jweldon
“Member”
I'm sold, when are we going in on one??
Santa Monica to close by July 2018?
- Thread starter RDoug
- Start date
Stinger
Well-Known Member
Santa Monica isn't playing around, sent out eviction notices to the FBOs.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64694/santa-monica-evicts-private-airport-operators/
http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64694/santa-monica-evicts-private-airport-operators/
skypilot6
Well-Known Member
I'm sure he has been involved in fighting to keep it open, But you're right he needs to get more public about it.
I did my CFI out of SMO at American Flyers, great memories there, and one was hearing Harrison Ford's voice on tower one time. It's a special place for me, I try to visit SMO when I'm in SoCal and have the time to do so.
Let them have it already. The money spent on keeping it open would be better spent elsewhere. Put it into relocating the tenants to the surrounding airports. Then, they can spend money on cleaning the large homeless population in Santa Monica from their new park that no one wants to go to because, well, it's full of homeless people.
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Between the junk approaches, runway length and the surrounding neighborhood, it may not be the greatest airport. However, closing airports is generally bad for our business. This is the exact situation that is discussed in One Six Right.
Sent from my StarTac using Etch A Sketch.
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
Airports evolve, as do the communities they serve. It's no longer 1920, and the Curtiss JN-4 is not the predominate airplane of the day. While I agree this is a self-serving effort on the part of a few monied interests, and generally against the best interests of the community at large, this is the democratic process of self-determination that every community is free to exercise. If they want to cut off their nose to spite their face, they are free to do so, just as others are free to try to stop it.
But with regard to the "they knew there was an airport there when they moved there" stance, consider this: I have a relative who lives about a mile and a half from the departure end of the RWY 16 complex at KSEA. Aircraft pass over his house at perhaps 1000 feet, and it's very noisy. How high does that aircraft have to be before the aircraft noise is negligible? 5000 feet? 10000 feet? I don't know, but I do know that to expect no one to settle in that noise footprint means that about 15-20 square miles (perhaps more) of real estate would be uninhabitable in this scenario. Not a very workable solution in the big picture of things.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
Why would he choose to live in such a noisy environment?
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
I've never asked him, but I suspect it has to do with affordability. Not everyone in Seattle is a software engineer.
Pioneer Park in SLC!
I had to look it up, but yes. Give them exactly that.
"You wanted a park...you got your park. How's it taste?
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
A few years ago they tried again by telling people that by selling off the airport and the fairgrounds they could solve their budget shortfall.... For one year.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
It's not out of the woods yet, master leaseholds are up next year and the county wants to combine the 6 or 7 current ones into 3 larger ones, and is demanding that the new lease holders tear down their current buildings and build new ones.Selling the car you use to get to work to pay that cable bill, eh?
Obviously none of the current lease holders are interested in spending millions on a new building with the threat of the field being closed.
Meanwhile the county is putting no money into upkeep or improvement of the field itself, the hangars are falling apart, the taxiways are gravel, and the weeds are tall, they've allowed two car dealerships to be built in the safety zone.
The area above the terminal that used to be the restaurant is empty and gutted because they're insisting on a month to month lease so no one is willing to put a huge renovation budget into it.
Eventually it'll die. I'm convinced it's what the county wants.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
But it is inhabitable. And usually the price lower (relatively speaking) for louder noise areas due to jet traffic. Your relative knew or should have known they are 1.5 miles from a major runway of a major airport.
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
No one is complaining. I'm saying that to expect people not to live hear an airport, which is what some people on here are suggesting, is not very feasible when airports can occupy hundreds of square miles of real estate. Therefore, airports and their surrounding communities have to find ways to co-exist. Otherwise, you end up with what's going on at SMO.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
I don't think anyone suggested that no one should live near an airport, but taking advantage of the lower cost to buy/rent property and then complaining about the noise is disingenuous at best and moronic at the very least.
Edit to add: I'm not necessarily talking about your relative, just a general observation.
skypilot6
Well-Known Member
The LA Times is in support of keeping the airport open
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-santamonica-airport-20160921-snap-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-santamonica-airport-20160921-snap-story.html
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
The whole noise argument seems pretty disingenuous.
Aircraft are generally around 60-80db depending on type and typical distances. Cumulative traffic on a city street? 80-90 or more. California Interstate??? A train passing would be about 100db, as would a blow-dryer. A jackhammer around 115. Car horn? Around 110-115. Lawnmower? 90-100. So good thing there are none of those things in or around Santa Monica. And, by Zeus, good thing there are Harley's or Deep Bass Thump-mobiles in California!
Also, when was the last time a jurisdiction gave up a public road so that somebody could build Condos? This is public infrastructure (federal public infrastructure mostly) which is albeit largely the domain of rich folk right now. But with all the current rapid and accelerating changes in aircraft systems, it seems a bit foolhardy to give up infrastructure that might soon be very useful to the masses in places like SMO and many others. Not that SMO really has all that big a "the masses" problem. Like I said, disingenuous. I smell money.
Aircraft are generally around 60-80db depending on type and typical distances. Cumulative traffic on a city street? 80-90 or more. California Interstate??? A train passing would be about 100db, as would a blow-dryer. A jackhammer around 115. Car horn? Around 110-115. Lawnmower? 90-100. So good thing there are none of those things in or around Santa Monica. And, by Zeus, good thing there are Harley's or Deep Bass Thump-mobiles in California!
Also, when was the last time a jurisdiction gave up a public road so that somebody could build Condos? This is public infrastructure (federal public infrastructure mostly) which is albeit largely the domain of rich folk right now. But with all the current rapid and accelerating changes in aircraft systems, it seems a bit foolhardy to give up infrastructure that might soon be very useful to the masses in places like SMO and many others. Not that SMO really has all that big a "the masses" problem. Like I said, disingenuous. I smell money.
