Good by KSMO airport

All of the politicians in this state want to take us back to the 1800's. Riding on bicycles and trains......no thanks.

 

Santa Monica Airport will close in 2028 and be replaced by a park, officials say - LA Times

Agreement also allows them to reduce the length of the runway to 3500ft (from 4973) immediately.

 

I will laugh when it's a home for the homeless.

 

From AIN.

Was this settlement by the FAA negotiated by this or the former White House administration?

A sad result.

Jeff

California's Santa Monica Airport (SMO), both historically important and a key part of the National Airspace System (NAS), will close at the end of 2028, the FAA said on Saturday following two weeks of negotiations between city leaders and the agency. Somewhat sooner, possibly within a year, the city of Santa Monica, which owns the 227-acre airfield, will cut the 4,973-foot runway down to 3,500 feet, effectively eliminating access to the larger jets that currently fly there.*
Before Saturday's surprise settlement, the city and FAA had been embroiled in multiple lawsuits, with the city council and its airport commission firmly arguing for closing the airport while the FAA and pro-airport proponents repeatedly pointed out that after World War II, the city had signed an instrument of transfer to keep the airport open in perpetuity.*
Despite that requirement and the FAA’s and airport proponents’ efforts to retain this important link in the NAS, the FAA and the city have signed a settlement agreement allowing the city to close the airport forever on Jan. 1, 2029. Probably in recognition of the city’s claim that a portion of the airport is not subject to the 1947 instrument of transfer with the government, the FAA also consented to allow the city to close nearly 1,500 feet of runway, a portion of which can be used to build runway safety areas and/or an emergency overrun with crushable concrete.
The consent agreement took airport users and organizations that have worked for years and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to protect the airport by complete surprise. It was, said Santa Monica Airport Association (SMAA) president Bill Worden, “a shock to us.”*
“The news that FAA has reached a settlement to close and restrict SMO with the current city council governing Santa Monica is obviously very disappointing,” added SMAA vice president Dave Hopkins.*
While the city had attempted to evict the airport’s two FBOs—Atlantic Aviation and American Flyers—and refused to sign new leases with airport businesses after allowing all airport leases to expire last July, the city, according to the FAA, “is obligated to enter into leases with private aeronautical service providers to ensure continuity of those services until the runway is shortened and it decides to provide such services on its own.” While the city has the right to take over FBO services, it cannot restrict the sale of leaded fuel for piston engines as long as the FAA permits such fuel to be used for aircraft in the U.S. The agreement also requires the city to give 30 days' notice before shortening of the runway and before closing the airport.
Precedent-setting Decision
Having long argued the importance of SMO to the NAS, the FAA gave no reason why it acceded to the city’s demands to allow it to close SMO. Airport proponents fought not just to keep SMO open but also to prevent its closing from setting a precedent for other local governments seeking to shutter their airports. According to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, “Mutual cooperation between the FAA and the city enabled us to reach this innovative solution, which resolves longstanding legal and regulatory disputes. This is a fair resolution for all concerned because it strikes an appropriate balance between the public's interest in making local decisions about land-use practices and its interests in safe and efficient aviation services.”
SMAA’s Fry doesn’t agree, and he told AIN, “At a time when the country is focused on rebuilding infrastructure, closing an airport that was supposed to remain a public-use airport ‘in perpetuity’ makes no sense. This action immediately increases the closure threat to an additional 230-plus airports across the U.S. that were deeded to towns and cities from the federal government after World War II to develop our freedom of movement by air.”
NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen isn’t happy with the FAA’s capitulation to the city of Santa Monica. “We are disappointed that the government decided to settle this case,” he said, “especially given that NBAA has long been committed to aggressively supporting business aviation access to SMO, through every legislative and legal channel available. If there are further avenues available to us, we intend to explore them.”
“We were surprised at the announcement of the settlement between the FAA and the city of Santa Monica regarding its airport,” said Jack Pelton, chairman and CEO of the Experimental Aircraft Association. “It is certainly a disappointing development, first concerning the immediate ability to shorten the runway, and the ultimate ability to close the airport in 2028. While we can only guess at the inside discussions to reach this settlement, as to our knowledge the airport’s stakeholders were not a part of it. The founding principles of FAA grant assurances are to maintain stability for an airport and its users as part of the National Airspace System, above local political maneuvering.”
NATA lamented the eventual loss of the airfield and the fact that airport businesses weren't consulted during negotiations between the FAA and city. “The agreement…is clearly a compromise that will have to be studied closely to fully understand its implications to both SMO and the entire national airport system. Certainly, it does not change the necessity of airports like SMO to the L.A. region. Ultimately, the city of Santa Monica is simply diverting a segment of its traffic to neighboring airports,” said NATA president Martin Hiller. “It is disappointing that businesses both on and off the field that depend on SMO were not part of the negotiations.”
However, he is “pleased that the FAA has stated the city is obligated to extend leases to current aeronautical service providers until such time as the city is ready to operate a proper aeronautical service operation…providing services consistent with industry standards and expectations and selling the kinds of fuel widely used in the industry and support use of the field—a point we note is covered in the weekend agreement.” Hiller said that the reduction in runway length is a “game changer” and will certainly change the mix of traffic in and out of SMO, requiring a review by the city, other regional communities and private investors as to the “appropriate type of aeronautical service businesses to operate at the field.”
Questions remain about how the city will manage the airport, and especially how it will make up for the reduction in landing fee and fuel flow revenue from the larger aircraft that currently use the airport once the runway is shortened. Jet charter and fractional-share customers, for one example, might find SMO’s new 3,500-foot runway too short to meet regulatory requirements. It is not clear whether the settlement agreement addresses the city’s ability to raise landing fees and fuel fees to such a high level that all types of operators are discouraged from using the airport and possibly hastening its closure.
“The devil is in the details,” said AOPA president Mark Baker. “We are working to learn more about the fine points of the settlement, but our main goal—to keep this airport permanently open and available to all general aviation users—remains unchanged.”
Santa Monica city manager Rick Cole said that the city plans to implement the shortening of the runway to 3,500 feet immediately. “This will significantly reduce jet traffic flying over our neighborhoods and stops commercial charters until we close operations in 2028.”
Local attorney and airport proponent David Shaby, however, believes the entire process will take longer. “It is my understanding that that process will take approximately one year,” he said.
“This is a historic day for Santa Monica,” said mayor Ted Winterer. “After decades of work to secure the health and safety of our neighborhoods, we have regained local control of airport land. We now have certainty that the airport will close forever and future generations of Santa Monicans will have a great park.”

 

Kathryn's Report: Federal Aviation Administration and City Council Agree to Close Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) In 2029; Is Trump Onboard? Rushed decision on both sides appears to be an attempt to preempt Trump's Federal Aviation Administration adminis

Caught this on KR the other night. This caught my eye...

At that time, the airport's 227 acre parcel will revert to the City of Santa Monica which could turn it into a park or more likely, develop it intensively like Playa Vista. The land is worth over $1 billion, and there will be pressures to develop it no doubt.

 

At least they are not doing what the corrupt Daley did in Chicago.

Chicago Mayor Bulldozes A Small Downtown Airport - The New York Times

 

All the ***** FAA did on that one after it happened was say "You should not have done that". There were lots of possible things the FAA could have done but nothing.

 

Well there is hope-and regardless of what you think of Trump (keep it to yourself guys lol we don't want this going to P&R):

Federal Aviation Administration and City Council Agree to Close Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) In 2029; Is Trump Onboard? Rushed decision on both sides appears to be an attempt to preempt Trump's Federal Aviation Administration administrator

Trump Admin Sandbagged on Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) Closure; Will No Doubt Reverse It

It seems apparent that the Trump Administration was not told in advance of today's announced closure of the Santa Monica airport, as of 1/1/2029. Below is my reasoning and analysis.

Today at a rare Saturday special meeting, the City Council approved a settlement with the FAA restricting SMO's use until 2029, followed by its closing and turning over of the land to the City. The timing of the announced settlement, one week after the swearing in of a new Republican President, is hardly an accident. It is a parting shot by an Obama appointee at Trump and his allies. The settlement will not stand, and SMO will not close.

The Federal Aviation Administration is headed by Michael Huerta. President Barack Obama appointed him to head the FAA in 2013; he has a five year term.

The FAA is an agency within the Department of Transportation. Huerta is also the acting Secretary of the DOT, until the Senate approves the next Secretary of Transportation.

President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to run the DOT, Elaine Chao, testified before a Senate panel last week en route to what is expected to be an easy confirmation, says the Washington Post. She was deputy secretary of transportation under George H.W. Bush. Chao has not yet been sworn in yet, however.

To understand why this is Huerta's slap in the face to the Republicans, consider two facts: Chao is married to Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader. She has not yet been confirmed, but will be soon, at which time she will become Huerta's boss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Chao

Santa Monica is perhaps the most liberal community in the US. It is filled with the type of people Trump despises; well educated, left wing one percenters. Hillary Clinton came here to conduct numerous fundraisers with Hollywood A-Listers. 88% of Santa Monica voters were With Her in November 2016.

Why would the Trump administration want to reward Santa Monica with the gift of 227 prime acres, formerly used as an unpopular municipal airport? The answer is: He doesn't.

Obama did approve the settlement himself; however President Donald Trump or Chao can override it and will probably do so next month.

The settlement was a gift to the ultra liberal community of Santa Monica, which by and large is in favor of closing the Santa Monica airport and turning it into a park, luxury condos, or fancy sushi bars. It was jammed through in the closing days of the Obama administration, along with a rush of pardons, executive orders and national parks. The City Council reluctantly accepted the offer because they know it's their last chance to get rid of the airport, and 12 years is better than never.

Stay tuned. There's more here than meets the eye, and it ain't over till it's over.

 

it already is. when I had my business at SMO, there was a special police patrol to keep the homeless off airport grounds. so they went and slept in the bushes at Santa Monica College instead

 

hmmm...our local airport, CEU and KAND will not let us put any cars in the hangers, and will inspect them from time to time. We wanted to by a very large one that someone built a two bedroom condo in, but where told I don't know why they did that, they can't stay there!

 

Cars, boats, RV's all being cleared out of all FAA-tied ($$$$) airports....some going so far as to oust 'non-flyable' aircraft. Looking for alt parking for 2 boats, 3 cars, and 2 'non-flyable' aircraft right now......

"If it does not fly, you can't keep it in your hangar".

 

Actually, the FAA has backed off quite a bit on using hangars for other things, as long as they don't obstruct the "aeronautical purpose" of the hangar. And I think that's perfectly fine.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/hangar_use/

 

from what I remember, the "T hangars" on the south side of the airport were owned by the airport (aka City of SaMo) and were exclusively for small aircraft-you couldn't rent them for car,RV, or any other storage.

the large hangars on the north side of the airport were privately owned and yes, many of them housed car collections. Seinfeld kept a number of his cars in one. Harrison Ford kept his airplanes and a few cars in another.

 

ymmv

Certain airports are down to determination based on the sq ftg of your hangar.....and in those cases just one 'flyable' aircraft does not make the cut, if the other stored items consume more space.

 

NBAA-led Group Files Motion To Halt SMO Closure

Arguing that the FAA “disregarded well-established statutory and regulatory prerequisites to the release of an airport sponsor from federal obligations,” NBAA and five other aviation stakeholders filed a motion earlier this week requesting a stay in actions to limit the utility of Santa Monica (California) Municipal Airport. The filing seeks an injunction preventing the city from further actions, including reducing the length of the runway to 3,500 feet from 4,973 feet; and a stay against the FAA from allowing the city to ultimately close the airport at the end of 2028.

The agency shocked airport supporters on January 28, announcing it had agreed with the city to close the airport in 2028, and to enable the city to reduce the runway length with as little as 30 days’ notice, effectively shutting down most jet operations. In this week’s motion, NBAA and its partners wrote that the FAA “failed to follow established procedures when issuing the settlement order, including consideration of its detrimental effects to operators and businesses at the airport, and to the National Airspace System.”

The group wrote in the motion, “Even a cursory review of the actions taken—and not taken—by the FAA finds that the agency did not comply with requirements both basic and mandatory, and thus the settlement agreement is invalid—as would be any actions taken in reliance upon it.”

 

The fight is not over thanks to the NBAA.

NBAA Cites FAA Disregard of Law in SMO Court Battle
by Kerry Lynch
- August 16, 2017, 12:50 PM
Citing “FAA’s complete noncompliance” with the law, NBAA and five other stakeholders told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the January 28 agreement between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica on the fate of Santa Monica Airport (SMO) must be vacated.

The agreement, which NBAA noted marked a reversal for the agency, permits the city to immediately shorten the runway and to close SMO in 2028.

In a brief filed today in the court, the groups charge that in signing the settlement agreement, the FAA disregarded the statutory requirements for a study under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA); ignored the requirement to show that releasing SMO from its obligations would benefit aviation; neglected to document requirements rooted in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); failed to provide the mandatory opportunity for public notice and comment; and did not follow other legal requirements.

“The agreement, whether reasonable or unreasonable, circumvented statutory and regulatory protections that Congress, and the FAA itself, long ago emplaced to ensure that the national interest in aviation and airports could not be disregarded in favor of a parochial agenda,” the brief said.

The brief notes that more than 45 years ago, the FAA had called SMO a vital resource that it would preserve, quoting the agency as saying it “has no intention of consenting to the use of this property for other than airport purposes and will insist on the City of Santa Monica complying with its contractual obligations.”

The brief further outlines the group’s belief “that this position remains the correct one and that FAA erred in discarding decades of firmly established policy against the closure of viable airports to effect a settlement with the city. But the petition in this case does not depend on the wisdom or consistency of FAA’s decision. What occurred was wrong as a matter of law.”

NBAA called the agreement “highly unusual” and noted it was conducted with no input. “The loss of this critical reliever airport shifts the burden of accommodating air traffic to other area airports and has a major negative impact on area residents, businesses, general aviation and the flying public,” said NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen. He added the the agreement allows “‘local control’ driven by a vocal minority, with complete disregard for system-wide impacts.”

During the recent Experimental Aircraft Association AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta defended the agreement, saying, “Decisions of land use and facilities under our Constitution are reserved for local governments…[the FAA’s] arrangement with them is effectively contractual in consideration of receiving grants.” The localities must agree to performance standards, he said, but “the reality is that it is a local decision.”

He added that the battle isn’t with the FAA, but with the community. “I think the settlement arrangement buys us a very long tail where the airport will be able to operate perhaps with a shorter runway,” he said. “Rather than litigating this thing and possibly losing and facing overnight closure, instead what we have bought is a certainty for a number of years to work on that challenge with the local community.”

Joining NBAA in the filing are the Santa Monica Airport Association, Bill's Air Center, Kim Davidson Aviation, Redgate Partners and Wonderful Citrus.

Santa Monica, meanwhile, is moving forward with shortening the runway from 4,973 to 3,500 feet.