Santa Monica City Council Raising Landing Fees 250% Tonight Tues. 4/30

Cogito

Cogito

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
378
Location
Los Angeles
Display Name
Display name:
Cogito
This will shut down flight schools and make keeping a plane at SMO much more expensive.

Tonight, Tuesday 4/30/13 The Santa Monica City Council votes on the resolution:

11. RESOLUTIONS:

11-A: Adopt a Resolution Amending the Santa Monica Airport Landing Fee Program – recommendation to adopt the attached resolution to change the landing fee program from the current $2.07 per thousand pounds of certificated maximum gross landing weight to $5.48 and apply the fee to itinerant and based aircraft at the Santa Monica Airport (Airport), effective August 1, 2013, and approve the budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report.


http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2013/20130430/a20130430.htm

The meeting is at:

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 1685 MAIN STREET, SANTA MONICA

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2013


Public Part of MEETING BEGINS AT 6:30 P.M.

The more pilots that can attend the meeting, the better.

Thanks,
Craig
 
Last edited:
Paging AOPA to the front Desk! Paging AOPA to the front Desk. Your link does not work so I can't see the reasoning but my guess is its pretty scuzzy.
 
AdamZ said:
Paging AOPA to the front Desk! Paging AOPA to the front Desk. Your link does not work so I can't see the reasoning but my guess is its pretty scuzzy.
Click to expand...

AOPA is too busy celebrating the robbing of the airport improvement fund to keep unneccesary control towers open.
 
Last edited:
Almost $60K per year to collect the fees, sounds like governement at it's finest!:mad2: I love the California weather, but you can have the fees and taxes, I'll just visit occasionally. :D
 
N747JB said:
Almost $60K per year to collect the fees, sounds like governement at it's finest!:mad2:
Click to expand...

Somehow, I have a feeling that revenue is not their goal. :(
 
Other nearby airports (and airport neighbors) should sue Santa Monica for driving noise to other areas.

However, it's always been obvious that it probably took as much to collect the fees as they were actually receiving.
 
Santa Monica Propeller should apply for the $200K in "research funds" to make aircraft quieter.
 
Sad that Santa Monica has been trying to shut the airport down since the mid 80's. This airport has a rich history, but some one who is well connected has bigger plans.. And it looks like they may win..

Don't think many of the 1% ers even fly in there any more and we're seeing more of this traffic at OXR and CMA.

Ironic, my sister; who is a screaming liberal, even call Santa Monica The Socialist People's Republic of Santa Monica..
 
The Adgenda is a bit conflicted. They propose spending money to upgrade the airport but then discuss the pros and cons of shutting it or a portion of it down.
 
So, fly elsewhere.
 
It was mentioned on the red board that SMO was deeded to the city through a surplus property agreement, which requires that it stay open in perpetuity. However, non-federal money was used to buy the land to extend the runway to 5000 feet, so they could shorten it to 3000.

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p=1636413#post1636413

Or they could buy an act of Congress to close it, like Rialto did.
 
Palmpilot said:
It was mentioned on the red board that SMO was deeded to the city through a surplus property agreement, which requires that it stay open in perpetuity. However, non-federal money was used to buy the land to extend the runway to 5000 feet, so they could shorten it to 3000.

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p=1636413#post1636413

Or they could buy an act of Congress to close it, like Rialto did.
Click to expand...

Or they could pull a Daly and just bulldoze it.
 
Screw SMO. They kicked my plane out a half decade ago citing noise. This with zero decibal readings or evidence of excessive noise.

Note: that's the way the story was related to me.
 
Captain said:
Screw SMO. They kicked my plane out a half decade ago citing noise. This with zero decibal readings or evidence of excessive noise.

Note: that's the way the story was related to me.
Click to expand...

So you moved to Florida... you sure showed them.

What kind of plane?
 
It's too bad this airport is under attack from the city. It is close to me and I would like to fly there for lunch. I was at Amaeican Flyers for a weekend class and had lunch there both days. I would fly there and even though I am not a fan of the landing fees I would pay. The reason I won't do it is I will not pay a landing fee to a city that does not want me there.
 
I'm at the city council meeting now and I'm pleasantly surprised at the pilot and business owner turnout. Almost all of the first 50 citizen speakers were pro airport. They made some good points but I'm afraid this is falling in deaf ears.
 
Never landing at a field with a landing fee, how does this work in practice? Does someone come by asking for cash, or is there some other system in place to collect?
 
The Landing Fee increase of 250% passed. Unanimously.

The City Council said they intend on closing the airport July 1, 2015.
 
EpicDraws said:
Never landing at a field with a landing fee, how does this work in practice? Does someone come by asking for cash, or is there some other system in place to collect?
Click to expand...

The airport contracts with a company which places cameras on the field and automatically bills you via your tail number.
 
Cogito said:
The airport contracts with a company which places cameras on the field and automatically bills you via your tail number.
Click to expand...

So for rental situations, they bill the owner, which bills the club, which bills the renter? What a headache. :mad2:
 
Cogito said:
The Landing Fee increase of 250% passed. Unanimously.

The City Council said they intend on closing the airport July 1, 2015.
Click to expand...

Did they say how they're going to get around the surplus property agreement?
 
Palmpilot said:
Did they say how they're going to get around the surplus property agreement?
Click to expand...


I don't know about this specific obligations, but they did mention Meig's field as one way of closing the airport. They said the fine Chicago had to pay the FAA was small and would be worth paying.
 
Cogito said:
I don't know about this specific obligations, but they did mention Meig's field as one way of closing the airport. They said the fine Chicago had to pay the FAA was small and would be worth paying.
Click to expand...

For which they will tax dear comrade... er citizens... to pay.

I am not surprised at this. Not at all. I'd guess that the runway land is worth a large fortune. Think of the taxes.
 
Cogito said:
I don't know about this specific obligations, but they did mention Meig's field as one way of closing the airport. They said the fine Chicago had to pay the FAA was small and would be worth paying.
Click to expand...

They better do their homework. Meigs was not surplus property. They will not get away with a Meigs style closure. And it will not be a small fine.
 
Brad Z said:
They better do their homework. Meigs was not surplus property. They will not get away with a Meigs style closure. And it will not be a small fine.
Click to expand...

The surplus property portion is unusable for jets. It would pretty much be limited to props, which would limit the viability. Who else is going to take the surplus property? It'll get sold (though I note that putting a military/governmnet installation on the land will generate more local economic activity & taxes than the airport). The local citizens will be happy.

Given the value of the property for redevlopment, the tax revenues from the site would pay for the fine very quickly.

Now where was that thread on KISZ again?
 
wsuffa said:
The surplus property portion is unusable for jets.
Click to expand...

We already have many of the jets flying into Burbank, Van Nuys, Camarillo, and Oxnard... and from what I understand Oxnard is becoming the airport of choice for many of the Malibu "jet setter's".

As for the others, there is Hawthorn's Jack Northrop Field, and you can rest assure that tower is never going to close..
 
Last edited:
Having sat through the council meeting last night, the body language of the members made it clear, they are committed to destroying SMO. As misinformed anti-airport supporters stood & counted all the ills of the airport, the council members nodded their heads in agreement. When members of the community stood to defend the airport and the 240M in economic impact, they asked "do you live in the flight path?" This Council is only interested in clearing planes from over their houses, even though they bought near an existing airport. Meigs field in Chicago went through the same thing many years ago. Today it is an unkept park for the homeless, drug dealers and gangs. It is not the picturesque park that was envisioned by Mrs. Daly when she asked her husband bulldoze the airport in the middle of the night. However, a park is something the Council agreed SM couldn't afford...so it's a matter of economics. They have to replace the 240M that they are going to lose....so Century City West, here we come. Traffic, congestion, density, here we come. It would be the only way to recover from the economic loss. SMO is an oasis in this dense city, that offers families, friends and kids of all ages an opportunity to be a community. But what the Council fails to see the value of SMO. The Council is planning on using our tax dollars to fight for their cause. 83% of SM are not opposed to SMO! So they are going against the will of their constituents. Down w selfishness. Long live SMO.
 
Ventucky Red said:
As for the others, there is Hawthorn's Jack Northrop Field, and you can rest assure that tower is never going to close..
Click to expand...

My home field -- how come? They were even on an early sequester list IIRC

I imagine it's cheaper to have LAX manage the GA transitions than to staff a whole tower at a sleepy airport in the hood. :)
 
wsuffa said:
The surplus property portion is unusable for jets. It would pretty much be limited to props, which would limit the viability. Who else is going to take the surplus property? It'll get sold (though I note that putting a military/governmnet installation on the land will generate more local economic activity & taxes than the airport). The local citizens will be happy.

Given the value of the property for redevlopment, the tax revenues from the site would pay for the fine very quickly.

Now where was that thread on KISZ again?
Click to expand...

You mean the park making no money?
 
Cogito said:
The airport contracts with a company which places cameras on the field and automatically bills you via your tail number.
Click to expand...

One of the Co's is called Vector and they are a revenue billing service
for airports. They setup the equipment, bill and then provide a percentage ($$) back to the airport. If you receive a bill from them review it carefully!!!
 
CT Arrow said:
One of the Co's is called Vector and they are a revenue billing service
for airports. They setup the equipment, bill and then provide a percentage ($$) back to the airport. If you receive a bill from them review it carefully!!!
Click to expand...

Just like highway speed cameras and red light cameras.
 
TomHaines said:
Tony and Adam, if you think AOPA hasn't been all over the SMO issue, you haven't been paying attention. There are dozens of links on our site about our efforts there over the years, including this story about tonight's meeting that posted this morning: http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articl...roposed-doubling-of-santa-monica-airport.html
Click to expand...

Tom - the problem with AOPA is that it operates in "Friends of the Court" mode. It really can't do much because it has no legal power.

The real key is to discover who, all these years, is really behind the land grab. In a situation like this it's always the developers who see prime real estate. SMO has already stated very publicly that it'll pay any fine the FAA imposes for shutting it down. There's not much that can be done other than finding a truly vicious legal team to do battle in court.

At some point the GA world will go away from SMO, making the city & the developers very happy, and they'll have the rationale to close it down.
 
schmookeeg said:
My home field -- how come? They were even on an early sequester list IIRC

I imagine it's cheaper to have LAX manage the GA transitions than to staff a whole tower at a sleepy airport in the hood. :)
Click to expand...

Compton (CPM) is in the hood... for real!

RE: Hawthorn my information must have been speculative... the rational to the statement was with the proximity to LAX and FSS station... this was one of the ones not going away...

I need to stop being so gullible!
 
We fly into SMO often. The IAP and short runway make it a pain but it is still a very desirable airport to our customers. This fee hike will shut down the airport which is exactly what they want.
 
rcorrao said:
Having sat through the council meeting last night, the body language of the members made it clear, they are committed to destroying SMO. As misinformed anti-airport supporters stood & counted all the ills of the airport, the council members nodded their heads in agreement. When members of the community stood to defend the airport and the 240M in economic impact, they asked "do you live in the flight path?" This Council is only interested in clearing planes from over their houses, even though they bought near an existing airport. Meigs field in Chicago went through the same thing many years ago. Today it is an unkept park for the homeless, drug dealers and gangs. It is not the picturesque park that was envisioned by Mrs. Daly when she asked her husband bulldoze the airport in the middle of the night. However, a park is something the Council agreed SM couldn't afford...so it's a matter of economics. They have to replace the 240M that they are going to lose....so Century City West, here we come. Traffic, congestion, density, here we come. It would be the only way to recover from the economic loss. SMO is an oasis in this dense city, that offers families, friends and kids of all ages an opportunity to be a community. But what the Council fails to see the value of SMO. The Council is planning on using our tax dollars to fight for their cause. 83% of SM are not opposed to SMO! So they are going against the will of their constituents. Down w selfishness. Long live SMO.
Click to expand...

When do we expect to hear if this fee hike will be implemented or not?
 
murphey said:
At some point the GA world will go away from SMO, making the city & the developers very happy, and they'll have the rationale to close it down.
Click to expand...

You may be right in this case that the city government and those living nearby (not the citizens as a whole by the way, because we did a survey of the citizens and they are clearly in favor of the airport over development) may trump all efforts and end up closing this particular airport. But the suggestion that AOPA is sitting idly by in this case is very wrong, as a quick search of our Web site will show. There is only so much that a national organization can do in a local community. The real power still lies with those living in that community.
 
TomHaines said:
You may be right in this case that the city government and those living nearby (not the citizens as a whole by the way, because we did a survey of the citizens and they are clearly in favor of the airport over development) may trump all efforts and end up closing this particular airport. But the suggestion that AOPA is sitting idly by in this case is very wrong, as a quick search of our Web site will show. There is only so much that a national organization can do in a local community. The real power still lies with those living in that community.
Click to expand...

So show that you actually give a rat's rear and use the power of the locals who want to keep the airport.

That is assuming you have a rodent rectum to give
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top