Email List

To join our e-mail list, please enter your e-mail address. You can unsubscribe at any time.






News, Santa Monica, Santa Monica Airport

City To Challenge FAA In Court Over Future Control Of Santa Monica Airport

Posted Oct. 31, 2013, 12:15 pm

Mirror Staff

Editor’s Note: The City of Santa Monica on Thursday issued the following statement to the press regarding the future of Santa Monica Airport. The statement is published here in full, unedited.

The City of Santa Monica has sued the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish the City’s right to control future use of the Santa Monica Airport property, which the City has long owned.  

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, asks the court to declare that the City holds clear title to the land. And, it also challenges, as unconstitutional, the FAA's claim that the City must continue to operate the Airport indefinitely, even after contracts establishing the City's Airport obligations expire.   

In 1984, the City and FAA entered into a Settlement Agreement with the FAA that obligates the City to operate the Airport until 2015.  

In anticipation of the expiration of that contract, the City undertook a three-year Airport Visioning Process, intended to identify options for the Airport's future.  

Hundreds of community members participated in this three-phased process – the largest ever conducted by the City. In April of this year, the Council received a comprehensive report on the results.

After considering the report and conducting a lengthy public hearing, the City Council directed City staff to report back in March of 2014 for further public discussion and a decision about the future use of the Airport land.  

Meanwhile, the Council also directed staff to continue to explore any and all possibilities for a voluntary agreement with the federal government that might modify Airport operations so as to significantly curtail adverse impacts on the community.

Since then, City representatives have continued to meet with FAA representatives in Washington.  

City Manager Rod Gould explains, "We met in Washington many times, and conveyed community concerns and proposed possibilities for changes, including operational changes, that could significantly reduce many of the Airport’s adverse impacts. The FAA representatives were polite and respectful.  But, they were simply unwilling or unable to agree to any changes that could bring significant relief to Airport neighbors.  They believe that the City is legally obligated to continue operating the Airport as it now operates and to keep operating it forever because of the post-War transfers."

The City has owned and operated the Airport since the 1920's.  

During World War II, the City leased it to the federal government for a nominal amount in support of the war effort.  

During the War, the City and the federal government worked together to expand and improve the Airport; and, after the war, when the federal leases expired, the Airport was returned to the City through an Instrument of Transfer.  

The federal government claims that the Instrument of Transfer obligates the City to operate the Airport "in perpetuity" (forever) or forfeit its ownership interest to the federal government.  

The City disputes this claim based, in part, on the City's near 100-year ownership of the Airport land, the fact that the Airport was merely leased (not sold), and constitutional guarantees that prohibit commandeering property without compensation and forcing local governments to perform the federal government's work.

Speaking of the lawsuit, Santa Mayor Pam O'Connor said, "We need to get these legal questions answered. The community expects us to protect their health, safety and welfare.  And, of course, the community’s demands for relief from Airport impacts have only increased since last month's terrible crash. We need the court to decide whether the City has control over its land so that, next year, we can make a decision about the Airport's future.  Because this dispute is unique and incredibly important, the City Council directed the City Attorney and her staff to partner with the best outside legal team they could find."

The City Attorney and senior members of her office conducted a competitive process that resulted in the City hiring Morrison & Foerster – a global firm with 16 offices and more than 1,000 attorneys.

Explained City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, "We were particularly impressed with the Morrison & Foerster team's litigation credentials, aviation experience, and appellate expertise.  I'm certain that they will provide excellent representation in this singularly important case.  And we look forward to working with them to resolve the dispute about the City's authority to control the use of its Airport land."

The case will be heard in Federal District Court in Los Angeles. 

Federal rules give the federal government 60 days to respond to the City's complaint.

Post a comment


Oct. 31, 2013, 12:48:46 pm

cj said...

The government is supposed to represent you. What a waste of my city tax dollars!

Oct. 31, 2013, 3:04:06 pm

Nate said...

How is this different from the other lawsuits Santa Monica has filed? If the FAA says it's an airport, it should be an airport.

Oct. 31, 2013, 5:03:42 pm

Robert said...

Finally Santa Monica government is listening to the residents and doing something about the blight and money pit that SMO has become! Needless to say, I am tired of the $1.5 million dollar YEARLY subsidy of our tax dollars that go to fund the few entitled users of this vast facility. The city owns this land (and not the FAA) and should be able to do what it wants with it.

Oct. 31, 2013, 6:08:14 pm

senor said...

These are important issues in this community. Via due process, they need to be legally resolved.

Oct. 31, 2013, 10:15:31 pm

PK Ripper said...

I am thankful that my city of Santa Monica is finally going to shut down the Tax Payer subsidized airport. Why should our tax dollars support non-residents in their private jets or flight schools who are profiting from our subsidies while destroying our environment. My Santa Monica neighbors have never benefited from the airport. It is just a constant nuisance.

Nov. 1, 2013, 4:16:27 pm

Jerry said...

you need to get control of your airport costs of operation not close the airport . Old Alaska pilot

Nov. 1, 2013, 10:46:17 pm

Population Density said...

I can't wait to see what they build on the airport land! Maybe a multiplex movie theater or mixed use retail and luxury residential units or maybe a futuristic office park made with recycled tampons... I am just frothing over the suspense. I know one thing though, it ain't going to be all pretty trees and grass. The traffic around the airport area is about to get 10x busier than it's ever been.

Nov. 1, 2013, 10:52:10 pm

The council is racketeering said...

Jesus, the city must have been offered zillions to develop the airport. I'll bet the mayor and council has a river of campaign money flowing in from real estate people. I hope the FAA mops the floor with them and then sicks the feds on them to investigate for corruption.

Nov. 3, 2013, 9:21:25 pm

Airports R American said...

. Dear Developers, Banksters, and others wanting to make a fast buck. The airport belongs to the citizens of Santa Monica, the MAJORITY of whom want the airport to stay, thrive and grow. Noise, a lot less than trucks and motorcycles... almost a whisper by comparison. Pollution, are you kidding? There is none, there's more coming from your BBQ pits. On the other hand Santa Monica benefits greatly from real jobs, not more cash register and shelf stocking jobs. The airport belongs, we don't need any more consumer outlets that pay minimum wages. Don't know about you but I am suspicious of those who want to take our airport and turn it into another development. Heck no. .

SM Mirror TV