"It generates 270 Million dollars a year for the City as well as being the home to numerous businesses: Aviation and Non-Aviation. It is also needed as an emergency center and runway in case of a natural disaster in Santa Monica and the surrounding cities."
Oct. 1, 2014 Whitney Scott Bain

"Although various business entities and a small segment of our population have an interest in the continued operation of the airport, it is important to consider the desires of our residents in the adoption of policy on this issue. Except in extreme circumstances, what Santa Monica residents want is what is good for Santa Monica. That being said, I support Measure LC due to the fact that the City Council is provided significant leverage in relation to pending litigation with interested parties through their direct control of operating procedures. To remove this leverage from the equation through the adoption of Measure D would result in the creation of a cumbersome process that would not allow the city to take immediate action if, and when, it is necessary."
Oct. 1, 2014 Nick Boles

"The Santa Monica Airport is a drain on our economy. Airport businesses have received subsidized rents in the past and the positive impacts from SMO are zero. The Airport remains a health hazard with high levels of contaminants and particulates in the air and ground areas surrounding the flight paths. The Airport is a noise generator daily, affecting thousands of our residents. Let's stop the noise pollution. The Airport is a safety hazard. When a Guardian, G-4 or G-5 takes off from SMO it contains thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. Our Fire Department's Airport Crash Unit is seldom manned. A neighborhood disaster is a possibility.

The Airport benefits very few residents at the expense of many. At one time, SMO served our community and the nation well. That time is past. The Airport was purchased with park bonds in the 1920’s. Let's fulfill the purpose of the bonds to our community. It's past time for our Airport to go. It will be remembered through our Airport Museum, Douglas Park, statues and plaques."
Oct. 1, 2014 Phil Brock

"Santa Monica Airport (SMO) is a health, safety and environmental hazard, and is operated at public subsidy for the benefit of the few, most who are not Santa Monica residents.

I support converting SMO into a multi-purpose great park. In 1926, Santa Monica residents voted for a park bond to purchase the land upon which (SMO) sits today.

Santa Monica is one of the densest cities in California - and we are well short of enough open, green space for families, recreation, the environment and our health. Several Santa Monica neighborhoods are especially lacking, while two-thirds of Santa Monicans are renters with little or no open space of their own.

Utilizing public land to fit the unmet needs of the many is good public policy. We can start by taking control of the 35+ acres 'quit claim' parcel on SMO's western edge in 2015 – and ultimately put approximately 165 acres of SMO land into park use.

Other complimentary considerations should include cutting edge solar energy production; underground water runoff/storage after we remediate any environmental contamination there; and expanding and synergizing the arts/cultural/educational uses on the south side."
Oct. 1, 2014 Michael Feinstein

"I have been a leader in Airport2Park, the movement to turn the airport into a park for the benefit of all. It's been well-documented that the airport is a source for pollution and noise, and there have been many plane crashes associated with the airport. Aviation businesses also are a minor contributor to the city's economy, and for many years airport operations have been subsidized by the City's general fund. The amount of jet traffic at the airport has increased dramatically over the past 20 years. But even if planes were pollution-free, silent, and never crashed, and even if the airport broke even financially, I would still favor closing the airport because this valuable asset owned by the people (and mostly purchased in 1926 with money from a parks bond) should benefit everyone, not just a few. Vote Yes on LC, and No on D."
Oct. 1, 2014 Frank Gruber

"The city should close the airport and set a course to transform the site into a major public park with significant passive open space as well as recreational space. The policy of maintaining development around the airport to no greater than currently exists is a sound policy. I support the policy that would require voter approval of any significant changes.

I pray we never see the day when a plane leaving from or arriving at SMO misses the runway and crashes into one of the surrounding residential neighborhood. We will not forget the September 2013 crash at the airport which killed 4 jet passengers. As if the noise pollution from the jets were not enough, the airport is a documented producer of ultra fine particle pollution up to 660 meters into the residential neighborhoods. See, e.g., the letter of our Congressman Henry Waxman calling for explanation and investigation from the SCAQMD. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/rep-waxman-calls-for-investigation-into-pollution-at-santa-monica-airport

This is yet another example of government resistance to the legitimate complaints of Santa Monica residents."
Oct. 1, 2014 Sue Himmelrich

"I support Measure LC and I do not support Measure D. I want an open resident-led process for determining what uses and development may occur on airport land if the airport is closed which is what Measure LC will do. I support the City's efforts to close the airport, and to close the western end of the runway by removing the quitclaim parcel from aviation use in 2015. The noise and pollution impacts of SMO must be eliminated. The health and safety of the entire community and the adjacent neighborhoods is my utmost concern. Large jets do not belong at SMO; they are incompatible with the size of Santa Monica Airport and must be prohibited."
Oct. 1, 2014 Jennifer Kennedy

"Santa Monica Airport provides an excellent base or staging ground for a natural or manmade disaster, such as a terrorist attack. It also provides 8 square miles of restricted airspace. This denies other airport's flight paths, including those belonging to LAX. We also have height restrictions on takeoff and landing paths that would also disappear if the airport was closed. A number of areas, much like Main Street and surrounding communities, would be allowed to lift their height restrictions. We would then end up with more 20-story buildings."
Oct. 1, 2014 Terence Later

"Santa Monica Airport seen from above is an aircraft carrier afloat in a sea of homes. No one would ever put it there now, with inadequate runway buffers, closer to more homes than any other airport in the country. Sustainability and safety both argue for closing the airport.

Airport special interests who want to squat forever on Santa Monica's land have mounted a deceptive campaign, trying to trick voters, stoking and manipulating fears of development. I played a major role in rewording the Local Control Measure LC to make sure it was unequivocal about retaining our right to close the airport without the possibility of any development not approved by a vote of our residents, who own the land.

Our City Manager recently told the Council that the Airport has about the same employment and economic impacts as a medium-size strip mall. Those meager benefits clearly don't balance the safety, air pollution, and other impacts of having a jetport in a residential neighborhood.

The City Council in 2012 approved unanimously my motion to direct staff to explore the City's legal rights to close the airport. To retain those rights, please vote NO on Measure D, and YES on Measure LC."
Oct. 1, 2014 Kevin McKeown

"The Airport has been costing the City money for years. It still sells lead gas. The planes spew particulate pollution. The social cost of the noise is huge. And the airport is too small creating real and lasting safety issues. Jet traffic has increased substantially. This Airport need to be closed. It makes no sense on economically, socially, environmentally or for safety reasons."
Oct. 1, 2014 Richard McKinnon

"The residents near the Airport are experiencing a lack of quality of life due to environmental and noise hazards brought by the increase of jets and the fear of more accidents."
Oct. 1, 2014 Zoë Muntaner