SMO ‚Äî The federal government‚Äôs response to the Santa Monica Airport lawsuit looks strong to some people with opinions on both sides of the debate.
On Friday afternoon, attorneys representing the Federal Aviation Administration filed a motion asking a judge to toss the lawsuit filed by City Hall over SMO.
City Hall has 10 days to respond to the motion and, given that it involves pending litigation, they won‚Äôt comment on it. City officials did confirm that the FAA‚Äôs motion to dismiss the lawsuit was what they were expecting.
In October, City Hall procured attorneys Morrison & Foertster and filed the suit against the FAA attempting to determine who controls the airport and its 227 acres.
Local residents have long complained about the noise and pollution caused by the aircraft. They also fear for their safety, with some homes located about 300 feet from where jets and propellor planes take off and land.
One group of residents wants to turn the space into a park if City Hall can manage to gain full control of the airport.
In the FAA‚Äôs motion to dismiss, they argued that City Hall‚Äôs complaints are “unripe,” that the lawsuit was brought prematurely. As long as the airport is being operated, they say, the issue is not something to be brought in front of the court.
Airport Commission President David Goddard, an advocate for the airport‚Äôs closure, said that before seeing the FAA‚Äôs response, he expected that the argument could be heard in court because the lack of clarity surrounding the airport‚Äôs future “interferes with the city’s ability to plan.”
Now he‚Äôs less confident.
He called the FAA‚Äôs arguments “beautifully written.”
Goddard thought that City Hall‚Äôs attorneys have presented strong arguments, too.
“Like any great case, it will go back and forth,” he said. “One side presents its argument and you think they are going to win and then the other side responds and you‚Äôve changed your mind.”
Goddard is confident that in the long-term, perhaps not in this lawsuit, City Hall will prevail because of a clause in a post-World War II document. It states, he says, that if City Hall decides to stop operating the space as an airport, “the title, right of possession, and all other rights transferred” revert back to the landowner.
City Hall lawyers make this argument in the lawsuit. They say that the federal government‚Äôs land lease expired in either 1948 or 1952.
Goddard acknowledged that he is not versed on all of the legal language but said he turns to local attorney, Jonathan Stein, for input. Stein, also a proponent of closing the airport, was frank in his prediction.
“I think the FAA is going to win the motion on the same grounds that I thought when I first heard that (City Hall) had sued,” he said.
City Hall, he said, is asking for the courts to make a ruling before there is “case or controversy,” he said.
Stein believes that City Hall should decommission 800 feet of the runway in July of 2015 ‚Äî when he and City Hall argue the current SMO agreement terminates ‚Äî and turn it into a park. The FAA maintains that the agreement runs through 2023.
Once City Hall takes this step, which Stein is confident they are entitled to do, then perhaps the courts will have something to rule on, he said. Until there is controversy, he said, he believes the FAA is correct that City Hall‚Äôs claims are unripe.
Ken Mead, the general council for the Airport Owners and Pilots Association, made similar points.
“Bottom line, I think the government‚Äôs breach is compelling,” he said. “Essentially the government does not get into the issue of the societal or economic values of Santa Monica. That would come, if it comes, at a later stage.”
As to that clause referred to by Goddard, Mead said that it will come down to land uses, not land ownership. The area, he said, is zoned to be an airport.