Dear editor:
I write as a decades-long Santa Monica resident – apartment renter and, later, homeowner. As predictable as the tides are the periodic and strident calls for Santa Monica Airport (SMO) to remain open forever.
Years after being debunked, some pilots still refer to a study from about 14 years ago that said SMO generates money for the city. In fact, a huge chunk of that income was from non-aviation tenants at SMO.
In addition, a walk through the business park adjacent to SMO shows a sprucing up, at least some of which seems connected to creating more housing. One large office building already has posted a sign indicating it will be razed and replaced by apartments. Will would-be tenants of those apartments be apprised of the noise/air pollution from SMO or will their need for housing make them more willing to breathe the polluted air, as the use of jet fuel increases with the new air service)?
As many Santa Monicans recall, a city-wide referendum in 2014 called for SMO to be closed to air traffic at the end of 2028. The measure garnered a majority in nearly every precinct across the city –not just from those nearest the airport – while defeating a competing measure sponsored by aviation interests. In fact, since the passage of Measure LC, the SMO runway has been trimmed from about 5,000 feet to 3,500 feet, with no complaint from the FAA. This reduced both the noise and pollution from SMO, especially from larger jets, some of which can no longer use the trimmed-down runways, which also made the airport safer. This trend could be blunted or reversed by having regularly scheduled air service in turboprop planes using jet fuel.
Another false flag from some private pilots is the accusation that property owners near SMO just want to increase their property’s value. In fact, the value of our modest home near SMO has skyrocketed over several decades, which has nothing to do with SMO and everything to do with housing demand. However, this does not mean that having more jet-fuel pollution from commercial airlines or private aviation is acceptable – it’s not, for health and safety reasons.
Brian Bland
Santa Monica