Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To Build Their Homes Adjacent To It?

[Larry Dighera]

Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To
Build Their Homes Adjacent To It?


SANTA MONICA VOTES TO RESTRICT RUNWAY DESPITE FAA
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195115)
City commissioners in Santa Monica, Calif., voted last week to cordon
off nearly 1,200 feet of a runway at the Santa Monica Airport, despite
assertions from FAA officials that such restrictions would not be
allowed. The move is the latest effort from the city to restrict jet
traffic. The airport has become increasingly popular over the last two
decades, much to the dismay of neighbors. A few hundred residents and
politicians rallied at the airport
(http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-airport22apr22,1,4798302.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california)
recently to protest noise and air pollution. The new resolution would
block 600 feet at each end of the 5,000-foot runway as a "safety
area." Commission vice-chair Susan Hartley told The Lookout News
(http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2007/May-2007/05_02_07_Airport_Commission_Defies_FAA_Warning.htm )
she voted for the measure because "it will protect Los Angeles and
Santa Monica residents." FAA officials have told the commission that
any action that would restrict access is "not acceptable."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195115

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 4, 10:20 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To
> Build Their Homes Adjacent To It?
>
> SANTA MONICA VOTES TO RESTRICT RUNWAY DESPITE FAA
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195115)
> City commissioners in Santa Monica, Calif., voted last week to cordon
> off nearly 1,200 feet of a runway at the Santa Monica Airport, despite
> assertions from FAA officials that such restrictions would not be
> allowed. The move is the latest effort from the city to restrict jet
> traffic. The airport has become increasingly popular over the last two
> decades, much to the dismay of neighbors. A few hundred residents and
> politicians rallied at the airport
> (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-airport22ap...)
> recently to protest noise and air pollution. The new resolution would
> block 600 feet at each end of the 5,000-foot runway as a "safety
> area." Commission vice-chair Susan Hartley told The Lookout News
> (http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2007/Ma...)
> she voted for the measure because "it will protect Los Angeles and
> Santa Monica residents." FAA officials have told the commission that
> any action that would restrict access is "not acceptable."http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195115

I was there last week. Mostly jets at the FBO, although a few
KingAirs.

-Robert

[Guy Elden Jr]

The more I think about how the world works the more I realize how
pointless these "who came first" arguments are. The only thing that
matters is who votes for the commissioners, who contributes money to
their campaigns, and who shows up and actually makes their voices
heard at the meetings. Unfortunately at this point in time general
aviation is on the decline, so more and more of these little battles
are going to be lost simply because there aren't enough pilots or GA
advocates out there to be heard.

[Larry Dighera]

On 4 May 2007 12:17:46 -0700, Guy Elden Jr > wrote
in . com>:

>The more I think about how the world works the more I realize how
>pointless these "who came first" arguments are. The only thing that
>matters is who votes for the commissioners, who contributes money to
>their campaigns, and who shows up and actually makes their voices
>heard at the meetings.

Hopefully, in this case the FAA's jurisdiction over the airport will
prevail.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The more I think about how the world works the more I realize how
> pointless these "who came first" arguments are. The only thing that
> matters is who votes for the commissioners, who contributes money to
> their campaigns, and who shows up and actually makes their voices
> heard at the meetings.

If my experience is any indicator, that last one doesn't matter so much as
the one prior.

I've been to plenty of planning meetings, zoning hearings, city council
stuff, school boards, and it's quite evident that decision has been made
before anyone enter the room. It's also obvious that no logic or reason is
going to change their minds.

> Unfortunately at this point in time general
> aviation is on the decline, so more and more of these little battles
> are going to be lost simply because there aren't enough pilots or GA
> advocates out there to be heard.

Money talks.

[ZikZak]

It all makes about as much sense as...

SANTA MONICA VOTES TO RESTRICT INTERSTATE 405 DESPITE DOT
City commissioners in Santa Monica, Calif., voted last week to cordon
off two lanes of a traffic on the San Diego Freeway, despite
assertions from DOT officials that such restrictions would not be
allowed. The move is the latest effort from the city to restrict
commuter traffic. The freeway has become increasingly popular over the
last two decades, much to the dismay of neighbors. A few hundred
residents and politicians rallied at the freeway recently to protest
noise and air pollution. Commission vice-chair Susan Hartley told The
Lookout News she voted for the measure because "it will protect Los
Angeles and Santa Monica residents." DOT officials have told the
commission that any action that would restrict access is "not
acceptable."




..... *sigh*

[Vic Baron]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To
> Build Their Homes Adjacent To It?
>


Sadly it usually amounts to who complains the loudest and who has the most
$$$.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Vic Baron" > wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To
> > Build Their Homes Adjacent To It?
> >
>
>
> Sadly it usually amounts to who complains the loudest and who has the most
> $$$.

In Santa monica you have a devil's mix of socialists, who want to punish
the "privileged rich people," developers, who are the biggest campaign
contributors and self-styled environmentalists running the show.

You do have tools (California Pilot PAC for instance) sponsored by
California Pilots' Assn. and a local airport assn.

[Ron]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:55:15 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Vic Baron" > wrote:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To
>> > Build Their Homes Adjacent To It?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Sadly it usually amounts to who complains the loudest and who has the most
>> $$$.
>
>In Santa monica you have a devil's mix of socialists, who want to punish
>the "privileged rich people," developers, who are the biggest campaign
>contributors and self-styled environmentalists running the show.
>
>You do have tools (California Pilot PAC for instance) sponsored by
>California Pilots' Assn. and a local airport assn.

It's known as the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica for good reason.

Ron Kelley

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To
> Build Their Homes Adjacent To It?

Usually airports come first, and they bring in traffic that helps a city to
grow, and then people build next to the airport, and then they complain about
the very thing that helped them to have a city in the first place.

Maybe some of these people complaining should take a flight into the airport
with the runways blocked and see how they feel about it then. After they
change into dry underwear, they might be more willing to give safety priority
over their own selfishness.

Is there any airport anywhere with _arriviste_ neighbors who _don't_ complain
about the noise?

Does anyone remember how much noisier airports used to be?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 08:36:48 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Is there any airport anywhere with _arriviste_ neighbors who _don't_ complain
>about the noise?

Responsible real estate sellers and developers disclose the
environmental impact of the airport, and require the buyer grant an
Avigation Easement as a condition of the sale. And responsible
municipalities do the same:


http://www.ci.florence.or.us/citycode/Title_10_Chapter_21_Public_Use_Airport_Zone.pdf
10-21-2-11: AVIGATION EASEMENT: Within this overlay zone, the
owners of properties that are the subjects of applications for
land use or limited land use decisions, for building permits for
new residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or
recreational buildings or structures intended for inhabitation or
occupancy by humans or animals, or for expansions of such
buildings or structures by the lesser of 50% FLORENCE CITY CODE
TITLE 10 9 PUBLIC USE AIRPORT ZONE. 10-21 or 1000 square feet,
shall, as a condition of obtaining such approval or permits,
dedicate an avigation easement to the airport sponsor. The
avigation easement shall be in a form acceptable to the airport
sponsor and shall be signed and recorded in the deed records of
the County. The avigation easement shall allow unobstructed
passage for aircraft and ensure safety and use of the airport for
the public. Property owners or their representatives are
responsible for providing the recorded instrument prior to
issuance of building permits.




http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/topic/air/avigation-easements.pdf
What is an avigation easement?

It is a property right acquired from a land owner that grants the
right-of-flight; the right to cause noise, dust, etc., related to
aircraft flight; the right to restrict or prohibit certain lights,
electromagnetic signals and bird-attracting land uses; the right
to unobstructed airspace over the property above a specified
height and the right of ingress/egress upon the land to exercise
those rights.



Apparently the Environmental Protection Agency/FAA also use aerial
easements:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/1997/August/Day-21/g22103.htm
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is
reviewing a proposed amendment to the approved noise compatibility
program for Greater Pittsburgh International Airport which will be
approved or disapproved on or before February 13, 1998. This
notice also announces the availability of this program for public
review and comment. The proposed amendment to the sole remedial
land use measure included in the approved noise compatibility
program (a voluntary sound insulation program) is to allow persons
willing to convey an aerial easement to the County to elect either
to participate in the sound insulation program or receive cash
compensation. The amendment also will eliminate the requirement
that participants in the program be non-litigants. Litigants will
then be permitted to participate in the program and receive sound
insulation or cash compensation and related fees in exchange for
the conveyance of an aerial easement.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Responsible real estate sellers and developers disclose the
> environmental impact of the airport, and require the buyer grant an
> Avigation Easement as a condition of the sale. And responsible
> municipalities do the same:

It sounds like a good idea overall, but I worry a bit about the
right-of-flight provision ... isn't this an implicit validation of the notion
that property owners can control the flight of aircraft over their property?
Validating that principle would open a Pandora's box, given that it usurps the
authority of the FAA and the state to control the airspace.

As for the other provisions, they seem perfectly sound.

But who's responsible if no easement has been sought and granted from property
owners? Why should the airport suffer if an unscrupulous seller sells
property in the area without providing for the necessary easement?

I have to admit that I don't see why airports are such a big deal, anyway. I
used to live right under the approach path of a Class B and I never even
noticed any noise, although the retiree community down the street constantly
complained about this alleged noise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Responsible real estate sellers and developers disclose the
>> environmental impact of the airport, and require the buyer grant an
>> Avigation Easement as a condition of the sale. And responsible
>> municipalities do the same:
>
> It sounds like a good idea overall, but I worry a bit about the
> right-of-flight provision ..

Why, you don't fly, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sat, 05 May 2007 08:36:48 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote in >:
>
> >Is there any airport anywhere with _arriviste_ neighbors who _don't_
> >complain
> >about the noise?
>
> Responsible real estate sellers and developers disclose the
> environmental impact of the airport, and require the buyer grant an
> Avigation Easement as a condition of the sale. And responsible
> municipalities do the same:

The problem lies in the term "responsible."

What I have seen in past dealings , when I lived in California, was that
that term was missing. Real estate developers and companies are the
primary source of campaign funds, and airport land, in a developer's
eyes is a prime hunk of real estate, ripe for building houses and
shopping malls. They do not care about other public benefits of the
airport -- just its value to them as a butchered property.




> http://www.ci.florence.or.us/citycode/Title_10_Chapter_21_Public_Use_Airport_Z
> one.pdf
> 10-21-2-11: AVIGATION EASEMENT: Within this overlay zone, the
> owners of properties that are the subjects of applications for
> land use or limited land use decisions, for building permits for
> new residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or
> recreational buildings or structures intended for inhabitation or
> occupancy by humans or animals, or for expansions of such
> buildings or structures by the lesser of 50% FLORENCE CITY CODE
> TITLE 10 9 PUBLIC USE AIRPORT ZONE. 10-21 or 1000 square feet,
> shall, as a condition of obtaining such approval or permits,
> dedicate an avigation easement to the airport sponsor. The
> avigation easement shall be in a form acceptable to the airport
> sponsor and shall be signed and recorded in the deed records of
> the County. The avigation easement shall allow unobstructed
> passage for aircraft and ensure safety and use of the airport for
> the public. Property owners or their representatives are
> responsible for providing the recorded instrument prior to
> issuance of building permits.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/topic/air/avigation-easement
> s.pdf
> What is an avigation easement?
>
> It is a property right acquired from a land owner that grants the
> right-of-flight; the right to cause noise, dust, etc., related to
> aircraft flight; the right to restrict or prohibit certain lights,
> electromagnetic signals and bird-attracting land uses; the right
> to unobstructed airspace over the property above a specified
> height and the right of ingress/egress upon the land to exercise
> those rights.
>
>
>
> Apparently the Environmental Protection Agency/FAA also use aerial
> easements:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/1997/August/Day-21/g22103.htm
> SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is
> reviewing a proposed amendment to the approved noise compatibility
> program for Greater Pittsburgh International Airport which will be
> approved or disapproved on or before February 13, 1998. This
> notice also announces the availability of this program for public
> review and comment. The proposed amendment to the sole remedial
> land use measure included in the approved noise compatibility
> program (a voluntary sound insulation program) is to allow persons
> willing to convey an aerial easement to the County to elect either
> to participate in the sound insulation program or receive cash
> compensation. The amendment also will eliminate the requirement
> that participants in the program be non-litigants. Litigants will
> then be permitted to participate in the program and receive sound
> insulation or cash compensation and related fees in exchange for
> the conveyance of an aerial easement.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 20:39:30 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 May 2007 08:36:48 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>> >Is there any airport anywhere with _arriviste_ neighbors who _don't_
>> >complain
>> >about the noise?
>>
>> Responsible real estate sellers and developers disclose the
>> environmental impact of the airport, and require the buyer grant an
>> Avigation Easement as a condition of the sale. And responsible
>> municipalities do the same:
>
>The problem lies in the term "responsible."
>
>What I have seen in past dealings , when I lived in California, was that
>that term was missing. Real estate developers and companies are the
>primary source of campaign funds, and airport land, in a developer's
>eyes is a prime hunk of real estate, ripe for building houses and
>shopping malls. They do not care about other public benefits of the
>airport -- just its value to them as a butchered property.
>
>

If the seller fails to disclose the airport noise, he exposes himself
to legal liability. Unfortunately, the new owners would probably
rather whine about the noise, than litigate and relocate.

[Vic Baron]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 May 2007 08:36:48 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>> >Is there any airport anywhere with _arriviste_ neighbors who _don't_
>> >complain
>> >about the noise?
>>
>> Responsible real estate sellers and developers disclose the
>> environmental impact of the airport, and require the buyer grant an
>> Avigation Easement as a condition of the sale. And responsible
>> municipalities do the same:
>
> The problem lies in the term "responsible."
>
> What I have seen in past dealings , when I lived in California, was that
> that term was missing. Real estate developers and companies are the
> primary source of campaign funds, and airport land, in a developer's
> eyes is a prime hunk of real estate, ripe for building houses and
> shopping malls. They do not care about other public benefits of the
> airport -- just its value to them as a butchered property.
>
>

I live in Burbank Ca very near KBUR.I had to sign the Avigation easement as
did everyone in the vicinity. However, the City of Burbank also paid to
upgrade all the homes in the area with double windows, new A/C units and
wall insulation to help with the noise level. Also, although NOT a
regulation, most carriers and pilots refrain from flying jets or other
relatively loud a/c between the hours of 10PM and 7AM. Seems to be a nice
arrangement although the a/c noise generally doesn't bother me at all. And
Southwest ( the major carrier at KBUR) has a lot of newer 737 that are so
quiet you can hardly hear them even if you're outside.

Vic