After ongoing legal battles, the City of Santa Monica and FAA have reach agreement that will allow closure of the airport by 2028.

Under the terms of the consent decree agreement, within 6-months portion of the existing the runway will be reduced to 3,500 feet to reduce jet traffic. The agreement also eliminates the possibility of charter flights into or out of the airport.

Santa Monica previously pursued efforts to close the airport by 2018, however it’s efforts resulted in multiple legal disputes with the FAA and airport users.

The new deal dissolves all pending legal actions.

Closure date set for Santa Monica Airport
http://smdp.com/closure-date-set-for-sa ... ort/159486




=

As many know the historic airport once home of Douglas Aircraft has been sandwiched in all sides by developments and has been viewed by many in the community as a major safety hazard with ongoing crashes.
The city has sought to redevelop the airport into public park lands and commercial developments instead after having determined its ongoing use was no longer compatible with community needs.

Also worth noting that the former GM of Airliners.net perished in an accident while departing from Santa Monica eight years ago to the day.

What a shame. I had the good fortune of flying into SMO when I was flying corporate. Really neat little airport with lots of history. I think it's terrible what the city/county has been doing for years, but it was hard for me to imagine the airport surviving such a hostile city council. I'll have to make a trip down there in my Cherokee sometime this summer.

Reminds me at what happened at Meigs. Corporate jets are being squeezed out.

In 50 years the people of Santa Monica will regret this. UA should donate a 744 for the city to put on permanent display here to show people what long haul flying was like in the 90's.

What gives the Federal Government (FAA) the power to deny the people the right to close their airport and use their land for some other purpose?

I need help in understanding this. Maybe there are valid reasons.

BobPatterson wrote:

What gives the Federal Government (FAA) the power to deny the people the right to close their airport and use their land for some other purpose?

I need help in understanding this. Maybe there are valid reasons.

I think it stems from the FAA's power to regulate all air traffic and its responsibility to plan and oversee the entire system of airports in the US. They have an entire division of the FAA devoted to airports; their construction, planning, closing, expansion, airspace, etc is all within the FAA's purview, I believe. Even if a city wants to close an airport, the FAA can say that it's not in the public interest because it would cause overcapacity somewhere else, cause an area to go without air service, cause air traffic problems elsewhere. I can think of a million reasons that fall under the FAA's remit that would allow them to stop this with a lawsuit if they wanted to, which I believe is what happened.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm just scraping the back of my brain to remember what I know about the FAA's powers.

BobPatterson wrote:

What gives the Federal Government (FAA) the power to deny the people the right to close their airport and use their land for some other purpose?
I need help in understanding this. Maybe there are valid reasons.

FAA's primary arguments was that any airport which receives grant funding must remain operational for the “useful life” of that grant which is considered to be 20-25 years. Santa Monica airport last accepted a grant in 2003.

The other issue deals with requirements from the 1947 transfer of portion of the current airport land from federal government to the city which stated land to be used as airport forever. City contends that subsequent agreements in 1980s and 1990s changed this stipulation, but regardless the city is still permitted to change land use for the section of the land which always belonged to it. The problem for the Feds with this was the city controlled good portion of land where runway sits, so they by default would have been able to shut the airport.

What this agreement does it allows the city to proceed with plans to rezone what is know as the "western parcel" and thus shorten 1,500ft off the runway, and eventual closure of the field bu 2028.

Basically city will be able to slowly starve user and tenants out over the next 11-years.

Thanks Bobparerson for asking and B6sea for the answer I wanted to know the same thing.

My understanding is that the city has already leased parts of the airport (buildings, not land) to Snap, Inc., better known as the developers of Snapchat. Although Santa Monica is selling this as a park, it really looks to me like they're interested in developing a lot of it into office space for tech tenants, since ActivisionBlizzard is right next door and now Snap is moving in. The city's economic development director has already said he favors "large companies" to fill new office space in the city and large companies need lots of space together, which means new development and the airport is really the only place that could happen. At least, that's my read on the current plan.

Hope the homeowners like traffic and tech employees because they're going to get a lot of both.

Such a shame, I still think the city will regret this in the long term. As the area continues to grow, and traffic continues to tighten -- business jet users may choose to relocate their businesses closer to other airports. That would result in high paying corporate jobs as well as tax base moving elsewhere.

LAXintl wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

What gives the Federal Government (FAA) the power to deny the people the right to close their airport and use their land for some other purpose?
I need help in understanding this. Maybe there are valid reasons.

FAA's primary arguments was that any airport which receives grant funding must remain operational for the “useful life” of that grant which is considered to be 20-25 years. Santa Monica airport last accepted a grant in 2003.

The other issue deals with requirements from the 1947 transfer of portion of the current airport land from federal government to the city which stated land to be used as airport forever. City contends that subsequent agreements in 1980s and 1990s changed this stipulation, but regardless the city is still permitted to change land use for the section of the land which always belonged to it. The problem for the Feds with this was the city controlled good portion of land where runway sits, so they by default would have been able to shut the airport.

What this agreement does it allows the city to proceed with plans to rezone what is know as the "western parcel" and thus shorten 1,500ft off the runway, and eventual closure of the field bu 2028.

Basically city will be able to slowly starve user and tenants out over the next 11-years.

Thanks. I figured it was more complicated than I could imagine. I wonder what the 2003 Federal Grant was for?

I notice that, according to FlightRadar24 the only tracked user of the airport is NetJets, essentially time-share business aircraft. Maybe Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway ownere of NetJets) would be upset by reducing runway length so that the jets couldn't use the place. I presume that light civilian aircraft could still used the shortened runway.

Is there weekday use of the place by any scheduled airlines? My check for arrivals and departures was for today, Saturday.

Thus I'm puzzled as to why there should be a 12-year "phase-out" period. There seems to be no mass of traffic to be moved elsewhere.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Also worth noting that the former GM of Airliners.net perished in an accident while departing from Santa Monica eight years ago to the day.

Harrison Ford also pancaked his plane shortly after leaving SMO. Luckily he landed it in a golf course.

Ref: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

BobPatterson wrote:

Thus I'm puzzled as to why there should be a 12-year "phase-out" period. There seems to be no mass of traffic to be moved elsewhere.

My guess is that since 2028 - 2003 = 15 years, the FAA agreed to knock down the 25 year rule to 15 as a part of the settlement. It allows the city to get what it wants whilst the FAA can save face and say the rule is still in effect.

b6sea wrote:

My understanding is that the city has already leased parts of the airport (buildings, not land) to Snap, Inc., better known as the developers of Snapchat. Although Santa Monica is selling this as a park, it really looks to me like they're interested in developing a lot of it into office space for tech tenants, since ActivisionBlizzard is right next door and now Snap is moving in. The city's economic development director has already said he favors "large companies" to fill new office space in the city and large companies need lots of space together, which means new development and the airport is really the only place that could happen. At least, that's my read on the current plan.

Hope the homeowners like traffic and tech employees because they're going to get a lot of both.

It worked for El Toro why not in Santa Monica.

grbauc wrote:

b6sea wrote:

My understanding is that the city has already leased parts of the airport (buildings, not land) to Snap, Inc., better known as the developers of Snapchat. Although Santa Monica is selling this as a park, it really looks to me like they're interested in developing a lot of it into office space for tech tenants, since ActivisionBlizzard is right next door and now Snap is moving in. The city's economic development director has already said he favors "large companies" to fill new office space in the city and large companies need lots of space together, which means new development and the airport is really the only place that could happen. At least, that's my read on the current plan.

Hope the homeowners like traffic and tech employees because they're going to get a lot of both.

It worked for El Toro why not in Santa Monica.

Yeah that money pit worked out really well. As someone who lives in Orange County, I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE DAMN THING!

I don't believe the FAA knocked down its rule since 2028-2003 = 25 years.

[/quote]My guess is that since 2028 - 2003 = 15 years, the FAA agreed to knock down the 25 year rule to 15 as a part of the settlement. It allows the city to get what it wants whilst the FAA can save face and say the rule is still in effect.[/quote]

Revelation wrote:

My guess is that since 2028 - 2003 = 15 years, the FAA agreed to knock down the 25 year rule to 15 as a part of the settlement. It allows the city to get what it wants whilst the FAA can save face and say the rule is still in effect.

Umm...that is 25 years.

grbauc wrote:

b6sea wrote:

My understanding is that the city has already leased parts of the airport (buildings, not land) to Snap, Inc., better known as the developers of Snapchat. Although Santa Monica is selling this as a park, it really looks to me like they're interested in developing a lot of it into office space for tech tenants, since ActivisionBlizzard is right next door and now Snap is moving in. The city's economic development director has already said he favors "large companies" to fill new office space in the city and large companies need lots of space together, which means new development and the airport is really the only place that could happen. At least, that's my read on the current plan.

Hope the homeowners like traffic and tech employees because they're going to get a lot of both.

It worked for El Toro why not in Santa Monica.

...and the land is still sitting there doing nothing. That was actually a terrible example, why Santa Monica closing is sad El Toro could've been used to relieve LAX and shut down SNA, making more people happier in the long run.

That might have been sarcasm...

When I heard that JetSuiteX was starting service from Santa Monica I jumped at the opportunity and bought a ticket. It's an airport that will soon become part of history.

https://x.jetsuite.com/

So excited!

BobPatterson wrote:

What gives the Federal Government (FAA) the power to deny the people the right to close their airport and use their land for some other purpose?

I need help in understanding this. Maybe there are valid reasons.

What gives the people of Santa Monica the right to close a public use airport and shift noise and hazards to other airports and other people who don't get a say?

See how that works? If Santa Monica Airport was only used by residents of Santa Monica, and when closed, if no resident of santa monica would use any other GA airport for any reason, then you'd have a point. but considering that SM residents (and businesses) do use the airport, and that those same people will now use another airport in someone else's "back yard" you can see how the implications and impacts don't end at the borders of the city.

This is exactly why the FAA is involved...

b6sea wrote:

My understanding is that the city has already leased parts of the airport (buildings, not land) to Snap, Inc., better known as the developers of Snapchat. Although Santa Monica is selling this as a park, it really looks to me like they're interested in developing a lot of it into office space for tech tenants, since ActivisionBlizzard is right next door and now Snap is moving in. The city's economic development director has already said he favors "large companies" to fill new office space in the city and large companies need lots of space together, which means new development and the airport is really the only place that could happen. At least, that's my read on the current plan.

Hope the homeowners like traffic and tech employees because they're going to get a lot of both.

Santa Monica already has a lot of traffic. And they aren't going to build new roads. Their solution is rail and then buses to get to the rail, and trip that takes longer than a trip in a car, even with the traffic.

ikramerica wrote:

b6sea wrote:

My understanding is that the city has already leased parts of the airport (buildings, not land) to Snap, Inc., better known as the developers of Snapchat. Although Santa Monica is selling this as a park, it really looks to me like they're interested in developing a lot of it into office space for tech tenants, since ActivisionBlizzard is right next door and now Snap is moving in. The city's economic development director has already said he favors "large companies" to fill new office space in the city and large companies need lots of space together, which means new development and the airport is really the only place that could happen. At least, that's my read on the current plan.

Hope the homeowners like traffic and tech employees because they're going to get a lot of both.

Santa Monica already has a lot of traffic. And they aren't going to build new roads. Their solution is rail and then buses to get to the rail, and trip that takes longer than a trip in a car, even with the traffic.

I was more speaking to the fact that the NIMBYs are thinking they're going to get a big empty park in their backyard (I'm assuming they don't think it will be a popular park, because I've never met a NIMBY who liked people doing so much as take a jog on the sidewalk in front of their house) and are actually going to get hundreds of thousands of square feet of tech office space full of millennials. And if even a quarter of them drive, that's over a thousand cars on the road each day through these people's neighborhoods. Not to mention the years and years of construction and environmental cleanup to convert the airfield into a park (or office park, which seems more likely to me given the city's economic development agenda and lack of developable land).

Not that I feel at all sorry for the NIMBYs, they reap what they sow. May their home values increase and their property taxes be punishing and unaffordable!

BobPatterson wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

What gives the Federal Government (FAA) the power to deny the people the right to close their airport and use their land for some other purpose?
I need help in understanding this. Maybe there are valid reasons.

FAA's primary arguments was that any airport which receives grant funding must remain operational for the “useful life” of that grant which is considered to be 20-25 years. Santa Monica airport last accepted a grant in 2003.

The other issue deals with requirements from the 1947 transfer of portion of the current airport land from federal government to the city which stated land to be used as airport forever. City contends that subsequent agreements in 1980s and 1990s changed this stipulation, but regardless the city is still permitted to change land use for the section of the land which always belonged to it. The problem for the Feds with this was the city controlled good portion of land where runway sits, so they by default would have been able to shut the airport.

What this agreement does it allows the city to proceed with plans to rezone what is know as the "western parcel" and thus shorten 1,500ft off the runway, and eventual closure of the field bu 2028.

Basically city will be able to slowly starve user and tenants out over the next 11-years.

Thanks. I figured it was more complicated than I could imagine. I wonder what the 2003 Federal Grant was for?

I notice that, according to FlightRadar24 the only tracked user of the airport is NetJets, essentially time-share business aircraft. Maybe Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway ownere of NetJets) would be upset by reducing runway length so that the jets couldn't use the place. I presume that light civilian aircraft could still used the shortened runway.

Is there weekday use of the place by any scheduled airlines? My check for arrivals and departures was for today, Saturday.

Thus I'm puzzled as to why there should be a 12-year "phase-out" period. There seems to be no mass of traffic to be moved elsewhere.

Lots of business jets and GA are not tracked on sites like Flightradar24 purposely. SMO gets more traffic than NetJets, we at ONT send a few different bizjets to SMO quite regularly that cannot be tracked.

DCAfan wrote:

Reminds me at what happened at Meigs. Corporate jets are being squeezed out.

Haha. Yeah, except for Meigs was closed In a controversial move on the night of Sunday, March 30, 2003, when the dictator mayor at the time, Richie Daley, ordered city crews to destroy the runway by bulldozing large X-shaped gouges into the runway surface in the middle of the night.

The required demolition notice was not given to the FAA or the owners of airplanes at the airport, and as a result sixteen planes were left stranded at an airport with no operating runway, and an inbound flight had to be diverted by Air Traffic Control, because of equipment scattered on the runway.

So in the case of SMO, it was done properly and through the correct channels and procedures. In the case of CGX, a crazed lunatic decided to take matters into his own hands and basically level the place.

b6sea wrote:

I was more speaking to the fact that the NIMBYs are thinking they're going to get a big empty park in their backyard (I'm assuming they don't think it will be a popular park, because I've never met a NIMBY who liked people doing so much as take a jog on the sidewalk in front of their house) and are actually going to get hundreds of thousands of square feet of tech office space full of millennials. And if even a quarter of them drive, that's over a thousand cars on the road each day through these people's neighborhoods. Not to mention the years and years of construction and environmental cleanup to convert the airfield into a park (or office park, which seems more likely to me given the city's economic development agenda and lack of developable land).

At todays news conference the city reaffirmed their intention to build a park. Matter of fact it was mentioned 75-80% of the airport property (~200 acres) would be park lands.







With plans to shorten the runway, the Phase-I park would be designed and built first.

Anyone think that the eventual removal of Class D airspsace will bring LAX arrivals lower over SM? Wouldn't mind seeing at least the noise based argument backfire on the city. what a shame.

FlyUSAir wrote:

grbauc wrote:

b6sea wrote:

My understanding is that the city has already leased parts of the airport (buildings, not land) to Snap, Inc., better known as the developers of Snapchat. Although Santa Monica is selling this as a park, it really looks to me like they're interested in developing a lot of it into office space for tech tenants, since ActivisionBlizzard is right next door and now Snap is moving in. The city's economic development director has already said he favors "large companies" to fill new office space in the city and large companies need lots of space together, which means new development and the airport is really the only place that could happen. At least, that's my read on the current plan.

Hope the homeowners like traffic and tech employees because they're going to get a lot of both.

It worked for El Toro why not in Santa Monica.

...and the land is still sitting there doing nothing. That was actually a terrible example, why Santa Monica closing is sad El Toro could've been used to relieve LAX and shut down SNA, making more people happier in the long run.

there is some of it that is empty you are correct but they did and have developed houses and a lot of them. It's not the same but the carrot of a park for the people does seem to be.

grbauc wrote:

FlyUSAir wrote:

grbauc wrote:

It worked for El Toro why not in Santa Monica.

...and the land is still sitting there doing nothing. That was actually a terrible example, why Santa Monica closing is sad El Toro could've been used to relieve LAX and shut down SNA, making more people happier in the long run.

there is some of it that is empty you are correct but they did and have developed houses and a lot of them. It's not the same but the carrot of a park for the people does seem to be.

I hope the parks do get developed to tell the truth.

I'm sad the airport will be closed. But I guess inevitable.

sadde wrote:

Anyone think that the eventual removal of Class D airspsace will bring LAX arrivals lower over SM? Wouldn't mind seeing at least the noise based argument backfire on the city. what a shame.

The pattern would be dangerous unless there is a layout of traffic I'm unfamiliar with. With Pt. Magu restrictions on flights... I'm not expecting to see how anything would happen.


Lightsaber

sadde wrote:

Anyone think that the eventual removal of Class D airspsace will bring LAX arrivals lower over SM? Wouldn't mind seeing at least the noise based argument backfire on the city. what a shame.

SoCal Metroplex redesign proposed routes are public.

Actually looks like traffic above Santa Monica will be higher compared to current Sadde Arrival.

See new HUULL and CRSHR arrivals to KLAX:

http://metroplexenvironmental.com/socal ... _docs.html
http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/d ... 150701.pdf

How will this affect Jet Suite X? When will their flights into SMO end?

I was planning to make a special trip to the West Coast, to fly LAS-SMO on Jet Suite X, so I can log SMO, and this will affect the timing of my trip.

WA707atMSP wrote:

How will this affect Jet Suite X? When will their flights into SMO end?
I was planning to make a special trip to the West Coast, to fly LAS-SMO on Jet Suite X, so I can log SMO, and this will affect the timing of my trip.

Think Jet Suite X and their smug CEOs plans are dead. Sked flights were planned to start Feb 6th, but they had already been denied by the city attorney as such operations were not allowed at the airport.

Now with the closure agreement, between the runway shortening and reaffirming fact that scheduled operations are barred at the airport, Jet Suite X can go find another airport imo.

LAXintl wrote:

WA707atMSP wrote:

How will this affect Jet Suite X? When will their flights into SMO end?
I was planning to make a special trip to the West Coast, to fly LAS-SMO on Jet Suite X, so I can log SMO, and this will affect the timing of my trip.

Think Jet Suite X and their smug CEOs plans are dead. Sked flights were planned to start Feb 6th, but they had already been denied by the city attorney as such operations were not allowed at the airport.

Now with the closure agreement, between the runway shortening and reaffirming fact that scheduled operations are barred at the airport, Jet Suite X can go find another airport imo.

Thanks for the update, LAXintl. I'm disappointed, because I was born in Santa Monica, and this would have enabled me to say I'd taken a scheduled flight into the city I was born.

Jet Suite X's website also shows that they fly LAS-BUR. Are these flights as fake as their LAS-SMO flights, or do they actually operate?

Yes LAS-BUR seems to be operating pretty regular basis.

When the Defense Department closed NAS Glenview in the mid 90s, the base was turned over to the Village of Glenview, IL. Following a master plan that, according to a co-worker, took several years to create, the former base has retail, office space, housing, and park land.

Santa Monica may have a plan now, but I bet that the plan will see revisions over the next few years, based on the economy in general and interest from commercial and residential developers, as well as the views of the residents.

Revelation wrote:

Harrison Ford also pancaked his plane shortly after leaving SMO. Luckily he landed it in a golf course.

is there anything special about the place or is it about the users?
( to cause accidents, that is. or is it just the regular run of things and mishaps?)

With property values in Santa Monica that "Great Park-West" idea should last another week or two. Look for a mix of low and mid-rise commercial buildings with residential condos packing as many fannies as possible in as small a footprint as the developers can get away with.

Nearly eighteen years after the closure of El Toro MCAS in Orange County, we have a balloon ride to show for it. Our Great Park Balloon Ride: http://www.cityofirvine.org/orange-coun ... rk-balloon

highflier92660 wrote:

With property values in Santa Monica that "Great Park-West" idea should last another week or two. Look for a mix of low and mid-rise commercial buildings with residential condos packing as many fannies as possible in as small a footprint as the developers can get away with.

Trees in the paths at the Watergarden office complex or at ILM at the Presidio are not a park.

I can already see how Santa Monica will likely blow this. The airport becomes a haven for Google, EA and others who make buildings green for their employees not the general public. Just wait until you see their colorful bikes.

Undoubtedly any money they get from the redevelopment will be wasted on crazy projects that they have wanted for years but Santa Monica never had the money to waste on.

Another civic center redevelopment - New expanded convention center, no doubt a huge showwcase piece the council would love to have
Extending the promenade to Pico - Of course why make the retailers pay for this when local government has money to burn.
Covering the entire 10 freeway to make a park - Sound familiar, this was the big pie in the sky plan before SMO closing down was confirmed. The politicians would love to use this as a fallback. Once the SMO redevelopment goes the way of El Toro they can claim that the second megaproject will fix the first one's shortcomings.

Construction companies must be drooling over this.

Some of you commenting on this have obviously no knowledge of Santa Monica city council and its anti-development majority. There is no chance they will approve any large scale development at the SMO site. Just take a look at what happened to Bergamot Station site a few miles north. A well thought out and comprehensive development plan for parks, housing and commercial buildings on the parcel that is about 70% the size of SMO there were voted down 2 years ago because of NIMBY intransigence. Since that time, the anti-development factions have gotten much more powerful in the city. They will block any attempts to add (much needed) housing and Class A commercial space at SMO site.

Unlike El Toro, the parks plan at SMO is not contingent upon contribution from buildings of residential developments. The city of Santa Moncia has the resources to develop the park without taxes (mello roos) on new developments. The City of Irvine annexe El Toro on a whim thinking the developers will pay for everything... this is not how Santa Monica does things - SMO is already within the city limits and its closing (and redevelopment) is in the city's long term plan.

Its unlikely anything outside a park is built on the airport property.

In 2014 by 61-39 margin voters in Santa Monica passed measure LC which amended the city charter to require voter approval in a citywide election before any change in the use of land at the Santa Monica Airport except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities. Only allowed exception was further development at the Santa Monica College campus located on the airport.

As such I find it highly doubtful anyone would be able to convince majority of residents to overturn this measure.

[quote="ikramerica"][quote="BobPatterson"]What gives the Federal Government (FAA) the power to deny the people the right to close their airport and use their land for some other purpose?

Because it's Santa Monica - home of the righteously indignant, hypocritical NIMBY...they are probably OK with shifting the traffic and noise to Van Nuys and Hawthorne, because "those" people aren't as special as Santa Monicans....says the guy whose entire family moved to CA during the war and has lived within .5 miles of SMO ever since.

I love these people that move in to a neighborhood, well knowing whats there and then one day figure out they don't like what it is they chose to move next to...reminds me of the "No Jets at LAX" people...

BobPatterson wrote:

Thus I'm puzzled as to why there should be a 12-year "phase-out" period. There seems to be no mass of traffic to be moved elsewhere.

The airport serves as a vital general aviation airport - you do understand that there is more to aviation than airlines, right?

This closing is a Very Bad Thing - and very wrong.

The city is, by law, obligated to operate the airport, or a substantial majority of the land reverts to the federal government.

It is nothing but a land-grab, and most of the airport will become more high-density housing and commercial property.

sccutler wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Thus I'm puzzled as to why there should be a 12-year "phase-out" period. There seems to be no mass of traffic to be moved elsewhere.

The airport serves as a vital general aviation airport - you do understand that there is more to aviation than airlines, right?

This closing is a Very Bad Thing - and very wrong.

The city is, by law, obligated to operate the airport, or a substantial majority of the land reverts to the federal government.

It is nothing but a land-grab, and most of the airport will become more high-density housing and commercial property.

How will the city and economy survive only getting service from a dozen airports nearby?

I hear the LA area has a housing problem, and yet you are upset more housing is being built?

City of Santa Monica approved a contract to shorten runway from 5,000 to 3,500ft.

Its estimated shortening will reduce traffic by 44% and make airport largely unusable for jet traffic.

Construction begins in the fall with completion by year end.

Santa Monica City Council Approves Contract to Shorten Municipal Airport Runway
http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site ... unway.html

=

It is a shame, as a functioning city does not work on housing and office space alone. But it was too late to save it.

The real mistake was closing down El Toro - it would have made a perfect alternative to LAX (and would have enabled closing down SNA and SMO by absorbing their traffic). But as far as airports are concerned, the LA metro area has no plan whatsoever.

What gives the Federal Government (FAA) the power to deny the people the right to close their airport and use their land for some other purpose?

I need help in understanding this. Maybe there are valid reasons.

Airports are important pieces of infrastructure. Their importance and economic effects are not local (except for really tiny GA airports), but at least regional if not national or international. I'd say SMO is of regional importance. Thus it would be wrong for locals to exclusively decide on its fate. I certainly welcome that there is a higher authority at federal level that has a say in this, whatever the reason is.
Otherwise, we could just close all airports and replace them with shopping malls and office buildings - it is probably a more "profitable" use of land. But would the country and the economy still be able to function?

So... stupid question: Are there any remnants at the airport left from the days when the Douglas corporation used it, and if so, would they be preserved whatever happens to the rest of the airfield?

The airport will be closed completely December 13-23 as city shortens runway from 4,973 to 3,500 feet.

Should effectively eliminate bulk of jet traffic.

Merry Xmas Santa Monica.

The airport reopened with shortened 3,500ft runway which makes ops of larger jets not practical.


Additionally, U.S District Court dismissed case challenging the agreement between city and FAA that allowed the shortened runway and closure of airport entirely in 2028.
https://smmirror.com/2017/12/challenge- ... dismissed/

Good. As former Westsider this closure cant come soon enough. Hopefully eliminating all the corporate jets buys some respite for residents till 2028.