> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Where do we go following AB 700?
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/where-do-we-go-following-ab-700/
- Published: 2007-09-07T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T00:56:20.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica Airport, #archive-import

*By Martin Rubin Guest Commentary*

IT REALLY ISN’T VERY COMPLICATED. IT all narrows down to this: The Santa Monica Airport’s (SMO) capacity for aircraft operations versus the concerns of the communities’ regard to safety, noise and air pollution.

One question airport neighbors occasionally are asked is, “Why did you move there when you knew there was an airport?” Yes, there are new young families that decide to buy or rent property in the vicinity of the airport. Some homes have turned over two or three times within a few years. There are also many who are long-time homeowners who never dreamed they could be subjected to the horrors they have been forced to live with. A number of them flee from the area, opening the path for new, innocent young families to settle in.

No one can argue the fact that the airport has grown. New jet traffic skyrocketed from 1,000 to now approaching 20,000 in just 23 years. Today, there are about 35 jets landing and 35 jets taking off per day on average. These 35 daily jet operations in and out of SMO are what this all narrows down to.

The FAA is insistent on pointing out that SMO is an important general aviation reliever airport and that it is one of the busiest in the nation. However, over 85 percent of the air traffic at SMO are non-jet operations.

Let us look closer at the less than 15 percent jet operations and what their impact has been on the communities.

Before the signing of the infamous Santa Monica Airport Agreement, more often referred to as the 1984 agreement, neighbors were complaining about airport noise. The Agreement, a contract between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica, was supposed to reduce aircraft noise. The fact is 90 percent of noise violations are from jets. Without even going any further, I submit to you that the Agreement failed miserably to address the communities’ concerns regarding noise. I could, however, go further into noise, but in the interest of not digressing, I’ll save that for another op-ed. Besides noise, we have the stink of idling jet fumes, jet blast, and the stink of jet fumes as they land and take-off over residential neighborhoods. This is something the FAA does not want to talk about, but airport neighbors within about a mile radius of the airport complain of the stink of jet fumes.

That takes us to safety and the FAA’s desire to keep these 35 jets a day flying in and out of SMO. One needs only to observe the jets landing and taking off to understand how serious a threat they pose to the surrounding communities. We are not just talking about runway overruns but also missed approaches when the marine layer covers the airport. We’re talking about blasting homes with jet fumes when they take off and filling homes with the stink of raw kerosene when jets idle and hold waiting to take off. These 35 jets a day come in waves and can back up two, three or more at a time waiting for permission to take off. That translates to fume events that can last more than a half hour. Can these 35 jets go to another airport with runways long enough for them to land safely in case of emergency with buffer zones to protect residents against extreme toxic air pollution? Most certainly!

AB 700, an excellent example of the governmental process and the role that the community plays in it, has died in a California State Senate Committee, but the issue of airport air pollution is alive with a stronger backbone than ever. The community continues to demand action regarding the 35 jets a day, be it noise pollution, air pollution, or safety issues. We are organizing, growing, and weeding out the facts from the years of smoke screens and mirrors that have been thrown at us to dissuade us and send us on our way. We are thankful for our local, State, and Federal representatives who are proactive-ly supporting our efforts. Can more be done? Absolutely! Can it be done quickly? We certainly hope so.

I want to close this piece with some food for thought to those posing the opening question about moving by an airport. What about the reverse question whereby a jet pilot is asked: “Why did you decide to use SMO when you knew it was a safety gamble; when you knew you would be polluting homes with toxic emissions; when you knew you could easily go to a more suitable nearby airport?”

MARTIN RUBIN is the Director of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 7, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/090707.pdf?ref=smdp.com)