Santa Monica Airport, pictured above, is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Citing safety concerns, pollution and noise, many nearby residents have called on officials to close or significantly scale back the facility. ( Los Angeles Times)
Re "City moves to close airport," March 27
One wonders how long residents of Santa Monica will put up with a City Council that continues to waste time and money on fruitless attempts to close or cripple the city's small airport. These costly efforts to mollify a tiny band of airport opponents who rue their decisions to purchase homes in the vicinity of the airport have gone on for decades and have resulted only in a reduction in revenues from operating the facility.
As a neighbor who has lived 1,000 feet from the runway for 29 years, I do hear intermittent airport traffic. But I also hear jets approaching LAX, lawn mowers, leaf blowers and vehicle noise.
The airport is a community asset, not a liability, and its closure would result in nuisances far outweighing those we endure now simply as city dwellers and airport neighbors.
Have we forgotten that the FAA is not a private entity that can do what-ever it feels like? It is part of the federal government, which is there to do what the people want. If the people's representatives go to the president and say, "We want to close the airport," the president ought to tell the FAA, "Do it, and stop arguing."
Rory Johnston
Los Angeles
The Santa Monica City Council wants to improve safety by making the airport runway shorter. I see. Santa Monica residents should know they have a higher chance of getting murdered in their city than of being killed by a plane.
The problem exists because of improper zoning that allowed homes to be built far too close to the airport — which, by the way, was there first.
CLOSER LOOK: (L-R) Kim and Brian Davidson inspect a plane at their repair shop at SMO. (Daniel Archuleta daniela@smdp.com)
SMO — Pilots and aviation workers are skeptical of the Airport Commission’s recent recommendation to effectively starve out pilots at the Santa Monica Airport.
Last month, the commission voted 4 to 1 to send a recommendation to City Council that City Hall stop selling aviation fuel and stop offering leases at the airport to anyone other than artists and those involved in light manufacturing after July of 2015 when a 1984 agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expected to expire.
The commission’s chair noted at the meeting that this would deter most pilots from choosing SMO.
The commission’s decision is not the final world but an advisory to the council members, who will likely consider the issue later this month.
A judge recently rejected a lawsuit filed by City Hall against the FAA to determine who controls the airport.
Residents have long complained about the airport’s impact on their quality of life and safety, saying it wasn’t built to handle the influx of jet traffic and has no runway safety areas to protect against bad landings or takeoffs. Residents living in the Los Angeles side of the airport say exhaust from propeller planes and jets is creating a health hazard.
Those in favor of keeping the airport, which they say can be an economic engine for Santa Monica and be a valuable asset following a natural or manmade disaster, want the anti-airport folks to give it a rest.
“If they lost the lawsuit, they sued and lost, then it’s going to be here,” said Kim Davidson, 63, who owns a large repair station at the airport. “The next step is working together to do this. The next step is making this the greenest airport we can. These people want to make the next step to snub everyone at the airport. There are plenty of people over here who are willing to sit down and talk. We can keep fighting but fighting isn’t going to do anything.”
In anticipation of the 1984 contract expiration, city officials have set most airport property leases to expire within the next year. For Davidson, who’s been repairing planes at the airport for 34 years, the lease situation is hard to think about. He acknowledged that he is concerned.
“So are my nine employees and their wives and kids,” he said. “I don’t know what to say. It’s not a good spot to be in. People say they can move down to San Diego. Well their wives have jobs here. That’s what greed does. It’s all about the big dollars and it makes you forget about the working people.”
Ken Mead, an attorney for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), said that the recent court decision doesn’t deal directly with the issue of starvation but that City Hall is still required to operate an airport.
“Now what does that mean?” he asked. “It means safe.”
While contracts might not officially require City Hall to provide aviation fuel or lease to aviation tenants, all the restrictions could be interpreted as an airport closure.
“There comes a point when that is a de facto shutdown that imperils the airport’s safe and efficient operations,” Mead said. “I think they should be very cautious about stepping into this area. I think they have already stepped into it to a degree and they ought to be revisiting their decisions.”
Mead said City Hall’s recently increased landing fees could be interpreted as an early attempt to starve out pilots.
City Hall doesn’t accept airport funds or passenger fees, the revocation of which are the normal penalty for contract violations with the FAA.
“At most airports in this country, when there’s an issue like this, the federal government says ‘all right, you’re just not going to get your money.’” he said. “In the case of the Santa Monica Airport, they don’t seem to want the money.”
Mead was careful to be clear that he wasn’t speaking on behalf of the FAA — which declined to comment for this story given the possibility for ongoing litigation — but he did say there are several ways to go about challenging any restrictive measures.
“I think there’s different legal avenues,” he said. “You could get a declaratory judgment, which is where a court just decides and there isn’t an injunction.”
Airport Commission Chair David Goddard suggested last month that with the expiration of the ‘84 agreement, City Hall would no longer be required to maintain a 5,000-foot runway. They opted not to recommend cutting down the runway, Goddard said, because it was the better political move. Reducing the length of the runway would prevent larger jets from using it.
Katie Pribyl, a spokesperson for AOPA, agreed.
“It’s a major safety concern,” she said. “I don’t think they want that on their hands. A longer runway is a safer runway and if one of their arguments is safety, whittling back the size of the runway is totally contrary to that.”
Robert Rowbotham, president of Friends of Santa Monica Airport or FOSMO, largely declined to comment noting that his mother taught him that if he didn’t have anything nice to say, he shouldn’t say anything at all.
He did offer one thought on behalf of FOSMO: “It just sounds like another desperate attempt by a desperate commission looking to do whatever it can to hurt aviation in Santa Monica.”
SMO — Last month a judge tossed City Hall’s lawsuit against the federal government over the future of Santa Monica Airport but advocates say that was just a lost battle in a larger war.
One tact, they say, could involve essentially starving the airport of all but the runway.
Last week, the Airport Commission voted 4 to 1 to send a recommendation to City Council that would halt the sale of aviation fuel and restrict the rental of airport property to any tenants others than art studios and those doing light manufacturing. They also suggested raising all rents to market rate.
Advocates believe the approach, with its lack of services, could make it nearly impossible for pilots to actively use the airport. It could also lead to a decisive lawsuit between City Hall and the FAA, forcing a final determination of who truly controls the land.
Neighbors of the airport have long complained of the noise and pollution created by jets and propellor planes. Others fear for their safety, with homes located about 300 feet from the edge of the runway. Last year, a jet skidded off the runway and into a hangar, killing all four people on board.
Last month a judge threw out a lawsuit filed by City Hall against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). City officials could still appeal or take other actions but they say they are still considering their options.
The FAA and City Hall differ on when the airport lease expires, with the former claiming it’s in 2023, 20 years after City Hall accepted $250,000 in grants from the FAA. City officials claim the contract ends in July of 2015 with the expiration of a 1984 agreement.
Either way, Airport Commissioner David Goddard said, the 1984 agreement contains key provisions that will no longer be in effect.
One expiring provision, that City Hall must maintain the 5,000-foot runway, is not being tested by the commission, Goddard said. Advocates of closing the airport claim that City Hall could start whittling down the size of the runway, making it less attractive to pilots.
“We looked at all our options and then selected the one that was most politically viable,” Goddard said.
Another option would allow City Hall to zone-out all but uses by art studios and light manufacturing companies. Several years ago City Hall tried and failed to stop heavier jets from landing at SMO. They were found to be inappropriately discriminating against the heavier jets. Council likely could not simply discriminate against aviation tenants, Goddard said, but stricter requirements across the board to occupy the properties could be acceptable.
Commissioner Stephen Mark questioned whether or not they would be able to maintain safety at the airport if all aviation services were zoned out. Goddard responded that licensed off-site mechanics would be allowed to come to the airport if a pilot needed emergency repair.
“You’re going to get a lot less air traffic here and a lot more people diverting to other airports where those services are readily available,” he said. “You may get someone who flies in to get lunch at Typhoon and then they’re going to fly out but otherwise they aren’t going to be there because there are no services to attract them.”
If the FAA does conduct an administrative hearing and interprets one of the many active agreements to mean that City Hall still has to provide aviation services, Goddard said, the only penalties listed are the revocation of airport funds and passenger fees. These conditions are moot, he said, because City Hall doesn’t take FAA funds or charge passenger fees.
Commissioner Suzanne Paulson asked why, if the penalties are moot, did City Hall agree to comply with the agreement with the FAA regarding the jet weights. Deputy City Attorney Ivan Campbell explained that the two parties reached a settlement in that case but that penalties are not the only consideration.
“Even though you correctly point out that if we’re found in violation, you list the penalties, but there’s a bigger frame of reference that we’re working under,” he said. “I don’t think it’s any policy or practice of (City Hall) to intentionally violate its obligations under its contractual arrangements or agreements.”
Goddard is not sure when the issue might go before council but City Attorney Marsha Moutrie said that she could not comment on suggestions from the community until city officials release the staff report for an upcoming public hearing.
