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 Showdown: City v FAA
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...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/article.../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...nforcement.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/200...a_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...onica-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~Sa...egal_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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
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! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
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/archive...ll.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...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/article.../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...nforcement.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/200...a_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...onica-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~Sa...egal_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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
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/archive...ll.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?podcast2008...w=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/gener...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_s...ricts_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/a...o200804074.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/a...ppC&Dfinal.pdf FAA Supplemental Interim Cease and Desist Order... http://www.smgov.net/news/hotopics/a...osal3-7-08.pdf Read the proposal from the FAA (PDF) http://www.smgov.net/news/hotopics/a...toCD050508.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/bloo...g/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...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/article.../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...nforcement.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/200...a_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...onica-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~Sa...egal_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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Santa Monica Showdown: City v FAA
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Santa Monica Airport Bans Jet Traffic | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 22 | April 7th 08 10:52 PM |
Which Came First, the Santa Monica Airport, Or Those Who Chose To Build Their Homes Adjacent To It? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 16 | May 7th 07 10:34 PM |
If Santa were generous | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 15 | January 5th 07 09:19 PM |
Santa Monica (KSMO) Tips or Gotchas? | Hamish Reid | Piloting | 9 | July 12th 05 11:51 PM |
What do you think of my Monica propeller/rotor ? | Claude GUTH | Rotorcraft | 0 | April 13th 04 12:48 PM |