Should KSMO be Closed?

Salty said:
Where's the choice to close Santa Monica?
Click to expand...
The question is in a scrolling window within the web page. Use the scroll control on the right to find the survey.
 
This is the funny part....generally pilots are all don't tread on me types....except for when they want to tread on others.

Why shouldn't a locally elected board or local referendum make the decision?
 
MichiPilot said:
This is the funny part....generally pilots are all don't tread on me types....except for when they want to tread on others.

Why shouldn't a locally elected board or local referendum make the decision?
Click to expand...
Because they are ignorant to the facts?

Because they stand to personally gain from it?

Because the airport was there long before the town grew too close, probably bought land cheaper because it was near an airport, but now they want to shut it down to profit.
 
Salty said:
Because they are ignorant to the facts?
Click to expand...
Not arguing, but out of genuine curiosity what are the actual facts around this? I've looked and you instantly fall into a rabbit hole and it's hard to decipher what's actually going on


(1) who or what is paying to keep it running? If it is the "tax payer" then is it city, state, federal?

(2) who or what owns it and has the right to do it with as they please?

(3) how much hard cash is the airport contributing to said owner and/or taxpayer?

(4) is there a critical service this airport provides? Medical, transportation, etc? The LA basin has a very large number of airports in or near it..

(5) who's actually behind pushing to close it? Something nefarious like a private land developer with ties to elected officials or more benign such as a genuine fiscal concern from a private owner who's not making any money, or worse, losing money?

(6) who will benefit the most from it being closed?

(7) who will benefit the most from keeping it open?

I love flying into SMO, and the Uber ride to the pier for dinner or the museums is great fun. The default answer from any pilot should always be "no" to the question "should we close this airport" .. but if there's a ton of high value land there and this airport mainly sees light piston GA going in and out I can sort of understand the question of, are we pragmatically using this land as best as we could?
 
Tantalum said:
...(4) is there a critical service this airport provides? Medical, transportation, etc?...
Click to expand...

I can't answer all of that, but IIRC, SMO was used in fighting nearby wildfires during the last fire season. And given that on average, wildfires are likely to get worse, not better, that seems to me to be a pretty big deal.

The LA basin has a very large number of airports in or near it....
Click to expand...

I think we need to look at normalized data, i.e., number of airports per unit of population, in order to have a useful metric in that regard.
 
Salty said:
Because they are ignorant to the facts?

Because they stand to personally gain from it?

Because the airport was there long before the town grew too close, probably bought land cheaper because it was near an airport, but now they want to shut it down to profit.
Click to expand...

Or maybe just the simple fact that change is the only constant in our lives.
 
Thought this this was already beat to death and a done deal with FAA cowering to the NIMBYs and fate sealed to hand over property to developers that have been salivating.

City wants to close the airport...fine, they need not to be obliged to operate it in perpetuity but according to the land grant of when ownership was transferred to SM it should revert to Federal Property...not a freebie to sell off to developers with ties to the City Council.

Just like RHV in Sad Jose that is on the chopping block...it is a reliever airport to SJC just as SMO is to LAX and closure pushes that traffic back to the major airports...that air traffic does not just evaporate.
 
Last edited:
(1) who or what is paying to keep it running? If it is the "tax payer" then is it city, state, federal? Right now the city funded by excessive landing fees, high rents, and non aviation use at the airport.

(2) who or what owns it and has the right to do it with as they please? It was lent back to the the city for one dollar with the stipulation that if the city didn't want to run the airport it would be given back to the federal government. The consent decree now changes this and the land will be given to the city.

(3) how much hard cash is the airport contributing to said owner and/or taxpayer? Basically none. The airport operations covers their expenses. Hard to say what greater economic impact it has for the city at large.

(4) is there a critical service this airport provides? Medical, transportation, etc? The LA basin has a very large number of airports in or near it.. Yes. Plus in an emergency this would be in valuable.

(5) who's actually behind pushing to close it? Something nefarious like a private land developer with ties to elected officials or more benign such as a genuine fiscal concern from a private owner who's not making any money, or worse, losing money? Mostly developers but some NIMBY neighbors have been convinced the airport could become a park. This would never happen due to new surplus land rules passed in CA.

(6) who will benefit the most from it being closed? Private developers and homeless people.

(7) who will benefit the most from keeping it open? Pilots, and the neighbors fighting to close the airport believing there will be a park.
 
This all came to a head with the knucklehead who ran Snapchat.

As is typical of dot coms and startups, the little snowflake helicopter pilot CEO wanted some cool office space.

Protesters were already swirling, but Snapchat interests funded the nimby’s heavily during the Obama years. Pressure was given to businesses including the restaurants typhoon and the hump which was renamed after the whale savers exposed the sushi place.

The city decision makers involved were courted simultaneously and a deal was struck to lease the oh so cool space to Snapchat for a cool $31m and no one saw the connection by design. Snapchat ran into issues leading to a desire to sublease. Between the old Stella and airport management to the newer Kriss Cassanova real estate person and beyond, all were petty bureaucrats who had no real advocacy towards aviation.


I don’t have the whole story or exact timeline as I moved to another airport away from Corrosion Central before all the shenanigans played out.

“Isn’t it cool to work at an old airport we helped shut down?? Makes for some awesome Instagram shots…”

Some greed and stupid Choices genuinely deserve Ebola .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rgbeard said:
I don’t see the point of this. The closing of Santa Monica is already a done deal. It’s just waiting for the timer to expire.
Click to expand...

Oceanside was a done deal as well until the 11th hour. No gas or pilots lounge, no engine overhauler or repair facility. All had moved on. Some of the hangars had even been removed IIRC. Oceanside Pilots Association never gave up. KOKB is now a source of pride for the city with thriving businesses on the airport including a fairly busy drop zone. The city has even put up some new hangars and sells fuel far cheaper than KCRQ next door. The key was never giving up and getting airport friendly city council people elected. I now stop in with students to buy gas and add to the traffic count. Once you roll over, you're done. I think there is a fairly active group of pilots still working to save SMO.
 
Htaylor said:
KOKB is now a source of pride for the city with thriving businesses on the airport including a fairly busy drop zone.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the KSMO neighbors would welcome parachute jumping operations any more than they currently do aircraft traffic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top