Why does what happens at Santa Monica Airport Matter?

[mooneygirl]

A little Sunday morning reading for those of you who, like me, forgot to change your clocks back and are up an hour early for church? Airports Matter:

https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2016/11/05/why-does-what-happens-at-santa-monica-airport-matter-2/

Here is my latest installment of AOPA Opinion Leaders.

[thinwing]

Thanks for including SMO assoc website...very easy to make donation....lets see if 100000 pilots donated 50 bucks for legal expenses....wouldn't that overwhelm city legal efforts...?

[carqwik]

Having lived in SMO and seen the gradual erosion of the City's support for Cloverfield (aka KSMO), mostly by the whacked-out City Council and some surrounding property owners near the airport, it won't matter how much legal money is spent...these anti-airport folks think the airport is a nuisance.  Clearly they don't understand its value and will never be convinced. 

Best bet is a Trump win...and the FAA tells the City "screw you" and eminent domains the airport as a vital reliever for LAX and says it's part of the national transportation infrastructure. (If HRC wins, kiss SMO good-bye.  Too many Dems in California that she doesn't want to upset.)  But the Feds have to construct the takeover very carefully to not make it look like other cities can just get out of their airport obligations...rather they really need to make it distasteful for cities/counties to try to close their airports. 

Maybe an alternative policy is to impose the costs of planes not landing at SMO (say being forced to go to LAX or VNY for example) as an annual "fee" to the City of Santa Monica...those costs would be add'l congestion, air and ground traffic mitigation, infrastructure rebuilding costs, additional pollution fines, etc....all stuff that SMO would be relieved of thus becoming a permanent cost to the City into perpetuity (or perhaps 99 years?).  That cost would be in the tens of millions of dollars a year...now what would the voters of Santa Monica prefer to do?  Close the airport and pay a huge annual fee to the Feds or keep the airport open???

[philiplane]

Funny thing is of the city wants to close the airport due to "noise and congestion and dangerous accidents", how much more noise and congestion and accidents will be created by filling the current HUGE open space, with thousands of people in houses, condos, and the like? 

DUH.

The People's Republik of Kalifornia is pretty much a lost cause. Total bankruptcy is just on the horizon, around 2025-2030, when all the gubmint employees start drawing those ridiculously high and mostly unfunded pensions.

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by philiplane

[flyboy0681]

18 minutes ago, carqwik said:

Best bet is a Trump win...and the FAA tells the City "screw you" and eminent domains the airport as a vital reliever for LAX and says it's part of the national transportation infrastructure. (If HRC wins, kiss SMO good-bye.  Too many Dems in California that she doesn't want to upset.)  But the Feds have to construct the takeover very carefully to not make it look like other cities can just get out of their airport obligations...rather they really need to make it distasteful for cities/counties to try to close their airports. 

 

To tell you the Gds honest truth, something as mundane as this subject matter would never make it to the president's desk.

And to add to philiplane's post, no doubt condos would be built in SMO's place. But don't think for a single minute that they would be of the type that the middle class could afford. With it's proximity to the ocean, developers would put up multi-million dollar high rises. Having worked in Santa Monica and hung out at the airport during lunch hours, that place is one piece of prime real estate.

[JohnB]

Great article Jolie! I particularly enjoyed Christian Fry's comments regarding the huge importance of the legal precedence for the outcome of this battle in the legal closing of other airports around the country that have perpetuity or similar clauses from the government to operate as an airport. The precedence of illegal bulldozing has been done, but if that were to happen at SMO without legal backing, I think that would ensure FAAs perpetual control over the airport that a judge would rule with sanctions against the city. But SMOs anti airport group are pulling out all the stops and using massive legal, and now financially strangling techniques to try to close the airport.

 If the anti airport group are not successful in legally or financially closing SMO, this would be a wonderful victory for GA and aviation across the country, and would stop other cities from trying anything like this to close their airport.

[M016576]

Make no mistake- SMO is a general aviation battleground akin to Gettysburg in the civil war.  If we lose this one, the precedence set could pave the way for the closure of multiple "nuisance" airports around the country- and fields like SMO, BFI, PAO will only be the beginning..... 

feat mongering a little... I know... but I can see it happening.  GA can't afford to become as restricted and "controlled" in this country as it is in others.... closing these accessible airports is a step in the wrong direction.  Both economically and legally.

funny, I don't hear the high profile dems that use the airport regularly (the Vocal Actors & Producers, moguls of Hollywood ) trying to shut it down for the sake of environmental concern.... then again, they aren't outright supporting the airport either.

animal farm:  all animals are created equal- but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[thinwing]

Just read Atlantic aviation s part 16 complaint...unbelievable city subterfuge...the city openly admitting we can't kill the runway..but we can kill it's function..i.e. One by one any aviation related business is being openly destroyed by economic strangulation.IE..if you are an art studio,school (not aviation) or any kind of business you get a lease.If you are flight school,fbo,avionics installer..no leases.Want a tie down...sign an agreement waiving your 30 day minimum ,state of California eviction rights to 24 hr notice.These people are literally making up law as they go along.They refuse to negotiate and use holdover agreements that double ,triple rents ,require fuel sales of mythical,unapproved ,or commercially unavailable fuels,opening admit if city takes over fuel sales than it can limit fuel availability and times of sale.There will be signs on the pump saying.." Sorry fuel temporary  unavaible "...as when fuels produce no carbon foot print.

[TheTurtle]

On 11/6/2016 at 10:59 AM, M016576 said:

Make no mistake- SMO is a general aviation battleground akin to Gettysburg in the civil war.  If we lose this one, the precedence set could pave the way for the closure of multiple "nuisance" airports around the country- and fields like SMO, BFI, PAO will only be the beginning..... 

feat mongering a little... I know... but I can see it happening.  GA can't afford to become as restricted and "controlled" in this country as it is in others.... closing these accessible airports is a step in the wrong direction.  Both economically and legally.

funny, I don't hear the high profile dems that use the airport regularly (the Vocal Actors & Producers, moguls of Hollywood ) trying to shut it down for the sake of environmental concern.... then again, they aren't outright supporting the airport either.

animal farm:  all animals are created equal- but some animals are more equal than others.

 

I think harrison ford has been fairly vocal about keeping it open.  Other than him, yea, crickets from the libs with their private jets.

[flyboy0681]

Just now, TheTurtle said:

I think harrison ford has been fairly vocal about keeping it open.  Other than him, yea, crickets from the libs with their private jets.

I think Ford's incident only reinforced the city's argument.

[NotarPilot]

On 11/6/2016 at 10:02 AM, flyboy0681 said:

To tell you the Gds honest truth, something as mundane as this subject matter would never make it to the president's desk.

And to add to philiplane's post, no doubt condos would be built in SMO's place. But don't think for a single minute that they would be of the type that the middle class could afford. With it's proximity to the ocean, developers would put up multi-million dollar high rises. Having worked in Santa Monica and hung out at the airport during lunch hours, that place is one piece of prime real estate.

I don't think it needs to make it to the presidents desk. It's all about the type of administration he puts in place and who he puts in those key positions. What kinds of ideology will those people have? That's what I think could be a possible turning point in this battle. So long as Trump doesn't want to develop that piece of real estate himself or turn into a golf course or hotel. 

[flyboy0681]

Does anybody know whether Trump is GA friendly?

Now that he will have a 747 at his disposal, I wonder if he will sell the 757.

[John Pursell]

The article hits the key point. If we let Santa Monica out of its obligations, it opens the floodgates for others to do the same. I'm not sure if the pro-business/anti-regulation incoming president will hold the local government to their obligations. The real big money has nothing to do with the land the airport sits on. It's all about the airspace restrictions and the west side of downtown LA.

[SpeedyJoe]

Not only did I donate to the cause (thanks for the link btw) but I landed there yesterday to enjoy our short vacation in L.A. and thus help support the local business on the field (in this case Atlantic Aviation)

We did the same thing last year - likely to become our annual habit. What a great and convenient field to fly into!

[N9201A]

I was at an SM City Council meeting back when I lived there. The council began discussing various actual operational restrictions like altitudes, approach paths and the like. After a few minutes the then-city attorney awakened long enough to point out aircraft operations were an exclusively federal function over which the City had no lawful authority.

One council member retorted with a big smile, "well, that's why they call us the People's Republic, right" and discussion continued unabated. The officials I watched didn't care about the law, just knew they could do what they wanted without consequence.

These and subsequent (that was 20 yeas ago) elected officials have spent a LOT of money litigating. That money could have been spent on school books, lunches and teachers, additional police and fire services, or homeless shelter and food. It could've been rebated for solar panels or virtual reality helmets for airport-adjacent property owners to wear when outside so they see skyscrapers instead of an airport. Whatever your politics, it's hard to explain blowing millions of taxpayer dollars on litigation as anything but a shameless land grab.

Unless voters understand how this conduct is affecting and will affect them, they won't replace these officials with ones who will spend their money more wisely.