The Santa Monica Democratic Club faced a heated internal debate last week as members sparred over whether the city-owned airport land should be reserved exclusively for open space or opened up to include affordable housing. The extended discussion dominated the second half of the monthly meeting and revealed deep divisions over how best to balance environmental goals, housing equity and the city's progressive identity.
The Club’s ad hoc airport committee presented a report recommending the 192-acre site, which will come fully under city control in 2029, be developed solely as parkland. The proposal outlined uses such as recreational space, ecological restoration, indigenous land stewardship and civic gathering areas. It explicitly rejected any housing development on the property, citing overwhelming community feedback gathered by the committee over the past year.
“We received close to 700 individual comments, the vast majority of which supported a park-only option,” said committee member Ann Bowman, who helped lead the group’s outreach. “Affordable housing does not need to be on this land. There are dozens of other places in the city that need to be upzoned.”
Several members echoed the call for a full-scale park, describing it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create open space in one of the most densely populated areas of the region. Frank Gruber, a former City Council candidate, said the city was uniquely positioned to set an example for urban environmental stewardship.
“We have a real chance here to create something visionary,” Gruber said. “There are very few parcels of land like this left anywhere in Los Angeles.”
But the proposal met immediate and forceful pushback from other members who questioned the fairness and political wisdom of excluding housing from the discussion at such an early stage. Vivian Rothstein, a founding member of the Club and former board president, said the plan contradicted the values the group claims to represent.
“We call ourselves progressive,” Rothstein said. “Any policy that begins with saying we will not allow housing is not a progressive policy. To exclude affordable housing, including supportive housing, from a city-owned site of this size, is deeply troubling to me.”
Board member Mike Soloff, who was part of the campaign behind Measure LC, a 2014 ballot initiative that gave the city control over airport land use, said the measure allows for a wide range of civic uses as long as voters approve them. He cautioned against prematurely ruling anything out.
“Measure LC gives voters the right to decide,” Soloff said. “We have six years to get this right. The idea that we are going to lock in a decision now to never consider housing is both unnecessary and shortsighted.”
The airport has been a source of conflict for decades. In 2014, voters overwhelmingly passed Measure LC, restricting non-park development without voter approval while rejecting pro-airport Measure D. However the city didn’t gain authority to shutter the facility until 2017 when a deal with the FAA allows, but does not require, the city to close the airport on December 31, 2028, while immediately shortening the runway from 4,925 to 3,500 feet.
Planning for post-closure transformation is underway with three scenarios under consideration, that vary in specific park amenities and housing proposals. The proposals have been workshopped at several public hearings, commission meetings and through online surveys.
The Club’s ad hoc committee was created last year in response to growing interest in how the city will use the airport land once flight operations cease. The committee held public listening sessions and reviewed planning documents and resident surveys. Its report concluded that the public overwhelmingly favored a large urban park over mixed-use development.
Some members took issue with the committee’s framing and process. Jeremy Bamberger, a member of the Club’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, said the makeup of the group lacked ideological balance and its outreach excluded the voices of renters and housing advocates.
“This report bakes in bias,” Bamberger said. “By stating up front that housing is off the table, it narrows public imagination and undermines the democratic process.”
Others questioned whether the Club should have explored a broader mandate in the first place. They expressed concern that the decision to exclude housing had not been discussed widely enough among members and could limit future options.
In response, committee members defended their approach, noting that public sentiment had been clear and consistent over many months. Patti Braun, a longtime parks advocate who supported the proposed recommendation, said the group was tasked with synthesizing community views, not advancing a specific political agenda.
“The world is watching how we use this land,” Braun said. “Let’s not screw it up.”
The dispute reflects a broader tension in Santa Monica politics, where ambitious goals for sustainability, housing equity and public health often collide in the city’s limited available space. While some members argued that housing and open space are not mutually exclusive, others insisted that this particular site should serve a higher ecological and cultural purpose.
As the debate concluded, the Club first considered a substitute motion calling for the inclusion of housing in the city's environmental review process. That motion read: To preserve Santa Monica’s economic diversity, and support our local economy, the Santa Monica Democratic Club recommends the inclusion of below market rate housing as well as park and recreational uses in the EIR (Environmental Impact Review) study for redevelopment of the Santa Monica airport land. It failed to pass, receiving 66 votes in support (30 percent) and 155 in opposition (70 percent).
Members then voted on the ad hoc committee’s original recommendation. That motion passed with 156 votes in support (78 percent) and 45 opposed (22 percent), with 8 abstentions. The approved language reads: The Santa Monica Democratic Club recommends to Santa Monica City Council, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park, that would not trigger a ballot measure before airport closure, with financing that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.
City officials have not yet finalized a redevelopment plan for the airport land, and any future project would require public review and voter approval under Measure LC. Still, the Club’s stance could carry political weight as it considers endorsements and ballot positions in the years ahead.
Club president Jon Katz acknowledged the passions on both sides and urged members to remain engaged as the city moves forward. “There are good arguments on both sides,” Katz said. “What matters is that we keep talking, and that we do it in good faith.”