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.
It’s high time to clear the air with regard to the so-called “Santa Monica-connected” aviation accidents people have been bandying about recently (“The saga of Santa Monica Airport,” Our Town, Nov. 12). These are a compendium of accidents and incidents occurring between 1982 and 2011, a period of 29 years, which are alleged to demonstrate that Santa Monica Airport is unsafe. Indeed, they show just the opposite.
First of all, this list includes Santa Monica-based aircraft involved in accidents occurring outside of the city and local area. What possible significance does that have? There is no Santa Monica connection with accidents occurring elsewhere, just as there is no pertinent Santa Monica connection with automobile accidents occurring in other cites and states involving cars operated by Santa Monica residents. Remember that pilot training and regulation is a federal prerogative, not a local one, and is uniform throughout the nation.
Of the 83 incidents listed, 15 occurred in the local airport area; on average, one every other year. It is a fact that no one on the ground here in Santa Monica has died in the last 95 years as a result of aviation operations at SMO. These represent a minuscule fraction of operations here and are clearly not justification to declare the airport unsafe. With regard to accidents occurring within the confines of the airport proper, that is not unusual, nor is it unexpected and it does not translate into a threat to the surrounding communities.
If anything, these numbers serve only to emphasize how safe operations at SMO really are. By comparison, for the year 2008, there were 701 traffic-related deaths and injuries on the streets of Santa Monica and there were 681 in 2010, making Santa Monica the most dangerous in California for its size. Traffic fatalities average about three per year. In 29 years that works out to about 87 deaths and about 20,000 injuries for the same interval. If the airport did, in fact, represent a threat to local residents, one could reasonably expect life insurance to cost more for nearby residents, or property values near the airport to be depressed, but this is not the case.
It would be time better spent for those people who are truly interested in risk management around Santa Monica to watch where they are going and not waste time looking up at the sky and fretting about aircraft that pose no significant threat to them.
Two cranes are set in position to lift the wrecked hangar buildings off the remains of a crashed jet plane, before investigators try to retrieve remains and the jet's cockpit voice recorder at the airport in Santa Monica, Calif., on Monday, Sept. 30, 2013. A lawsuit against the estate of the pilot, who died in the crash, has been filed on behalf of the family of one of the passengers who were killed.
The family of a woman killed when a private jet crashed into a hangar at Santa Monica Airport in September has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the estate of the pilot who also died in the accident.
KCBS-TV reports the suit was filed Tuesday on behalf of Kyla Dupont's three sons. The suit claims pilot Mark Benjamin negligently maintained, controlled and landed the twin-engine Cessna which crashed Sept. 29, killing all four people aboard.
The suit seeks unspecified damages.
A preliminary investigative report by the National Transportation Safety Board provides no indication of why the aircraft crashed.
Santa Monica officials sued the Federal Aviation Administration last month to gain control of the city's embattled airport, which local groups want to turn into a park.
By Jason Islas Staff Writer November 1, 2013 -- City Hall announced Thursday that it has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish local control over the future of Santa Monica’s controversial airport. Santa Monica has petitioned federal courts to declared that the City has full title to the 227-acre parcel on which the airport sits and, therefore, the FAA’s claim that the City is required to operate the land as an airport for “in perpetuity” is unconstitutional. “The bottom line is we need to be in control of the airport’s future,” Mayor Pam O’Connor told The Lookout Thursday. “We think we have a good case.” Much of that case hinges on the fact that, in 1984 the City agreed to operate the land as an airport until at least 2015 in order to settle a dispute with the FAA over whether the City could cap airplane operations at the airport. With the end of that agreement approaching, City Hall feels that it is in a strong position to assert its right to take control -- and possibly close -- the airport. In preparation of the upcoming end of the 1984 agreement, the City held a three-year visioning process which officials said was the largest in the city’s history. The decision to sue the FAA came after the Council reviewed the report last spring and directed staff to try to reach a voluntary agreement with the federal agency. ("Council Raises Landing Fees, Explores Partial Closure of Santa Monica Airport," May 2) But the FAA has reasserted its claim that the City can’t ever close the airport because of legal obligations imbedded in property transfers that occurred just after World War Two. "We met in Washington many times, and conveyed community concerns and proposed possibilities for changes, including operational changes, that could significantly reduce many of the Airport’s adverse impacts,” City Manager Rod Gould said in an official statement released Thursday. “The FAA representatives were polite and respectful. But, they were simply unwilling or unable to agree to any changes that could bring significant relief to Airport neighbors,” he said. The airport has its share of detractors, including several neighborhood groups that have sprouted up over the years to oppose to what they see as a dangerous -- and unhealthy -- use of land in their backyard. “We are excited that the City is taking the step to confirm its rights to determine the future of the airport land, which it has owned for almost a century, during most of which time it has benefited only a few Santa Monicans,” former Lookout columnist Frank Gruber said on behalf of Airport2Park.org. As a co-founder of Airport2Park.org, Gruber and his allies have advocated for the airport’s closure and for the land to be converted into a massive park. Airport2Park.org is not alone. Marty Rubin, founder of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution (CRAAP), lives in the Los Angeles neighborhood just south of the airport. He applauded the City’s decision to sue the FAA. “If this lawsuit will get us the results we need quickly then we applaud the City for taking this action,” he told The Lookout Thursday. That’s a big “if,” however, since the FAA has proven a formidable opponent in the past. Most recently, in 2008, the FAA successfully blocked City Hall’s attempt to ban jets at the airport. ("City Prepares to Respond to FAA," June, 2008) If the City loses this lawsuit, it will be back to the drawing board, said City Manager Rod Gould. O’Connor said that it is possible that the City could lose but that she’s confident. “Can the federal government say ‘for all eternity’” Santa Monica has to operate that airport? she asked rhetorically. She doubted that was likely. This time, the City might also expect to have some powerful allies in its corner for the upcoming fight. Recently, senior Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman has added his voice to the chorus calling for the FAA to at least sit down with residents to discuss the airport’s post-2015 future. ("Congressman Wants FAA Forum on Santa Monica Airport's Future," July 18) But the FAA has refused Waxman’s invitation. To help shore up its case, the City will be working with the international law firm, Morrison & Foerster (MoFo), which boasts more than 1,000 attorneys, according to City Hall. “This is the first step,” said O’Connor. “We’ll see what its outcome is.”
The investigation of a fatal crash that happened at the Santa Monica airport last month was put on hold during the government shutdown. Now transportation safety officials are back to work, and hope they haven't lost any "perishable" evidence in the meantime.
Van McKenny is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator who's looking into the crash. He said most of the critical information in the case is "perishable" and needs to be gathered quickly.
"Witness statements of people who happen to be there, any debris or ground scars or skid marks on the runway that can fade over time ... things like that are the type of things we try to collect on scene that can get disrupted over time," said McKenny.
When McKenny arrived at the incident in September, he said he spent much of the time photographing the damage and collecting witness statements. But the approximately two-week government shutdown halted all work and delayed the preliminary report.
“There’s a loss of some investigative information," he said. "I hope to have minimized that with my work on scene there the day before the shutdown.”
NTSB workers were back to work on Thursday and are picking up investigations where they left off. For McKenny, this means collecting more maintenance records and re-examining the wreckage.
The private jet crashed into a hangar and burst into flames at the end of last month. The incident gave newmomentum to a community campaign to shut down the Santa Monica Airport amid safety concerns. Some residents say the noise and plane exhaust is also a nuisance.
The City of Santa Monica has tried to reduce air traffic at the airport for many years, mostly without success.
A preliminary report on the crash is expected sometime next week.
0 Comments
Add your comments