The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dismissed a case filed by the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and four other stakeholders that sought judicial review of the settlement agreement between the FAA and the city of Santa Monica, California. The unprecedented 2017 agreement provided the city with the option to close Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) after Dec. 31, 2028, and allowed the airport’s sole runway to be shortened from 4,973 feet to 3,500 feet.
NBAA alleged the agency exceeded its authority when it entered into the agreement, and the association immediately challenged the settlement in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Following the dismissal of that case on procedural grounds in June 2018, NBAA pursued another legal path to preserve SMO, filing the new complaint in July 2018.
The complaint cited the 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Leedom v. Kyne as a precedent enabling the challenge of statutory violations by federal agencies, even if the agency actions were deemed to be “non-final” and thus ordinarily not subject to review. However, the judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds, ruling that it failed to satisfy all of the jurisdictional requirements of Leedom.
Read the Opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (PDF)
The ruling was “disappointing, in that it shielded FAA action from judicial review,” said Alex Gertsen, NBAA director of airports and ground infrastructure. “Despite not successfully overturning the settlement agreement, NBAA remains committed to supporting the Santa Monica Airport Association (SMAA) and engaging with city officials and community representatives to ensure a viable future for their local airport.”
Gertsen further noted that the airport not only serves as an important part of the national air transportation system, it is also a source for jobs and has a significant economic impact. The airfield also plays an important role in aeromedical transport, and it stands ready to support disaster-relief efforts.
“It would be irresponsible governance for the Santa Monica City Council to exercise the option to close the airport, which greatly benefits the majority of Santa Monica’s population, based on pressure from a small but vocal cluster,” he added.
NBAA, SMAA and other general aviation groups also support a case pending before the California Supreme Court that could shift the balance in favor of preserving SMO over the present city council’s anti-airport stance.
“City council members are currently elected at-large,” Gertsen explained. “The issue now before the court would create a more diverse representation of the population, bringing new leaders to the council who reside in other geographic areas of the city and have different perspectives on the issues than the current city leadership.”
Gertsen noted that NBAA’s continued efforts to preserve SMO are important to avoid an adverse national precedent. NBAA and aviation groups must demonstrate they will stand up to thwart efforts by municipalities or the FAA to close vital local airports, he said.
“We will vigilantly continue to defend access to airports throughout our country,” he concluded. “The business aviation community must remain proactive in combating threats to our nation’s aviation infrastructure.”
When you have idiots in government that is what you get!!!
How many non-military airports does Los Angeles basin have? I count 17. Enough said.
What is that supposed to mean…the Los Angeles basin is almost 35000 sq miles. 17 airports for a population of over 13 million people could be considered well underserved…you obviously don’t live there…a typical GA hangar goes for nearly $1000 a month because of demand and you’re going to say that’s not a supply and demand issue. When it takes over 3 hours often to drive 75 miles having a local airport available to hop on top is priceless.
You are correct! Chronically under-airported.
For serving a population of over fifteen million people in the area, this is a real problem. When there is an earthquake, brush fires, and reliever aircraft are brought in, they use Santa Monica. When the Northridge quake occurred, SMO was the base. The Malibu fires, SMO was the base.
The aviation infrastructure is critical to the region, yet is ignored generally. It’s unfortunate that the ignorant criticize, yet derive benefit when an emergency occurs.
Thank you for your helpful comment.
SO WHAT…WHAT DO YOU CARE?
If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a dozen times: Close the airport and build a MAXIUM Security Federal Prison. A place to house the Charlie Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer types. Imagine how many panties will be in a twist when one of these characters breaks out. Let the liberal residents house these folks until the end of their lives and see how much that costs. Oh, I guess with the “catch and release” philosophy these guys can set up housekeeping on one of their lawns, or do they not believe in having a lawn.
The last time I visited Santa Monica I was amazed how filthy it had become. The whole city has become nauseatingly liberal. NIMBY have a nice day.
How do you know that they are liberals? I’m having a nice day
If Santa Monica doesn’t want general aviation, I think general aviation should return the favor. No overnight mail to Santa Monica, no FedEx, no medevac flights, no access to aviation at all. Anyone from Santa Monica will be refused boarding on ANY aircraft, anywhere, sorry, you’re taking the bus from now on. Oh, can’t take a bus to Japan or England? Too bad, guess you’re not going. And since it is California, no fire bombers allowed either next time there is a brush fire, no mosquito spraying either fixed wing or helicopter, the list goes on. Any business that relies on GA (not just based at the airport) should LEAVE and let them know why.
Closing your airport is like closing your Interstate highway exit – the community will wither on the vine because nobody can easily get there. The holy grail of property values will decline, businesses will leave, nobody will want to live there and the tax base will decay and evaporate.
What’s next? A law against electricity, everyone has to use oil lamps? (Never seen an air conditioner that would run on whale oil – maybe we should make them to run on finely diced and shredded politicians?)
That is what you get when the FAA administrator that cut this deal has no aviation experience! He did not know what General Aviation was until he was appointed Administrator. FAA set a president for land grabbers now!!!!
Totally agree! Clearly a political decision on Michael Huerta part something he should have been called out on from the moment he made it regardless that he was already on his way out! This infuriates me to this day he got away with that move and that seems to be OK with the FAA and other government officials!!!
The two or three years that Michael Huerta “spewed” his comments about medical reform at the “Meet the Boss” forum at Airventure likewise infuriated me. The guy was nothing but a “Yes Man” at the top of FAA within DOT. We coulda hired a bobble head for a lot less.
I lived (and initially loved) in Calyfornya for thirty years … at the end, happiness was the place in my rear view mirror on eastbound I-10 at Blythe. And THAT was twenty one years ago.
Huerta literally destroyed the ATC system by dumping 3000 potential air traffic controllers that were vetted and waiting to be hired!
Today the ATC system will be short controllers because Huerta changed the hiring rules!
NOW WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF CONTROLLERS!!!!
NBAA badly screwed up with its court case. Shame on them for not taking this seriously!
Huerta should not have made the closure agreement – he didn’t have to. 2/3rds of the runway area was to be an airport in perpetuity. The 1/3rd that already is closed was city land under a long term lease, and the city accepted federal funds for airport development that extended that lease to 2000. Once the date arrived, the city closed its 1/3rd of the runway yet Huerta rolled over and agreed to close the 2/3rds that was held in perpetuity. Why? What was he promised as incentive?
This stinks of corruption, yet there seems to have been no investigation.
Why can’t the present Transportation Secretary reverse the agreement, based on the critical need to maintain SMO as an airport? SMO is used as a staging point during fires and earthquakes and the alternative is Compton. SMO is ideally located for emergency purposes.
Give it up. CA is a doomed state anyway. Sane people are leaving. Let the illegals and homeless have the place.
No, No. California is a great place to live, with a great future. ALL of the countries politicians, lawyers, FAA Officials, Rap Singers, and Tree Huggers should live there. That way when the state falls into the pacific the majority of this country’s problems will be solved.
One thing for sure, DONT move to Montana, there’s nothing here for you!
Oh good, now we can have another park for people to throw trash on the ground in. Good thinking…
IIRC Santa Cruz-Watsonville CA was going to whore itself for developers too and shut down their airport to build condos etc, until that monster earthquake made WVI the only way to get supplies to Santa Cruz until the roads were repaired.
Hope the fair city of SMO doesn’t learn the lesson after the fact.
RIP SMO. It was nice to know you.
That’s already been pointed out to the City. The people over there are nuts! The articles in the local newspaper about little airplanes “spewing lead over the population”.
I practiced as a redevelopment consultant, and pointed out that traffic plans assume ten vehicular trips a day to residences. Imagine the multi use development, and the traffic generated?
Airports are actually friendly neighbors. They use a lot of space, and it’s open for almost all the time. Thirty aircraft movements an hour actually make little noise and the pollution is minimal.
The opponents quoted a noise and air quality study, and quoted a noise and atmospheric monitor at the east end of the runway – there is a perimeter road and there were monitors between the road and the runway, and east of the road. The noise and pollution between the road and the runway were very low, and the readings east of the road were significant – you can guess which one the opponents used, quoting pollution readings but ignoring that they were off the airport and obviously were resulting from vehicle pollution.
This closure is like Meigs – an invasion by NIMBYS, all of whom who moved in knowing that the airport was there. SMO will never be what the opponents dream for it be.
Well, looks like the relators are going to get their wish and have a big plot of land to sell more homes to…
The soccer moms win – rip SMO