm not so sure, because it appears that the written consent required in the 1948 instrument of transfer has now been given:

"(6) That no property transferred by this instrument shall be used, leased, sold,
salvaged, or disposed of by" the City "for other than airport purposes without the
written consent of the Civil Aeronautics Administrator . . . ."​

https://www.nbaa.org/ops/airports/smo/20140213-US-District-Court-CV-13-8046-JFW-VBKx.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top