With Santa Monica Airport (SMO) scheduled to close on January 1, 2029, the public process to plan the land’s conversion is well underway. Input has been received on a range of potential park, recreational and open space uses, as well as non-park possibilities. Now the City Council is being asked to begin to choose from among them, to focus further study.
But depending upon the direction the Council takes, there is the threat of a ballot measure from the aviation industry to keep SMO operating as an airport, that would be in response to the City Council recommending anything other than a park on SMO land.
In 2014 Santa Monica voters passed Measure LC with 60.45%, putting into the City Charter to “prohibit new development on Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities”, unless/until there is a future ballot measure otherwise. In February 2017 the City Council formally voted to close SMO in 2029. So the clock is ticking.
The aviation lobby knows it can’t defeat a pure park. But they firmly believe they can defeat anything involving housing or commercial development. If aviation interests hire signature gatherers to qualify their own ballot measure to perpetuate the airport like they did in 2014, they will use fear and capitalize on any confusion or discouragement the public perceives about the park. Any ballot measure to amend LC to provide for housing and/or commercial uses - even simply a Council-approved plan that would lead to it — would give them this ammunition.
In 2014, aviation interests tried to paint LC supporters as ‘shills’ for developers. It didn’t work then. But it might now, if any actual formal City plan is advanced involving housing or commercial development. If so, aviation interests will say that LC's promise of parkland ‘was a bait-and-switch’, playing upon the fears of Santa Monicans skeptical that a Great Park at SMO will ever be built.
Current aviation-created memes are based on "the park won’t happen, its too expensive, and when it fails you’ll get the usual development.” A housing project ballot measure to amend LC would confirm that — and the aviation lobby will immediately swoop in with their own ballot measure to counter it.
What chance would a housing charter amendment to LC have in such an environment?
Santa Monica voters have long been supportive of housing. But no local pro-housing ballot measure has ever faced a million dollars spent against it. That's what aviation interests spent in 2014 to qualify and campaign for their Measure D, that would have kept the airport in operation.
Many of the organizations that would sponsor a housing project charter amendment for SMO are good organizers. But against similar big money, the same coalition lost the local Living Wage referendum ballot measure in 2002.
In November 2014 Measure D received only 41%, in part because there was a united front to close the airport. But with that base of 41% who voted to keep the airport, aviation interests would only need another 9%+ to win. They can get that if the public is confused or discouraged about the park — and the aviation lobby is just waiting for a housing vs. park fight, because the coalition that won Measure LC would be fractured.
What if there were competing ballot measures to (i) keep the airport in operation or (ii) amend the charter to build a large housing project at SMO by cutting way back on parkland? Thousands of Great Park supporters — many who support new housing as urban infill/smart growth in other parts of the city — would logically oppose both of these measures, because of what they would stand to lose with either.
There are thousands in the education community whose families with children would lose out on needed park space. The sports and recreation community would be short-changed for field space they’ve been working towards for over 30 years. Many of the 2/3 of Santa Monicans who are apartment dwellers without private open space, will resent not getting access to abundant public space when there finally is a chance. Then there are environmentalists who would rightly question choosing semi-suburban housing over ecological spaces and functionality.
Those are a lot of voters to lose if trying to win a charter amendment election.
If aviation interests won between competing ballot initiatives, our public land at SMO would remain privatized, and we’d lose this historic opportunity to bring it back into widespread public use.
That is an unforgivable risk that no City Council should take.
When the Council next takes up SMO Conversion on July 8, it needs to focus its next steps on further developing an LC-compliant Great Park model, for two main reasons:
- The political context, in that pursuing anything other than a Great Park before SMO closes risks grasping defeat from the jaws of victory — and losing control of the land entirely.
- As public policy, a Great Park is a once-in-centuries opportunity for Santa Monica to address its acute parks and open space shortage, in a comprehensive way that would benefit generations. This needs to be studied fully.
Let’s hope there are more than enough votes on the Council for this option.
============
By Michael Feinstein. Michael Feinstein is a former Santa Monica Mayor (2000-2002) and City Councilmember (1996-2004). He can be reached via X/Twitter @ mikefeinstein.