Reynold Dacon’s column, “Dealing with the Facts” in the Sept 12, 2014 issue of Santa Monica Daily Press, contains several misleading statements.
He claims that over 15,000 Santa Monica residents signed measure D because they saw it as a pro-airport petition.
In fact, measure D was not presented to the people who were urged to sign it as a pro-airport petition. It was presented as a measure to promote democracy by requiring a majority vote of the citizens, rather than a majority vote of the City Council to decide on the future of the SM airport. The tactic was based on the belief by the proponents of measure D that the average voter could be manipulated more easily than members of the City Council.
He claims that measure D was started by local residents who recognize the value of the airport to the local community. In fact a large percentage of the proponents of measure D are not residents of Santa Monica. They are residents of Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Pacific Palisades and other nearby communities. They are predominantly wealthy owners of private planes and corporate jets, and the operators of flight schools and aircraft maintenance facilities.
He also claims that “a park is not a possibility.” This is particularly dishonest. A park covering the 227 acres of the airport is not a possibility but smaller parks within the area covered by the current airport is a strong possiblily. Economic and quality of life benefits that would accrue to Santa Monica from closing the airport would far outweigh the claimed benefits to the citizens of Santa Monica from maintaining the airport.
Only in Santa Monica
I wouldn‚Äôt believe my eyes if I were anywhere else, but still how does the City Council come up with its newest idea of development to fund open space and housing? For me development and open space are opposite ends of the spectrum. The residents of Santa Monica do not want anymore development. SMRR wants development to increase their voter base and it is painfully apparent which City Councilors are puppets of SMRR.
I can only imagine what would become of the airport if the City gets its hands on it. Sure there would be “open space,” but there would also be millions of square feet of office space and entire new city of low income housing. I would love to see a City Councilor advocate a policy of no increases in the population of Santa Monica and no increases in water usage.
When it comes time to vote, please don‚Äôt be fooled by those running for office who want to close the airport, increase open space and add low income housing. What they are really advocating is for development and associated traffic and environmental unsustainability.