Opinion: Efforts to Quiet Santa Monica Airport Are Unreasonable

An airport noise consultant criticizes the city of Santa Monica's approach to quelling noise at the local Airport. Neighbors have unrealistic expectations about aircraft noise, he says.

Commentary submitted by Jon Rogers of Jon Rogers Aviation Consulting in Van Nuys and a former noise consultant for the Venice Neighborhood Council.

In 1973, federal courts granted airports the right to enact reasonable, non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory noise abatement procedures that pose no hazard to aviation safety. Since then, Santa Monica has imposed virtually every noise abatement procedure known to exist. Yet, they are continuously embroiled in noise issues and seem to rejoice when Santa Monica residents log noise complaints.      

My mission as a noise consultant for the Venice Neighborhood Council as well as Indianapolis Executive was to educate those who complain about aircraft noise, as to what noise they had to accept and what noise they did not have to accept. And, that they could only ask for reasonable noise abatement measures and it was my job to know the difference.    

Currently, there is substantial evidence to prove that Santa Monica’s existing and proposed noise abatement procedures are unreasonable and caused by neighbors with unrealistic expectations about aircraft noise.


Airport management deliberately designed each procedure to unreasonably transfer aircraft noise from Santa Monica to other communities without their concurrence. Beware however, that turnabout will be reasonable if other flight schools decide to export operations to Santa Monica as I have suggested.     

The FAA is very clear about noise transfer schemes. The Regional Administrator wrote to Congressman Brad Sherman:

The FAA will not arbitrarily move noise from one community to another.  Therefore, any changes will require concurrence from all impacted communities.

More recently, El Segundo objected to Burbank’s proposed curfew. Their attorney wrote:

Noise relief for one community should not come at the expense of another.

Political leaders who grandstand about airport noise are the same leaders who implement economic policies for job growth that create aviation demand and the resulting noise. I don’t recall any politician who campaigned on a platform of unemployment.

If airports are willing to take Santa Monica’s problem noise in addition to their own, then they have done the superior job of noise mitigation and community outreach. 

Santa Monica should at the minimum, emulate the noise mitigation standard set at Indianapolis Executive Airport and manage their communities to have realistic expectations about aircraft noise. 

Indianapolis Executive Airport under my watch has operated for nearly 12 years without a single noise abatement procedure, noise monitor, flight tracking system, or even “Fly Quiet” signs. Yet no one complains. In fact, during the 2012 Super Bowl, the airport hosted nearly 90 corporate jets and at least twice that many round robin operations without a single noise complaint. Which airport has done the superior job of noise mitigation?

Further, Santa Monica should cease using noise complaints and other threats to harass and intimidate pilots. This is a safety hazard. National Transportation Safety Board accident investigations indicate that since 1987, at least 181 innocent persons have been killed and another 37 were injured because the flight crews’ concern with failing to comply with noise abatement procedures fatally overrode the safety procedures that would have prevented the accident. 


Patch accepts and publishes emails to the editor regarding any relevant local issue. The views expressed in the following commentary do not reflect the opinion of the publication, its editor and/or its writers. Emails may be edited for length and clarity. Have an opinion? Write to the editor of your Patch site. To find his or her email address, look in the top left corner of the home page.

Rich66 July 11, 2012 at 12:39 AM
approximately 40% of the total SMO operations are pattern flights. All of these flights are done by piston aircraft that operate by using aviation gasoline Ok I will play your silly game. Let's go nuts and assume that every gallon of avgas sold to create 1200 lbs of lead as claimed by another poster is burned up not in the pattern but just sitting on the ramp with the engine running at cruise power settings. Most of those trainers probably burn 5 gallons an hour or less. So with .6 grams of lead in a gallon of avgas it would still take 908, 333 gallons of fuel. Try to keep up here. Divide 908333 by 5 and you get 181,666 hours of airplanes running at cruise power settings. Let's say there are 100 planes doing this. This means each plane will have to be running 18,166 hours each year. Do you see a problem coming? Yeah me too. 365 days in a year, right. times 24 hours in a day gives us 8760 hours in a years. OOPS! The defense rests Your Honor. Judge scratches head and says. That isn't possible, drops gavel and tells hysterical fear mongerers. to go home and shut the hell up. Oh no. that part was just in my dream but the rest of it is fact. Now who wants to call me a liar again? Any body? You there. In the back. Did you want to refute me or my calculator? What? Oh, it's out the hall to your right 3rd door on left. Wash your hands when you're done. Class dimissed. I hope you all learned something while having some fun.
Rich66 July 11, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Now Jim G, You know that ain't gonna happen. ;-) Rich
Rich66 July 11, 2012 at 01:10 AM
If you want to be entertained for several minutes and read the comments of people that have no idea what they are talking about do go to the petition website listed above. I will save you the trouble of reading that again. The website is http://www.change.org/petitions/us-epa-director-of-transportation-air-quality-ban-the-use-of-lead-in-aviation-gas-avgas . Read the "reasons" why the sheeple have signed the petition and one thing is clear. They have been listening to some propaganda from the airport haters with out doing any research on their own. Quite entertaining. Enjoy.
Rich66 July 11, 2012 at 01:22 AM
BTW there are MULTITUDES of airplanes that could run car gas, the same thing you put in your car, except the FAA will not allow ,and the fuel hoses and aluminum tanks and aluminum lines and the rubber gaskets can not tolerate the alcohol. But since most people have been gullible enough to believe that gasohol is a good idea it has been made mandatory in most places. So we can't burn car gas because you want alcohol in it. The higher compression ratio engines (higher horsepower) can not run car gas because the octane rating is not high enough. Spirit Fuels has been doing research along with Purdue University to create a fuel which is cheaper to make, compatible with present fuels and fuel systems and actually contains more energy per pound that present day 100 LL. I recently had dinner with two of the engineers that have been helping to advance this technology. Just so you know it isn't like nothing is being done. Now about the alcohol in the gas. Any one wanna guess how many gallons of diesel fuel it takes to make a gallon a ethanol from corn. There happens to be a huge ethanol plant in Indiana that I have spent some time in. Of course that takes corn out of the food chain and raises the cost of people food and cattle food and chicken food which is people food. Get those calulators out.
Charles July 11, 2012 at 02:03 AM
So what I can ascertain from these comments is that the aviation proponents know there are problems with the smell, pollution, sound, and safety issue but feel it is best if the residents move away so they can continue their fun and games at our environment's expense. They want the residents to move so others can move in understanding that they are subject to health risks and safety issues due to runways inappropriate for jets. All the residents, which is the majority, that had their house before 1995 should just forget that the jet companies overturned the 85 decibel limits raising them to 95 decibels so they could fly in to SMO with their fractional ownerships overwhelming an airport and its community? A recreational and convenience airport that virtually serves no purpose for the majority of the community and adversely impacts the surrounding neighborhood is to be welcomed and accepted? All the while aviation advocates from around the country who don't live here or understand the situation propagate slogans and tell others to move. The simplest option is for the airport for the few and entitled can just move elsewhere. There are many places for them to fly and no matter who moves where in the neighborhood the lack of safety and pollution persists if SMO is allowed to continue.
Rich66 July 11, 2012 at 02:36 AM
No, I think they are doing it to meet the Gestapo tactics of an out of control EPA which is empowered by a bunch of fanatical nit wits. We don't heat our homes with wood and coal or read by kerosene lamps, like we did when I was a kid. We have removed ALL lead from cargas but that isn't good enough for brainwashed fanatics. We have replaced the lead with catalytic converters that make sulfuric acid. Brilliant! Good move. Actions speak louder than words. If you are in fear for your life, move. But by staying where you are and whining you are just a PITA that must, by your actions, feel that this pollution you are so worried about is not worth actually acting on other than complaining and hoping in a year or two you can shut down the airport. Good luck, You might do it but in the mean time you are still breathing the same stuff you so fervently detest. Does that make sense to you? (I should not have asked, huh?) Forget I said that. BTW did you check my math yet or you still calling me a liar? So far no one has told me how much avgas they sell in a year at SMO. BTW take alook at this. It is George Carlin so you know what to expect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4 There are a couple of F bombs so beware. Now how much avgas did they sell at SMO last year to generate 1200 pounds of lead. Was it any where near 908 thousand gallons? I am waiting.
Charles July 11, 2012 at 05:12 AM
HI Rich66, If you lived off Bundy Avenue in line of the jet exhausts and were happy about it then I would see some congruency in your position. But I doubt in a million years you would have the same attitude, if you did. Poor EPA you think they are the gestapo and most of us living around SMO think they clearly are ignoring the issue and not choosing to implement their own rules and regulations allowing the jets and planes to pollute without retribution. I feel I can wait for SMO to close and use air filters in my house. But I do feel concerned for the preschools. elementary and middle school children in SMO's flight path. Airports with adequate surrounding space and sufficient runway allowance that could allow fumes to dissipate sufficiently without engulfing homes and schools make sense. SMO and its position in this community makes no sense whatsoever. Since you don't live around here it seems odd that you would be so charged up about the airport closing. I am concerned for the health of my community and its future generations. I am concerned about the secondary health implications and the costs on our society that won't be borne by the aviation groups and SMO. Closing SMO will be a mild inconvenience to aviators and private jet travelers whereas expecting 10s of thousand of people to move is not a logical solution. Besides who is going to move in? The idea is not to pass on problems from one person or generation to another.
jim more July 13, 2012 at 08:08 AM
When all the noise they were making about the noise from aircraft did not really get them what they wanted, they have turned to scaring the residents telling them they'll get cancer if they don't shutdown the airport. Do you have any idea how many carcinogens you have "inside" your home? Perhaps you should shut down your home and move to the Dakotas or Wyoming or somewhere rural. Listen, I have not kids, but I pay thousands of dollars every year towards the school system which I do not use and never will. Should I start a campaign to shut down the school system? Moreover, since there are two schools right down the road - all the buses and cars are giving me cancer. Shut them down.
Charles July 13, 2012 at 03:41 PM
HI Jim, I know you feel you have a point but the issue that most aviation proponents miss about SMO is that many of the independent studies I repeatedly referenced were unsolicited by the neighborhoods that surround SMO. It is these studies by scientists that found dangerous ultrafine particles, a specific pollution caused by jets. It is these studies that clearly delineate how the runways aren't long enough for the jets that are routinely landing. It is this reason why the City of Santa Monica attempted to restrict some jets from landing. It is an actual safety issue not a whim. The buses that take the children from the schools used to spew plumes of diesel fuel exhaust but that has been fixed in the past few years so I am not worried about the buses. I do think awareness of dangers and carcinogens inside the home is something worth reviewing, but I personally am careful and thank you for your concern. I don't see why moving anywhere would change the carcinogens inside my home. From what I have read and studied there isn't anything of the magnitude of short runways for large jets or ultrafine particles being spewed within my home. Let's see --- having schools for our children or an airport for the aviation hobbyist or jet-going elite. Hmmmm, ... I suppose when I weigh them I would have to go with keeping the school system. While you may not use the school system you will certainly use their graduates in a multitude of ways each and every day.
Rich66 July 13, 2012 at 04:03 PM
While you may not use the school system you will certainly use their graduates in a multitude of ways each and every day. The same can be said for the airport when donated organs are flown in or out or replacement hips or joints show up in a FedEx box. Or when someone is scooped up along the highway and put in an air ambulance. Or anyone that has ever ridden in a commercial airliner. Those pilots have to be trained some where. By 2013 we will need just under half a million new pilots as flying increases and pilots retire. These new pilots will start their initial training at small GA airports all over the country. And as GA goes so will the US economy. BTW has anyone checked to how much avgas got sold at SMO last year? I thought someone would have jumped on that. Or maybe they did and didn't get the answer they wanted.
Jim G July 13, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Let's see if I have this logic right: SMO is a health hazard and should be closed. Therefore, all airports are health hazards and should be closed (includes LAX, JFK, Santa Ana, Long Beach, etc---everywhere) With no airports, airlines will not need their projected 400,000+ new pilots in the next 20 years. With no need for pilots, there will be no need for flight schools and they can, instead, train bus drivers. You are not planning on taking a trip by air in the future, are you?
Rich66 July 13, 2012 at 05:54 PM
I typed incorrectly it should read "by 2031" not 2013!!
Rich66 July 13, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Doesn't matter to these folks. As long as it isn't in their back yard, they don't mind. Ask the mayor of Torrance. He will confirm that. I about LMAO when I read that some idiot proposed paying the flight schools to just go fly some where else. They do that any way. They conduct a few hours of instruction in landings at one airport but there is a whole lot more to learning to fly than just doing circles for an hour. Yes there is some of that but looking at my log book we sure didn't spend many hours locally at the airport where the airplane I rented was based. And we didn't spend much time below 4000 feet. I feel for people like Charles. They are stuck. They bought a house close to an airport apparently thinking that little airports always stay little. Any idea what Chicago's O'hare airport started out as? My guess is a little airport. Schools never get bigger, do they? They never have to add lanes to a highway, do they? They never build more houses between town and the one you bought way out in the country , do they? It was just poor planning by both the home owner and the city fathers that granted building permits to build houses next to an airport. Of course as long as the developers could buy cheap farm land and sell 50 by 90 foot lots for horribly inflated prices and the home builders made money and politicians got nice campaign contributions everybody was happy. The people you should want to string up is the planning commission!!
Charles July 13, 2012 at 09:25 PM
What you seem to miss is that SMO isn't like LAX, JFK, Santa Ana, Long Beach, etc... Whether it is the residents that encroached on the airport of airport that encroached on the residents we are left in a situation that is untenable. Since the neighborhoods aren't a health or safety risk to the airport the next way to look at it so see if the airport is a health or safety risk to the neighborhoods. You already know that answer. The financial costs of closing SMO is many factors less than buying up land and moving residents. So we have the cost benefit ratio and from both a health and safety as well as a financial one the only viable option is for SMO to close. Maybe that is where these aviation proponents are getting scared. They think that SMO heralds the future for all airports. From my perspective and looking at all the other various airports all have more adjacent open land compared to SMO and most have significantly more open land and space surrounding the airports. Yet still all jets and planes should follow safety protocols and all airports should have adequate runway landing space for jets. All jets and planes should work at reducing all pollutants down to nothing as we develop ways of doing so. But comparing SMO to other airports is a way to ignore the current situation.
Charles July 13, 2012 at 09:33 PM
HI Rich, Wow! We are in agreement. "It was just poor planning by both the home owner and the city fathers that granted building permits to build houses next to an airport. " You are absolutely right! This was terrible planning either by the airport or home owners that were granted building permits. When I moved into the area in the early 1980s it really wasn't an issue since only small prop planes flew out of SMO and the allowable decibel levels was 85. However since 1995 and the decibel level was raised to 95, through legal teams hired by jet owners, and the problem we now have has become untenable. Flights by jets has increased exponentially since 1995 and issues of the lack of adequate runway space and pollution has become a huge issue due to the density of the neighborhoods abutting the airport. This isn't fair to anyone really, however at this time the only reasonable solution is to close the airport both from a health safety issue and financial one, since the land and housing are too expensive to buy and and bulldoze. There should have been more forethought by city planners but the reality is that there wasn't and we are left in a situation with only one reasonable solution.
Rich66 July 14, 2012 at 12:14 AM
I think we agree that the homeowners are at least partly to blame even though the powers that be did not do due diligence in their jobs. But like I reported, we are losing one airport a week and that can't continue either. And I don't think unfairly tossing the punishment into the laps of the business owners that operate on the airport or the people that use it. I wouldn't buy a house next to a city park only because I don't wanna listen to kids screaming or the constant thump thump thump of a bouncing basketball. So I didn't. I did live in the city in a decent neighborhood but on a busy street. As soon as I could I bought a place 5 miles out of town on 2 acres. A modest house but a nice setting. More recently I bought a house on an airport. Showing my stripes, aren't I? Any way each of us has to control our own destiny, even if it costs money. I am certain there are people that would normally like to live close to the airport just like they choose to live near the water, the woods, or a golf course. You are in a pickle. I hope you and your like minded friends are not successful at closing the airport but I sympathize with the position you are in. Regard, Rich
Claudia Lowry August 01, 2012 at 12:20 AM
Hey Charles if people are dying then move!!! If there is risk to your health as you say - then leave. Why are you still there?
Claudia Lowry August 01, 2012 at 12:20 AM
Hey Charles if people are dying then move!!! If there is risk to your health as you say - then leave. Why are you still there?
Charles August 01, 2012 at 05:43 AM
Hi Claudia, Thank you so much for your concern for my health and that of the neighborhoods surrounding the airport. That is the exact reason why the airport needs to close, people are dying -- albeit slowly -- as well as even worse developing secondary illnesses that won't occur for years into the future. Do you think the airport and the jet owners who are polluting the neighborhoods will compensate those they are making ill now and into the future for affecting the health of others for their pleasure and leisure? The airport serves no purpose other than for the leisure and comfort of a few elite jet owners who have no care for the implications of their actions. The airport is simply too small for jets and the land surrounding the airport too expensive to prevent the houses that grew up in such close approximation. The community that surrounds the airport has no need of this airport and those using this airport could easily take their business elsewhere. My hope is turning the airport into a botanical gardens surrounded by low cost senior citizen housing and day care facilities for our children. SMO could turn from a dangerous, unsafe, and polluter into a destination for millions to visit and explore as well as a haven for our elderly and children. You are completely right, something has to happen and SMO needs to move, leave, or close.
Jim Alger August 05, 2012 at 04:57 AM
I m looking to buy a home so perhaps one of these folks who hate the airport would be willing to sell me their home? This way you can buy a house in the woods and file complaints about the cricket noise. What causes more disruption, pollution, and safety issues in Santa Monica? Santa Monica Pier/beach or Santa Monica Airport. People aren't being raped and robbed at the airport. The airport isn't causing 10's of thousands of cars a day to come to town polluting the air and being involved in accidents. Ambulances aren't treating injured tourists at the airport every day. The airport isn't a place where teens congregate to do drugs and drink. Quick, better get on to closing the beach and improving the quality of life in Santa Monica. Or, you can admit this entire thing is a front for land developers who couldn't care less about the "quality of life" or safety of residents, but care deeply about making a buck and have no problem manipulating the people of Santa Monica if it helps them develop every last square inch of land.
Charles August 06, 2012 at 07:33 PM
Thanks for your concern Jim. I recommend looking around Bundy right in line with the jet exhausts that will blast into your home and backyard. That would be the great place for you to reside to get the real flavor of the airport experience. The best part is that you can enjoy the fumes all day while getting an extra kick from the ultrafine particles that you won't even know you are breathing. Which is causing more disruption, pollution, and safety issues in Santa Monica? Hands down the airport. I have lived and worked in and near Santa Monica for about 35 years and rapes and robberies are not the routine nor norm at Santa Monica Pier/Beach. If you are right about the 10s of thousands of cars coming to the beach then that further shows how little we need the airport. 10s of thousands of cars aren't coming to the airport because only a few wealthy elites are using the airport at the expense of the health, safety, and welfare of the dense communities surrounding the airport. While I have no doubt the developers may be licking their chops, they have no involvement in the neighborhood's need to close this airport. So I agree with your concern about developers and believe part of closing the airport will need to determine how the land will be used. My preference would be to have the airport turned into a botanical garden with low cost senior citizen housing and preschools around its perimeter. I would be happy to have your involvement to make it a safe destination.
Rich66 August 07, 2012 at 02:42 AM
All I can say is that I hope when they close this airport they turn it into a huge mound of medical waste or else a storage depot for spent nuclear fuel. Then all the folks that are bitching about it can enjoy the aroma of naturally created methane as mother nature intended or perhpaps it can just glow in the dark. If it is turned into a botanical garden maybe it will attract killer bees. It would be a fitting end for mother nature to truly "take it back " from the evil elite that greedily use it now to promote their commerce and provide jobs and pay taxes.
Charles August 07, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Hi Rich, Not sure why you feel the need for the airport that is unsafe and polluting to a storage depot for spent nuclear fuel. Breaking things down into an us versus them can foster contentious communication but does little for dealing with complex situations. I do somewhat feel for those who have spent money and wielded influences to hire attorneys and modify prior laws to accommodate jets to land and take off at SMO. They thought they could land their jets on a runway too small and have no care to the safety or pollution affecting the children and adults health living in the neighborhoods closely abutting the airport. After all it is their fault they purchased homes near an airport and presumed that our government would make sure that they were safe. Is it so hard to presume that homes would not be built or sold near an airport where the runways are too short for the jets that land or that the ultrafine particles spewing from the jets would be dissipating before affecting their lungs? At this point there are only two options. Have the airport purchase up the homes and land surrounding the airport and expand the runways. Aside from its inconvenience on thousands of residents the main problem is the cost which would be prohibitive. The other option would be to close the airport. This will also inconvenience some pilots and those who can afford private jet flight. However since there are other airports nearby this seems the only viable option.
Rich66 August 07, 2012 at 07:48 PM
That airport isn't gong anywhere any time soon, The city signed an agreement with the FAA and they will be required to abide by it. The people that bought houses next to it and are now complaining about the jets that burn less fuel cleaner than ever will just have to live with their decision. Those that keep screaming that the sky is falling are fear mongerers plain and simple. There is not more pollution now, there is less. The same technology that allows the semi trucks to zoom down the road with not a hint of black exhaust is about the same as the jets. You used to be able to see the black cloud of smoke billowing out of the jets and you just almost never see that anymore. I know you want to jets gone and the airport closed and a botanical garden and free preschools and quiet little nursing homes and a unicorn ranch in it's place with a rainbow fence around the whole thing. It ain't gonna happen. I remember several decades ago I told my dad I wanted a motorcycle. He told me to want in one hand and do something else in the other hand and see which one gets full first. Keep wanting if you choose to. The airport will be there long after you and I are both dead.
Charles August 08, 2012 at 04:59 AM
HI Rich, Come 2015 we will see what will come of the airport. The research I posted a ways back up the comments discussed one study that compared general ambient pollution when the airport was functioning and when it was closed for three days. The research showed the airport did indeed pollute its own special pollution and this was before the ultrafine particles were discovered to be so toxic and pervasive in jet fuel fumes. We all have our dreams and visions for the future. I have a hope that the world we leave our children will be better than the one we have now. To do that means looking into the future with future generations in mind. When I weigh the risk versus the benefit of a botanical garden versus an airport -- with runways too short for the jets and those jets polluting the air and environment for an entitled few, -- I can't help but seeing that the airport needs to close. So far the airport proponents have suggested that: 1. Everyone moves so that the airport can continue to be unsafe and pollute into closely abutting homes causing costs for illnesses that taxpayers will shoulder -- certainly not the pilots or jet owners. 2. People are being raped and robbed at Santa Monica pier so who cares about safety and pollution at SMO? 3. Also, lest I forget, that if we close SMO that the only alternatives are a nuclear power waste disposal facility or a developer's paradise with a supermall.
jake busey August 13, 2012 at 03:02 PM
I am a pilot, I kept an aircraft at SMO for 3 years, and I bought my first house in 1998 on regent st. in mar vista. I will share these thoughts: Santa Monica Airport will NEVER be closed, So stop arguing that point as it is futile.! I suggest the old plea bargain routine. Argue a winnable point. One thing I have observed after moving back to the area is the major increase in JET noise.10 years ago when I moored at the airport, Jets were few. now its non-stop jets all day.It's unbearable and it needs to be reduced asap. the air actually burns one's nose; I cant even have the door open. And most of the day you just hear jet engines idling at the runway end. AARGH! My fault for moving close to an airport? of course. but it's a small municipal airport, not LAX! I disagree, even in the wake of fridays accident, that small planes and schools should be run out of here. they have a far smaller impact on the community and environment, and make a helluva lot less noise. having the airport here is a necessity in the event of a natural disaster, a National safety event, as well as a part of history. the city was built around the airport. IT WAS HERE FIRST. NOT THE HOUSES. I have come to the conclusion that eager real estate agents may be to blame- leading prospective buyers astray with quotes like " oh yes, the airport is close, but there is talk of shutting it down" these buyers are then shocked and angry when it stays open. I suggest we limit the Jets quantity to10 per day.
jake busey August 13, 2012 at 03:14 PM
or simply return to pre 1995 noise restrictions of 85 decibels. roll it back. that would solve it. no more loud, pollutant jets, and the argument dies. At this point people are just so frustrated with the noise they want to close the whole thing down. But that's over reacting, as it will NEVER close completely. but as Charles mentioned, before 1995 there were no problems and people didnt complain. Let's go back to that agreement.
Charles August 13, 2012 at 09:54 PM
Hi Jake, Looks like when the FAA gets involved there is no turning back to the 85 decibels. The jet owners or those who built the jet facilities had things raised to 95 decibels because they claimed SMO was being unfairly discriminative. According to what I remember the FAA claimed that SMO couldn't limit jets/planes to 85 decibels since that was against FAA statutes. The noise is a big issue and from the independent studies seems to cause more of an impact on health aside from it being a nuisance. Things such as cardiovascular, neurological, and psychological problems are secondary and foisted upon the neighborhoods by SMO -- with healthcare paid by everyone but the jet owners and SMO. Yet the pollution, ultrafine particles in the fumes, and lack of adequate runway space all represent deep catastrophic problems that can be measured in long-term exposures or one terrible jet crash. The problem is that we really don't need an airport here and even if it was here before, the neighborhoods have overgrown the surrounding area so that an airport is no longer a viable option. I have never heard of a developer or real estate agent pushing to close the airport. I have only heard this from those in the closely abutting neighborhoods and what was written in independent credible scientific studies, such as the UCLA study on SMO and its affects on surrounding residents.
Richard B September 12, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Yes, we do not need an airport here. Between the huge loud jets and the flight schools the noise and pollution has made living here a nightmare and the city does nothing. The airport is a hazard to people living near it not just in Santa Monica but Los Angeles where the flight path has been diverted. The noise and pollution needs to stop. The airport is a money losers to the city-so why do we have it? Perhaps special interests? Close it down in 2015
Foster Norman November 30, 2012 at 09:03 PM
The airport will not close in our lifetime. Calling the airport unsafe is foolish. The percentage of pollution the airport produces in comparison to other fossil fuel burning operations in the area is extremely small. It's always, "not in my neighborhood." Figure it out and move on.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something