After a court ruling last week that denied on procedural grounds NBAA’s petition to overturn an agreement between the FAA and the city of Santa Monica, the organization said the effort to keep Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) will continue. NBAA had urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the January 2017 settlement that allows the city to curtail aviation operations at SMO and gives it the option to close the airport entirely in late 2028.
The June 12 ruling found that the settlement is not reviewable by the D.C. Court, but only by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California. NBAA argued that, in making the settlement, the FAA exceeded its authority and defied requirements established by Congress.
“We’re obviously disappointed, but it’s important to note the court did not make a determination as to the merits of our arguments against the validity of the original settlement agreement,” said NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen. “This ruling was purely a matter of procedure, and in no way does it establish a precedent by which the FAA may enter into similar agreements affecting the fates of other vital general aviation airports.”
Before the recent agreement, the FAA maintained that the city’s obligation to preserve SMO lasts in perpetuity under obligations in a 1948 surplus-property deed.
Santa Monica Airport (SMO) backers received further setbacks after a U.S. Appeals Court and District Court separately denied cases challenging the FAA’s Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement with the City of Santa Monica that clear the way for the city to close the airport in 10 years.
The January 2017 settlement between the agency and city further enabled the city to shrink SMO’s sole 5,000-foot runway, and the city accordingly shortened the runway to 3,500 feet late last year.
NBAA had urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the settlement. The June 12 ruling found that the settlement is not reviewable by the D.C. Court, but only by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California. NBAA argued that, in making the settlement, the FAA exceeded its authority and defied requirements established by Congress.
“We’re obviously disappointed, but it’s important to note the court did not make a determination as to the merits of our arguments against the validity of the original settlement agreement,” said NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen. “This ruling was purely a matter of procedure, and in no way does it establish a precedent by which the FAA may enter into similar agreements affecting the fates of other vital general aviation airports.”
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 5, meanwhile, dismissed a case filed by Barry Rosen, who also had sought to prevent the city from closing the airport after 2028 and require it to restore SMO’s sole runway to 5,000 feet.
The district court also dismissed the Rosen case on procedural grounds, but Mayor Pro Tem Gleam Davis also noted, “[With] this ruling, as with several similar rulings from other courts in the past eight months, the U.S. District Court reaffirms the validity of the historic agreement between the City of Santa Monica and the FAA as a Consent Decree.”
Meanwhile, since the runway has been shortened, jet traffic at SMO has been reduced by 80 percent, according to Suja Lowenthal, senior advisor to the city manager, adding the reduction “far exceeds our own projections and those of others. We are happy to have been wrong.”