Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA

[Larry Dighera]

Perhaps the city should not have permitted housing development at the
ends of the runway; more suitable zoning might have been industrial or
commercial. Rather than crippling the airport, perhaps a more
equitable solution would be for the city to purchase those homes they
believe to be in danger, as a means of correction for their original
errors.

Land in the heart of metropolitan cities is worth more than gold. To
acquire metropolitan real estate, the emperor of Chicago finally
resorted to a midnight bulldozer raid on his own airport. The same
thing happened in the '70s at Dana Point Airport(?). This
shortsighted malfeasance is rapacious. Is Santa Monica next?



FAA moves to block ban on fastest jets at Santa Monica Airport
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-faa24apr24,1,780534.story

City officials, citing safety concerns, say they will begin
implementing the ban today in defiance of the FAA.

By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 24, 2008

The Federal Aviation Administration took legal action Wednesday to
overturn a ban on the fastest jets that fly out of Santa Monica
Airport, including aircraft popular among business executives.

FAA officials served the city of Santa Monica with a
cease-and-desist order challenging a municipal ordinance passed in
November -- and effective today -- that bars jets with approach
speeds of greater than 136 mph.

The so-called Category C and D jets include such popular models as
the Gulfstream IV, Challenger and Citation X aircraft. They
account for about 9,000 landings and departures a year, or about
7% of flight operations.

"We've worked very hard for nearly six years to reach an agreement
with the city of Santa Monica that addresses their concerns and
maintains access to the airport for all kinds of aircraft," said
Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "We made multiple proposals to the
city, all of which the city rejected."

Citing safety as its paramount concern, the Santa Monica City
Council unanimously passed the ...

Moutrie wrote that the FAA "is already under criticism and
pressure from Congress for putting aviation industry convenience
ahead of public safety. The city urges you to change your course
and steadfastly put public safety first."

Council members approved the ban, saying it would protect the
public, particularly residents living immediately next to the ends
of the airport runway and individuals using and working at the
airport.

Residents of Santa Monica and the Mar Vista neighborhood of Los
Angeles have complained for years that the airport's location and
lack of runway buffers create the potential for a deadly accident.



Additional interesting information on this subject:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080424ca.html
http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080423caban.pdf
Your enforcement of the Ordinance on April 24, 2008, can only be
interpreted as an attempt to divest the FAA of its jurisdiction over
its administrative process to which the City, as a federally obligated
airport, must adhere. Moreover, your attempted enforcement of the
City's Ordinance also suggests a complete disregard for the FAA's
authority and responsibility as the final arbiter of aviation safety
in the National Air Transportation System. The FAA cannot countenance
enforcement of the Ordinance under these circumstances while ...



http://www.smgov.net/cmo/FAACeaseandDesist.pdf
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, DC
)
IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE )
WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS )
BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, )
CALIFORNIA )
------------- )

FAA Docket No. 16-02-08
INTERIM CEASE AND DESIST ORDER

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based
on a Notice of Investigation (NOI) dated October 8, 2002, initiated by
the Director of the Office of Airport Safety and Standards, and
supplemented by his March 26, 2008 Order to Show Cause. The NOI and
Order to Show Cause were issued in accordance with the FAA Rules of
Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14
Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 16. The FAA's investigation
seeks to determine the legality of the City of Santa Monica,
California's ("the City") Ordinance adopted on March 25,2008
("Ordinance") banning Category C and D aircraft operations from the
Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMa).

The City's banning Category C and D jet aircraft from SMO...



http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080423caenforcement.pdf
Your communication warns Mr. Trimborn that if he fails to accede to
the demand, the FAA will issue a cease and desist order requiring the
City refrain from enforcing City Ordinande No. 2251 pending the
outcome of the administrative proceeding, which the FAA initiated over
five years ago and recently attempted to "revive" through issuance of
an Order to Show Cause. Your letter claims that the proceeding was
"stayed.," but in vact there was no stay and the 120 day period for
decision expired without extension.



http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/2008/04/24/08_santa_monica_faa_2wa.html
Ian Gregor: Well, we've said in the past that we don't believe that
cities have the authority, first of all, to decide which aircraft can
and cannot use airports, and secondly, we've said that the city of
Santa Monica has made a series of agreements with the federal
government over the last six plus decades that precludes them from
banning any aircraft from their airport.

Steve Julian: Now, city officials yesterday told the Los Angeles Times
they're going to implement the ban anyway. What action can the FAA
take if the city doesn't abide by the cease and desist order?
....

Gregor: Sure. Well, Santa Monica is a unique situation, because most
cities don't allow developers to build homes right up to the edge of
an airport. That said, these larger jets, these category C and D jets,
have been landing safely at Santa Monica for years, and years, and
years. It's perfectly safe for these planes to land on a runway the
length of which Santa Monica has.

We have made a number of safety proposals over the years that would
build runway safety areas at either both runway ends, or the departure
end of the runway that's most heavily used, and we've also offered to
fund a residential acquisition program if the city wants to buy up
some homes to create a larger runway protection zone. And
unfortunately, the city has rejected all of those proposals.

Julian: A lot of people may not want to sell their homes or lose them.

Gregor: Well again, that's really the city's decision as to what they
want to do. We've made proposals that would build larger safety areas
at each runway end, without eating up so much runway that, you know,
certain jets would be effectively precluded from using the airport.
And we think those are excellent safety options, and the city has
rejected them.



http://www.knbc.com/travelgetaways/15978421/detail.html
Those in violation of the ordinance could be subject to misdemeanor
charges, fines and possibly jail sentences. The law will not apply to
jets from other areas that landed earlier this week and will depart
today, according to The Times.

"We will start enforcing the law and see what happens. This is the
council's decision," Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie
told The Times.



http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/faa-ups-legal-ante-against-santa-monica-airport/
It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest another
option that would not restrict access to the airport. The city, which
accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development grants between
1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the runway length and
width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed when the airport was
transferred to the city in 1948 that the airport would be used “for
the use and benefit of the public…without unjust discrimination.

The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets
constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to
operators of other classes of aircraft.”



http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Santa_Monica_to_implement_jet_ban_despite_ FAA_legal_move.html
Residents have complained for years about the potential for a jet to
overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport is unusual
in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are within 300 feet of
the runway's end.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 5:59*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

I've seen that before. If it is to get anywahere, the key is to
threaten the mayor and council member by naming them as the
respondants to the injunction. You can't send a city to jail!

My 2c

Cheers

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote in
>:

>the key is to
>threaten the mayor and council member by naming them as the
>respondants to the injunction. You can't send a city to jail!


That sounds reasonable. I've passed it on to the FAA Western-Pacific
Region Public Affairs contact.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 12:59*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Perhaps the city should not have permitted housing development at the
> ends of the runway; more suitable zoning might have been industrial or
> commercial. *Rather than crippling the airport, perhaps a more
> equitable solution would be for the city to purchase those homes they
> believe to be in danger, as a means of correction for their original
> errors. *

Perhaps the country clubbers should purchase the homes and have The
Donald build another golf course ??

Industrial ?? Ha, that went to China.. Commercial ?? Who wants to work
under jets ??

JG

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in news:59a64265-c76d-48e1-ae70-
:

> On Apr 26, 12:59*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Perhaps the city should not have permitted housing development at the
>> ends of the runway; more suitable zoning might have been industrial or
>> commercial. *Rather than crippling the airport, perhaps a more
>> equitable solution would be for the city to purchase those homes they
>> believe to be in danger, as a means of correction for their original
>> errors. *
>
> Perhaps the country clubbers should purchase the homes and have The
> Donald build another golf course ??
>
> Industrial ?? Ha, that went to China.. Commercial ?? Who wants to work
> under jets ??
>
> JG

Perhaps people who are opposed to airports should be placed on the "No Fly"
list.

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:57:26 GMT, Benjamin Dover
> wrote:

>Perhaps people who are opposed to airports should be placed on the "No Fly"
>list.


Great point!

[Peter Dohm]

"Benjamin Dover" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in news:59a64265-c76d-48e1-ae70-
> :
>
>> On Apr 26, 12:59 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> Perhaps the city should not have permitted housing development at the
>>> ends of the runway; more suitable zoning might have been industrial or
>>> commercial. Rather than crippling the airport, perhaps a more
>>> equitable solution would be for the city to purchase those homes they
>>> believe to be in danger, as a means of correction for their original
>>> errors.
>>
>> Perhaps the country clubbers should purchase the homes and have The
>> Donald build another golf course ??
>>
>> Industrial ?? Ha, that went to China.. Commercial ?? Who wants to work
>> under jets ??
>>
>> JG
>
> Perhaps people who are opposed to airports should be placed on the "No
> Fly"
> list.
>
Now you're talkin'!

Peter

[Larry Dighera]

You'll recall when we last visited this on-going saga, the City of
Santa Monica mayor and board of supervisors

http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/index.htm
Mayor Herb Katz, Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom, Bobby Shriver,
Robert Holbrook, Ken Genser, Kevin McKeown, Pam O'Connor

enacted an ordinance contrary to the FAA's authority over the airport.
The FAA responded with an order to show cause, and additional letters
were exchanged.

Now the FAA has successfully managed to get a federal court to issue a
temporary restraining order blocking Santa Monica's attempt to usurp
FAA authority.

The City Council says it acted to protect local residents from jet
overruns and acted in accordance with the FAA's own safety
standards. In court, the judge asked the city attorney how many
aircraft of the type that would be affected by the ban had been
involved in overruns at the airport. The answer is none, but that
smaller, slower aircraft have been involved in overruns and the
city's attorney stated that the results of such an incident
involving larger aircraft would be disastrous. The judge responded
noting that the larger aircraft in question were flown by
professional pilots and were considered safer than smaller private
aircraft.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1111-full.html#197772

A hearing scheduled for May 15 will allow both sides (the city and
the FAA) to file additional arguments.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode ...



Chronology:
http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/smo/
Developments Continue Unfolding on Santa Monica Airport Ban



On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:59:52 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>Perhaps the city should not have permitted housing development at the
>ends of the runway; more suitable zoning might have been industrial or
>commercial. Rather than crippling the airport, perhaps a more
>equitable solution would be for the city to purchase those homes they
>believe to be in danger, as a means of correction for their original
>errors.
>
>Land in the heart of metropolitan cities is worth more than gold. To
>acquire metropolitan real estate, the emperor of Chicago finally
>resorted to a midnight bulldozer raid on his own airport. The same
>thing happened in the '70s at Dana Point Airport(?). This
>shortsighted malfeasance is rapacious. Is Santa Monica next?
>
>
>
> FAA moves to block ban on fastest jets at Santa Monica Airport
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-faa24apr24,1,780534.story
>
> City officials, citing safety concerns, say they will begin
> implementing the ban today in defiance of the FAA.
>
> By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
>
> April 24, 2008
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration took legal action Wednesday to
> overturn a ban on the fastest jets that fly out of Santa Monica
> Airport, including aircraft popular among business executives.
>
> FAA officials served the city of Santa Monica with a
> cease-and-desist order challenging a municipal ordinance passed in
> November -- and effective today -- that bars jets with approach
> speeds of greater than 136 mph.
>
> The so-called Category C and D jets include such popular models as
> the Gulfstream IV, Challenger and Citation X aircraft. They
> account for about 9,000 landings and departures a year, or about
> 7% of flight operations.
>
> "We've worked very hard for nearly six years to reach an agreement
> with the city of Santa Monica that addresses their concerns and
> maintains access to the airport for all kinds of aircraft," said
> Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "We made multiple proposals to the
> city, all of which the city rejected."
>
> Citing safety as its paramount concern, the Santa Monica City
> Council unanimously passed the ...
>
> Moutrie wrote that the FAA "is already under criticism and
> pressure from Congress for putting aviation industry convenience
> ahead of public safety. The city urges you to change your course
> and steadfastly put public safety first."
>
> Council members approved the ban, saying it would protect the
> public, particularly residents living immediately next to the ends
> of the airport runway and individuals using and working at the
> airport.
>
> Residents of Santa Monica and the Mar Vista neighborhood of Los
> Angeles have complained for years that the airport's location and
> lack of runway buffers create the potential for a deadly accident.
>
>
>
>Additional interesting information on this subject:
>
>http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080424ca.html
>http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080423caban.pdf
>Your enforcement of the Ordinance on April 24, 2008, can only be
>interpreted as an attempt to divest the FAA of its jurisdiction over
>its administrative process to which the City, as a federally obligated
>airport, must adhere. Moreover, your attempted enforcement of the
>City's Ordinance also suggests a complete disregard for the FAA's
>authority and responsibility as the final arbiter of aviation safety
>in the National Air Transportation System. The FAA cannot countenance
>enforcement of the Ordinance under these circumstances while ...
>
>
>
>http://www.smgov.net/cmo/FAACeaseandDesist.pdf
>UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
>FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
>WASHINGTON, DC
>)
>IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE )
>WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS )
>BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, )
>CALIFORNIA )
>------------- )
>
>FAA Docket No. 16-02-08
>INTERIM CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
>
>This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based
>on a Notice of Investigation (NOI) dated October 8, 2002, initiated by
>the Director of the Office of Airport Safety and Standards, and
>supplemented by his March 26, 2008 Order to Show Cause. The NOI and
>Order to Show Cause were issued in accordance with the FAA Rules of
>Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14
>Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 16. The FAA's investigation
>seeks to determine the legality of the City of Santa Monica,
>California's ("the City") Ordinance adopted on March 25,2008
>("Ordinance") banning Category C and D aircraft operations from the
>Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMa).
>
>The City's banning Category C and D jet aircraft from SMO...
>
>
>
>http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080423caenforcement.pdf
>Your communication warns Mr. Trimborn that if he fails to accede to
>the demand, the FAA will issue a cease and desist order requiring the
>City refrain from enforcing City Ordinande No. 2251 pending the
>outcome of the administrative proceeding, which the FAA initiated over
>five years ago and recently attempted to "revive" through issuance of
>an Order to Show Cause. Your letter claims that the proceeding was
>"stayed.," but in vact there was no stay and the 120 day period for
>decision expired without extension.
>
>
>
>http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/2008/04/24/08_santa_monica_faa_2wa.html
>Ian Gregor: Well, we've said in the past that we don't believe that
>cities have the authority, first of all, to decide which aircraft can
>and cannot use airports, and secondly, we've said that the city of
>Santa Monica has made a series of agreements with the federal
>government over the last six plus decades that precludes them from
>banning any aircraft from their airport.
>
>Steve Julian: Now, city officials yesterday told the Los Angeles Times
>they're going to implement the ban anyway. What action can the FAA
>take if the city doesn't abide by the cease and desist order?
>...
>
>Gregor: Sure. Well, Santa Monica is a unique situation, because most
>cities don't allow developers to build homes right up to the edge of
>an airport. That said, these larger jets, these category C and D jets,
>have been landing safely at Santa Monica for years, and years, and
>years. It's perfectly safe for these planes to land on a runway the
>length of which Santa Monica has.
>
>We have made a number of safety proposals over the years that would
>build runway safety areas at either both runway ends, or the departure
>end of the runway that's most heavily used, and we've also offered to
>fund a residential acquisition program if the city wants to buy up
>some homes to create a larger runway protection zone. And
>unfortunately, the city has rejected all of those proposals.
>
>Julian: A lot of people may not want to sell their homes or lose them.
>
>Gregor: Well again, that's really the city's decision as to what they
>want to do. We've made proposals that would build larger safety areas
>at each runway end, without eating up so much runway that, you know,
>certain jets would be effectively precluded from using the airport.
>And we think those are excellent safety options, and the city has
>rejected them.
>
>
>
>http://www.knbc.com/travelgetaways/15978421/detail.html
>Those in violation of the ordinance could be subject to misdemeanor
>charges, fines and possibly jail sentences. The law will not apply to
>jets from other areas that landed earlier this week and will depart
>today, according to The Times.
>
>"We will start enforcing the law and see what happens. This is the
>council's decision," Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie
>told The Times.
>
>
>
>http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/faa-ups-legal-ante-against-santa-monica-airport/
>It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest another
>option that would not restrict access to the airport. The city, which
>accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development grants between
>1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the runway length and
>width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed when the airport was
>transferred to the city in 1948 that the airport would be used “for
>the use and benefit of the public…without unjust discrimination.
>
>The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets
>constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to
>operators of other classes of aircraft.”
>
>
>
>http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Santa_Monica_to_implement_jet_ban_despite_ FAA_legal_move.html
>Residents have complained for years about the potential for a jet to
>overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport is unusual
>in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are within 300 feet of
>the runway's end.

[Larry Dighera]

This story gets more interesting as more information is revealed.
Let's hope the FAA can find the power to prevail in restoring Santa
Monica Airport to fully operational status:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/1117-full.html#197861
The FAA has obtained a temporary injunction and the full court
hearing is Thursday. California's first family has even been drawn
into the scrap. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's GIV would be banned,
extending the governator's almost daily commute from his Brentwood
home to the airport by longer than it takes to fly the trip. It's
interesting to note that his brother-in-law Bobby Schriver is on
Santa Monica council and is backing the ban. But while celebrities
tend to grab the limelight in this issue, well-known aviation
writer and speaker Barry Schiff, who's also chairman of the Santa
Monica Airport Association, told AVweb in a podcast interview
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080514&kw=RelatedStory) that
the current controversy has its roots in the 1980s when the
council of the day took a look at the real estate and decided
there was a more profitable use for it. Between the local pilots
and the FAA, attempts to close the airport were thwarted and there
was a guarantee to keep it open until at least 2015. However,
successive councils have chipped away at the usefulness of the
facility, especially by those who aren't super rich, and the speed
limit on approaches is just the latest gambit.




http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=businessweekly&id=news/SANTA05058.xml
FAA also said it believed it would prevail on the merits of the
interim Cease and Desist order. But the agency also argued that
the district court does not have jurisdiction over the merits of
the order. "The only question before the court is whether the city
is in violation of the interim Cease and Desist order," FAA said.
"The city is free to seek appropriate relief from the court of
appeals; however, the city may not unilaterally decide to violate
the order, nor may it seek to justify such a violation before this
court by disputing the order's merits."

The district court agreed, noting the TRO filing does not seek
assessment of the interim order or its terms. FAA only asked the
court to enforce the interim order pending either FAA action
through the Part 16 process or a city appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals. "This court is under no position, either under the law or
by invitation, to forecast the merits of the interim order and its
terms," the district court found, adding that the jurisdiction
over the merits of the interim Cease and Desist order remain with
FAA. The court ordered the City of Santa Monica to adhere to the
Cease and Desist order and allow Class C and D aircraft to land at
the airport. The court further set a May 15 date for a preliminary
injunction hearing against city action. The May 15 hearing calls
for the city to "show cause" why a preliminary injunction should
not be issued.




http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2008/March-2008/03_27_08_City_Restricts_Jets.htm
...
Before the vote, council members vociferously rejected the FAA’s
latest proposal to install a concrete arresting system that slows
down aircraft travelling at 70 knots, noting that it would be only
capable of stopping two of the seven large aircraft that frequent
the 63-year-old airport.

“Safety is number one,” said Mayor Herb Katz. “I don’t think the
FAA has addressed it. You have delayed it. We’re not getting
anywhere.”

“It simply doesn’t go far enough to address the safety issues. . .
or come close to safety measures in the ordinance,” Mayor Pro Tem
Richard Bloom said of the agency’s proposal. “I think it’s time
for us to move forward.”

“The solution presented by the FAA bothers me,” said Council
member Bob Holbrook. “It’s not adequate.”

The council was well aware the decision to approve the ordinance
on second reading would be challenged in court, and the lengthy
study session and public hearing before the quick formal vote was
meant to put the City on firmer legal ground.

“I am aware of the struggle we are about to enter here,” said
Council member Kevin McKeown. “I hope the City of LA appreciates
the war little Santa Monica is about to get into” to protect
residents, many of whom live in neighboring Los Angeles.

Noting that the ordinance would be held up in court, Council
member Bobby Shriver made a successful motion directing staff to
study the possibility of instituting the FAA’s plan during what
promises to be a lengthy legal battle.

“This litigation could take quite a while,” said Shriver. “This is
an issue of federal power over a local facility.

“We should direct staff to study the EMAS proposed by the FAA,” he
said, referring to the Engineered Materials Arresting System
(EMAS), a bed of crushed concrete designed to capture the landing
gear of a wayward aircraft.

“We’re veterans of litigation,” said Holbrook. “We know how to do
this thing. The problem is years may go by. In the meantime, can
we afford to ignore anything that can provide a safer airport?”

The FAA’s plan called for a 250 foot EMAS bed with a 25 foot
lead-in at one end of the runway, compared with the 1,000 feet of
safety area under the new City ordinance, which bans C and D
aircraft with approach speeds faster than 121 knots.

The council’s vote came after hearing testimony from neighboring
residents, who ticked off the dates when aircraft overran the
runways at other airports and listed the fatalities such accidents
have caused. ...

The vote came as City officials and residents who live near the
airport increasingly worry that soaring jet traffic -- from 4,829
jet operations in 1994 to 18,575 last year -- is putting
neighboring homes, as well as pilots, in danger.

The threatened litigation is not the first time the FAA would sue
the City for restricting jet traffic.

In 1979, the City banned some jet access to the airport, whose
B-II classification means the airport is suitable for category A
and B aircraft with approach speeds slower than 121 knots.

But litigation resulted in a 1984 settlement agreement governing
airport operations until 2015. The agreement, FAA officials say,
allows newer category C and D aircraft, which tend to be larger
and faster jets.

FAA officials say they are obligated to keep access available to C
and D aircraft, because Santa Monica Airport is an important
reliever airport in the national system.

City officials contend that the airport does not meet the FAA’s
own safety standards for B-II airports and for airports that would
accommodate C and D aircraft.

Federal standards for C and D aircraft call for 1,000-foot runway
safety areas at both ends of a runway, airport officials said.



http://www.smgov.net/news/releases/archive/2008/cao200804074.htm
...
The city’s submission to the FAA argues that airport operations
are governed by the 1984 Settlement Agreement between the city and
the FAA, which only requires the city to accommodate slower
aircraft at the airport. The FAA, as a party to that contract,
cannot adjudicate contract compliance. Additionally, the city
argues that the FAA is disqualified from adjudicating the validity
of the ordinance because the FAA Airports Administrator Kirk
Shaffer has already prejudged the matter, stating in a letter to
the city that the ordinance is “flatly illegal.” A declaration
signed by City Manager P. Lamont Ewell attests to the facts which
show the FAA’s bias.

The city further argues that the FAA’s attempt to coerce the city
into continuing to accept C and D operations, without the safety
precautions mandated by federal standards, violates the Tenth
Amendment prohibition against the federal government commandeering
local resources; and, in protecting the traveling convenience of a
few at the expense of the safety of many, the FAA violates the
Congressional mandate requiring the FAA to make safety its first
priority, ahead of the economic interests of the aviation
industry.



http://www.smgov.net/news/hotopics/airport/index.htm

http://www.smgov.net/news/hotopics/airport/SuppC&Dfinal.pdf
FAA Supplemental Interim Cease and Desist Order...


http://www.smgov.net/news/hotopics/airport/FAAproposal3-7-08.pdf
Read the proposal from the FAA (PDF)


http://www.smgov.net/news/hotopics/airport/CityresponsetoCD050508.pdf
FAA Docket No. 16-02-08
City Of Santa Monica's Memorandum In Response To FAA's Cease And
Desist Order And Supporting Declaration And Exhibits

... The Acting Director, Office of Safety and Standards, Lacks the
Legal Authority to Issue An Immediately Enforceable Cease and
Desist Order Based on the Acting Director's Preliminary Belief
that Santa Monica May Have Violated Some Law or Other
Obligation...

Even if FAA Did Not Lack Authority to Issue A Compulsory Cease and
Desist Order at This Point in the Proceedings, FAA Has Not
Provided Sufficient Support for the Issuance of the Instant Cease
and Desist Order...

The Order is Rife with Flaws, Demonstrating the FAA has Failed to
Meet Its Burden Justifying the Extraordinary Remedy of a Cease and
Desist Order...

The Acting Director's Persistent Mischaracterization of the Land
Transactions Between the City and the Federal Government is
Arbitrary and Capricious...

The Acting Director's Arguments Against the Ordinance are Fraught
with Inaccuracies and, If True, Would Undercut the FAA's Efforts
to Implement Compliant RSAs at Airports Besides SMO Throughout the
Country...

The Acting Director's Premature Attempt To Block Enforcement of
Santa Monica's Ordinance Through a Compulsory Cease and Desist
Order Violates Federalism Principles and the 10th Amendment...


CONCLUSION

Because the issuance of the Cease and Desist Order is plainly
prohibited by law, the FAA has provided no support for its
contentions that enforcement of the Ordinance would have serious
impacts on the national or regional airport and airspace systems,
and enforcement of the Order would more closely align use of SMO
with FAA's own published safety standards, the Cease and Desist
Order should be rescinded and all actions to enforce the Cease and
Desist Order should cease immediately, including dismissal of
United States v. City of Santa Monica, Case No. CV08-02695 CW(Ex)
(Filed April 24, 2008). If the FAA does not withdraw the Cease
and Desist Order and dismiss United States v. City of Santa Monica
by May 9, 2008, the City will fie a Petition for Review in the
appropriate Court of Appeals challenging the Cease and Desist
Order.

DATED: May 5, 2008


Supporting Declaration....




http://fe8.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080501/pl_bloomberg/arrzzzbiysgq
Schwarzenegger's Jet Commute May End as Santa Monica Seeks Ban
Andy Fixmer
Thu May 1, 12:13 AM ET

May 1 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's
regular commute by private jet from the state capitol to his
mansion in Los Angeles has hit turbulence.

A federal judge will decide on May 15 whether the governor can
land aboard a Gulfstream IV in Santa Monica, a 15-minute drive to
his home in Los Angeles' wealthy Brentwood enclave. The governor's
brother-in-law, Bobby Shriver, is among the Santa Monica city
council members who voted unanimously on March 25 to ban large
jets at the municipal airport.

``These guys aren't listening so we have to lift the conversation
to a different level,'' said Shriver, referring to proponents of
allowing the jets, including the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration. A surge in flights ``has changed the whole safety
profile of this little airport,'' said Shriver, 54, a brother of
California's first lady, Maria Shriver. ...

FAA Wins

Residents in the surrounding bungalows built for Douglas workers
sued the city in the late 1960s when jets arrived. Santa Monica
posted ``No Jets'' signs on the ends of the runway, leading to a
successful FAA lawsuit that removed the signs and allowed jet
traffic. In 1984 the city agreed to maintain the airport and not
discriminate against the aircraft.

Jet landings and takeoffs have increased 14-fold since that
agreement, to 18,575 in 2007. Traffic jumped 22 percent the year
after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when more business
flyers began to use private planes to avoid delays caused by new
security measures.

Greater use of fractional-jet ownership and ``the explosion of
wealth in the area'' have contributed to the rise in traffic,
Shriver said.

Schwarzenegger flies from Sacramento, 355 miles north of Santa
Monica, on a Gulfstream provided by NetJets Inc., the
fractional-jet company owned by billionaire Warren Buffett's
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Aaron McLear, the governor's press secretary, said Schwarzenegger
uses Santa Monica and other area airports. He wouldn't comment
further, citing security concerns.

Patio Table Incident

Maryann Aarseth, spokeswoman for Woodbridge, New Jersey- based Net
Jets, didn't return messages seeking comment.

``If a plane overshoots the runway, passengers are going to die,''
said Virginia Ernst, who settled a suit against Las Vegas casino
magnate Stephen Wynn for $3,000 when backwash from his jet
destroyed her backyard patio table in 1995. ``It's a steep
drop-off at either end of the runway,'' Ernst said. ``I wouldn't
put myself, my family or my friends in that kind of danger.''

Wynn spokeswoman Jennifer Dunne didn't return messages seeking
comment.

Jets stack up on Santa Monica's runway waiting for a break in
traffic in the air, including from nearby Los Angeles
International Airport. During the movie industry's Academy Awards,
jets idle on the runway for hours, spewing fumes into residential
streets.

Many pilots use a so-called static takeoff, revving their engines
before popping the brakes and rocketing upward like a jet on an
aircraft carrier. The vibrations rattle windows and set off car
alarms.

`Bobby and the Communists'

Santa Monica may try to close the airport in 2015, when its
agreement with the FAA expires, said Barry Schiff, chairman of the
Santa Monica Airport Association, which opposes the jet ban.

``This is death by a thousand cuts,'' said Schiff, who learned to
fly at the airport in 1952, when he was 14.

While the governor hasn't called to complain and probably would
use a helicopter to dodge a ban anyhow, Shriver says he knows what
to expect if the restriction holds.

``Now I have to drive an hour and a half because of Bobby and the
communists,'' Shriver said, mimicking his brother-in- law's
Austrian accent.



https://santa-monica.org/airport/n_pilotoutreach.aspx
News Release Concerning New Regulations
Text of Ordinance (pdf)
SMO User Notice (pdf)
Temporary Restraining Order (pdf)



http://www.nonoise.org/news/1998/sep6.htm
The Los Angeles Times published the following letter to the editor
from two Los Angeles, California, residents who chided the
newspaper for omitting the existence of airplane noise in any
article about Sunset Park real estate. The Schechters wrote:

When my wife and I were looking for a house a year ago, we found
that many of the nicer parts of Santa Monica's Sunset Park
community suffered from incessant airplane noise from the adjacent
Santa Monica Airport.

This ever-busier airport sends low-flying, noisy planes over the
community every two minutes during the daytime and four minutes
during the evening. From many backyards in Sunset Park, you can
read the airplane's registration numbers; from some you can tell
the brand of sunglasses the pilot is wearing.

No neighborhood is perfect, but the airplane noise issue is one
that deserves a mention in any article on Sunset Park real estate.






On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:59:52 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>Perhaps the city should not have permitted housing development at the
>ends of the runway; more suitable zoning might have been industrial or
>commercial. Rather than crippling the airport, perhaps a more
>equitable solution would be for the city to purchase those homes they
>believe to be in danger, as a means of correction for their original
>errors.
>
>Land in the heart of metropolitan cities is worth more than gold. To
>acquire metropolitan real estate, the emperor of Chicago finally
>resorted to a midnight bulldozer raid on his own airport. The same
>thing happened in the '70s at Dana Point Airport(?). This
>shortsighted malfeasance is rapacious. Is Santa Monica next?
>
>
>
> FAA moves to block ban on fastest jets at Santa Monica Airport
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-faa24apr24,1,780534.story
>
> City officials, citing safety concerns, say they will begin
> implementing the ban today in defiance of the FAA.
>
> By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
>
> April 24, 2008
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration took legal action Wednesday to
> overturn a ban on the fastest jets that fly out of Santa Monica
> Airport, including aircraft popular among business executives.
>
> FAA officials served the city of Santa Monica with a
> cease-and-desist order challenging a municipal ordinance passed in
> November -- and effective today -- that bars jets with approach
> speeds of greater than 136 mph.
>
> The so-called Category C and D jets include such popular models as
> the Gulfstream IV, Challenger and Citation X aircraft. They
> account for about 9,000 landings and departures a year, or about
> 7% of flight operations.
>
> "We've worked very hard for nearly six years to reach an agreement
> with the city of Santa Monica that addresses their concerns and
> maintains access to the airport for all kinds of aircraft," said
> Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "We made multiple proposals to the
> city, all of which the city rejected."
>
> Citing safety as its paramount concern, the Santa Monica City
> Council unanimously passed the ...
>
> Moutrie wrote that the FAA "is already under criticism and
> pressure from Congress for putting aviation industry convenience
> ahead of public safety. The city urges you to change your course
> and steadfastly put public safety first."
>
> Council members approved the ban, saying it would protect the
> public, particularly residents living immediately next to the ends
> of the airport runway and individuals using and working at the
> airport.
>
> Residents of Santa Monica and the Mar Vista neighborhood of Los
> Angeles have complained for years that the airport's location and
> lack of runway buffers create the potential for a deadly accident.
>
>
>
>Additional interesting information on this subject:
>
>http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080424ca.html
>http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080423caban.pdf
>Your enforcement of the Ordinance on April 24, 2008, can only be
>interpreted as an attempt to divest the FAA of its jurisdiction over
>its administrative process to which the City, as a federally obligated
>airport, must adhere. Moreover, your attempted enforcement of the
>City's Ordinance also suggests a complete disregard for the FAA's
>authority and responsibility as the final arbiter of aviation safety
>in the National Air Transportation System. The FAA cannot countenance
>enforcement of the Ordinance under these circumstances while ...
>
>
>
>http://www.smgov.net/cmo/FAACeaseandDesist.pdf
>UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
>FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
>WASHINGTON, DC
>)
>IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE )
>WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS )
>BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, )
>CALIFORNIA )
>------------- )
>
>FAA Docket No. 16-02-08
>INTERIM CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
>
>This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based
>on a Notice of Investigation (NOI) dated October 8, 2002, initiated by
>the Director of the Office of Airport Safety and Standards, and
>supplemented by his March 26, 2008 Order to Show Cause. The NOI and
>Order to Show Cause were issued in accordance with the FAA Rules of
>Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14
>Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 16. The FAA's investigation
>seeks to determine the legality of the City of Santa Monica,
>California's ("the City") Ordinance adopted on March 25,2008
>("Ordinance") banning Category C and D aircraft operations from the
>Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMa).
>
>The City's banning Category C and D jet aircraft from SMO...
>
>
>
>http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080423caenforcement.pdf
>Your communication warns Mr. Trimborn that if he fails to accede to
>the demand, the FAA will issue a cease and desist order requiring the
>City refrain from enforcing City Ordinande No. 2251 pending the
>outcome of the administrative proceeding, which the FAA initiated over
>five years ago and recently attempted to "revive" through issuance of
>an Order to Show Cause. Your letter claims that the proceeding was
>"stayed.," but in vact there was no stay and the 120 day period for
>decision expired without extension.
>
>
>
>http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/2008/04/24/08_santa_monica_faa_2wa.html
>Ian Gregor: Well, we've said in the past that we don't believe that
>cities have the authority, first of all, to decide which aircraft can
>and cannot use airports, and secondly, we've said that the city of
>Santa Monica has made a series of agreements with the federal
>government over the last six plus decades that precludes them from
>banning any aircraft from their airport.
>
>Steve Julian: Now, city officials yesterday told the Los Angeles Times
>they're going to implement the ban anyway. What action can the FAA
>take if the city doesn't abide by the cease and desist order?
>...
>
>Gregor: Sure. Well, Santa Monica is a unique situation, because most
>cities don't allow developers to build homes right up to the edge of
>an airport. That said, these larger jets, these category C and D jets,
>have been landing safely at Santa Monica for years, and years, and
>years. It's perfectly safe for these planes to land on a runway the
>length of which Santa Monica has.
>
>We have made a number of safety proposals over the years that would
>build runway safety areas at either both runway ends, or the departure
>end of the runway that's most heavily used, and we've also offered to
>fund a residential acquisition program if the city wants to buy up
>some homes to create a larger runway protection zone. And
>unfortunately, the city has rejected all of those proposals.
>
>Julian: A lot of people may not want to sell their homes or lose them.
>
>Gregor: Well again, that's really the city's decision as to what they
>want to do. We've made proposals that would build larger safety areas
>at each runway end, without eating up so much runway that, you know,
>certain jets would be effectively precluded from using the airport.
>And we think those are excellent safety options, and the city has
>rejected them.
>
>
>
>http://www.knbc.com/travelgetaways/15978421/detail.html
>Those in violation of the ordinance could be subject to misdemeanor
>charges, fines and possibly jail sentences. The law will not apply to
>jets from other areas that landed earlier this week and will depart
>today, according to The Times.
>
>"We will start enforcing the law and see what happens. This is the
>council's decision," Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie
>told The Times.
>
>
>
>http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/faa-ups-legal-ante-against-santa-monica-airport/
>It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest another
>option that would not restrict access to the airport. The city, which
>accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development grants between
>1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the runway length and
>width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed when the airport was
>transferred to the city in 1948 that the airport would be used “for
>the use and benefit of the public…without unjust discrimination.
>
>The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets
>constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to
>operators of other classes of aircraft.”
>
>
>
>http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Santa_Monica_to_implement_jet_ban_despite_ FAA_legal_move.html
>Residents have complained for years about the potential for a jet to
>overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport is unusual
>in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are within 300 feet of
>the runway's end.

[[email protected]]

>
> >http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/faa-ups-legal-...
> >It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest another
> >option that would not restrict access to the airport. The city, which
> >accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development grants between
> >1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the runway length and
> >width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed when the airport was
> >transferred to the city in 1948 that the airport would be used “for
> >the use and benefit of the public…without unjust discrimination.

.000001 % of the SoCal Public has ever set foot there.

>
> >The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets
> >constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to
> >operators of other classes of aircraft.”
>
> >http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Santa_Monica_to_implement_jet_ban_d...
> >Residents have complained for years about the potential for a jet to
> >overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport is unusual
> >in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are within 300 feet of
> >the runway's end.

Since SM stopped accepting FAA money in 1994, all those "improvements"
have depreciated and its time to pursue the highest and best public
use of the land...JG

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 15, 4:44*pm, wrote:

> Since SM stopped accepting FAA money in 1994, all those "improvements"
> have depreciated and its time to pursue the highest and best public
> use of the land...JG

Most such agreements state that if the land is no longer used for an
airport the property goes back to being federal property. The city
didn't just get free land in 1948.

-Robert

[More_Flaps]

On May 16, 11:44*am, wrote:
> > >http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/faa-ups-legal-....
> > >It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest another
> > >option that would not restrict access to the airport. The city, which
> > >accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development grants between
> > >1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the runway length and
> > >width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed when the airport was
> > >transferred to the city in 1948 that the airport would be used “for
> > >the use and benefit of the public…without unjust discrimination.
>
> .000001 % of the SoCal Public has ever set foot there.

I in 100 million? I don't believe it.
Cheers

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote
in
>:

>its time to pursue the highest and best public use of the land.

Are you aware of the revolution in air-taxi services occurring in the
nation's southeast? Here's a clue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet

Those municipalities that have converted their airports to strip-malls
will be frozen out of the future of air travel, or have to use their
powers of eminent domain to build new airports. Neither prospect is
likely to be attractive to their residents.

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in
:

>
>>
>> >http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/faa-ups-legal-
>> >... It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest
>> >another option that would not restrict access to the airport. The
>> >city, which accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development
>> >grants between 1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the
>> >runway length and width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed
>> >when the airport was transferred to the city in 1948 that the
>> >airport would be used “for the use and benefit of the public…without
>> >unjust discrimination.
>
> .000001 % of the SoCal Public has ever set foot there.
>
>>
>> >The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets
>> >constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to
>> >operators of other classes of aircraft.”
>>
>> >http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Santa_Monica_to_implement_jet_ban_d
>> >... Residents have complained for years about the potential for a
>> >jet to overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport
>> >is unusual in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are
>> >within 300 feet of the runway's end.
>
> Since SM stopped accepting FAA money in 1994, all those "improvements"
> have depreciated and its time to pursue the highest and best public
> use of the land...JG
>
>

What should happen is that anti-airports ****s like you be:

1) Permanently placed on the no-fly list.
2) No mail to/from be allowed to be transported by air.
3) All packages to/from restricted to ground transportation only.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote
> in
> >:
>
>> its time to pursue the highest and best public use of the land.
>
> Are you aware of the revolution in air-taxi services occurring in the
> nation's southeast? Here's a clue:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet
>
> Those municipalities that have converted their airports to strip-malls
> will be frozen out of the future of air travel, or have to use their
> powers of eminent domain to build new airports. Neither prospect is
> likely to be attractive to their residents.


Larry, while I hate to see airports screwed with I don't think you
should use a very close to failed business venture as an example of why
they should stay.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:32:31 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote
>> in
>> >:
>>
>>> its time to pursue the highest and best public use of the land.
>>
>> Are you aware of the revolution in air-taxi services occurring in the
>> nation's southeast? Here's a clue:
>> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet
>>
>> Those municipalities that have converted their airports to strip-malls
>> will be frozen out of the future of air travel, or have to use their
>> powers of eminent domain to build new airports. Neither prospect is
>> likely to be attractive to their residents.
>
>
>Larry, while I hate to see airports screwed with I don't think you
>should use a very close to failed business venture as an example of why
>they should stay.

What leads you to believe that SATSair is close to failed? While
DayJet may not be turning a profit with VLJ operation, SATSair is
using SR-22s, and doing okay last I heard.

[gatt[_3_]]

Benjamin Dover wrote:

>> Since SM stopped accepting FAA money in 1994, all those "improvements"
>> have depreciated and its time to pursue the highest and best public
>> use of the land...JG
>
> What should happen is that anti-airports ****s like you be:
>
> 1) Permanently placed on the no-fly list.
> 2) No mail to/from be allowed to be transported by air.
> 3) All packages to/from restricted to ground transportation only.


Generally, "the highest and best public use of the land" means "a land
developer who contributes to political campaigns wants to build an
cookie-cutter apartment complex or a Walgreen."

So it should be "the highest and best use of a land developer and the
politicians he supports."

They closed down NWPilot's old historic airstrip in Vancouver quite
awhile ago in order to better serve the public land. Last time I
checked, the grass had grown tall and nothing had been done with it.
What really happened is that they build apartments under the traffic
pattern so close that the two-story apartments have red safety lights on
the roofs, and no doubt somebody bitched about the low-flying aircraft.

I used to go park my jeep in the gravel lot beside the runway and watch
the Stearman, etc in the pattern on my lunch hour. Traffic is so
congested and pathetic out there that now I couldn't make it there and
back at lunch, and property values are plummeting.

-c

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:32:31 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote
>>> in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> its time to pursue the highest and best public use of the land.
>>> Are you aware of the revolution in air-taxi services occurring in the
>>> nation's southeast? Here's a clue:
>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/dayjet
>>>
>>> Those municipalities that have converted their airports to strip-malls
>>> will be frozen out of the future of air travel, or have to use their
>>> powers of eminent domain to build new airports. Neither prospect is
>>> likely to be attractive to their residents.
>>
>> Larry, while I hate to see airports screwed with I don't think you
>> should use a very close to failed business venture as an example of why
>> they should stay.
>
> What leads you to believe that SATSair is close to failed? While
> DayJet may not be turning a profit with VLJ operation, SATSair is
> using SR-22s, and doing okay last I heard.


The story you linked to was (at lest the first page of it) talking about
DayJet and you are using that article to say that there's a "revolution
in air-taxi services" I think my statement that that isn't the best
example stands.

SATSair is not showing a profit, though I wish them all the best.

If you remember the other day right before DayJet started laying folks
off you were saying they were profitable.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:56:33 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>
>SATSair is not showing a profit, though I wish them all the best.

I wasn't aware of that. Their parent sure is.

The point is, there is a movement afoot to actively use municipal
airports as an indispensable part of the travel industry.

Perhaps my view is just a bit premature.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:56:33 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> SATSair is not showing a profit, though I wish them all the best.
>
> I wasn't aware of that. Their parent sure is.

Yes you were. You and I had a conversation in this very forum about it
last week I believe.

>
> The point is, there is a movement afoot to actively use municipal
> airports as an indispensable part of the travel industry.
>
> Perhaps my view is just a bit premature.
>

Yes you are.

[[email protected]]

On May 15, 7:50 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/faa-ups-legal-
> >> >... It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest
> >> >another option that would not restrict access to the airport. The
> >> >city, which accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development
> >> >grants between 1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the
> >> >runway length and width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed
> >> >when the airport was transferred to the city in 1948 that the
> >> >airport would be used “for the use and benefit of the public…without
> >> >unjust discrimination.
>
> > .000001 % of the SoCal Public has ever set foot there.
>
> >> >The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets
> >> >constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to
> >> >operators of other classes of aircraft.”
>
> >> >http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Santa_Monica_to_implement_jet_ban_d
> >> >... Residents have complained for years about the potential for a
> >> >jet to overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport
> >> >is unusual in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are
> >> >within 300 feet of the runway's end.
>
> > Since SM stopped accepting FAA money in 1994, all those "improvements"
> > have depreciated and its time to pursue the highest and best public
> > use of the land...JG
>
> What should happen is that anti-airports ****s like you be:
>
> 1) Permanently placed on the no-fly list.

I put UAL on my no fly list 8 years ago. And not like to return to AA
until they restore food service.

> 2) No mail to/from be allowed to be transported by air.

My mail goes thru ORD, which is being expanded. SM last saw mail
flights when ?
1940's ?

> 3) All packages to/from restricted to ground transportation only.

See 2) above.

Condos...bring 'em on...JG

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in
:

> On May 15, 7:50 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:bc9746a5-3466-4e4c-ab72-a9814ebdb2a0@m36
> g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> What should happen is that anti-airports ****s like you be:
>>
>> 1) Permanently placed on the no-fly list.
>
> I put UAL on my no fly list 8 years ago. And not like to return to AA
> until they restore food service.
>
You should be on the DHS no-fly list, asshole. Then you won't be allowed
on any airline.
>> 2) No mail to/from be allowed to be transported by air.
>
> My mail goes thru ORD, which is being expanded. SM last saw mail
> flights when ?
> 1940's ?
>
You are one dumb **** JGrove. Your name and address should be banned from
airmail. Period. No airmail to/from at any time at any airport.
>> 3) All packages to/from restricted to ground transportation only.
>
> See 2) above.
See response to 2) above, asshole.
>
> Condos...bring 'em on...JG
>
>
You are an asshole who wants to be able to pick and choose. O'Hare is OK
because you use services through that airport, but SM is not ok because it
doesn't affect you.

All anti-airport dip ****s like you should put up or shut up. If you are
opposed to ANY airport, they you go on the DHS no-fly list and can never
fly on an airliner. You also become permanently ineligible for a pilot's
license. Air charter companies are prohibited from providing any service
to you. Any sort of mail (USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) to/from you is
prohibited to be transported by air.

You're the type of ****head who wants rock concerts at what was CHX so you
and your drug taking cohorts can get high in public.

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 4:52 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > On May 15, 7:50 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> innews:bc9746a5-3466-4e4c-ab72-a9814ebdb2a0@m36
> > g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> What should happen is that anti-airports ****s like you be:
>
> >> 1) Permanently placed on the no-fly list.
>
> > I put UAL on my no fly list 8 years ago. And not like to return to AA
> > until they restore food service.
>
> You should be on the DHS no-fly list, asshole. Then you won't be allowed
> on any airline.>> 2) No mail to/from be allowed to be transported by air.
>
> > My mail goes thru ORD, which is being expanded. SM last saw mail
> > flights when ?
> > 1940's ?
>
> You are one dumb **** JGrove. Your name and address should be banned from
> airmail. Period. No airmail to/from at any time at any airport.>> 3) All packages to/from restricted to ground transportation only.
>
> > See 2) above.
>
> See response to 2) above, asshole.
>
> > Condos...bring 'em on...JG
>
> You are an asshole who wants to be able to pick and choose. O'Hare is OK
> because you use services through that airport, but SM is not ok because it
> doesn't affect you.
>
> All anti-airport dip ****s like you should put up or shut up. If you are
> opposed to ANY airport, they you go on the DHS no-fly list and can never
> fly on an airliner. You also become permanently ineligible for a pilot's
> license. Air charter companies are prohibited from providing any service
> to you. Any sort of mail (USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) to/from you is
> prohibited to be transported by air.
>
> You're the type of ****head who wants rock concerts at what was CHX so you
> and your drug taking cohorts can get high in public.

I know its you, Gilbert Gothfried...JG

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in
:

> On May 16, 4:52 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> wrote
>>
>> om:
>>
>> > On May 15, 7:50 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> innews:bc9746a5-3466-4e4c-ab72-a9814ebdb2a0@m36
>> > g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> What should happen is that anti-airports ****s like you
>> >> be:
>>
>> >> 1) Permanently placed on the no-fly list.
>>
>> > I put UAL on my no fly list 8 years ago. And not like to return to
>> > AA until they restore food service.
>>
>> You should be on the DHS no-fly list, asshole. Then you won't be
>> allowed on any airline.>> 2) No mail to/from be allowed to be
>> transported by air.
>>
>> > My mail goes thru ORD, which is being expanded. SM last saw mail
>> > flights when ?
>> > 1940's ?
>>
>> You are one dumb **** JGrove. Your name and address should be banned
>> from airmail. Period. No airmail to/from at any time at any
>> airport.>> 3) All packages to/from restricted to ground
>> transportation only.
>>
>> > See 2) above.
>>
>> See response to 2) above, asshole.
>>
>> > Condos...bring 'em on...JG
>>
>> You are an asshole who wants to be able to pick and choose. O'Hare
>> is OK because you use services through that airport, but SM is not ok
>> because it doesn't affect you.
>>
>> All anti-airport dip ****s like you should put up or shut up. If you
>> are opposed to ANY airport, they you go on the DHS no-fly list and
>> can never fly on an airliner. You also become permanently ineligible
>> for a pilot's license. Air charter companies are prohibited from
>> providing any service to you. Any sort of mail (USPS, FedEx, UPS,
>> DHL, etc.) to/from you is prohibited to be transported by air.
>>
>> You're the type of ****head who wants rock concerts at what was CHX
>> so you and your drug taking cohorts can get high in public.
>
> I know its you, Gilbert Gothfried...JG
>

Did you have to take you dick out of your mouth or your head out of your
ass to come up with that? Doesn't matter. You're wrong. But, you're used
to being wrong, aren't you.

You're just an anti-airport asshole NIMBY.