Santa Monica Council votes to shut down airport

Oh, you 1%'s with all your private jets.
 
The City of El Monte had a counsel meeting with a map showing the El Monte airport as a sports park... thinking that the space would be better served as a soccer park.. They said," it is the citys airport so the city can say what to do with it"... Not so, county property and a county airport... with all the controls.. The name was changed to San Gabriel Valley Airport, tower is still El Monte, but the city learned that they do not control it at all... would be a shame to loose Santa Monica, I have not flown into there yet, but want to start as it is faster to fly there than drive some weekends... and it is not that far away!.. Got to love LA traffic..
 
Here is my favorite part:
The measure also calls for eliminating the sale of leaded fuel, adding security, creating a permit system instead of leases for aviation tenants and stepped-up enforcement of local, state and federal laws related to airport operations.

To help curtail jet operations, the council approved the creation of a city-run operation to replace two private companies that provide aeronautical services such as fuel, maintenance and aircraft storage.

Some of this sounds familiar? Run off the private business so they can have all the fuel sales to themselves.
I hope the FAA comes down hard on these clowns.All this so they can put in a "park" to host "cultural events" and sports stuff.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I thought all you had to do to close an airport was take bulldozers to the runway....
Click to expand...
Don't give them any ideas...
Another article said that the redeveloped land is worth over a BILLION DOLLARS to the politically-connected. That kind of money can by a lot of California Politicians.
 
FlyingElvii said:
Don't give them any ideas...
Another article said that the redeveloped land is worth over a BILLION DOLLARS to the politically-connected. But it only takes tens of dollars to buy California Politicians.
Click to expand...
Clarified that for you.
 
In time SMO will just be a distant memory like Meigs, such a shame.

Live by an airport and complain about the noise to try and get it excavated..what about the folks who live next to railroad tracks, will complaining about that get those removed too? What if a train derails and ends up coming through someone's back door? :stirpot:
 
A1Topgun said:
Yes, you can close the airport. Just jump though these hoops and write us a check for all the federal money you received in the last twenty years.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's an option.
 
Ryanb said:
In time SMO will just be a distant memory like Meigs, such a shame.
Click to expand...
Based on what? They might be able to shorten the runway at some point, but my understanding is that one of the federal obligations that the city is bound to runs in perpetuity.

Let's try not to be defeatist here. It can lead to self-fulfilling prophesies.
 
Ryanb said:
In time SMO will just be a distant memory like Meigs, such a shame.

Live by an airport and complain about the noise to try and get it excavated..what about the folks who live next to railroad tracks, will complaining about that get those removed too? What if a train derails and ends up coming through someone's back door? :stirpot:
Click to expand...

Because sports venues and concerts don't bring noise and crime into neighborhoods.
 
Palmpilot said:
Based on what? They might be able to shorten the runway at some point, but my understanding is that one of the federal obligations that the city is bound to runs in perpetuity.

Let's try not to be defeatist here. It can lead to self-fulfilling prophesies.
Click to expand...
Based on the article and past news on this subject. They are planning to turn SMO into a park for sports and recreation. Doesn't sound like shortening the runway is on the agenda.
 
A1Topgun said:
Yes, you can close the airport. Just jump though these hoops and write us a check for all the federal money you received in the last twenty years.
Click to expand...

Not that easy. If that was the case airports left and right would be writing checks to the federal treasury to get out of their obligations.

There is a whole process associated with being released from federal obligations and it is not just a simple matter of writing a check.
 
The sad part is, the city can't just close the airport, but they are allowed to run it. So they can make life miserable to those using the airport until they leave. As soon as it's nearly empty, they can who how it is "no longer economically viable" to the general public and the Feds. This is their plan now.
 
Ryanb said:
Based on the article and past news on this subject. They are planning to turn SMO into a park for sports and recreation. Doesn't sound like shortening the runway is on the agenda.
Click to expand...
The city's agenda is only half of the picture. The other half is what the feds will allow them to do, which is what I was talking about. My understanding from threads on the AOPA Forum is that the part of the federal obligation that has an expiration date only covers part of the runway, and that there is a federal obligation covering the remainder which does not expire.

My recollection is that Meigs had no such federal obligations. (The City of Chicago got fined for not giving advance notice of the closure, but that was a relative slap on the wrist.)
 
Dav8or said:
The sad part is, the city can't just close the airport, but they are allowed to run it. So they can make life miserable to those using the airport until they leave. As soon as it's nearly empty, they can who how it is "no longer economically viable" to the general public and the Feds. This is their plan now.
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of the FAA's "emergency of their own making" theme. I hope that there are precedents that could be used to defeat such a scheme from working.
 
Palmpilot said:
The city's agenda is only half of the picture. The other half is what the feds will allow them to do, which is what I was talking about. My understanding from threads on the AOPA Forum is that the part of the federal obligation that has an expiration date only covers part of the runway, and that there is a federal obligation covering the remainder which does not expire.

My recollection is that Meigs had no such federal obligations. (The City of Chicago got fined for not giving advance notice of the closure, but that was a relative slap on the wrist.)
Click to expand...
I gotcha, I just can't see that shortening the runway would passify these people. Noise complaints will still be a problem and they will keep saying the same old things until it's closed and gone :(.
 
Ryanb said:
I gotcha, I just can't see that shortening the runway would passify these people.
Click to expand...

I'm certain it would not. I only brought it up because it's the most the city would be allowed to do after the expiration of some of the federal obligations.

Noise complaints will still be a problem and they will keep saying the same old things until it's closed and gone :(.
Click to expand...
The continuing existence of noise complaints does not automatically result in airport closure. If it did, there would be almost no airports still open.
 
Ryanb said:
I gotcha, I just can't see that shortening the runway would passify these people. Noise complaints will still be a problem and they will keep saying the same old things until it's closed and gone :(.
Click to expand...

It's not intended to pacify anybody. It's intended to make the airport unusable by more classes of aircraft. Shorten the runways enough and no jets. Shorten them some more and no high performance planes. Eventually it's not an airport.
 
i hate to say it, but I would love to see a federal statute that removes SM city council from having any governance of SMO. Turn it over to an FAA appointed BOD and get the locals out. Its extreme, but those nut bars will go to extremes to close SMO so then can line their pocke...er create some parks (that will really turn into houses and Whole Foods)
 
Palmpilot said:
The continuing existence of noise complaints does not automatically result in airport closure. If it did, there would be almost no airports still open.
Click to expand...

LAX, anyone?

And that's a case where people built a nice neighborhood of expensive houses, and the airport actually built runways right up to their backyards, and then started using them for jet traffic. You can still see the abandoned streets off the DER of 24L/R and 25L/R. The original LAX was several miles to the east, not far from the arrival end of 25L/R.

See https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9404095,-118.430964,1783m/data=!3m1!1e3

LAX was not the dominant airport in Los Angeles at the time. That was later. Most flights were at Burbank prior to the Jet Age.
 
I hate to say it guys, but the developers are going to win. There's too much damn money involved. The real estate is extremely valuable and it will be even more valuable when the airport is gone.
 
RalphInCA said:
I hate to say it guys, but the developers are going to win. There's too much damn money involved. The real estate is extremely valuable and it will be even more valuable when the airport is gone.
Click to expand...
The federal government has deeper pockets than the developers.
 
I hear they are also voting in the highest sales taxes in the country....
 
The problem is the federal government does not care, has not for a long time. The money is what rules.
 
Vern B said:
The problem is the federal government does not care, has not for a long time. The money is what rules.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the federal government has been battling the city in court over this, right?
 
Palmpilot said:
The federal government has deeper pockets than the developers.
Click to expand...
Not in this case. This Santa Monica, some of the most valuable real estate in the country.

In addition, Southern California has been a developer's hotspot for more than a hundred years. The biggest industry in Southern California is development / real estate. Thousands of fortunes have been made here through development.
 
The city had been trying since the 80's to shut down the airport. They've not been successful yet. Eventually the airport will close. If it's on bad terms with the FAA, you can bet it'll turn into a superfund site and not be usable for anything until the EPA gets it cleaned up. The developer's money has run into the bureaucracy of the federal government. The nice thing about federal corruption is often there are too many palms to grease for it to be cost effective.
 
Last edited:
RalphInCA said:
Not in this case. This Santa Monica, some of the most valuable real estate in the country.

In addition, Southern California has been a developer's hotspot for more than a hundred years. The biggest industry in Southern California is development / real estate. Thousands of fortunes have been made here through development.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The City of Santa Monica is not going to be able to exhaust the federal government's litigation resources.


.
 
Last edited:
I think that the main issue is whether the federal government owned the land. Taking money obligates the airport sponsor for 20 years. If federal money bought the land or the airport was given to the city by the federal government, even when the 20 years expires, if it quits being an airport, the land reverts to the feds which can then give it to the county or an airport authority, or some such.
 
Dav8or said:
The sad part is, the city can't just close the airport, but they are allowed to run it. So they can make life miserable to those using the airport until they leave. As soon as it's nearly empty, they can who how it is "no longer economically viable" to the general public and the Feds. This is their plan now.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an excellent reason to host fly-ins there monthly.
 
Palmpilot said:
Do you really think the city is going to be able to ignore federal court orders?
Click to expand...

No. But like Kristin says... the issue is whether the feds owned the land or not. Eventually SMO is going to be shut down. I didn't say tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year. But if the city council wants to shut it down or make it too much of a pain in the butt to fly in there, they will. And at that point the airport will probably cease to exist.

If it weren't for the huge tax base that Robinson brings in, the helihaters around Torrance would have had it shut down long ago too. As it is, they want the helicopters gone, but the city knows that'd be a huge hit to the coffers. So I luck out with a city that supports the airport. I can only imagine what contrivances the city could come up with to make life suck for GA if they really wanted to. I'm glad I'm here and not there.
 
ircphoenix said:
No. But like Kristin says... the issue is whether the feds owned the land or not. Eventually SMO is going to be shut down. I didn't say tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year. But if the city council wants to shut it down or make it too much of a pain in the butt to fly in there, they will. And at that point the airport will probably cease to exist.

If it weren't for the huge tax base that Robinson brings in, the helihaters around Torrance would have had it shut down long ago too. As it is, they want the helicopters gone, but the city knows that'd be a huge hit to the coffers. So I luck out with a city that supports the airport. I can only imagine what contrivances the city could come up with to make life suck for GA if they really wanted to. I'm glad I'm here and not there.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself too long. This kind of thing is coming to every urban GA airport nation wide as long as the real estate remains valuable.
 
This should be able to be cleared up quickly. The owner/operators at smo need to band together and threaten to remove their business interests, businesses, and every other tax base from the city if they move forward on this.
Make it rather public and see what the council wants to do after that. When they threaten to remove jobs, industry, services and all the support that accompanies it which will be a vastly greater number than what the city thinks it will make off the land and hosting kids soccer, softball and the ever lucrative "cultural events".

Only in their minds does this make sense, a goldmine of an airport bringing in millions of dollars in taxes and taxable services should be removed because it makes some noise and a piper cub might land on a house. We all know that they will never put a park there but almost guaranteed to be a gated golf course community or a Walmart next to a whole foods.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
This should be able to be cleared up quickly. The owner/operators at smo need to band together and threaten to remove their business interests, businesses, and every other tax base from the city if they move forward on this.
Make it rather public and see what the council wants to do after that. When they threaten to remove jobs, industry, services and all the support that accompanies it which will be a vastly greater number than what the city thinks it will make off the land and hosting kids soccer, softball and the ever lucrative "cultural events".

Only in their minds does this make sense, a goldmine of an airport bringing in millions of dollars in taxes and taxable services should be removed because it makes some noise and a piper cub might land on a house. We all know that they will never put a park there but almost guaranteed to be a gated golf course community or a Walmart next to a whole foods.
Click to expand...

The Santa Monica city council would rejoice. They are actively removing businesses from the airport by killing leases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top