The redevelopment of land in Santa Monica is an important community issue. City politicians have proven they cannot be trusted on the matter. We think voters should have a say!
This charter amendment requires a vote of the people before Santa Monica Airport land can be redeveloped for other purposes.
Santa Monica Airport and Business Park are low-density land uses that generate business, jobs and tax revenue for the City.
The 227 acre airport property is one of the most desirable undeveloped, large parcels in Southern California. Major international financial and developer consortiums have their eyes on the property.
The City’s recent approval of a large high-density development (Bergamot Transit Village) completely disregarded the concerns of nearby residents and the people of Santa Monica. The people and Santa Monicans for Voter Choice are fighting back by seeking a vote of the people before any decisions are made on redeveloping the airport.
Over the years, city politicians and special interests have sought to convert the airport to many different uses, including affordable housing, a campus, a transit center and other schemes that would increase density and create new problems.
Each time they failed. And, each time they have exposed city taxpayers to costly and lengthy lawsuits.
The amendment is backed by Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions, a citizens committee of pilots, airport businesses, and Santa Monicans who want to ensure that this low density land use is not redeveloped by special interests and developers. We believe the voters should have their say first.
No. The City has stated that it does not have the resources to develop and maintain such valuable property for low-density use, like a park. Instead, a recent City report says that once closed, Airport land would likely be redeveloped for higher density uses, bringing more traffic, noise and air pollution.
The airport hosts 175 businesses, employing 1,500 people. And the Airport has already instituted strict rules to reduce noise, hours of operation, and to restrict the type of aircraft allowed. Closing the airport would mean a loss of significant tax revenue, shutting down businesses, and terminating hundreds of good family-wage jobs. The airport is working to be a good neighbor and closing it would impose huge costs on the City, which means taxpayers would pay again.
No. The Charter Amendment simply says that voter approval of any City decision to close or partially close the airport to change the land use is required before the City’s decision can go into effect. Unless voters approve a change, the City must continue to leave the land in airport use.
No. The City has stated that it does not have the resources to develop and maintain such valuable property for low-density use, like a park. Instead, a recent City report says that once closed, Airport land would likely be redeveloped for higher density uses, bringing more traffic, noise and air pollution. Download City Council Report.