The SM City Council recently (7/22/14) voted to approve an Anti-Airport initiative designed to close the SM Airport. It will compete with the Pro-Airport initiative and both will be on the ballot in November. The Pro-Airport initiative would ensure voters the right to vote on whether or not the airport is closed. Its straightforward language reads: “An initiative measure amending the City Charter to require voter approval in order to close all or part of the Santa Monica Airport.”
The City’s Anti-Airport initiative to close the airport, on the other hand, deliberately couches its true intent in mid-paragraph. On careful reading of the City’s measure we see that it “… would preserve the City Council’s current authority to … close the airport.”
My question is this: Why should such an important decision be left in the hands of seven council members who have already committed to closing the airport? Who are we going to trust with the fate of this important resource – ourselves as citizens of Santa Monica, or a City Council that seems to be attempting to undermine the democratic process?
Gloria Garvin, PhD
Nowhere is safe
It seems that some citizens of Santa Monica regret the invention of the wheel?
Sadly aircraft do occasionally kill or pollute, but so do ships trains, trucks, cars, bikes etc. even bolts of lightning at the beach! Nowhere is absolutely safe.
And why do Santa Monica residents think that they have the divine right to dictate to residents of Brentwood, Culver City,Westwood and other neighborhoods what is to happen to their regional airport?
Keep the airport open, I consider my life more in danger from skateboards on the sidewalks – why do we put up with that?
Virginia Park Neighborhood
Thank you for your article on Virgina Park. We could surely benefit from a decent dog park in this neighborhood! We have no dog park within walking distance in this area.