At the City Council meeting scheduled for March 25, elected officials will be asked by residents living near Santa Monica Airport — some within 300 feet of the runway — to make official a ban on larger, faster jet aircraft, which have increased in number since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and the rise in fractional jet ownership, allowing corporate executives, celebrities and others with big bucks to fly privately and avoid hassles like security checkpoints.
The council could have approved the ban weeks ago, but wisely decided to hold off and continue to work with the Federal Aviation Administration and lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to come up with runway safety enhancements that would protect the greatest number of people in the event that a pilot misses the target. The delay allowed Congress members Henry Waxman and Jane Harman and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar more time to pressure the FAA into making a deal, which it did last week.
That said, the council should move forward with the ban Tuesday night, regardless of fears that such a decision will anger the FAA and jeopardize negotiations for runway safety enhancements, or expose Santa Monica to litigation. While the ban will almost certainly not stop one single flight given that the FAA will immediately seek an injunction, it will show residents that the council is serious, and it will put the onus on Waxman and Harman to get down to business and fight for their constituents.
Most residents don’t want it to become some long, drawn-out political process in which the FAA drags its feet out of fear of setting a precedent. Waxman and Harman need to use their muscle to get things done now, as should City Hall. Residents have waited, patiently, for far too long. Any further delay is a slap in the face, especially given City Hall’s past actions.
Those actions include enacting a law preventing banks from charging non-customers ATM fees. Santa Monica was the first city in California to take on the banking industry by banning what officials — and many consumers — regard as a “double charge.” Attorneys for the banking industry argued before the U.S. Supreme Court — yes, city attorneys took it that far — that City Hall had no jurisdiction over banking fees. The court agreed.
The FAA has used the same argument when it comes to the airport, that City Hall cannot regulate it and must do what the FAA says.
The FAA has released a new proposal that gives City Hall some of what it wants, but not all. The council should keep the pressure on and demand something be done. The residents have done their part in attending meetings and raising awareness, now it is up to public officials to act, both locally and in Washington.
The FAA should be less concerned about private jets having access to Santa Monica and instead focus on protecting consumers from possible overruns and major airlines like Southwest, which failed to properly inspect its aircraft, putting lives at risk. It seems the FAA dropped the ball on that one, just as it has done with Santa Monica.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 20, 2008. Read the original PDF.