Please help me save my homedrome!

[Hippike]

As many of you may have heard, the City of Santa Monica has been hell bent on closing SMO.

Not only did they shorten the runway to 3,500 feet (from 5,000 ft), now they want to remove the existing pavement that is no longer part of the runway. Why? Who knows. I cannot think of one sensible reason why spending millions of our tax dollars on removing existing pavement will be beneficial to anyone.

On October 23, the Santa Monica City Council will review bids on a project that would waste $4.4 million dollars of taxpayer money by unnecessarily removing existing pavement and safety overruns at the Santa Monica Airport. The sums they are spending are astronomical: The city has already spent $4 million to shorten the runway and over $36 million on legal fees to close the airport.

This latest plan will have ZERO benefit to the community. The larger jet operations have been curtailed by the shorter runway. This project would make the airport and its neighbors significantly less safe by removing paved safety overruns, reducing the airport’s emergency relief capability, exposing the community to toxic construction dust, and increasing bird strike hazards to aircraft by replacing paved surfaces with dirt and grass.

PLEASE Contact City Council NOW, prior to the October 23rd meeting and urge them to STOP the Runway Repurposing Project. E-mail council@smgov.net or call (310) 458-8201.

For your convenience, below is a sample text that you may copy and paste into your email for council@smgov.net

Thank you!!

Your fellow POAer


SUBJECT LINE: STOP THE RUNWAY REPURPOSING PROJECT!

Dear City Council Member,

We urge you to STOP the Runway Repurposing Project. This project will make the airport much less safe for users and neighbors and eliminate the ability of large relief aircraft to use SMO during a disaster. There is ZERO benefit in removing the pavement, in fact, to do so will pose serious safety hazards to the community.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE AND IS A MONUMENTAL WASTE OF VALUABLE CITY RESOURCES!

The airport is slated to close in 2028. While it’s open, there is no reason to spend millions of our tax dollars to remove pavement. Retention of the existing pavement maintains larger than standard safety areas and preserves the airport’s value in an emergency at ZERO COST. It is incumbent on you to run this critical facility responsibly and safely.

Stop wasteful spending on projects that have zero benefit to our community.

Sincerely,

[your name]

 

[Shopshirt]

Not only did they shorten the runway to 3,500 feet (from 5,000 ft), now they want to remove the existing pavement that is no longer part of the runway. Why? Who knows. I cannot think of one sensible reason why spending millions of our tax dollars on removing existing pavement will be beneficial to anyone.

Maybe due to city drainage requirements as a result of maximum impervious cover because of all the new development in the area. Or because there is a City or County ordinance that would allow them to carve off any unpaved land as undeveloped without having to go to a vote or hearing.

 

[danhagan]

"They said Californiee is the place you ought to be, ...."

 

[Jeff Oslick]

The purpose of removing the pavement is to save their developer buddies the cost of doing this when it ultimately gets closed for good.

I which this was sarcastic, but it isn't.

 

[jsstevens]

Not to mention, making the airport operations less palatable and less safe continues to support their goal of closing the airport.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Too little, too late. The powers-that-be have been paid off.

 

[Eric Gleason]

I wish I didn't have to say it, but this fight was lost long ago. The only remaining question is "how long can the airport remain open?" And the answer is measured in months. No amount of campaigning is going to impact the progress to shut it down.

 

[midwestpa24]

I have to agree. The die has been cast, the airport is doomed. The developers and their cronies have control, and nothing will turn it back now.

 

[BrianNC]

The purpose of removing the pavement is to save their developer buddies the cost of doing this when it ultimately gets closed for good.

I which this was sarcastic, but it isn't.

I wish I didn't have to say it, but this fight was lost long ago. The only remaining question is "how long can the airport remain open?" And the answer is measured in months. No amount of campaigning is going to impact the progress to shut it down.

'Bingo' on both accounts. It's over. And the FAA is in agreement with it.

 

[bflynn]

They aren’t going to listen to you.

Understand the people on the council. They are all real estate agents and real estate developers. To them, an airport is noise pollution plus wasted land. What they want is more development and higher property values so they can make more money.

Understand now?

If you want to throw some wrenches, ask publicly about how they will each personally benefit from closing the airport. Ask about whether or not the airport, being a place where leaded fuel has been used and spilled on the ramp requires a hazmat cleanup prior to conversion to public land. Find the green toothed spotted Californian snail on the property and claim it has adapted to the airport environment.

Otherwise it is shutting down

 

[Jmcmanna]

My first ATC assignment was SMO. While I am no longer in SoCal, my heart hurts for this airport. What a waste of millions of dollars of economic activity to the community. So sorry for everyone’s loss here.

 

[Sundancer]

My first ATC assignment was SMO. While I am no longer in SoCal, my heart hurts for this airport. What a waste of millions of dollars of economic activity to the community. So sorry for everyone’s loss here.

Fight dirty, Bro: Half page add in the paper, detail the real and suspected benefits to the individual council members; keep semi-close to the facts, but don't be a fanatic - they aren't gonna steer too close to the truth, so neither should you. The airport brings in xxx millions of economic benefit, etc. Doesn't have to be accurate; you can cook the numbers a dozen ways to support just about any number that's a multiple of $10M. Look for all the eyes dotted and tees crossed- environmental, easements, zoning, soil conditions, infrastructure (roads to be built to support the new development, schools, utilities). Guarantee you the costs to local gov't will far outweigh tax revenue from development, if the development is to be residential - especially in CA, with the bloated local gov't payrolls and programs. Tax revenue will cover less than (make up a number, but half is within the realm of reasonable). Whatever local road has the most hideous traffic, single that one out and say it will double.

Or, if the zoning isn't residential, or is industrial, the air and noise pollution will triple. Pick the council member who is the strongest supporter of closure, which means the one most likely to have had his hand out, either $$$, quid pro quo, or other marginally ethical recompense - dig deep, public documents, ask around, social media - who does he/she know, do business with? Look for point of intersection with developers and/or others with a dog in the fight, or even better, with a shady rep: You just need a whiff of evil to give the State Attorney General office a call - if your target is aligned politically with the AG, find an authority who isn't, and hit them up.

Are all the council meetings "open"? Have they adhered to the letter of the law on that? Almost certainly they have not, as it's almost impossible - likely a quorum of 'em talked about it post or pre meeting one night, which is probably contrary to SM's rules. Their intent doesn't matter - just need to catch and exploit any impropriety. Also, see about getting a few thousand dollars donated to each of their opponents in then next election - copy the checks, forward to the incumbents with the letter to the opponents, asking for support for the airport.

if you can get other pilots to gag up some bucks, get a PR firm going at it - this isn't church, or croquet; you want to deal with politicos, be prepared to fight dirty, gouge eyes and sucker punch, else you are wasting your time. Any stat they publish is a self-serving lie; they are vassals of developers who are lining their pockets, leaving SM with a long term $$$ tail - Think of the children! The traffic! The environment! The costs!

Just general guidelines from expereince - I don;t know the situation there, but it's truly never too late to cause massive movement, if you can find/construct a lever or levers big enough.

 

[SkyDog58]

It all seems rather political.

 

[bflynn]

It all seems rather political.

Then you understand it well.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I sympathize, but once they find I don't live there, they'll ignore anything I send. Unless I sent a humongous check for their re-election.

 

[Steven Untet]

Sad thing too. I visited this airport this summer. Nice museum nice people great feel to it all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

"how long can the airport remain open?"

However, trying to think of a way we can work our flight paths for the next 10 years to be low level, over the homes of the guilty parties near SMO. At full fine pitch.

 

[BrianNC]

I really don't get why the FAA went along with this. It makes no sense. A lot of stuff we don't know.

 

[NordicDave]

I really don't get why the FAA went along with this. It makes no sense. A lot of stuff we don't know.

Wisest point on this topic so far. California is a VERY corrupt state. Many capital decisions are made with big money behind closed doors here.

 

[midwestpa24]

I really don't get why the FAA went along with this. It makes no sense. A lot of stuff we don't know.

Because legally speaking the FAA has no authority to force anyone to keep an airport open. The only power they have is in grant assurances, if the airport accepted FAA grants in the last 20 years the city has a legal obligation to keep the airport open. Once that 20 years is up, or the city returns the money, the FAA really can't do much.

 

[rtk11]

The City of Santa Monica has no interest in deviating from its plans to completely shut down the airport and turn the area into whatever it wants (I’m guessing a planned development). I’m sure the tearing up of the tarmac is intended to make it impossible to ever fight to extend the runway... but I can’t help but wonder if there’s a more nefarious purpose, like planting rows of trees that continue to grow to effectively shorten the runway even more as the trees grow. Not sure if they can do that now or not... but I put nothing past that city.

 

[Eric Gleason]

Fight dirty, Bro: Half page add in the paper, detail the real and suspected benefits to the individual council members; keep semi-close to the facts, but don't be a fanatic - they aren't gonna steer too close to the truth, so neither should you. The airport brings in xxx millions of economic benefit, etc. Doesn't have to be accurate; you can cook the numbers a dozen ways to support just about any number that's a multiple of $10M. Look for all the eyes dotted and tees crossed- environmental, easements, zoning, soil conditions, infrastructure (roads to be built to support the new development, schools, utilities). Guarantee you the costs to local gov't will far outweigh tax revenue from development, if the development is to be residential - especially in CA, with the bloated local gov't payrolls and programs. Tax revenue will cover less than (make up a number, but half is within the realm of reasonable). Whatever local road has the most hideous traffic, single that one out and say it will double.

Or, if the zoning isn't residential, or is industrial, the air and noise pollution will triple. Pick the council member who is the strongest supporter of closure, which means the one most likely to have had his hand out, either $$$, quid pro quo, or other marginally ethical recompense - dig deep, public documents, ask around, social media - who does he/she know, do business with? Look for point of intersection with developers and/or others with a dog in the fight, or even better, with a shady rep: You just need a whiff of evil to give the State Attorney General office a call - if your target is aligned politically with the AG, find an authority who isn't, and hit them up.

Are all the council meetings "open"? Have they adhered to the letter of the law on that? Almost certainly they have not, as it's almost impossible - likely a quorum of 'em talked about it post or pre meeting one night, which is probably contrary to SM's rules. Their intent doesn't matter - just need to catch and exploit any impropriety. Also, see about getting a few thousand dollars donated to each of their opponents in then next election - copy the checks, forward to the incumbents with the letter to the opponents, asking for support for the airport.

if you can get other pilots to gag up some bucks, get a PR firm going at it - this isn't church, or croquet; you want to deal with politicos, be prepared to fight dirty, gouge eyes and sucker punch, else you are wasting your time. Any stat they publish is a self-serving lie; they are vassals of developers who are lining their pockets, leaving SM with a long term $$$ tail - Think of the children! The traffic! The environment! The costs!

Just general guidelines from expereince - I don;t know the situation there, but it's truly never too late to cause massive movement, if you can find/construct a lever or levers big enough.

None of this matters. They have the support of the voters and the people with the money. You can't change the course now. All you can do is spend time, energy, and money on a cause that's already lost.

The FAA hasn't gone along with anything. They simply only have the legal authority to tell SMO to stay open for 10 years. The city council has found a loophole and realized that they don't need to be a good airport to stay open, they just need to be able to land an aircraft. It'll be an ultralight field before we know it.

The energy and angst is better spent making good relationships at other airports, and forming agreements that don't have these kind of loopholes.

 

[Stewartb]

I’d have left California a long time ago based on who runs the place.

 

[Rgbeard]

I visited SMO last year and the cost as a transient pilot is a PITA. As is getting an IFR clearance. I waited 45 min between king airs also waiting for theirs.

The airport is doomed.

Now that I’ve visited it, and my bucket list has this checked off, I’m okay with the inevitable.

 

[BrianNC]

Because legally speaking the FAA has no authority to force anyone to keep an airport open. The only power they have is in grant assurances, if the airport accepted FAA grants in the last 20 years the city has a legal obligation to keep the airport open. Once that 20 years is up, or the city returns the money, the FAA really can't do much.

I thought they were still within the grant period.

 

[Sundancer]

None of this matters. They have the support of the voters and the people with the money. You can't change the course now. All you can do is spend time, energy, and money on a cause that's already lost.

The FAA hasn't gone along with anything. They simply only have the legal authority to tell SMO to stay open for 10 years. The city council has found a loophole and realized that they don't need to be a good airport to stay open, they just need to be able to land an aircraft. It'll be an ultralight field before we know it.

The energy and angst is better spent making good relationships at other airports, and forming agreements that don't have these kind of loopholes.

As I said, I'm not up to speed on SMO's situation; just blasting out some rough rules of thumb on local gov't engagement tactics. Again, without knowing much about it, course changes are always possible, if sometimes unlikely. Very dependent on the time, energy, will, and $$$ available for the fight. . .

Most county and muncipal voter turnout for local elections and questions is pretty light; 10% isn't atypical, so you can often have an impact out of proportion to your commitment. Being CA, the land of "I know what's best for everyone else", might have to reach more of the electorate. It could still be worth a few days research in the public record, sunshine laws, etc. Might be an loophole/failure to follow the rules that can be exploited.

 

[Zeldman]

I thought I saw a rare miniature spotted liver lizard raising a family on that property, plus I am pretty sure that property is the only place in the universe that has the proper environment for the miniature spotted liver lizard to live in.....

I am proposing a 50 year research project to study the environment and how it can be replicated for the miniature spotted liver lizard to survive.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Find out who is involved in wanting to close the airport. If they are men, find a woman willing to accuse them of sexual misconduct.

 

[Ravioli]

Find out who is involved in wanting to close the airport. If they are men, find a woman willing to accuse them of sexual misconduct.

Don't be sexist Okie. Women can conduct misconduct, and same sex misconduct will be coming into vogue before too long, with our gender neutral, self identifying new normal.

 

[AKBill]

What the heck email sent....

 

[Hippike]

>> I wish I didn't have to say it, but this fight was lost long ago. << you may be right, but I'm a dreamer and always hope for the best.
>> It's over. << nothing is over until it's over, and the airport is said to remain open until 2028. Anything could happen until then.
>> Sundancer << thanks for the detailed advice!
>> California is a VERY corrupt state. << one of the lawyers who actively advocated for the closure of the airport, later admitted that he invested in purchasing lots of land around the airport and once it closes, his land value will double/triple.
>> miniature spotted liver lizard raising a family on that property << thank you for the entertainment!
>> What the heck email sent << awesome!

Thank you all who commented! I appreciate your input!