Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA

On May 15, 7:50 pm, Benjamin Dover wrote:
wrote :





http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...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~Sa...ment_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