On 5/9/2012 11:32 AM, City Councilman Kevin McKeown wrote:For the first time, the airport process now includes an explicit direction regarding preparing legal arguments to pursue closure.
If you’re getting this email,you’re one of the hundreds of persons who’s been engaged with this issue, and perhaps one of the roughly one hundred who sent emails to the City Council in the last several days.You got results.
The City Council voted unanimously for my motion to add a new bullet point to the Airport Visioning Phase Three, directing staff to explore the City’s legal options to close Santa Monica Airport if we are not able to resolve the identified problems with jets, pollution, safety, noise, leaded fuel, flight schools, etc., through negotiation with the FAA.
Dear City Council Member Mckeown,
Congratulations with your success! Meantime, I do not feel that City Council did a great job approving highly biased and non-professional (based on numerous critics) City staff report.You need to be more selective and approve better written proposals, which would more accurately represent a real situation.
It also strikes me how all branches of SM power are isolated and do not communicate. Airport Commission is a place for debates about the airport issue. They should make a recommendation on this matter to the City Council. Instead – City attorney is making recommendations to the Council; it should be the reverse. Council must direct the attorney. I never saw anybody from the City staff or City Council at Airport Commission meetings. Airport Director is always present at City Council meetings (related to airport), but I did not see him at Airport Commission meetings. It is really bad because the Commission did very good job bringing together a panel of experts, who actually really know what they are talking about – a real contrast to non-professional presentations (if any) at City Council airport meetings. Thus, all these Airport Commission efforts are wasted because City staff and sadly Council members just did not hear them, and continue to operate without
knowledge of the subject.
I would like to make a comment on the priorities mentioned by council members – first, to try to make “better”airport and if not possible – close it. It is not right, all surveys suggested the reverse order. Also, I feel that City Council must respect its previous decisions, the resolution 6296 in particular. It is not good idea to ignore its own decisions. It creates a bigger gap between people and City, when City did not obey its own promises for 30(!) years. I also feel, the attempt to shift responsibility from City Council to federal authorities (Henry Waxman etc) is cynical – the airport is a City-owned and –created problem and City must take all responsibility.
I am tired to repeat this again and again – make a decision towards
closing the airport. City’s “visioning process” leads nowhere because it is highly biased and does not represent people’s opinion.
Sergey Ryazantsev, Ph.D.
18 years in SM, Sunset Park 8 years