The fight over the nation’s busiest single-runway airport.
By Stephen Joiner
Air & Space Magazine
October 2014
On a hot afternoon in August 1945, the voice of Donald Douglas boomed over loudspeakers in the cavernous assembly buildings of the Douglas Aircraft Corporation at California’s Santa MonicaAirport. All up and down the queues of C-47 Gooney Birds and A-26 Invaders, rivet guns and impact wrenches fell silent as Douglas informed the first shift that World War II was over. Japan had surrendered. “We all put down our tools and streamed out onto Ocean Park Boulevard, laughing and singing and hugging each other,” one employee recalled in a book on the manufacturer. Like many Douglas workers who lived in neighborhoods surrounding the airport, she hurried home and later celebrated through the night at the Santa Monica pier with most of the city. That was then. http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/can-airport-be-saved-180952758/
File: Santa Monica Airport. Photo by John Schreiber.
The city of Santa Monica filed a negligence suit against the heirs of the pilot of a small plane that crashed into the local airport and killed four people two years ago.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court against the estate of Mark Benjamin as well as the Cessna 525A Citation’s owner, CREX-MML LLC. The suit seeks more than $54,000 in cleanup costs stemming from the crash.
According to the lawsuit, the city’s expenses related to the accident included removing plane debris from the runway, securing the site until the Santa Monica Fire Department finished its investigation and the conducting of testing to see whether hydrocarbons from the plane and chemicals from the fire suppressant foam seeped into the soil.
The suit alleges Benjamin negligently landed the aircraft by veering to the right side of the runway and striking some objects before hitting a hangar. The complaint further alleges that the estate did not respond to a creditor’s claim filed April 17.
Robert Given, the personal representative of the Benjamin estate, could not be immediately reached.
Killed in the Sept. 29, 2013, crash were Benjamin, 63, the president of a Santa Monica-based construction company; his son Lucas, 28; Lucas Benjamin’s girlfriend, 28-year-old Lauren Winkler; and Kyla Dupont, 53.
A report released last year by the National Transportation Safety Board found that all of the tires were inflated and there was no debris on the runway when the plane slammed into the hangar and burst into flames. The hangar collapsed onto the plane, which had taken off from Hailey, Idaho.
Last Nov. 4, three sons of Dupont also sued the Benjamin estate. Charles Dupont, Elliot Dupont and Jackson Dupont allege Benjamin failed to maintain proper control over the plane, did not act “reasonably in the ownership of the plane,” did not undertake the necessary actions to accomplish a safe flight, did not act reasonably in landing the plane and failed to keep it in good repair.
— In the seventies I was a student pilot and I flew out of Santa Monica Airport. I enjoyed my experiences and have a fondness for the airport. But with the passage of the decades, I have come to believe that the Airport should be closed and the land should not be commercially developed, but should remain parkland. I encourage all to go on line and read the City Council Report (3/25/14) entitled “The Future of Santa Monica Airport” because there is so much disinformation put forth by those who want to keep the Airport open and allow jets to fly in and out of the Airport. This report confirms that the City owns the land, and that the bulk of the land was purchased with general obligation bonds that were approved by the voters and issued for “park purposes.” When bonds are used to acquire land for “park purposes” that land must remain as parkland until the voters vote otherwise or the president issues a proclamation stating that there exists an “unlimited national emergency requiring military, naval, aviation and civilian readiness to repel any and all acts or threats of aggression.” In the days after Pearl Harbor (12/7/41) President Roosevelt issued Presidential Proclamation 2487. During World War II, according to the City Council Report of 3/25/14 “airport and community interests were aligned” especially since an invasion of the West Coast was a real possibility in the early days of World War II. The war ended and the problems/disputes began which resulted in a multiplicity of litigation being filed over the airport. To resolve this litigation, in 1984 the City and the AAA (federal government) entered into a written agreement which put an end to the litigation, required the City to operate the airport until 2015, and permitted the City to close the airport when the 1984 agreement expires in 2015. The aviation industry, aware of the very real possibility that the City might decide to close the airport when the agreement expires in 2015, has placed a measure on the ballot designed to keep the airport open, and the aviation industry has sent out a flier designed to scare the public by erroneously telling the public that their choice is between the noisy and polluting and arguably unsafe airport with jet flights coming in and out many times each day, or, some sort of mega-development which will generate tens of thousands of car trips each day. But there is a third choice, which is to use those acres for the purpose for which they were intended, which is parkland and recreational use. The People of Santa Monica already own these acres of land. They belong to you and me – we the people. This land was acquired for the people to be parkland. We could put together something similar to the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy and turn the 227 acres referenced on the aviation industry’s flier into something wonderful which would benefit all of Santa Monica – not just the wealthy one per cent who fly private jets in and out of the Airport, and the privileged few who can afford flying lessons and ownership of the private planes that are parked at the Airport. With all those acres available (which we already own) we could have: bike paths, hiking trails, multiple dog parks scattered throughout the many acres of the parkland, a “walk of art” comparable to the UCLA Sculpture Garden which would display public art, after-school and/or summer nature-oriented recreational space for children similar to the UCLA Bruin Camp which is available to children during the summer we well as programs focusing on nature, gardens of drought-resistant native California plants, groves of drought-resistant native California trees, space for kite-flying, playing fields for soccer, baseball, softball, etc., dedicated space for rollerskaters and skateboarders, public gardens where people could grow their own vegetables, a rock climbing wall, a conservatory similar to the one in Golden Gate State Park, a senior center, an observatory or planetarium. I live north of Wilshire and I own no property in the Sunset Park or Ocean Park Avenue. However, I used to live in Sunset Park until I moved with my family out of Sunset Park in part because of the constant noise from the airport. I have heard the accusation thrown about that the only Santa Monicans who care about the airport issue are those who own property in Sunset Park; I am here to tell you that I care deeply about this issue though I live elsewhere in the City, and I would like to see all the people in the City benefit from this land, which could become a reality if this land is used for its intended purpose, which is parkland and recreational land.
from smdp By David Mark Simpson on September 5, 2014 in Airport - See more at: http://smdp.com/airport-commission-hear-tenants/141749#sthash.c1FcZBf8.dpuf CITY HALL — Airport Commission members have expressed a desire for stricter airport leasing policies have been recommended by City Hall. Last month, City Council decided not to vote on leases at the airport and instead sent the recommendations back to the Airport Commission, which voted 4 to 1 to start its review process with input from the current tenants. Santa Monica Airport tenants will be invited to attend the next commission meeting, scheduled for Sept. 22. Next year, a key airport agreement is set to expire, giving City Hall more control of the leasing process. Many aviation and arts tenants in buildings on SMO land are currently paying below market rate for their spaces. All leases have expired or are set to expire along with the agreement. City officials recommended that, among other things, council raise the rents to market rate and that they allow three-year extensions of all the leases. Many residents urged council to consult the Airport Commission before moving forward, claiming that the proposed guidelines don’t go far enough to restrict aviation uses at SMO. Last week, the Airport Commission discussed some alternative leasing guidelines but did not make a final decision. Some commissioners suggested amending the recommendations so that leases are offered on month-to-month or six-month terms. Current tenants, particularly those in the arts community, have asked for longer leases, which would allow them to more actively plan for their futures. Other commissioners, like Chair David Goddard — an outspoken opponent of the airport — suggested the council could legally rezone the land, only allowing tenants that conform to certain guidelines. Under this proposed zoning, many of the aviation tenants would not be allowed leases, making the airport less attractive to pilots in general. City attorneys say this would invite a lawsuit from aviation interests. Goddard maintains that there are legal precedents for the rezoning. At one point Goddard accused city officials of deliberately delaying information requests he’d made, an accusation that several officials and a fellow commissioner vehemently denied. The commission agreed that they’d need to hear from the current tenants before making a decision. “I’m suggesting that we hold a workshop,” Goddard said, “or maybe two workshops, and invite the artist tenants and then the business and aviation tenants, arguably in separate workshops, and solicit information from them and find out their concerns so we can recommend a strategy that will address their concerns.” Commissioner Lael Rubin said this could take an unnecessarily long amount of time and instead proposed they send tenants a questionnaire. “I think it’s really fairly predictable what the answer is going to be and I would hate for us to be wasting our time,” she said. Ultimately, only Rubin voted against the notion of a workshop. Commission Peter Donald suggested that, given the tense divide between the aviation community and airport opponents, police coverage might be necessary at the workshop, a notion that Goddard rejected. dave@smdp.com
