To avoid long and expensive court battles over any efforts to modify flight operations at , or even close it, the Airport Commission recommends that the city first determine its legal rights via legislative action or a method called declaratory relief.
Simply put, declaratory relief allows the city to get a judge's opinion, before litigation, on whether the city has legal grounds to act.
The commission said the top issue needing clarification is whether the 1948 Instrument of Transfer from the federal government requiring the city to operate the airport "in perpetuity" is legal.
"If a judge rules in declaratory relief that we have the right to close the airport [whether or not the city chooses to do so], it's over—the matter is resolved," said Commissioner David Goddard. "[The legal move] is simple to do and we can do it now.''
The commission, which is an advisory board to the Santa Monica City Council, also recommends the city use declaratory relief to determine whether the 1984 operating agreement and a 1994 Grant Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration actually expire by mid-2015. The FAA contends the Grant Agreement extends the '84 agreement until 2023.
Another recommendation is for declaratory relief on the status of one of the airport's three parcels of land, the "City Owned Parcel" at the west end. It was quitclaimed to the city in 1949 and includes nearly half of the airport's lone runway. The east-end "General Aviation Parcel" is covered by the 1948 document. The FAA contends that the "in perpetuity" requirement covers both key parcels.
However, the "City Owned Parcel" may fall outside the '48 mandate due to the later quitclaim. If so, the city would have the option of fulfilling the "in perpetuity" mandate with a much smaller airport on the "General Aviation Parcel." The airport's third section, on the southeast, is accurately titled the "Non-Aviation Parcel."
RELATED:
Other commission recommendations include:
- Charging landing fees to all aircraft, not just those based at other airports.
- Raising landing fees to cover aviation costs. (Currently, the airport budget projects a deficit).
- Requiring toxic tort liability insurance from all aviation operators.
- Requiring a flight operations permit for each aircraft operation, a security measure also designed to protect the city from liability lawsuits.
- Using the precedents of two cases from LA and New York to put a cap on—or reduce—the number of flights.
The commission believes these recommendations could be initiated now, and don't fall under the operating agreements. The panel is also working on recommendations for after mid-2015, which would depend on whether the operating agreements expire.
One complaint about pollution from SMO is the leaded fuel used by piston-powered planes. No lead-free fuel has been able to provide the potency and efficiency needed in such engines. However, recent developments could mean unleaded aviation fuel is coming into its own. The is offering a presentation on those efforts June 30. For more details on that event, visit futureofavgas.eventbrite.com.
The city also plans two other workshops on the airport's future during .
A designation of "reliever airport" is absolutely without standing as far as any practical meaning. Any airport may be designated such.
(1) So you're claiming that there really haven't been planes crashing into houses and deaths--or are you just claiming that such instances are at an acceptable level--to you personally? (2) I made no reference comparing SMO to scuba diving--that reference was by those who would direct our attention elsewhere to ignore the very real damage you and your fellow SMO users are doing. (3) Well, let's examine this in sub categories: (a) You continually misdirect our attention elsewhere. It's the "look--someone or something else is killing even more people! That makes the fact that we kill maybe less people OK!" (b)You claim an absolute "right" to fly--anywhere and everywhere you want--no matter the consequences or damage you inflict on others. **** So: yet again--what is the basis of your claim not to be a selfish person who harms others--including innocent children?
I hope the great suggestions from the airport commission don't land on deaf ears like the Santa Monica City Council and the city attorney. They don't seem to hear the many cries from the locals who want thjs stinky and dangerous airport closed. Fight the FAA
Personally I feel that the legal basis for keeping SMO open is strong enough that the city will lose not only their case but also control of the airport. I understand that the airport's opponents are fighting an emotionally charged battle, but they are also giving each other false hopes of a non-existent victory, which has no legal basis or precedent.
I did read the link--and whatever the FAA has to say--whether describing such as a "treasure" or whatever--still has no practical standing. The FAA is not in charge of airports. For those of you who post otherwise--the FAA has no authority to take over airport operations, reassign control operations of such to private contractors, or to mandate hundreds of millions of $$--perhaps billions--in subsidies to keep any airport open. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with their actual authority and function--at least as intended: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration
I have read all of your comments and I agree. The problem is that the anti-aviation lunatics are no different from the others that I (and others) have fought up in in Idaho (KSUN) and in Salt Lake City (Salt Lake #2). We defeated the anti-aviation groups in Idaho and are in action to defeat them in Salt Lake City. As I see it here you cannot just present facts as Colin, MJ and Antonio have done, you have to resort to other tactics as well. The anti-aviation thugs are the same as they are elsewhere. They take your facts and twist into complete fabrication. Further, the corrupt politicians and want to be corrupt politicians sell themselves to any cause that pads their checkbooks....mostly dirty real estate developer money. Up in Utah we discovered a prominent politician who had been paid off by several developers. We found electronic financial files. Imagine that...a lying, scumbag politician on the take all to take the livelihood of legitimate jobs and businesses. Up in Utah, the county allowed real estate developers to build right up to the airport boundaries and now have the same dispute as we have at SMO. So in closing, you can present all of the facts, however, they will get distorted, twisted into fabricated lies by the anti-aviation knuckle daggers. By the way, I have a extensive file of information on alternative fuels along with information on GA engine vendors that have designed more efficient, green engines.
Anyone who had a pilots license 33 years ago, must certainly have grown up around cars, which constantly spewed leaded-gasoline-exhaust - perhaps that explains a few things. Does Greg Fry care about all children, or just his own, and those of his neighbors? Certainy the kids in Mexico (where they still sell NOVA gasoline, not just Magna Sin) , must be receiving the ill effects of leaded-fuel, on orders of magnitude more, than the children exposed to the SMO flight path?
So true. I have been vocal and at times verbal about this. I don't mean to offend anyone (and I apologize if I have), however, the anti-aviation movement not only distort the facts but simply fabricate garbage that has no facts to back it up. They also have absolutely no knowledge or respect for the constitution under which we live. Look, this is an emotional dispute. In short, the anti-aviation movement and the people who support in Santa Monica and Los Angeles knew that the airport existed before they signed their rental, lease or mortgage contracts. Nobody to my knowledge were forced to sign those contracts. It is also a FACT that politicians involved in these disputes are loaded with dirty real estate developer money and when these facts become public knowledge they run for the hills or to their attorneys begging for help. As for the safety and pollution debate. That is nonsense as confirmed by the FACTS presented by MJ, Antonio and Colin.
As for sneaking tape recorders around, EVERY ATC transmission is recorded and logged. Flouting regulations that would jeopardize the safety of flight would be a foolish thing to do, since in the event of an accident or incident, those radio transmissions would be brought into evidence by the NTSB, and would likely result in the controller losing their job if they were found to be breaking the regulations. How many jobs do you know of where everything you say is recorded and could be used against you? Again, my experience of ATC controllers is that they work to accommodate as must as possible in complicated airspace, but do not put their jobs at risk. I must confess that I find the broad brush with which you wish to paint all pilots as rule-busting ego-maniacs very offensive. As a commercial pilot I don't share your viewpoint. Most professional pilots have two primary goals: stay alive, and don't get fired. Most private pilots have similar goals: stay alive and don't get busted. Your claims are incomprehensible to anyone with true industry experience.
Now who's being "emotional"? Furthermore--who's being "emotional" while at the same time being off topic? Why do those of your ilk continue to direct our attention elsewhere in an attempt to justify the damage you cause to kids in our neighborhood? When and who has ever justified their evil actions by pointing out others or other cases where worse evil has been done?
James may represent an extreme example but that does not excuse you or the rest of those who ignore the damage you are causing--and/or claim justification for your actions on the basis of "privileges" that in your minds trump all other considerations.
From what I have read posted by you here, I would strongly suggest you spend some time with a CFI or DPE before you next fly. If you're not current and don't plan to fly again, then I don't think you can claim to be a pilot who is familiar with the current regulations. Rich, I sense you're the one with the ego who is trying to prove your superiority to all other pilots. Well, I'm sorry, but this is not a game. I don't think I'm better than you, only that my experiences aren't in line with yours. Respect IS earned, and if you were respectful, you would recognize that.
If you REALLY care about lead and children - then look to your south, where there actually is a problem (though people there seem to survive somehow, nonetheless). But I think that what you really care about, is your property values, and trying to raise them at the expense of an airport, that was there before you were.