Santa Monica Council votes to shut down airport

Some of the other airports in SoCal need to add hangars, ramps space and other infrastructure if they have the room for it so that they can accommodate the added business if the city of Satan Monica eventually wins or just makes being there unbearable. Of course, the residents in the shadow of those other airports would probably get their panties in a wad.
 
ircphoenix said:
If it weren't for the huge tax base that Robinson brings in, the helihaters around Torrance would have had it shut down long ago too. As it is, they want the helicopters gone, but the city knows that'd be a huge hit to the coffers. So I luck out with a city that supports the airport. I can only imagine what contrivances the city could come up with to make life suck for GA if they really wanted to. I'm glad I'm here and not there.
Click to expand...

I loved TOA when I was there. It's a great little airport. I'd say it is at no risk of being shut down but one never knows.
 
Dav8or said:
Is California the only state where airports are being shut down? I thought it was a nation wide phenomenon. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

You're not mistaken it's just that Santa Monica has been high profile since the 80s.
 
Yeah I was just banging on California... I'm sorry :) My buddy just moved to Newport Beach and his rent is 6500 PER MONTH.. HOLY COW.... I couldn't do it..
 
ircphoenix said:
The city had been trying since the 80's to shut down the airport. They've not been successful yet. Eventually the airport will close. If it's on bad terms with the FAA, you can bet it'll turn into a superfund site and not be usable for anything until the EPA gets it cleaned up. The developer's money has run into the bureaucracy of the federal government. The nice thing about federal corruption is often there are too many palms to grease for it to be cost effective.
Click to expand...

It ought to be a superfund site anyway. All that led avgas spilled, all that lead exhaust expelled over the years? The SM city council should be prosecuted for suggesting that kids go play in a place like this. Ditto for Chicago/Meigs.
 
Dav8or said:
Is California the only state where airports are being shut down? I thought it was a nation wide phenomenon. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

Yes, strictly California. After all, have you ever heard of any such thing happening in Illinois... even Chicago????
 
jsstevens said:
The Santa Monica city council would rejoice. They are actively removing businesses from the airport by killing leases.
Click to expand...
That part I understand but I was referring to them removing their businesses from the city/county not just the airport property as well.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
That part I understand but I was referring to them removing their businesses from the city/county not just the airport property as well.
Click to expand...

Huh?

That businesses "leave" California or are driven out is a longstanding myth. Except California has recently moved from the eighth largest economy in the world to the seventh, so something isn't right about it.

If you believe the propaganda, the state should be empty, rather than holding almost 1/8 of the US population. It has been claimed since at least 1980, probably much longer.

Santa Monica has a thriving economy. It just hasn't had a significant aviation economy since the Douglas plant closed, and that was 50+ years ago.

People who claim airports used outside of aircraft manufacturing are economical use of land in a city haven't done the analysis. That approach is DOOMED. Don't go there; it's wildly wrong. It uses a huge amount of land for a moderate income.

The argument would be a whole lot easier if people let the stupid OWTs go, and made arguments from fact. People see through the BS.
 
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/03/santa-monica-flight-school-to-close

Quote from article (admittedly AOPA): "The city has denied three-year leases to other airport tenants including Gunnell Properties, Atlantic Aviation, American Flyers, and Krueger Aviation, an aircraft sales company at Santa Monica Airport."

Since Santa Monica controls the airport they will continue to make it as unpalatable as possible to aviation tenants.

John
 
ircphoenix said:
No. But like Kristin says... the issue is whether the feds owned the land or not.
Click to expand...
According to Neil Rubin, an attorney who posts on the AOPA Forum and follows the case closely, the feds didn't own the land, but there was nevertheless a deed signed when control was returned to the city after World War II, with the result that under the terms of the Surplus Property Act, the city is obligated to operate it as an airport in perpetuity. The city sued in federal court to get this overturned, the suit was dismissed, and the dismissal was overturned on appeal, with the case being returned to the district court for further proceedings. That's where things stand now.

AOPA members can read some history of the case, and Mr. Rubin's comments, in the following thread:

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=89496

The following article on the current status of the case does not require membership to read:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...mo-case?_ga=1.233012702.1593228579.1403577755

This guy argues that the reversal on appeal was actually good news, because it will force some of the city's shenanigans to be exposed, and open up the possibility of the district court's taking action to prevent the city from rendering its decision moot:

http://smdp.com/sending-the-airport-back-to-the-district-court/155312

Eventually SMO is going to be shut down. I didn't say tomorrow. Or next week. Or next year. But if the city council wants to shut it down or make it too much of a pain in the butt to fly in there, they will. And at that point the airport will probably cease to exist.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you changed it to "probably." The way you started out that paragraph made it sound like a certainty, which would take a much better crystal ball than mine. Yes, the city may be able to seriously hamper use of the airport, but even if they succeed in turning it into a relative ghost town, the FAA and the GA groups are very determined to prevent the very damaging precedent that would be set if the city were allowed to get out of its obligation to operate the airport in perpetuity. Such a precedent would have dire consequences for many other airports that have obligations under the Surplus Property Act. So far, the FAA has shown no inclination to back down, and is fighting this tooth and nail.

Are we so impatient that we can't wait for the process to run its course? Are we so desperate to have an answer RIGHT NOW, that we have to pretend that we know what the answer is going to be?
 
jsstevens said:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/03/santa-monica-flight-school-to-close

Quote from article (admittedly AOPA): "The city has denied three-year leases to other airport tenants including Gunnell Properties, Atlantic Aviation, American Flyers, and Krueger Aviation, an aircraft sales company at Santa Monica Airport."

Since Santa Monica controls the airport they will continue to make it as unpalatable as possible to aviation tenants.

John
Click to expand...

:eek: Joe Justice was my DPE last September. Wow. Had no idea Justice Aviation shut down.


Palmpilot said:
Well, at least you changed it to "probably." The way you started out that paragraph made it sound like a certainty, which would take a much better crystal ball than mine. Yes, the city may be able to seriously hamper use of the airport, but even if they succeed in turning it into a relative ghost town, the FAA and the GA groups are very determined to prevent the very damaging precedent that would be set if the city were allowed to get out of its obligation to operate the airport in perpetuity. Such a precedent would have dire consequences for many other airports that have obligations under the Surplus Property Act. So far, the FAA has shown no inclination to back down, and is fighting this tooth and nail.

Are we so impatient that we can't wait for the process to run its course? Are we so desperate to have an answer RIGHT NOW, that we have to pretend that we know what the answer is going to be?
Click to expand...

That's all awesome info. Thanks!

Don't know what to infer from the tone though. Seems you have a bone to pick with me.

My first posts suggested the city has a significant uphill battle. Nothing else I posted suggested imminent closure.

The airport, along with every other airport on this planet, will cease to exist. Period. It's just a matter of when. ;)
 
ircphoenix said:
The airport, along with every other airport on this planet, will cease to exist. Period. It's just a matter of when. ;)
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. There are several circumstances which could preserve airports indefinitely. We may not be around to use them, but there are several scenarios.
 
ircphoenix said:
That's all awesome info. Thanks!

Don't know what to infer from the tone though. Seems you have a bone to pick with me.

The airport will cease to exist. Period. It's just a matter of when. ;)
Click to expand...
Your last sentence is the only bone I have to pick, not just with you, but with any forum members who think they KNOW how this is going to turn out. Aside from the fact that the legal situation, and the effort that the FAA has been putting into it so far, do not support that level of pessimism, defeatist thinking is not helpful to the cause, because it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. You bet I have a bone to pick with that kind of thinking!
 
EdFred said:
Not necessarily true. There are several circumstances which could preserve airports indefinitely. We may not be around to use them, but there are several scenarios.
Click to expand...
See? At least EdFred knew what I was getting at.

It isn't a matter of being defeatist. Santa Monica has been trying off and on for the last 30 years to shut the airport down. Eventually they will succeed in either closing it or making it a destination no one wants to use if they are persistent enough and they have the political will. They've been unsuccessful for 30 years. That doesn't mean they'll be unsuccessful forever.

But eventually the airport will be shuttered. Either because the city succeeds in their efforts to be jackholes, or GA continues its decline, or a giant meteor wipes us out.
 
Further thoughts from a post by Neil Rubin:

To be clear, the FAA didn't say that the airport can close in 2023.

There are two main agreements that obligate the city to keep the airport open: (1) one made in 1948 that obligates the city forever and (2) one signed in 2003 that obligates the city until 2023.

There are three big pieces of litigation (lawsuits in district court or FAA administrative proceedings) going on at the moment about KSMO. One is about whether the city is obligated under the 1948 agreement (forever). Another one is about whether the city is obligated under the 2003 agreement (until 2023). The third is about the city's diversion of airport funds, improper landing fees, and refusal to grant new leases to airport businesses.

This decision was in the case over the 2003 agreement, which happens to be the case that is the furthest along.​

http://forums.aopa.org/showpost.php?p=1884964&postcount=8 (Requires AOPA membership)

From the context of that thread, I believe that the following is what he was referring to as "this decision":

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-airport-ruling-20160815-snap-story.html
 
ircphoenix said:
...But eventually the airport will be shuttered. Either because the city succeeds in their efforts to be jackholes, or GA continues its decline, or a giant meteor wipes us out.
Click to expand...
None of us can know that for sure.
 
MAKG1 said:
That businesses "leave" California or are driven out is a longstanding myth.
Click to expand...

Well, no, it isn't a myth. Companies do leave when they have the choice. People can get use to anything and it's amazing what you can get used to. http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

The thing is, the number of businesses and the economic activity grow with population. California has experienced population growth which naturally raises the GDP, but that is only part of the picture. It's a complex relationship, but when adjusted for inflation the GDP activity per capita is declining. As a state, California's citizens are becoming poorer. Those 9,000 businesses that have left are the ones that had the mobility to make the choice.

Of course, the same thing has happened overall in the US over the past 8 years and I would assert for similar reasons.
 
Forever is a long time. It won't be there forever.
 
I'm waiting for one of the Megafaults to break off the Left Coast and send it drifting out to sea. If only there was one on the Right Coast as well.

Cheers
 
Mason said:
Nissan moved their North American Headquarters from California to Tennessee. And they are not alone.
I wonder if the fact that TN has no state income tax had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Apple Computer, who now has 216 billion in cash, moved that cash out of California because of punitive state laws related to investing. Under the old law, they got some of the earnings. Now they get nothing, a nearby state gets it, I think Arizona or Utah? Maybe Nevada.

In any case, the study I posted above found that about 9,000 companies have fully or partially left the state over the past 7 years, most of them moving to Texas. It is real.
 
Mason said:
Nissan moved their North American Headquarters from California to Tennessee. And they are not alone.
I wonder if the fact that TN has no state income tax had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Toyota is moving from Torrance, California to Plano, Texas... and taking about 3,000 jobs with them in the process.

#1 reason for moving... housing prices. Turns out homes in Texas are 1/3 the cost of homes in LA. Paying employees the same money, and having their home buying power increase 3 times overnight is a pretty strong motivator.
 
I like how aopa has basically given up. Before there were quotes from everybody going out there...now they aren't even involved any more.
 
MichiPilot said:
I like how aopa has basically given up. Before there were quotes from everybody going out there...now they aren't even involved any more.
Click to expand...
I think they realize, like most of us here in SoCal, that the battle has been lost. No need to waste AOPA resources on this any more. The best we can do is delay the inevitable.

Developer power is just too great in this area.
 
I think folks need to give up on trying to predict the future. :rolleyes1:

If you THINK you're defeated, you are.
 
RalphInCA said:
So, Richard, would YOU spend more money on trying to keep this airport open, if it were your money?
Click to expand...
How is that relevant to what I said?

To answer your question, part of the money that the feds are spending on keeping it open is my money, and yes, if more money were needed to fund that effort, I would gladly pay my share of whatever increased taxes were necessary to do so.
 
AOPA MAY have given up on trying to convince the Council, or the residents, to change their minds, but I think they will concentrate their efforts on keeping the FAA on track. Ultimately the fate of the airport is going to depend on the FAA, and the courts.
 
Mason said:
AOPA MAY have given up on trying to convince the Council, or the residents, to change their minds, but I think they will concentrate their efforts on keeping the FAA on track. Ultimately the fate of the airport is going to depend on the FAA, and the courts.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Last edited:
The city is a lost cause. All they see is developer dollars. Being able to throw more developers and high rise buildings into SMO is a boon to them. Does nothing beneficial for the residents, as the city already suffers from some horrendous traffic problems. But methinks suddenly those councilmembers will be able to afford a brand new unit in a high rise development that gets approved due to no longer being around an airport.
 
If this gets any more heated I smell a Megis outcome.

I wonder if the Feds have any right to take the airport back from the city and operate it federally or with an outside company. Since the land originally was granted to the city and Douglas after the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top