AOPA calls lawsuit to close Santa Monica Airport meritless

Officials at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) say a federal lawsuit filed Oct. 31 by the City of Santa Monica against the FAA lacks “any merit in law.”

In its lawsuit, the Santa Monica City Council asks the court to give the city clear title to the site of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). The city also reportedly challenges as unconstitutional the airport land transfers that were made with obligations that, in part, require the city to operate the airport in perpetuity, AOPA officials noted.

“The City Council knows those obligations exist but are singularly focused on striking them down by whatever method they can find,” AOPA officials said in a prepared released. “In each such previous attempt, the city has lost the battle.”

“As a proponent of the airport and its value to AOPA members, the local communities, and the national transportation system, AOPA has spent hundreds of hours working to keep Santa Monica Airport open,” the release continued. “AOPA has researched the city’s legal claims over the years and has actively participated in litigation and in the public forum to strike down, time and time again, the city’s claims that the airport land is theirs to do with as they want.”

“It is abundantly clear that the claims made in the city’s lawsuit have no basis in fact,” said Ken Mead, AOPA general counsel. “The city’s argument is hardly a novel one, and it should be very clear by now to members of the Santa Monica City Council and opponents of the airport that the airport must remain in operation under its agreement with the federal government. That may be politically unpopular for a few council members, but it happens to be the law.”

Santa Monica’s City Council has long sought to restrict and even close the airport, due to noise complaints, though a recent survey of city residents by AOPA found that more than 70% wanted the airport to continue to operate. Most complaints are generated, apparently, by residents who do not live in the city of Santa Monica, according to AOPA officials.

In a statement, Santa Monica contended that it owns the airport land and that, during World War II, it worked with the federal government to “expand and improve the airport.” The statement notes that after the war, the “airport was returned to the city through an instrument of transfer. The federal government claims that the instrument of transfer obligates the city to operate the airport ‘in perpetuity’ or forfeit its ownership interest to the federal government. The city disputes this claim.”

Santa Monica Municipal Airport was founded in 1917 and it has a storied aviation history. In the early 1920s, it was the home of Douglas Aircraft Co., which built the first houses near the field for its employees. Since then it has become surrounded by industrial and office buildings, and more homes have been built near both ends of its single, 5,000-foot runway.

Though those homes were built long after the airport was established, homeowners complain about noise and exhaust from aircraft using the airport.

In a statement, City Manager Rod Gould said city officials have met with the FAA and, “proposed possibilities for changes, including operational changes.” Gould stated that, “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. They believe that the city is legally obligated to continue operating the airport as it now operates and to keep operating it forever because of the post-war transfers.”

The FAA has offered options to the city to enhance safety at the airport but the city has flatly rejected them, AOPA officials said.

AOPA officials add that they agree with the FAA’s legal assessment of the airport’s status, which has been the subject of exhaustive review. Under a 1984 agreement with the FAA, many of the city’s leases at the airport expire in 2015. Airport opponents argue that the FAA’s obligation to the airport also expires at that time, which the FAA disputes.

The airport is home to about 267 aircraft, according to AOPA’s Airport Directory. But, more than that, “Santa Monica Airport is an integral part of the local economy, providing jobs and millions of dollars in annual revenue,” said Bill Dunn, AOPA’s vice president for airport advocacy. “The city benefits from the taxes on that revenue, not to mention the exorbitant landing fees that it has imposed. And the airport operates in the black. It has a long tradition of serving the community and providing local aviators with the freedom to fly and a great amount of previous legal research has already shown that it will continue to do so.”

About General Aviation News Staff

Comments

  1. Unfortunately many pilot/owners will not live by airports. It seems especially true of those with jet, twin, or high performance singles, ie. the loud stuff. The pilot owners although quick to defend,(rightly), that the airport was there first, themselves are NIMBYs, Granted SMO is too large with too many houses, but how many smaller airports could avoid problems like this if the owner/pilots lived around the airport. The “not in my backyard” mind set is not just with the non-flying public.

  2. As an AOPA survey states, 70% of the area residents are in favor of the airport. That is a majority! It’s time to organize that silent majority and speak up and out for the true assets of the airport to that and surrounding communities. Stop wasting hard earned tax payer money on lawsuits that only seem to serve the greedy, self-serving and narrow minded people.

  3. Gil Jennings says:

    It will take only one of these court cases to win by the anti airport crowd and then the rest of the nations airports will fall like dominoes, every subsequent court case citing the previous court case as a precedent.

  4. Lee Ensminger says:

    “In each such previous attempt, the city has lost the battle.” Yes, but remember this: They only have to win ONCE, and they can seize the airport and pull a stunt like Daley did in Chicago with Meigs Field. Once the runway is destroyed, good luck ever getting it restored. The people who want SMO to remain viable will never be able to rest. The city will continue to attack, and why not? It’s not THEIR money…they go after SMO with [your] tax dollars!

    “Though those homes were built long after the airport was established, homeowners complain about noise and exhaust from aircraft using the airport.” As a former airport manager[not at SMO], I have taken many calls from those people, and they NEVER want to hear that the airport was there first, and if you don’t enjoy airplanes or the noise they make, why did you build or buy an existing home nearby? They simply don’t care. They’re there NOW, and you’d better shut that noisy airport DOWN! They want you to get on the unicom and order those planes to land, as if that were even possible, which it isn’t of course, but that is the uninformed public mindset.

Speak Your Mind

*