Obama declared thirteen National Emergencies.  Eleven are still active.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/obama-declared-13-national-emergencies-11-are-still-active/

Based on the National Emergencies Act,  the article below says that "Each state of emergency is to end automatically one year after its declaration, unless the president publishes a notice of renewal in the Federal Register within 90 days of the termination date and notifies Congress of the renewal." If it's true that eleven of President Obama's emergency declarations are still active, then that means President Trump has renewed all but two of Obama's thirteen.

Personally, I'm less concerned by whether the wall gets built than I am by whether the National Emergencies Act really allows presidents to declare national emergencies based on a disagreement with Congress. If it does, then it should be amended, because that would be a threat to the Constitutional system of checks and balances that has kept us more-or-less free of tyranny for 230 years. If previous presidents have been abusing it, that just tells me that a change is overdue.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/emergencies-without-end-primer-federal-states-emergency

National Emergencies Act:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-pg1119.pdf

Yes, the media makes it seem like most of the country is liberal/progressive while the opposite is actually true.  Hence, the Trump election.  They want people to feel guilty for being conservative, or libertarian.

Question: Why hasn't the invisible hand of the market taken care of the media bias?

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.

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/

Even fuel cells don't approach the energy density of internal combustion.

Yes, that's discussed in the article. It drove some of the design decisions he made, as well as leading him to design for a slower speed than NASA targeted.

Just to clarify, this is not a solar powered design. As I understand it, there are many ways to produce hydrogen.

Yes, in addition to the moment arm, the requirement for the empennage to withstand the weight, thrust, and vibration from the motors looks like a tall order.

This looks interesting:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-i-designed-a-practical-electric-plane-for-nasa