Wow, talk about divorced from reality. I can't imagine what her carbon footprint looks like. Moreover, think of the economic impact that closing the airport would have. If the rich want to fly on jets, let them. The rest of us will enjoy making 6k an hour from them so we can support our families.

Who exacyly is divorced from reality? I am not sure where you get you 6 k number, but this imaginary sum is not going to me or any other residents I know of. Perhaps netjets and others of their ilk are raking it In, but Santa Monica (their finances are public) is most definitely not. That property is worth millions and millions. That is not an amount I pulled out of thin air. I am sorry your bread is buttered by the airport, but we would like the sky to stop raining airplanes on our community. Sell the land and bring real money to the community, not to netjets.

My patio furniture and doorsteps and windowsills are continually filthy from the air pollution raining down from the airport, not to mention that we are often awakened by those loud jets. They fly outside the "allowed" hours and just pay the fines without second thoughts. That plane crashed in my neighborhood. There have been others. CLOSE THE AIRPORT!

"filthy air pollution raining down from the airport"
Gee, don't you live in and next to one of the most pouplated cities in the States? Don't you realize even if the the Airport were to be shut down, you would still be living in one of the places that have the worst air pollution in the USA? I doubt that you would notice a difference in the filthy air pollution even if all the airports in the Basin were shut down. Sell your cars, quit your job in the Valley and get one close enough to you to be able to ride your bike! Till you do that, quit attacking the industry that feeds MY family. Oh... have a nice day.

Actually, when we lived just a few blocks over we did not have the black residue all over our garden furniture. And there is no Valley job. We love walking in our neighborhood, walk to school and to local businesses and use public transport when possible. The airport allows for dangerous activity over a highly populated area. I'm not "attacking an industry", I am voicing my opinion.

News flash, There was a terrible wreck on PCH Last week, I think we should shut it down, The Noise, the polution from all those cars, would it be great to have PCH as a bike path. Great Idea Right NOT. PCH, like the airport is a vital link in our nations transportation infastructure. Of Course, when the big earthquake hits and all the freeways are damaged and closed, Ms Londoño will not accept , out of principal , of course, any aid from that source RIGHT, haha

I agree with Dr. Londono, we should shut down everything that we don't like. I live near a train track that sometimes wakes me up in the night. The trains deliver coal, and coal is a evironmental nightmare. After Santa Monica Airport is gone, we can get rid of the trains, and then move onto cars. Then we will be left with bicycles and compost. A big load of compost.

Good grief - every time someone voices an opinion on an issue that might favor cutting back on pollutants, the Red Herrings and Straw Dogs come out of the woodwork. Would any one of you critics care to have someone's private jet crash into your home? Or would you consider it to be simply collateral damage worth the convenience of having a private airport in Santa Monica for the jet-setters among us?

Yes I really do think that santa monica airport should be shut down, because I think that santa monica airport has rolled the dice one too many times with peoples safety, and the safety of the neighborhoods that surround the airport, and I think that if santa monica airport keeps rolling the dice with peoples safety, and the safety of the neighborhoods that surround the airport, and at the cost of peoples lives, and property, is just too much of a Iiability, and a Lawsuit waiting in the wings, I mean at what cost, dose santa monica airport have to roll the dice on peoples lives, and property, Plus I think that santa monica has to factor in the Liability factor of this airport being so close to peoples homes......Plus I think the land that santa monica airport sits upon, can be better used, for either a park, with a Man made lake, like lake mission viejo, or even used for building homes on even......

Let's try a thought exercise. Assume your hippy fantasy of SMO getting bulldozed comes true. A fight ensues over what to do with the land. Because believe me, if you think it will become all beautiful grass and trees, yapping dog-poop parks, new age book stores, and yoga studios (and a park! and a lake!), you're not only naive, but in for a rude awakening. It will most likely turn into what every other piece of sizable land becomes, either another cookie-cutter strip mall (Robek's Juice, Pier 1, Panda Express, Best Buy, ad nauseum), or it will become yet another huge block of high-density apartments or condos. The funny thing is, you will be the same people then complaining about why the traffic (and the noise! and the accidents!) has gotten so much worse when the population density in the area increases 10-fold.

And by the way, comparing a woman getting stoned to death (The Lottery) with keeping and airport open is just a teens-weensy drama-queenish, don't you think?

BOTTOM LINE:
Airport built: 1922
Sunset Park built: 1940s
Airport was there first. Move somewhere else. End of argument.

Lets not forget that you house in Sunset park was built with the help of Douglas Aircraft, which really put Santa Monica on the map in the 40's and 50's , and dont forget the 1000's of DC-3's and DC-4's built for the war effort. So The sunset park home you are living in was built because of the airport, oh and how are you going to like the traffic from several thousand more car trips a day thru sunset park, enjoy.

I hate repeating myself, on this subject, but as I said before santa monica airport is too too much a Liability, for the city of santa monica, I think its not only a health risk, to residents who live close to this airport, in that being a former resident of the area myself, I've always thought that santa monica airport is just too much of a Liability, personaly I think its just a Lawsuit waiting in the wings, so I want to say again santa monica airport is just too much of a Liability, for santa monica itself, so yes I think that this airport has seen its day, and I dont think that santa monica, needs this kind of Liability, on its shoulders like that when the land that santa monica airport sits upon could be used for better purpouses such as for example a Mixed use residental, and retail, neighborhood including possibbly a WAL,MART, and I think that area CAN use a WAL,MART, of course, I mean who would not want to live next to a WAL,MART.. and personaly I think the city of santa monica, and Mar vista, would really really Benifit from a WAL,,MART, in there neighborhood....AS I said before santa monica dose not Need the Liability of this airport on there plate at all, because as I said, its a Lawsuit, just waiting to happen..........

Why are we arguing like toddlers about who was here first? Let's take a close look at the PRESENT situation: there is an airport located within a sea of homes, schools and parks, with NO room for error.This makes no sense, and it is not the fault of the residents! Other airports are located in industrialized locations and have designated more space in case of an emergency situation like the one this pilot was in. Everything changes and evolves, we should not keep doing the same thing ad infinitum because we think this is how it has always been. So far all of the changes involving this airport have been for the worse, it is time to make a change for the better.

You said it, Ms Londono! The idea of adults "calling dibs" on a plot of public land is childish at best. Unfortunately, the decision does not rest solely with the City of Santa Monica - which, by the way, has tried several times to close down SMO. The FAA has a big voice in this issue, and the City can't do much of anything until grant assurances that were struck almost 20 years ago expire in 2015. If I were a resident of Sunset Park, I'd start now to get my signatures and motions in order for the battle that is likely to ensue at that time. While the City of Santa Monica is expected to make yet another attempt to close down the airport when the assurances expire, it would be very reasonable to guess that the NBAA and AOPA are already lining up their attorneys to fight the City on this issue. At the end of the day, you are correct - it is not about who was there first. But it may very well end up being about whose Attorney can beat up the other kid's Attorney.

Personaly agree with these protesters, IM with them one hundred percent, in wanting this airport shut down, because as I said before, I think that santa monica airport, with these thousands upon thousands of homes that surround this airport, is for one thing Dangerous, and too too much of a Liability to santa monica, in general, and its a lawsuit just waiting in the wings...and being a former, Resident of the area myself, I've heard all the noise that comes from that airport, and I even use to walk in those neighborhoods, right close to that airport, and yes I could hear all the jets, and planes starting up there engines, and getting ready to take off, I've even seen a few times where it seemed like these planes, and Jets were taking off over these homes in these area's..........and plus I think that there can be better uses for the land that santa monica airport sits upon, that still can create Jobs, and revue for the city of santa monica, and for the area's that surround santa monica.....My thought is what about that Football stadium that there all talking about for downtown LA, how's about building it where santa monica Airport sits now IM sure there is plenty of room for it there......???

There are many parallels between this airport and cigarettes. It was not that long ago that any bar you would walk into was full of cigarette smoke. Then, some kind and intelligent people decided it was not right that the bartenders be exposed to so much cigarette smoke. I'm sure there were many who argued that the cigarettes were there first, that the bartenders could choose another job. But thank God some common sense actually prevailed in that battle and the people decided no one should be exposed to carcinogens unnecessarily at their work place. Santa Monica has had the insight to take this a step further and ban cigarette smoking in apartment buildings. I'm sure again there were those who fought for the cigarettes: "they were here first!", "people that don't like second-hand smoke can move!" The tobacco companies tried to argue for years that cigarettes were safe, like I've heard many try to argue that the lead in the avgas is safe. It is not right that jets fly out of an airport on a runway that is too short for them. It is not right for them to blow their leaded exhaust directly into someone's home and into children's schools. The answer is not for the "complainers" to move, even if they moved, someone else would be living there. Doctors used to promote cigarettes, people used to think it was safe to live less than 300 feet from a runway. Times have changed and we know more now than we did when the area was developed. We need to adjust our way of life accordingly.