The 227-acre Santa Monica Airport to close in 2028

The last time I looked, all of the city commissioners were real estate agents. Go figure.
 
bflynn said:
The last time I looked, all of the city commissioners were real estate agents. Go figure.
Click to expand...
frfly172 said:
It’s in California,developers rule.
Click to expand...
Its Santa Monica, they would rather have an airport then any apartment building. This has repeatedly been made clear by the "close the airport" groups, who have stated they would rather keep the airport open, then use portions of the land for development purposes. In fact, the ballot measure that was voted on to close the airport by 2028, explicitly states that the land may not be used for anything other then a park(so they voted to not allow any development at all).

In Florida, Texas, Arizona, Minnesota, and Colorado developers rule, but in California, they have no power. What this likely means, is when they close the airport, no funds will exist to turn it into a park, and all the land will remain empty asphalt behind a barbed wire fence.
 
Only the uniformed should be shocked at this news. Burke is probably next.
 
Corin said:
Its Santa Monica, they would rather have an airport then any apartment building. This has repeatedly been made clear by the "close the airport" groups, who have stated they would rather keep the airport open, then use portions of the land for development purposes. In fact, the ballot measure that was voted on to close the airport by 2028, explicitly states that the land may not be used for anything other then a park(so they voted to not allow any development at all).

In Florida, Texas, Arizona, Minnesota, and Colorado developers rule, but in California, they have no power. What this likely means, is when they close the airport, no funds will exist to turn it into a park, and all the land will remain empty asphalt behind a barbed wire fence.
Click to expand...
The real estate agents would rather develop it.

My prediction, they sell the land as-is to developers with stipulations. Then they all get richer by getting clients to buy what the developers build.

But I'm just cynical.
 
Last edited:
ateamer said:
California is far from the only state where developers run things.
Click to expand...
MauleSkinner said:
Since when do the city commissioners honor explicit written agreements?
Click to expand...
California is in a housing crisis because they explicitly do not build housing. In fact, Santa Monica and Los Angeles have repeatedly gotten in trouble for refusing to zone R2 and R3 housing, when the state mandates it. The city commissioners openly advocate for violating state law. In fact, on Monday the LA city council voted to limit SB-79 to medium-low density. They openly voted to violate state law.

I agree with you that city commissioners do not honor the law. They break it when it allows them to block housing development. A lot of universal truths, simply don't apply to coastal cities in California.
 
Shame. I used to land there regularly. Easy access, nice FBO, but a bit pricey. It may take a few years but that land is so valuable, it will be developed. Not sure what will go there, but it will make money for someone.
 
Corin said:
California is in a housing crisis because they explicitly do not build housing. In fact, Santa Monica and Los Angeles have repeatedly gotten in trouble for refusing to zone R2 and R3 housing, when the state mandates it. The city commissioners openly advocate for violating state law. In fact, on Monday the LA city council voted to limit SB-79 to medium-low density. They openly voted to violate state law.

I agree with you that city commissioners do not honor the law. They break it when it allows them to block housing development. A lot of universal truths, simply don't apply to coastal cities in California.
Click to expand...
Having lived most of my life in a coastal California area, there isn’t much suitable room for more building. Most areas are built out. It’s really easy for them to sit up in Sac and boss cities that they’ve never been to around and order them to build more. Reality is that just about everything from Santa Barbara to the border within 50 miles of the coast is built out already.
 
as i understand it on the last day of the obama administration, they overrode the faa to placate a wealthy real estate donor. have no more details on that and i dont know for sure it’s true. but it has been in litigation for years and this outcome is the result of a compromise. it’s scandalous
 
If the residents of Dekalb County had it their way they would close PDK. PDK receives thousands of noise complaints per month.
 
Flocker said:
If the residents of Dekalb County had it their way they would close PDK. PDK receives thousands of noise complaints per month.
Click to expand...

Yeah but are the thousands of complaints from the same two people? That often seems to be the case, one or two neighborhood NIMBYs with nothing better to do spamming the complaint website all day, every day, every time they hear anything.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Yeah but are the thousands of complaints from the same two people? That often seems to be the case, one or two neighborhood NIMBYs with nothing better to do spamming the complaint website all day, every day, every time they hear anything.
Click to expand...

and even when they don't

(KBED received numerous noise complaints when an E-8C was scheduled to arrive... only it didn't get there that day)
 
Bob Noel said:
and even when they don't

(KBED received numerous noise complaints when an E-8C was scheduled to arrive... only it didn't get there that day)
Click to expand...
That would be funny, if it wasn't so depressing at the same time.
 
We had a local airport (Griswold in CT). Great little airport, privately owned. The town had an option to buy it at a great price but stalled until after the deadline, upon which the owners sold to a developer for a lot more money. Town sued, lost, developers planned their project . Lots of local objection, state wanted it to stay an airport, developers won. Got all the building approvals... then quit and sold the property to the town for 4X what they paid for it, more than 4X what the town could have gotten it for. Now it's a town park and open space, in a town that didn't need any more parks, and hardly used.
 
Sometimes the powers that be just hate little airplanes. See: Meigs. That land is just wasted. It's a "park" in the sense that there's nothing there but grass and weeds. All because Da Maya didn't like seeing those little planes.
 
Corin said:
California is in a housing crisis because they explicitly do not build housing. In fact, Santa Monica and Los Angeles have repeatedly gotten in trouble for refusing to zone R2 and R3 housing, when the state mandates it. The city commissioners openly advocate for violating state law. In fact, on Monday the LA city council voted to limit SB-79 to medium-low density. They openly voted to violate state law.

I agree with you that city commissioners do not honor the law. They break it when it allows them to block housing development. A lot of universal truths, simply don't apply to coastal cities in California.
Click to expand...

Let’s start with what’s true: local officials in cities like Los Angeles and Santa Monica have indeed failed to meet the spirit and often the letter of state housing law. Too many projects are delayed or denied by outdated zoning codes and commissions that treat housing growth as a nuisance instead of a necessity. But acknowledging that local leadership has been part of the problem doesn’t mean Sacramento’s one size fits all solution is the answer. SB9 is not fixing what’s broken; it’s multiplying the damage in new directions and SB79 - joke who really uses public transit?????

The heart of this issue isn’t whether California builds enough housing. It’s where and how that housing gets built. SB9 forces density into neighborhoods designed for stability, streets lined with modest single family homes, community schools, and long standing small businesses without the infrastructure or market balance to absorb that kind of change. It’s not a housing plan; it’s a disruption plan.

Take Long Beach. For decades, the city balanced its historic coastal character with moderate growth. Yet when density mandates began to push through the R1 to R4 rezoning, the effects were immediate: tear downs of older, affordable homes replaced with hastily constructed multiunit properties that disrupted neighborhood cohesion that strained street parking, utilities, and local services. The promise of “more affordable housing” gave way to investor driven projects and speculative conversions. Property values destabilized—not because new units drove healthy competition, but because investors flooded the market faster than the city could adapt.

Walk through parts of Long Beach today and you can still see the tension. Small homeowners who built equity and community over generations now face uncertainty, as SB9 opens the door to parcel splits and multiplex developments that can transform a block overnight. These aren’t visionary urban villages or walkable, transit friendly districts (SB79). They’re patchwork densification efforts that erode the very social fabric state housing policy claims to strengthen.

Residents who oppose SB9 aren’t NIMBYs in disguise... they’re stewards of neighborhood stability. They’re not rejecting housing growth; they’re rejecting chaos disguised as progress. California needs more housing, but it needs smart housing: growth that aligns with existing infrastructure, respects neighborhood identity, and ensures that affordability isn’t chased by displacement. Until state policy stops treating every square foot of urban land as a blank canvas for density, SB9 will continue to feel less like reform and more like demolition in slow motion.
 
As many of us local know, Santa Monica is the de-facto home for the homeless, and many of the residents listen to WIIIT-FM (what is in it for me)

Santa Monica Airport’s closure was never just about “public benefit.” It was a political decision that cleared the way for a far more lucrative land play, and the real beneficiaries are the big business interests, consultants, and development players who stand to gain from what comes after the airport. The public was handed a story about parks, open space, and environmental virtue, but the financial reality is simpler: once a prime coastal airport is shut down, the value shifts to whoever gets to shape the land next.

That is why this closure deserves skepticism from anyone who still believes local government should serve residents before powerful interests. A 192-acre property in Santa Monica is not being set aside for civic charity. It is being repositioned for future use, and history tells us that when a city controls land this valuable, the people with the most money, access, and political influence usually come out ahead. The airport community loses access, aviation loses infrastructure, and the public gets a polished narrative while big business quietly gets the upside.
 
ateamer said:
Very much so. California really does do it right when it comes to restrictions on building along the coast.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the Costal Commission?

The California Coastal Commission was once supposed to protect the shoreline. Today, it mostly protects its own power, a Frankenstein of bureaucracy that turns ordinary homeowners into reluctant experts on environmental permitting law. Once an idealistic safeguard, it is now arguably the most feared unelected body in California, functioning as a second, shadow government that worships at the altar of Sacramento politics.

This isn’t just about power; it’s about how gleefully it’s used. The Commission doesn’t merely regulate, it micromanages. It can block your remodel, redraw your blueprints, slap you with fines that sting harder than a jellyfish, and drag you through years of bureaucratic quicksand. You may hold the title deed, but make no mistake: the Commission owns your future. Owning a coastal property in California now feels like having a timeshare with the state. Just ask some of those looking to rebuild after the Palisades fire.

The Supreme Court caught on to the act decades ago in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, when the agency tried to give the public an easement across private land in exchange for a permit. The Court called foul, but that didn’t stop the Commission. It just learned to be more creative in disguising coercion as “public interest.” There are four cases going on now where the CCC "got some splanning to do.." and their track record on winning past cases hasn't been that stellar.

Then there’s the comedy of double standards. The Commission loves to scold regular folks for a deck that’s six inches too wide, but big-name developers and those well connected? They tend to get convenient waivers and photo ops. Apparently, environmental integrity bends easily for anyone with the right connections, checkbooks, or a docuseries deal.

And let’s not forget the Commission’s brief foray into political theater during the SpaceX Vandenberg dispute. On paper, commissioners claimed they were worried about environmental impact. Off the record, some admitted they just didn’t like Elon Musk’s politics. So much for science-based decision making. The air quality wasn’t the only thing polluted in that room. The irony: a state agency created to protect the coast from pollution now seems polluted by ideology.
 
Last edited:
Ventucky Red said:
SB9 is not fixing what’s broken; it’s multiplying the damage in new directions and SB79 - joke who really uses public transit?????
Click to expand...
Its interesting how you interpret my comment as an attack on your way of life. Its not. Also, I do in fact take the bus everyday in LA county to commute to work. SB-79 does not apply to the bus, only BRT and the metro systems, so lucky for you, it wont help me out.

Regardless, my comment was not about the politics behind the housing policy. Santa Monica airport is being closed because of the noise, and flying is inherently an elitist hobby that very few people partake in and takes up a nonsignificant amount of land. If I was not a pilot, and I lived nearby, I know I would prefer a park. In 2014, a majority of people in each Santa Monica neighborhood voted to close it. To pretend that these people are in the pockets of shady real-estate developers, means pretending these people don't have agency.

I think most of us can agree that turning SMO into a park would lead to the nearby homes appreciating in value. Turning it into apartments, would devalue these homes, because people don't want to live near apartments. The only financial interests in the area lie in not developing the airport.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Let’s start with what’s true: local officials in cities like Los Angeles and Santa Monica have indeed failed to meet the spirit and often the letter of state housing law. Too many projects are delayed or denied by outdated zoning codes and commissions that treat housing growth as a nuisance instead of a necessity. But acknowledging that local leadership has been part of the problem doesn’t mean Sacramento’s one size fits all solution is the answer. SB9 is not fixing what’s broken; it’s multiplying the damage in new directions and SB79 - joke who really uses public transit?????

The heart of this issue isn’t whether California builds enough housing. It’s where and how that housing gets built. SB9 forces density into neighborhoods designed for stability, streets lined with modest single family homes, community schools, and long standing small businesses without the infrastructure or market balance to absorb that kind of change. It’s not a housing plan; it’s a disruption plan.

Take Long Beach. For decades, the city balanced its historic coastal character with moderate growth. Yet when density mandates began to push through the R1 to R4 rezoning, the effects were immediate: tear downs of older, affordable homes replaced with hastily constructed multiunit properties that disrupted neighborhood cohesion that strained street parking, utilities, and local services. The promise of “more affordable housing” gave way to investor driven projects and speculative conversions. Property values destabilized—not because new units drove healthy competition, but because investors flooded the market faster than the city could adapt.

Walk through parts of Long Beach today and you can still see the tension. Small homeowners who built equity and community over generations now face uncertainty, as SB9 opens the door to parcel splits and multiplex developments that can transform a block overnight. These aren’t visionary urban villages or walkable, transit friendly districts (SB79). They’re patchwork densification efforts that erode the very social fabric state housing policy claims to strengthen.

Residents who oppose SB9 aren’t NIMBYs in disguise... they’re stewards of neighborhood stability. They’re not rejecting housing growth; they’re rejecting chaos disguised as progress. California needs more housing, but it needs smart housing: growth that aligns with existing infrastructure, respects neighborhood identity, and ensures that affordability isn’t chased by displacement. Until state policy stops treating every square foot of urban land as a blank canvas for density, SB9 will continue to feel less like reform and more like demolition in slow motion.
Click to expand...
Also, next time you try to lecture me on housing, please don't use chatGPT. It means you don't even know what you are talking about.
 
JOhnH said:
Not that I want to defend California, but Florida is famous for "Developer Rule".
Click to expand...
It's all about money. Everyone in the local real estate and construction industries will make money on this.
 
Corin said:
Also, next time you try to lecture me on housing, please don't use chatGPT. It means you don't even know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Are you rereferring to my using Grammarly to correct grammatical mistakes, yes I use it all the time.. and make no bones about it. Oh.... wait, this is AI right.... silly me.

What else you got besides two left feet..

Corin said:
Its interesting how you interpret my comment as an attack on your way of life. Its not. Also, I do in fact take the bus everyday in LA county to commute to work. SB-79 does not apply to the bus, only BRT and the metro systems, so lucky for you, it wont help me out.
Click to expand...

Not an attack on my life I moved out of Long Beach years ago because of this... some of us like our tree lined single family home streets.
 
Jim K said:
Sometimes the powers that be just hate little airplanes. See: Meigs. That land is just wasted. It's a "park" in the sense that there's nothing there but grass and weeds. All because Da Maya didn't like seeing those little planes.
Click to expand...
And yanno, the Friends of Meigs plan to reopen it would still work and be a major positive for the city today. There was even one mayoral candidate a while back who said he'd do it, but he wasn't really ever close to being a frontrunner.
 
This also happened to I77 (Blue Ash, Ohio) airport just north of Cincinnati. It's now some kind of cluster home/shopping mecca/park/green/etc. area.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Yeah but are the thousands of complaints from the same two people? That often seems to be the case, one or two neighborhood NIMBYs with nothing better to do spamming the complaint website all day, every day, every time they hear anything.
Click to expand...
There was even one guy that built a homemade ADSB receiver and was taking down tail numbers from his patio and reporting them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top