Santa Monica Council votes to shut down airport

Neil Rubin said:
I can't speak for Richard, but personally--as a resident of Santa Monica and a board member of the Santa Monica Airport Association--I am investing a great deal of my time and a fair bit of my money to keep the airport open. And, I wish that you, as a resident of "SoCal" who appears to live about 40 miles from Santa Monica--and who I expect has never had any direct involvement in the fight over Santa Monica Airport--would refrain from speaking for "most of us here in SoCal," as you purported to in an earlier post.

What the city is trying to do now is much the same as what it tried to do in early 1980s. The issues are the same, the slogans are eerily similar, and the basic strategies are similar. Last time, the city admitted defeat and signed an agreement that governed the operation of the airport for over 31 years. I firmly believe we will win again this time. If anything, the law is more strongly on our side now. With the rise of the business jet, the economic value of the airport is greater. And, with the strongly anti-development sentiment in the city, the land is less tempting as a target for developers.

The thing is, the city realizes that it probably can't close the airport. But, the council knows that there are a few hundred single-issue anti-airport voters that will turn out to vote in the council elections and that might be enough to determine who wins. So, much of what is going on is just for show, to make those voters think that the council is "doing something." If the AOPA, NBAA, etc. were to give up the fight because pro-airport folks are fooled by the same symbolic gestures from the city meant to fool the airport neighbors, that would be a sad thing indeed.

In an earlier post, you referred to delaying the inevitable. That's what life is all about. Staying healthy to delay the inevitability of death. Maintaining your airplane (or car or house) to delay the inevitable day when it must be scrapped. If you believe that the "inevitable" is a reason not to protect and enjoy what we have now, why do you bother to get out of bed in the morning?

It's not my goal to keep Santa Monica Airport open forever. It's my goal to keep it a place that we can use and enjoy today and to pass it along to the next generation--just as those who fought the fight in the 1980s kept it around to pass along to my generation. Whether it stays open after I'm gone is not my business to decide.
Click to expand...
Best post yet.
 
bflynn said:
Make it expensive for them. Take some samples and turn it into a hazardous waste site but not a superfund site. If the city is forced to pay to clean up their mess, all those developer dollars might not be valuable enough to spend anymore. Maybe it would be better to just keep it as an airport, wouldn't cost as much.
Click to expand...

I doesn't work that way. Most of the pollution there could likely be attributed to WWII and historic aircraft production. Odds of the City or developers footing much of the cost for contamination are slim.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I doesn't work that way. Most of the pollution there could likely be attributed to WWII and historic aircraft production. Odds of the City or developers footing much of the cost for contamination are slim.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they can't develop the land until someone does foot the bill. Do it in a Congressional election season. Get the bigger fish politicians mad enough to eat the little fish ones. ;)
 
You mean they've been mismanaging a polluted airport in the middle of their city for decades?

Take it away from them. They don't deserve to manage it.
 
denverpilot said:
Yeah but they can't develop the land until someone does foot the bill. Do it in a Congressional election season. Get the bigger fish politicians mad enough to eat the little fish ones. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, they can develop, except/unless there might be an area of particularly heavy contamination, in which case you can build around that area until it is cleaned up. There are all kinds of mitigation system you can put in place that allow development on contaminated property, even residential. Boeing is already on the hook for the cleanup of the old Douglas facility on the north side of the field.

Environmental contamination isn't going to stop development at KSMO. The only hope of saving the airport is getting the Feds to enforce the original transfer deed that promised "in perpetuity" use as an airfield. If this "line in the sand" can't hold, the National Air Transportation System is likely at risk of losing a number of reliever airports.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Yes, they can develop, except/unless there might be an area of particularly heavy contamination, in which case you can build around that area until it is cleaned up. There are all kinds of mitigation system you can put in place that allow development on contaminated property, even residential. Boeing is already on the hook for the cleanup of the old Douglas facility on the north side of the field.

Environmental contamination isn't going to stop development at KSMO. The only hope of saving the airport is getting the Feds to enforce the original transfer deed that promised "in perpetuity" use as an airfield. If this "line in the sand" can't hold, the National Air Transportation System is likely at risk of losing a number of reliever airports.
Click to expand...

My point is, it's yet another way to beat on the little local tyrants -- let the national level pro tyrants handle it. No reason not to pursue making it *another* problem on top of the ones they already have with FAA.

Make it look really really expensive and tie them up "researching" it.

Then attack how much they're spending on all the studies.
 
Well the FAA just gave Santa Monica a stern warning about trying to shutdown the airport by defacto evicting/squeezing out the businesses there. Of course, the city is ignorning them. The soft cushions and comfy chair will be brought out next.
 
Notice of investigation, and subpoenas:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/0B3wWtj5n3Y6QcUNPZjNqNzAtaTg

The second subpoena, in particular, shows a take-no-prisoners approach, and seems designed to determine whether the City's claim that they will operate an FBO themselves is real or just a sham, and if it's real, whether it will meet federal requirements.
 
From my read of the Surplus Property Act, only the FAA Administrator can release the City from the deed obligation, and only after a 30 public notice period. I very much doubt the FAA Administrator would take such an action without direct orders from Congress, as such an action would have financial implications for other federally-supported airports in the region. The SPA also stipulates that if the airport owner/operator fails to abide by the deed obligation, the property ownership can be forced to return to the federal government. That is probably the best outcome, then FedGov can turn it over to LA World Airports (LAWA) to operate, or another experienced airport operator.

The environmental angle to take is not one from pollution, but from noise impacts to other surrounding airports. That air traffic isn't going to go away, it will shift to VNY, HHR and BUR. Those communities would potentially have economic loss claims against Santa Monica, due to the additional air traffic over their communities. Since many of those communities are less affluent than Santa Monica, the issue of "environmental justice" also comes into play.
 
flyingron said:
Well the FAA just gave Santa Monica a stern warning about trying to shutdown the airport by defacto evicting/squeezing out the businesses there. Of course, the city is ignorning them. The soft cushions and comfy chair will be brought out next.
Click to expand...

It's always adorable when besties play-fight.
 
The headline:

"FAA orders a halt to evictions of aviation companies at embattled Santa Monica airport"
 
Bob Noel said:
Could someone summarize the story (which won't display on my browser), please?

Thanks
Bob
Click to expand...

The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday ordered Santa Monica to halt the evictions of two aviation companies at its municipal airport until the agency can finish an investigation into the city’s effort to shut down the facility.

FAA officials issued an interim cease-and-desist order to stop the ouster of Atlantic Aviation and American Flyers, two major providers of aircraft services, including fuel, flight instruction, hangars and amenities for charter operators
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top