Editor:

As your front-page story (Weekend edition 12-05/06-15) states, the recent FAA “Part 16” ruling requires the City of Santa Monica to operate SMO as an airport until 2023. I see this as good news for the following reasons: (1) green fuels have recently been developed and within a few years will be in wide distribution, greatly reducing claims of pollutants emanating from aircrafts at SMO; (2) electric aircraft are now being introduced and, as was recently outlined by Mr. Dave Hopkins at the Nov. 23, 2015 Airport Commission meeting, these planes will be virtually silent and emission free, greatly reducing claims of noise and pollution coming from SMO; (3) seven years will give the City ample time to evaluate and present to SM residents the potential consequences of closing the airport, including dense development in and around Santa Monica; increased traffic congestion and air pollution from grid-locked traffic, as well as the impact of noise and pollution from lower-flying jets into and out of LAX. Although the recent hire of SMO point person, Nelson Hernandez (~$200K/yr), with his background in dense urban development, indicates a strong predilection on the part of the City toward development of the 227 acres of airport land, if an honest evaluation of SMO is undertaken, we might discover that most residents actually want to retain the airport as an airport.

Gloria Garvin

Santa Monica