To Fellow “city leaders:”

If you were wondering who sent the email to
all of us, attempting to shame us for having
the nerve to suggest that we advocate tell-
ing people how to rescind their signature on
the deceptive initiative she works for, here’s
what I have to share:

Stacey Falcioni says she works for “Santa Mon-
icans for Open and Honest Development Decisions,”
which makes it clear to anyone who knows what
this about that she works for the group that
created the non-existent straw man that’s de-
signed to deceive voters. There’s no Develop-
ment Decision involved in the city’s stated
intention to move toward discouraging jets
from landing at SMO. But the AOPA (Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association) knew they
could never get the needed signatures for
an initiative that took control of airport
from the City and gave it to them, without ma-
king it appear that voters were gaining con-
trol.So, they chose to deceive registered
voters into believing that the city was try-
ing to clear the land at the airport to make
way for a large development. Voters signed to
avoid a development intention that is non-

The AOPA is pushing an initiative that requ-
ires voter approval for ANY changes at the
airport, intending to prevent the City from
stopping selling jet fuel or reclaiming the
end of the runway, or changing leases for
aviation businesses without voter approval.
But what they sold petition signers was a
non-existent straw man – a fear of a non-ex-
istent development intention. Once voters
understand that,this game will be over.

Here’s the truth:

1. The Airplane Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA), a national special interest organiza-
tion in Washington, D.C., is the sponsor and
sole funder of the proposed initiative.

2. The signature gatherers (paid by AOPA) sou-
ght to present the proposed initiative as a community-led “anti-development” initiative,
when its purpose is to preserve aviation int-
erests at the airport.

3. The proposed initiative states the City
is planning “high-density” development at the
airport that would result in increased traf-
fic congestion, noise, and pollution. Truth
is the City Council recently voted 6 to 0
to direct staff to plan “low intensity” uses
at the airport that would not create more
traffic. What’s more, a “high density” devel-
opment project was proposed at the airport
by the Reliance Group in 1989. Residents col-
lected a large number of signatures to support
a referendum, and approval for the development
was rescinded.We’ve been there, done that.We
don’t need an AOPA initiative to give us the
right to vote down dense development. We al-
ready have it and know how to exercise it.

4.The proposed initiative preserves the sales
of both toxic “leaded” aviation fuel, as well
as kerosene-type jet fuel, which emits toxic
ultrafine particles and black carbon. Accord-
ing to the Los Angeles Times, the residential neighborhood downwind from the airport runway
has worse air pollution than a freeway-filled
area of East LA.

5. The proposed initiative will preserve the
250-300 daily takeoffs and landings of prop
planes and private jets (a 32% increase over
last year) directly over homes.

6. The proposed initiative supposedly offers
residents the “right to vote” on the future
of the airport. We already have that right
now, through the referendum process. If the
initiative should pass,, almost every change
at the airport will require a ballot measure.
This will provide AOPA the opportunity to try
to manipulate the outcome of those ballot
measures by means of unlimited campaign cont-
ributions. to avoid losing jet fuel sales,
etc. According to their web site, “AOPA has
committed to offering nationwide support to
the effort to protect the historic airport.”
(For whose benefit?)

7. The proposed initiative opposes the Pro-
Park efforts organized by Airport2Park.org,
a coalition of community groups and environ-
mental organizations.

8. The proposed initiativeis opposed by the
boards of numerous Santa Monica resident
groups, including Friends of Sunset Park,
Mid City Neighbors, Northeast Neighbors,
Ocean Park Association, Pico Neighborhood
Association, Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood
Coalition, and Santa Monicans for Renters’

So who is Stacey Falcioni?
Well, here’s what the web has to offer:
Stacey Falcioni
Public Policy & Administration
Orange County, California Area

Government Relations
Current: 1. Frank Wilson & Associates,
2.White Glove Property Management LLC,
3. SC Consulting, Inc.
Previous: 1. McCoy Rigby Arts Nonprofit
Organization, 2. Los Angeles County Four-
th District Education, University of
Southern California
Experienced public policy consultant im-
proving civic engagement and development.

Public Affairs Consultant, Frank Wilson
& Associates
March 2014 – Present (3 months) San Juan
Capistrano Managing project stakeholder out-
reach, public involvement planning and con-
sensus building.

As stated above, she works for Government
Relations and Public Affairs at Frank Wilson
& Associates, and was likely retained by the
AOPA or some sub-set of it. She is an “exper-
ienced public policy consultant improving ci-
vic engagement and development, managing pro-
ject stakeholder outreach, public involvement,
planning and consensus building.”

But given her email to us, it’s obvious that
Stacey doesn’t have a clue who she’s talking
to. She doesn’t know that lies don’t work in
Santa Monica.We had a $750,000 example of that
when the Thomas Brothers, (owners of Shutters
Hotel and Casa Del Mar) and their developer
friends decided to get rid of Kevin McKeown
from the City Council. Remember?

They funded a relentless campaign of smears
and insinuations — attempts to connect Coun-
cil Member McKeown with everything they could
find that was wrong with the city. They funded
a campaign of TV ads — even on Monday night
football — attempting to paint Council Mem-
ber Mckeown as responsible for homelessness,
traffic,lack of parking, gridlock.potholes,lack
of garbage pickup, crime, you name it, accord-
ing to these videos,he was responsible for it

What was the outcome? The so-called “spokesman”
who smeared Kevin on TV, admitted that he didn’t
know him or anything about him and was paid to
read a script.McKeown was re-elected with the
largest number of votes of any Council member
in that election – AND that has continued in
every election since then. His opponents just
dropped $750,000 down a rat hole.

Stacey Falcioni also doesn’t seem to know that
Reliance proposed a 1 million square foot office
park on Airport Avenue years ago, and residents
rallied to put a referendum on the ballot, caus-
ing the City Council to rescind approval for the
huge project.The city is not so stupid as to try
that again. And if they did, residents would
rally again.

Stacey doesn’t seem to know that the real “spec-
ial interest group” in this situation is actually
the AOPA since, aside from pilots who are being
used to help protect the benefits of the aviation industry,it seems that well over half of the city
opposes jets landing at SMO.

She also doesn’t seem to understand that the rev-
enue the businesses at the airport bring in is far overshadowed by the diminishing of property values
in the parts of the city where jet noise and air pollution are an insidious destroyer of quality
of life.

Stacey Falcioni presents herself as a “business resident,” which means that while she works here
(in an office in Barker Hanger on Airport Avenue),
she does NOT live here. The proposed initiative
is NOT a grass-roots initiative against over-dev-
elopment. It’s a direct attempt to protect the
jet based businesses that use the Santa Monica
airport to the detriment of the residents who
want them gone.

I hope that gives you the background you need to understand what Stacey Falkioni is up to and
who’s paying her, so you can watch her, unders-
tand where she’s coming from, and understand
that she’s on a doomed path. Her game does not
work in Santa Monica.

Ellen Brennan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *