The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has asked its members in Southern California to contact U.S. Representatives Karen Bass (D-Calif.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), in an effort to stave off the latest attempt to close Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO).
Both members of Congress have endorsed a seven-point plan by local airport opponents to close the airport in the near future. Bass and Lieu have scheduled a July 8 meeting with FAA officials to discuss the plan.
AOPA has called on members in the districts represented by Bass and Lieu (Districts 37 and 33 respectively) to join a letter-writing campaign organized by the Santa Monica Airport Association to ensure that both representatives hear from constituents who understand the airport’s value and importance to the community, region and nation.
“This latest effort to close Santa Monica Airport once again seeks to roll back long-standing agreements the city has made with the FAA,” said Mark Baker, AOPA president. “We want to make sure that Representatives Bass and Lieu have a full understanding of the benefits that SMO brings to its community, and how those benefits will grow in the future.”
Although the city struck an agreement with the FAA in 1948 to operate the airport in perpetuity, city leaders have made repeated efforts to shut the airport down. The airport has survived every challenge, including a recent court case battle. Having failed there, city officials recently adopted a practice of slow strangulation to put the airport out of business by raising fees and changing lease terms, AOPA officials noted.
Airport opponents have not been swayed by studies showing that the 96-year-old airfield and birthplace of Douglas Aviation today supports more than 1,500 jobs and 175 businesses, with 250 based aircraft. The airport generates $250 million in economic activity each year and reduces congestion in the air and on the roads that would otherwise increase if traffic were to be diverted elsewhere in the busy Los Angeles area.
AOPA has joined in legal actions and supported ballot initiatives seeking to preserve the airport, and remains focused on that important task.
Members living in the 33rd and 37th Congressional Districts now have a role to play: Speaking up and sharing their support of the airport with their elected officials, AOPA official said.
I learned a lot about airport noise, pollution etc from the El Toro Airport effort (in Orange County, California) and I learned that airports are user friendly. They don’t generate much carbon since vehicular traffic is limited and aircraft depart (at most) every two minutes.
I actually read the emissions study that was done for SMO at the request of the anti-airport folk, and they claim that the pollution level is high. However, there was an emissions meter placed at the airport boundary that is east of the runway but west of the periphery road that goes past the airport, and another on the other side of that periphery road. What was stated was that emissions on the monitor between the runway and the road were very low, but that emissions east of the road were high. The anti-airport people seized on the high reading as if it came from the airport, ignoring the monitor near the runway that measured low.
The anti-airport group is well funded, and is in dreamsville. The aged hippies in Santa Monica are still on LSD I reckon, and the “airport2park.com” website is fantasy. The hypocrisy is evident, yet strong.
What I haven’t heard mentioned by anyone is any kind of compromise solution. The city is bound and determined to close the airport and the FAA is bound and determined that it must stay open. From pictures of the airport it is obvious that it is a very bad place to have an airport. The damage has been done and the airport is no longer outside of town, but is right in the middle of town.
Why not compromise and tell the city that they may in fact close the airport, AFTER they have built a new airport of equal or greater capacity in a lower population density area. The city won’t like it, but it will give them a pathway to closing the airport and developing the property.
The ‘comprise’ that the city seeks is to close 1/3rd of the airport, rendering it useless. The claims are that only a portion of the airport is covered by the lease in perpetuity and that the agreement on the balance expires this year.
There is nowhere to build an airport, except for offshore, and the California Coastal Commission will never allow it.
What the anti-airport people ignore is that SMO is a critical community infrastructure, used by air ambulance, police, and emergency services. It was the staging rescue point when the Northridge Quake occurred. Anti people say to use Van Nuys, but it’s saturated.
Again, they ignore the cost of closing and that the airport will be redeveloped as high density mixed use which will develop great vehicular traffic and great carbon pollution from emissions. Traffic consultants use a figure of ten vehicular trips per day when determining traffic demand, so assume a mixed use development of forty units per acre plus theaters, restaurants and high rise office (they generate traffic demand at different times of the day) and you can imagine the commercial and residential traffic that will occur.
The anti-airport folk (with their ludicrous airport2park.com which shows birds and bees and parks which will never happen) ignore reality. The truth is that the lowest traffic generator, lowest pollution generator, is the present use. I reckon that state and federal governments should acquire properties under the flight path (as they have at LAX) and preserve the airport usage.
If the airport is too noisy, I have a solution: How about building a Federal Prison on the property. Then no more pesky little airplanes flying around. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Every time I see something like this happens I get fuming.
The airport was there before the idiots moved to the area and most likely before the house they were in was built, but they feel like the airport is the problem causer not them.
If they don’t like airplane noise why didn’t they choose to live somewhere else?
It’s a bunch of people who the issue they are dealing with is 100% avoidable and all their fault, but they don’t want to admit that they are the stupid ones.