Airport Tenants File New Santa Monica Part 16 Complaint

 - February 8, 2016, 10:37 AM

Four Santa Monica Airport (SMO) tenants, along with NBAA and AOPA, have filed a new Part 16 complaint with the FAA that outlines specific grant-obligation violations by the city of Santa Monica, which owns the airport property. An earlier Part 16 complaint and appeal resulted in the city being required to keep SMO open through 2023.

Now, according to the latest complaint, the city is taking actions “to create an untenable operating environment at SMO through ‘excessive fees and rents,’ as well as the city’s denial of long-term lease agreements for aviation-related businesses at the field. At the same time, the complaint cites, the city extends "preferential terms to a non-aeronautical local college with facilities at SMO,” according to NBAA. The complaint also alleges that the city is playing favorites with one of the airport’s full-service FBOs. “More recently, with all airport leases expiring on July 1, 2015, the city allowed at least one full‐service FBO to remain on a short‐term holdover only if it agreed, as it was forced to do, to waive any right to challenge city conduct before the FAA. While not a subject of the current complaint, this kind of bullying and intimidation is characteristic of the city’s continuing disregard of its obligation as an airport sponsor to deal fairly and reasonably with tenants and users, as more fully alleged hereafter. It is also itself a facial violation of the grant assurances.”


Marty's picture

SMO neighbors get zero sympathy from these "Four Santa Monica Airport (SMO) tenants, along with NBAA and AOPA", when the neighbors of SMO complain about excessive noise and toxic emissions from SMO. The neighbors are called NIMBYs and whiners. These tenants want to continue their obnoxious ways and expect that they need not address the fact that SMO is poisoning the air for several thousands of residents. The tenants are the real NIMBY's and whiners. Shame on them.

@Marty "...SMO is poisoning the air for several thousands of residents." Excuse me but you live adjacent to the intersection of two of the busiest and congested freeways in Northern America, I-10 and I-405. The pollution from SMO is a drop in the bucket compared to the emissions from the thousands of trucks, buses, motorcycles and cars that drive/crawl by your neighborhood EVERY day. And while we're at it, didn't it occur to you when you were looking for a place to live that MAYBE living next to an airport might be a little noisier than say the hills of Calabasas, or did you think, ah the heck with it, I'll just get the airport closed down later. Maybe we should be asking the question 'Why is the Santa Monica City Council so anti-airport.?' Are they truly concerned with the living standards of residents or are they just drooling at the prospect of turning the SMO acreage into a mammoth tax generating machine via a business park?

Marty's picture

@Flyer - Your comments are wrong on all aspects: The scientific studies show SMO is the reason why the downwind neighborhood is measured to be the most polluted air in Los Angeles.
We have been though all this when the D initiative lost to the LC initiative last election.
You don't care about how SMO affects the neighbors; well, the neighbors don't care about you. Fly somewhere else.

@Marty, You need to get your facts straight. The scientific studies you refer to, have long been shown to be skewed through manipulation of the results by your side to show only what they wanted it to show. Is pollution bad? Yes. However you live in a city famous for its smog. If you were so almighty concerned about the drop in the bucket pollution of the airport compared to the freeways, you would have long ago moved. The real reason you haven't done so is that you and your anti airport loudmouths are in this strictly to get a sudden property value increase and nothing more. Heck, even one of the City Council members refuses to recuse himself from this issue despite standing to gain a 25% increase on his real estate holdings if the airport closes.
Here is the real truth, the folks decades ago who signed the IOTs, did so with language aimed at insuring this airport remains an airport open to all, forever. They didn't want the airport closed so they made sure the agreement indicated perpetuity. You folks can't accept this simple truth because if you do it means no windfall for you. Thats the truth and you bloody well know it. Spout off all you want but the airport isn't going anywhere. The City's days of ignoring its promises and obligations are coming to an end. If the City won't live up to its Grant Assurances, the feds will snatch all control away via the reversion clauses. If you are at all smart, you will start asking the City to live up to the grant assurances before you lose all airport control, because thats exactly what is around the corner if you and the City stay your current course. Good luck. .