Am I reading this right? (I might not be.) Does Item 11A on the City Council meeting agenda fail to include a phase that compels Sasaki Consultants, Inc. to get feedback from every neighborhood in our city about the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project?
How can we decide the best option for the Airport’s 227 acres if the City’s consultant isn’t required to get opinions from a holistic sample of residents and find out what Santa Monica really wants and needs from airport land?
Could it be that certain members of the City Council are once again obeying the orders coming from the vocal residents of Sunset Park to stack the deck in their favor? On 10/10/23, Council Members Brock, De La Torre, Parra, and Negrete naively rejected a proposal to reach out to the entire Santa Monica community — Sunset Park and beyond —through an innovative randomized public lottery system to make sure every Santa Monica neighborhood had an equal say during this process. Back then, as here, it seems these council members are opting to give a microphone to already loud voices rather than figuring out what our city, as a whole, should do with airport land.
Open-ended meetings and outreach about airport land will attract the most motivated residents to voice their opinions. And Sunset Park residents are understandably motivated about this topic because (1) their neighborhood is closest to the Airport, and (2) property owners in the area will make a lot of money if the City chooses the “Great Park Only” option they want for airport land. Let’s be real: a “Great Park” will immediately and dramatically increase Sunset Park property values, whether it is the best option for the city or not. And this is a totally fine proposal, even if non-Sunset Park residents, like myself, disagree with it. In a democracy, people can advocate for whatever they want, including proposals based on total self-interest and financial gain as many Sunset Park residents are doing here.
But what about reimagining airport land to really benefit the entire community? How about development that addresses child care shortages, or community gathering spaces, or a new library. Or, heaven forbid, the City looks into using airport land to address Santa Monica’s stifling housing problems. Maybe these aren’t good options either, but the City Council should enact measures to ensure everyone in the community participates in this process to bring forth all of our ideas. It isn’t right to have a process that blatantly favors the loudest voices in the room to make such a monumental decision for our entire community.
“Great Park Only” residents will likely say Measure LC, passed back in 2014, only permits the City Council to approve the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities, and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts, and education uses on airport land. They will also say, “everyone voted for a park, so that is what everyone should get.”
However, these same residents know Measure LC allows airport land to be used for something other than a “Great Park” if residents vote for it via election. Personally, I voted for Measure LC in order to reject Measure D, which would have left Santa Monica with an airport forever. Many Measure LC voters, like myself, only backed the imperfect Measure LC because it also says potential non-park uses of airport land are possible if/when voters approve it. Let’s not forget this important provision.
The process described in the staff report for Item 11A affords the City Council two chances to evaluate options before making a decision. To make a truly informed decision, the City Council should make sure everyone has had a chance to speak and understands the issues. More information is better than less! And, I reckon, ALL Santa Monica voters can be trusted to select the best option for airport land, if it comes down to an election.
If the City Council approves Item 11A, they must make sure the public process is open and focused on the entire city. They should simultaneously demand that Sasaki Consultants, Inc. research every viable proposal for airport land from a holistic sample of residents, even those that will ultimately require voter approval. Otherwise, our City Council is potentially using our government to undermine public discourse and favor Sunset Park’s interests over the interests of the City as a whole. And that is unacceptable.
Kabir Chopra, Santa Monica