Sometimes government—not unlike other aspects of life—can be simpler than expected, and anticlimax rules the day. Whimper rather than bang. This was the case with the City Council’s vote last week on leases at Santa Monica Airport (SMO). I wrote about the issue last week, trying to analyze as many angles about a complex question as I could in one column. In retrospect, overdid it. When the leases finally came before council Tuesday night, the council, after hearing a complicated staff report and about 75 speakers, quickly came to a unanimous and sensible decision that appears to have sidestepped controversy.
As has been reported, City Council approved three-year leases for restaurants and a theater, but deferred action on four leases to aviation businesses. What the council notably didn’t do was step into the controversial issue of whether the City is required to maintain aviation businesses while the City’s litigation with the FAA is pending. Instead, council asked staff to hold off on the proposed aviation leases because they all allowed for subleasing, which the council had told staff in March that it didn’t want. The council also directed staff to investigate further what are the appropriate market rates rents.
The decision reminded me of the old t’ai chi strategy about how to avoid being killed if you’re standing on railroad tracks and a train is roaring towards you—namely, step off the tracks.
Stepping off the tracks was not the advice City Council was getting from some anti-airport activists. For months, going back to before the council authorized staff in March to negotiate three-year leases for both aviation and non-aviation uses on some airport land, there’s been a steady drumbeat demanding that the City confront the FAA and the aviation industry head on, by banning aviation businesses, no matter what the consequences—which are manifestly unpredictable—might be.
The demands have mostly taken the form of emails to councilmembers that are cc’d to activists, but Monday, the day before the hearing, the City received a formal “lawyer’s letter” from Jonathan Stein, of Sunset Park Anti-Airport, Inc., warning the councilmembers that if they approved leases with aviation businesses at the rates staff was recommending Stein would do what he could to have them personally prosecuted by the District Attorney for making “gifts of public funds.”
Stein’s group has been sending out mailers for months to residents of Sunset Park and Ocean Park more or less accusing Mayor Kevin McKeown and other council members and staff of conspiring with aviation interests to create a jetport at the airport. Readers may recall that Stein is the attorney who filed the ill-fated suit against the City and aviation lobbying groups in 2014 trying to invalidate the industry’s initiative to preserve the airport before it could be voted on. (The initiative, as Measure D, was, thankfully, overwhelming defeated in the November 2014 election.)
At the council meeting, cooler heads prevailed. Although initially Councilmember Sue Himmelrich made a motion not to give leases to aviation businesses, by the time council had approved its directions to staff to defer approval of the leases use (aviation or non-aviation) was not part of the council’s reasons. The primary reason, as Himmelrich confirmed to City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, was to get subleasing out of the leases. Subleasing is also an issue with non-aviation property at the airport.
So what happens next? City Manager Rick Cole made it clear that it’s going to take time for staff to answer the council’s questions about subleasing and rental rates. During that time the status quo will stay the same at the airport, with the notable change that the City is making considerable money as the direct lessor to some large business tenants at the airport that formerly paid rent to aviation businesses that had master leases, in effect subsidizing aviation operations. That money now goes to the City.
Don’t hold your breath, but by all rights the City should soon get an overdue answer from the FAA on whether the FAA agrees with aviation businesses that the City is required to keep the airport open until 2023 because of federal money the City spent on the airport. There is no reason to make any strategic decisions about the airport until the City receives that decision.
Anecdote department: A week ago Sunday I flew back from my vacation in Italy. At one point in the long flight, while I was hanging around in the back of the plane, I got to talking with a young man who it turned out had moved to Santa Monica a few years ago. One thing led to another, and our discussion turned to local politics. He said he hadn’t paid much attention to last year’s election (let’s put it this way, he didn’t recall that I’d been a candidate), except that he and his wife had made sure to vote to turn the airport into a park. (They have a new baby and they were looking ahead.)
Listening to us talk was another passenger, and at a certain point he asked us if we thought Santa Monica Airport would close. I said yes, ultimately. He nodded, and said that he owned property near Van Nuys Airport, and that recently there had been a lot more interest in properties around that airport . . . from aviation businesses at Santa Monica Airport that were expecting it to close, and were looking for places to move to.
Thanks for reading.
Pingback: U.S. Reps to FAA: Make Up Your Administrative Mind | Santa Monica Next
Pingback: U.S. Reps to FAA: make up your administrative mind | The Healthy City Local
Pingback: Four items of interest - Bad-Air
Determining how market rate is derived could take a very long time.
I don’t know if you heard or read the letter from LA Councilman Mike Bonin last week but we need more than his words to help us. If we are looking at a long-term solution for SMO’s closure then Mike Bonin as well as the City of Los Angeles should be focusing on assisting Van Nuys in its airport expansion and letting the City of Ontario expand the Ontario Airport. Van Nuys Airport is less than 15.9 miles from SMO and a lot safer for GA/Jet traffic. City of Ontario has been clamoring for more airport operations to assist this so-called LAX congestion. However, it’s the City of Los Angeles who owns Ontario Airport and preventing regional relief.
Our State Reps need to assist the City of Ontario in its needs in Sacramento. The City of Los Angeles needs to be served notice that it is one of the causes for SMO’s growth these past few years.
On the Federal Front: Congressional Leaders Ted Lieu, Karen Bass, Norma Torres and Brad Sherman need to work together to expedite SMO’s closure and assist Ms. Torres and Mr. Sherman on their airport community needs.
See recent links to articles regarding Van Nuys expansion plans and Ontario Airport:
Clay Lacy Aviation begins $10-million expansion at Van Nuys Airport
Small firm has big plans for Van Nuys Airport
Brad Sherman Valley Transportation Update
Ontario airport bill clears California Assembly
Set ONTario Free Congressional Hearing
Thanks for making the murky clear. JIM
Rev. Jim Conn 230 Pacific St #108 Santa Monica, CA 90405 310/392-5056
Associations: Capital & Main – Writer: http://www.capitalandmain.com CLUE-LA – Member of the Board: http://www.cluela.org Asset Based Community Development: http://www.abcdinstitute.org/ United Methodist Minister – Retired: http://www.calpacUMC.org
Hi Frank, considering the “declaratory relief” you’ve written about in some of your previous columns I wonder: if it is the courts determination that the citys handling of SMO is truly a local land use matter, would that nullify any part 16 mandate that we operate the airport until 2023? I’m thinking a declaratory relief ruling in our favor would not nullify an unfavorable part 16 one but I’m a far cry from a law expert. On another note why can’t Jonathan Stein wait for some more legal clarity before going hog wild with the lawsuits? Call me naive but I’ve seen nothing from the council that would suggest they’re conspiring with aviation to make SMO into a jet port. FAA rules and regulations dictate which types of planes use SMO and the jets flying in and out of there are following the rules are they not? I fail to see how this potential lawsuit accelerates airport closure and only adds more confusion to an already convoluted situation. I empathize with those who want closure immediately but trying that or demanding aviation tenants go month to month is a huge mistake and, by inviting litigation, would be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As I understand it NBAA is ok with three year aviation leases so I humbly believe we should implement that with Moutries suggested clause to terminate any aviation leases if we find we are allowed to close the airport before the three years are up.
David — my understanding is that the “grant assurances” would trump the city’s right to close if we win the declaratory relief action, but the only penalty for violating the grant assurances (closing before 2023) would be that the city would have to pay back the money — $250,000, which the council has said it would do if that’s what it takes. As for Jon Stein’s tactics — no comment. F.
Pingback: SMO leases: City Council Steps Off the Track to Let the Train Pass By | Santa Monica Next