August 12, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Letter To The Editor: Santa Monica Airport’s Competing Ballot Measures:

Dear Editor:

I would like to weigh in on the competing ballot measures regarding the future of the Santa Monica Airport. There has been a great deal of conflicting information put out about the land which the airport occupies.

Everyone interested should read the City Council Report (3/25/14) entitled “The Future of Santa Monica Airport”.

This report confirms that the City owns the land, and that the bulk of the land was purchased with general obligation bonds which were approved by the voters and issued for “park purposes.”

When bonds are used to acquire land for “park purposes” that land must remain as parkland until the voters vote otherwise or the president issues a proclamation stating that there exists an “unlimited national emergency requiring military, naval, aviation and civilian readiness to repel any and all acts or threats of aggression” such as the one President Roosevelt issued after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the declarations of war against the United States by the German and Japanese governments.

After World War II ended the federal government ceased to need the airport for defense purposes and in 1948 terminated its lease of the airport land.

There was an agreement at that time that the City would continue to operate the airport until the FAA agreed it no longer needed to operate the airport, and that if the City refused to continue operating the airport, the FAA could take the airport over.

In the decades that followed multiple lawsuits were filed over the operation and existence of the airport. To resolve this litigation, in 1984 the City and the AAA (federal government) entered into a written agreement which put an end to the litigation, required the City to operate the airport until 2015, and permitted the City to close the airport when the 1984 agreement expires in 2015. By signing the 1984 agreement, the FAA gave permission to the City of Santa Monica to cease airport operations in 2015; this is the permission required by the 1948 agreement.

The aviation industry has placed a measure on the ballot designed to keep the airport open, and the aviation industry has sent out a flier in support of its ballot measure which seems to be designed to scare the public by erroneously telling the public that their choice is between the noisy and polluting and arguably unsafe airport with jet flights coming in and out many times each day, OR, some sort of mega-development which will generate tens of thousands of car trips each day. BUT THERE IS A THIRD CHOICE, which is to use those acres for the purpose for which they were intended, which is parkland and recreational use.

The People of Santa Monica already own these acres of land. They belong to you and me – we the people. This land was acquired for the people to be parkland. We could put together something similar to the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy and turn the 227 acres referenced on the aviation industry’s flier into something wonderful which would benefit ALL of Santa Monica.

With all those acres available (which we already own) we could have:

– Bike paths.

– Hiking trails.

– Multiple dog parks scattered throughout the many acres of the parkland.

– A “walk of art” comparable to the UCLA Sculpture Garden which would display public art.

– After-school and/or summer nature-oriented recreational space for children similar to the UCLA Bruin Camp which is available to children during the summer we well as programs focusing on nature.

– Gardens of drought-resistant native California plants.

– Groves of drought-resistant native California trees.

– Space for kite-flying.

– Playing fields for soccer, baseball, softball, etc.

– Dedicated space for rollerskaters and skateboarders.

– Public gardens where people could grow their own vegetables.

– A rock climbing wall.

– A conservatory similar to the one in Golden Gate State Park.

– A senior center.

– An observatory or planetarium.

– Anything else we can imagine as recreational use.

Barry Brewer, Santa Monica

in Opinion
Related Posts

OpED: Santa Monica Police Officers Association on Downtown Presence

August 12, 2022

August 12, 2022

By The Santa Monica Police Officers Association Recently, there has been increased public dialogue around the topic of crime and...

Review: A Santa Monica Restaurant’s New Happy Hour is Top-Notch

August 10, 2022

August 10, 2022

By Dolores Quintana Birdie G’s in Santa Monica has a new Happy Hour and it is something special. For one...

SMa.r.t. Column: Ode to the Future of My City

August 8, 2022

August 8, 2022

How sad it is to journey to Santa Monica and I can’t find it.The open blue sky hides behind canyon...

SMa.r.t. Column: Why Native Gardens?

July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

Voltaire said it best at the end of his 1759 novel  Candide: “We must cultivate our own garden”. This simple...

SMa.r.t. Column: We’re All Wet – Not!

July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Don’t you think that if you heard, or read, statements from controlling government agencies that said you were threatened by...

Affordability Answer: A New Tax on Housing Speculators?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The TV commercials and online ads are fast becoming ubiquitous: “We’ll buy your house as is,”...

SMar.t. Column: Has the Promenade Turned a Corner?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

In large complex systems with dynamically balanced forces, it’s paradoxically often hard to tell when something has actually happened, For...

Column: Groundwater Law Has Not Stopped Subsidence

July 1, 2022

July 1, 2022

By Tom Elias Drive almost any road in the vast San Joaquin Valley and you’ll see irrigation pipes standing up...

SMa.r.t. Column: It’s Time to Look at the Facts of Santa Monica’s Housing History

June 30, 2022

June 30, 2022

The Narrative: Santa Monica’s decades-long housing construction “shortage”  The Narrative endlessly repeats the refrain that for decades Santa Monica has...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Mansionization of Santa Monica

June 17, 2022

June 17, 2022

Editor’s note: This column originally appeared in print in 2016.  In the 1980s, Santa Monica’s single family zoning code was...

OP-Ed Response to DTSM Board Chair Barry Snell and Plea to City Council Regarding Safety Ambassadors and Ambassador Program

June 14, 2022

June 14, 2022

I am responding to the OP-ED (dated June 7, 2022, Santa Monica Mirror) by City-appointed DTSM Board Member and now...

SMa.r.t. Column: Wheeling Electrically

June 9, 2022

June 9, 2022

A recent weekend visit to Dana Point, on the Orange County coastline, revealed a curious scene: dozens, if not hundreds...

Population Loss: New Era or Pandemic Glitch?

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The numbers suggest a major change is underway in California. It would take a Nostradamus to...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Sound of Silence Is Big & Tall

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

All too often these days we find ourselves wondering how we could have been so correct about so many planning...

OP-Ed: DTSM Chair Barry Snell on Safety Ambassadors

June 2, 2022

June 2, 2022

By Barry Snell Chair, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. Board of Directors  The Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM) Board of Directors...