PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Palmpilot on January 28, 2017, 01:09:27 PM
-
Does anyone know whether President Trump had anything to do with this?
WASHINGTON–The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the City of Santa Monica, California have reached a settlement agreement to resolve longstanding litigation over the future of Santa Monica Airport.
The agreement requires the city to maintain continuous and stable operation of the airport for 12 years, until December 31, 2028, and after that the City has the right to close the airport.
In recognition of the city's authority to make decisions about land use, the agreement allows Santa Monica to shorten the airport's single runway to 3,500 feet from its current length of 4,973 feet. The city is obligated to enter into leases with private aeronautical service providers to ensure continuity of those services until the runway is shortened and it decides to provide such services on its own.
"Mutual cooperation between the FAA and the city enabled us to reach this innovative solution, which resolves longstanding legal and regulatory disputes," said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. "This is a fair resolution for all concerned because it strikes an appropriate balance between the public's interest in making local decisions about land use practices and its interests in safe and efficient aviation services."
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=21394&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R
Santa Monica's press release:
http://abc7.com/travel/santa-monica-airport-to-close-in-2028-city-announces/1725701/
-
Does anyone know whether President Trump had anything to do with this?
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=21394&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R
Santa Monica's press release:
http://abc7.com/travel/santa-monica-airport-to-close-in-2028-city-announces/1725701/
I would say that the FAA has everything to do with this. I don't believe this involves the POTUS, very small potatoes and falls under the FAA.
I don't see the problem here either. Looks like the FAA is holding their feet to the fire on the Grant Assurances and making the the airport operator comply with the law.
-
I believe there was a court case still pending about the original transfer agreement, which had a guarantee that the transferred property would be operated as an airport in perpetuity. I'm surprised to see that the FAA has given in on that, and I'm concerned about the precedent it sets.
-
-
I believe there was a court case still pending about the original transfer agreement, which had a guarantee that the transferred property would be operated as an airport in perpetuity. I'm surprised to see that the FAA has given in on that, and I'm concerned about the precedent it sets.
The FAA doesn't own the property, the city does. The FAA has given money for airport improvments, and under grant assurances the city must operate for I believe 20 years or pay back the money.
Once the city's obligation is fullfilled, it's their right to do with their property what they wish.
Seriously, this is not that hard to comprehend.
-
The FAA doesn't own the property, the city does. The FAA has given money for airport improvments, and under grant assurances the city must operate for I believe 20 years or pay back the money.
Once the city's obligation is fullfilled, it's their right to do with their property what they wish.
Seriously, this is not that hard to comprehend.
Did you miss the part he wrote about the original transfer agreement?
-
Did you miss the part he wrote about the original transfer agreement?
Nope. Did the FAA own the airport? Was it federally owned?
The governments (FAA) only concern is meeting the assurances for money spent. Whatever pissing contest between the city and previous owner is their concern.
-
Nope. Did the FAA own the airport? Was it federally owned?
Actually, yes it was federally owned. The original builder and owner of the airport was the Army Air Corp, who sold it to to the city in 1926. I tend to believe that any stipulations on that original sale (of which I cannot locate easily on the web) will have been fulfilled 102 years later. The federal government took control of the land again during WW-II and returned it to the city afterwards.
So, it appears the city may be within their rights to close it, just like it within our rights to make the people working there very, very lonely for the next 11 years. So call them every once in a while and let them know that we're thinking of them.
If there is some kind of perpetual operation stipulation then someone should get lawyer up and force the city to stop their plan to close it. It is a national defense asset that the city is not allowed to confiscate for their benefit.
-
If there is some kind of perpetual operation stipulation then someone should get lawyer up and force the city to stop their plan to close it. It is a national defense asset that the city is not allowed to confiscate for their benefit.
Is it vital for national defense? I kinda doubt that.
With everything you just wrote, it appears the property belongs to the city. And once the federal obligation is over (12 more years) then the city can do as it pleases.
-
Nope. Did the FAA own the airport? Was it federally owned?
The governments (FAA) only concern is meeting the assurances for money spent. Whatever pissing contest between the city and previous owner is their concern.
My understanding is that the feds leased the land. I don't know who the owners were of the various improvements. In any case, when the airport was transferred from the feds to the City in 1948, it was done under a transfer agreement that contained certain requirements "which shall run with the land." Part of this is summarized in the following excerpts from the civil minutes of one of the court cases that were pending between the City and the Federal Government:
As a result, on August 10, 1948, the United States and the City executed an Instrument of
Transfer, in which the United States surrendered its leasehold interest in the Airport Property, as
well as several easements, buildings, and airfield improvements, including the entire landing area,
the concrete 5,000-foot runway, and taxiway system. Pursuant to the Instrument of Transfer, the
United States “remised, released and forever quitclaimed” all of its “right, title, interest and claim” to
the described “real, personal, or mixed property” to the City subject to certain reservations,
restrictions and conditions agreed to in the Instrument of Transfer. Specifically, the Instrument of
Transfer provided, in relevant part:
• “That by the acceptance of this instrument or any rights hereunder” the City “agrees
that the aforesaid surrender of leasehold interest, transfer of structures,
improvements and chattels and assignment, shall be subject to the following
restrictions, set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph, which shall run
with the land, imposed pursuant to the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of
the Constitution of the United States of America, the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as
amended, Reorganization Plan One of 1947 and applicable rules, regulations and
orders . . . .”
• “(1) That, except as provided in subparagraph (6) of the next succeeding
unnumbered paragraph, the land, buildings, structures, improvements and equipment
in which this instrument transfers any interest shall be used for public airport
purposes for the use and benefit of the public, on reasonable terms and without
unjust discrimination . . . .”
• “(6) That no property transferred by this instrument shall be used, leased, sold,
salvaged, or disposed of by” the City “for other than airport purposes without the
written consent of the Civil Aeronautics Administrator . . . .”
See Complaint, Exhibit C. The Instrument of Transfer also contains the following “reversion”
clause:
• “By acceptance of this instrument, or any right hereunder” the City “further agrees . . .
[t]hat in the event that any of the aforesaid terms, conditions, reservations or
restrictions is not met, observed, or complied with by [the City] or any subsequent
transferee . . . the title, right of possession and all other rights transferred by this
instrument to the [City], or any portion thereof, shall at the option of [the United
States] revert to the [United States] sixty (60) days following the date upon which
demand to this effect is made in writing by the Civil Aeronautics Administrator or his
successor in function . . . .”
On August 10, 1948, the City confirmed its acceptance of the Instrument of Transfer, by
passing Resolution No. 183. On August 23, 1948, the Instrument of Transfer was recorded as a
quitclaim deed with the County Recorder for the County of Los Angeles, California.
https://www.nbaa.org/ops/airports/smo/20140213-US-District-Court-CV-13-8046-JFW-VBKx.pdf
It appears that the FAA Administrator is now consenting under item (6) to whatever the City wants to do with the land beginning in 2028. Prior to today's press releases, all indications were that the FAA was determined to fight this to the bitter end.
I've seen speculation on other boards that President Trump is behind the FAA's change of position, but January 20th to January 28th seems like an awfully short time for the details of this agreement between the FAA and the City to have been worked out. In any case, I thought it would be interesting to see what folks here think about that.
-
My understanding is that the feds leased the land. I don't know who the owners were of the various improvements. In any case, when the airport was transferred from the feds to the City in 1948, it was done under a transfer agreement that contained certain requirements "which shall run with the land." Part of this is summarized in the following excerpts from the civil minutes of one of the court cases that were pending between the City and the Federal Government:
https://www.nbaa.org/ops/airports/smo/20140213-US-District-Court-CV-13-8046-JFW-VBKx.pdf
It appears that the FAA Administrator is now consenting under item (6) to whatever the City wants to do with the land beginning in 2028. Prior to today's press releases, all indications were that the FAA was determined to fight this to the bitter end.
I don't see what the big whoopdy doo over this is. Seems to me the land owners got them some fairly good lawyers and out maneuvered the federal government on some very expensive real estate.
I've seen speculation on other boards that President Trump is behind the FAA's change of position, but January 20th to January 28th seems like an awfully short time for the details of this agreement between the FAA and the City to have been worked out.
Again, this is not a POTUS issue, this is the FAA versus the land owners.
-
I don't see what the big whoopdy doo over this is.
Many pilots consider the closing of GA airports to be a significant trend, and one that needs to be resisted by any means that are legally permissible.
Seems to me the land owners got them some fairly good lawyers and out maneuvered the federal government on some very expensive real estate.
As far as I know, the case I referenced was still pending until this agreement rendered it moot. Whether either side had an advantage, I don't know.
-
Keep in mind that the 'FAA' that made this deal was under acting administrator and SecTran Huerta, in the midnight hour so to speak, just before the change in presidential administrations.
There are folks involved in the save SMO effort who believe this will be overturned once Chao is sworn in.
'Gimp
-
Keep in mind that the 'FAA' that made this deal was under acting administrator and SecTran Huerta, in the midnight hour so to speak, just before the change in presidential administrations.
There are folks involved in the save SMO effort who believe this will be overturned once Chao is sworn in.
'Gimp
Minor point. SecTrans was Fox, Huerta is the FAA Administrator.
-
Another angle:
http://www.smobserved.com/story/2017/01/28/news/trump-admin-sandbagged-on-santa-monica-airport-closure-will-no-doubt-reverse-it/2550.html (http://www.smobserved.com/story/2017/01/28/news/trump-admin-sandbagged-on-santa-monica-airport-closure-will-no-doubt-reverse-it/2550.html)
-
I hope it is reversed. I hate to see airports closing, and we should fight to keep them open. At some point are we all going to be forced to use Class B's, a C's and pay exorbitant fees? I truly believe the Feds want the little guys (GA) out of aviation, and that was a significant factor behind the failed Sport Pilot class. They thought being restricted to a ride "around the patch" would satisfy us, instead of truly being able to use our planes for real travel.