If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica discord continues
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...ta-monica-deal
Huerta explains Santa Monica deal February 2, 2017 By Alyssa J. Miller A deal between the FAA and the city of Santa Monica, California, became official Feb. 1 when the Honorable John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California signed a detailed stipulation and order/consent decree that requires the city to keep Santa Monica Municipal Airport open and operating with reasonable services until Dec. 31, 2028, upon which time it has the option to close the facility. Santa Monica Municipal Airport. Photo by Mike Fizer. Santa Monica Municipal Airport. Photo by Mike Fizer. The agreement has upset many on both sides of the battle over Santa Monica airport. “We’re not going to stop fighting for Santa Monica,” vowed AOPA President Mark Baker. “This gives us some certainty that it’s not going to close tomorrow, or next month, or next year. Now we have time to change minds and make sure this airport continues to operate as it should.” “There’s an extended period of time for the market to adjust,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta in an exclusive interview with AOPA, “but frankly there’s also a period of time for the industry, for the city, and the aviation community in Southern California to perhaps think about alternatives that might be out there as well.” Huerta suggested that the aviation community consider presenting alternatives to closing the airport to the city during the interim. “Twelve years is a long time and it does provide, I think, a framework for those discussions to take place,” Huerta said. The settlement agreement allows the city of Santa Monica to shorten its 4,973-foot runway to an operational length of 3,500 feet after providing 30 days’ notice. The runway safety areas at both ends of the runway are not included in the 3,500 feet, but the agreement does not define the length of those safety areas. The city will be responsible for the cost of shortening the runway but can still apply for federal funds through the FAA, as other airport operators can. During the interim while the city is shortening the runway, Huerta said, “We’re really looking to them to work in good faith with the users of the airport, to work in good faith with us,” adding that “based on the conversations that we have had, I’m feeling pretty good that they will.” The city can either provide airport services itself, such as fuel sales, or enter leases with tenants to provide those services. If the city offers leases to tenants, they must have a three-year minimum, and all terms must be “reasonable” to those provided at other airports similar to Santa Monica. No hard limits were set on fuel prices or landing, ramp, or hangar or tiedown fees. Huerta said the FAA would not get “in the business of setting prices,” explaining that “reasonable and customary business practices are what we’re going to be looking for in terms of how the city operates the airport there.” He encouraged airport users to talk to the city about prices and their needs because the city now has an incentive to operate the airport because it must remain open until the end of 2028. Decades of litigation settled The city and the FAA have engaged in litigation for more than three decades regarding the airport’s future, Huerta noted. The litigation surrounded two types of contracts the city of Santa Monica and the federal government had entered. One was a difference of views between the two entities as to when the contractual obligations for operating an airport after accepting federal funding expired. Federal grant assurances require that airports remain open and operating for 20 years after funds have been granted. The city of Santa Monica had received federal Airport Improvement Program funds in 1994 and then additional funds through an amendment to that grant in 2003. The point being contended was whether the 20-year period expired in 2014 or if it would remain in effect until 2023. The other point of litigation regarded whether the airport must be operated in perpetuity and is related to two contracts at the end of the 1940s, when the federal government stopped using the airport for military purposes after World War II. The city and the FAA had been in negotiation since 2016, Huerta said, when the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/17/appeals-court-reverses-dismissal-in-smo-case a district court’s decision granting the FAA’s appeal to dismiss Santa Monica’s continued bids to close the airport. That unfavorable ruling for the federal government helped spur the agency to open discussions with the city. Huerta said the parties had to negotiate the city’s rights to its land and the aeronautical obligations to the government while providing a level of certainty and extended operations for tenants at the airport. “Land use is a local responsibility,” Huerta explained. “The FAA’s interest in this case and in dealing with any city or any state is really more a contractual matter. Are they complying with contracts they have entered into with the federal government?” Contractual compliance with grant assurances had been the FAA’s interest when it issued a cease-and-desist order late last year after the city of Santa Monica issued eviction notices to Atlantic Aviation and American Flyers. The settlement agreement resolves all pending disputes between the city and the FAA. Settlement does not set a precedent With many airport operators and the entire general aviation community following the Santa Monica case to determine what any decisions could mean for airports elsewhere, the settlement does not set a precedent, according to Huerta. “It is an incredibly complicated situation, a very unique set of facts that relate to Santa Monica,” Huerta said. Because of the settlement, the courts never ruled regarding federal surplus property being returned to cities, he said. Huerta also explained that the length of grant assurance obligations was never a question; Huerta clarified that the lawsuits over the grant assurances were based on a difference in opinion of the expiration date, not on the length of the obligations in general. He also said the agency would continue to ensure that airport operators comply with the contractual agreements they commit to when accepting federal funding. “I don’t think it sets any precedent,” Huerta said. ================================================== =============================== https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...deal-protested Santa Monica discord continues Next steps remain in question February 7, 2017 By Jim Moore The court-approved FAA settlement with the city of Santa Monica, California, over the future of its municipal airport was negotiated in secrecy, and the terms sparked anger and surprise from both airport supporters and airport opponents when the deal became public. As both sides look to the future, much remains in question. AOPA photo by Mike Fizer. AOPA has been in the thick of the decades-long battle over the airport, and will continue to work to extend the life of Santa Monica Municipal Airport beyond Dec. 31, 2028, AOPA President Mark Baker said soon after the surprise settlement became public. Protesters and local officials who gathered Feb. 4 at the Santa Monica Business Park to voice outrage over the agreement decried the fact that the city is now forced to keep the airport open for at least 12 more years. The city council narrowly approved the settlement by a 4-to-3 vote. Meanwhile, AOPA and other airport advocates have clear goals and objectives for the next 12 years—chief among those is to change local attitudes and views and educate the community about the value of the local resource. FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, in an interview with AOPA, said the city is obligated under the agreement to allow tenants to provide aviation services, or may, as other municipal airport operators do, provide services (including aviation fuel) itself. “We’re really looking to them to work in good faith with the users of the airport, to work in good faith with us,” Huerta said, referring to city officials and adding that “based on the conversations that we have had, I’m feeling pretty good that they will.” Mayor Ted Winterer, who voted with the majority to approve the settlement, spoke openly days later about exploiting loopholes, the Santa Monica Daily Press reported in its account of the Feb. 4 anti-airport rally. “We will, in six months, shorten that runway to 3,500 feet,” Winterer said, according to the newspaper, and added that the city believes the shorter runway will reduce air traffic by 44 percent. “Winterer went so far as to say the City will exploit every loophole available to reduce air traffic,” the local paper reported. Santa Monica Airport Association President Christian Fry told AOPA that he also attended that Feb. 4 rally, and that city officials openly discussed what Fry considers “draconian” measures to reduce airport use, including “security inspections” of every aircraft, and installation of Plexiglas barriers between observation and aircraft movement areas to discourage airplane watching. “They’re saying things, even just a couple of days ago, that are pretty inflammatory in my opinion,” Fry said. He said the local airport advocacy group continues to consult with attorneys and with advocacy groups including AOPA and the National Business Aviation Association, and has not yet decided on next steps. “We’re really trying to evaluate all of the options,” Fry said, adding that those will likely include renewed efforts to build public support for the airport’s long-term existence. Huerta said the city must present a detailed plan for FAA approval before shortening the runway to 3,500 feet (as the settlement allows). Huerta said the FAA will review the runway (de)construction plan in detail with an eye on several factors, including safety and the impact on local airspace users. Santa Monica Municipal Airport has long been a reliever for Los Angeles International Airport, located just eight miles away, and the impact of curtailing Santa Monica airport use will be among the considerations before the FAA approves any changes to the layout. “That’s something we’ll need to evaluate based on what their specific plan looks like,” Huerta told AOPA. Santa Monica Municipal Airport has throughout its long history been an asset to the local economy, creating or supporting tens of thousands of jobs over the decades, as well as generating tax revenues, local economic activity, and other benefits for the community such as its availability to provide critical transportation links in the event of a natural disaster. The settlement agreement has already begun to curtail economic activity: JetSuiteX had planned to begin operating low-cost charter flights out of Santa Monica this month, and placed those plans on indefinite hold soon after the settlement was announced. “We apologize to our clients, over half of whom are Santa Monica residents, who have been adversely affected by the unprecedented recent events concerning SMO airport,” CEO Alex Wilcox said in a statement issued by the company. The company had sold about 1,000 tickets since announcing the planned flights in December, and Wilcox said those customers would all receive full refunds. Fry said the Santa Monica Airport Association was among the many taken by surprise as the FAA settlement was announced, having been privy to none of its details, or even the existence of negotiations. “We’re certainly not happy at all about the shortening of the runway,” Fry said, noting that such a move would limit the airport's utility. “We’re also concerned about the safety implications of a shorter runway.” Fry said the airport is much like an interstate highway that traverses the city, in that the airport, while physically located in the city, serves as an access point to the national transportation infrastructure. “That on-ramp and off-ramp to the airspace system is part of the national infrastructure, and I believe should be protected on a national level,” Fry said. He remains hopeful that six more election cycles will yield new attitudes from city government about the airport’s value to the community. Huerta said the FAA will hold the city to its obligations to provide services and operate the airport. “Reasonable and customary business practices are going to be what we are going to be looking for,” Huerta said. “We’re going to be quite vigilant to ensure that the terms of the agreement are adhered to.” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Join us to help save Santa Monica Airport! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 8 | September 13th 14 04:30 PM |
Judge Dismisses Santa Monica Suit | Orval Fairbairn | Owning | 0 | February 17th 14 12:52 AM |
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 23 | May 16th 08 11:01 PM |
Santa Monica Airport Bans Jet Traffic | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 22 | April 7th 08 10:52 PM |
Santa Monica (KSMO) Tips or Gotchas? | Hamish Reid | Piloting | 9 | July 12th 05 11:51 PM |