As David Goddard, Chair of the Airport Commission, discussed at the Airport2Park panel a few weeks ago on financing a big park at the airport, this would represent a large swing, of millions of dollars, of revenue to the City - in the long term, these dollars could go to the operating costs of a park, in the short term there would be plenty of money to fund litigation with the FAA. Then the City can terminate the leases and lease to new, non-aviation tenants. Indeed, aviation companies are currently subleasing much of this space at a considerable profit to non-aviation tenants, such as Volkswagen’s design studio.Īll of these leases end in 2015. Under these old leases the rents are pennies on the dollar of what is now market-rate. These are the hangars that the private jets and planes use, the support facilities for fuel and repairs, and the offices of the aviation companies.
In this connection, it’s not only the 1984 Settlement Agreement that expires July 1, 2015, but also all the leases of city-owned land and buildings at the airport to aviation interests. Even more significantly this would likely mean that the airport would not be able to subsist economically and would have to close. Obviously it would be simpler for the city to prevail in a suit over the 19 agreements, but reducing the length of the runway would mean that the big private jets that have the worst adverse impacts would not be able to use the airport. Neighborhood groups opposed to the airport have made the argument, which City Attorney Marsha Moutrie has said appears to her to have merit, that the City could, on July 1, 2015, take back that portion of the airport, which would reduce the runway to less than 3000 feet. A large piece, on which sits about 40% of the airport’s runway, is not subject to the perpetuity clause in the IOT. In its complaint, the City, in recounting the history of how it acquired the airport land, took pains to point out that the 1948 IOT only applies to one piece of the airport. His decision had nothing to do with the merits of the City’s case since the City has not yet tried to close the airport, he said the issue was not yet “ripe.” The issue will be subject to litigation when the City moves to close the airport.īut litigation over the 19 agreements is not the only arrow in the City’s quiver. Judge Walter said he sympathized with that wish, but said the claim was not being made consistent with the time period allowed in the QTA for bringing suit against the federal government.
The lawsuit that Judge Walter dismissed primarily on the basis of the technical requirements of the federal Quiet Title Act (QTA) was based on the City’s claim that the “perpetuity clause” in the 1948 Instrument of Transfer (IOT) is not enforceable and that control of the airport will return to the City when the 1984 Settlement Agreement with the FAA expires July 1, 2015.īy suing under the QTA, the City was trying to determine ahead of time what its rights were - to be able to plan accordingly for the future of the land. It’s not only that the judge emphasized that his decision had nothing to do with the merits of the case, but Santa Monica has several means to gain control of the airport land and ultimately close the airport. In the long term, Judge John Walter’s decision last week to dismiss the City’s case against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) doesn’t mean a whole lot.
0 kommentar(er)
