Rules That The City Must Continue To Keep The Airport Open

A California judge has ruled that the City of Santa Monica must continue to operate Santa Monica Airport (KSMO), granting a motion to dismiss the case filed by the FAA in the Central District of California court.

Judge John Walter granted the FAA's motion to dismiss on three grounds, according to a report appearing in Aviation and Airport Development News online. The judge ruled that the city's action did not met that statute of limitations.

According to a synopsis of the case from the NBAA, in a lawsuit filed last October, city officials asserted that Santa Monica never relinquished ownership to the airport when it leased the property to the United States government for use as a military airfield and manufacturing base ahead of World War II – effectively voiding any subsequent agreements with the FAA requiring the city to maintain the airfield.
 
The FAA countered that the city’s latest claim was invalid under the Quiet Title Act, which establishes a 12-year deadline for any property disputes brought against the federal government, once the government establishes an interest in the property. That deadline passed more than 50 years ago, according to the agency – a position with which the court agreed.

"The Court concludes that the record unquestionably demonstrates that the City knew, or should have known, that the United States claimed an interest in the  Airport Property as early as 1948. The Instrument of Transfer expressly provides that, in the event the Airport Property is used “for other than airport purposes without the written consent of the Civil Aeronautics Administrator,” “the title, right of possession and all other rights transferred by this instrument to the [City], or any portion thereof, shall at the option of [the United States] revert to the [United States]," the judge wrote in his ruling.

The so-called "Quiet Title" argument was said to be the city's strongest in the case, and the judge rejected it out of hand.

The judge also ruled that the Federal Government had not abandoned its interest in the airport property, and that the city had not been denied its rights under the Fifth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The question that was left unanswered in the judge’s ruling was when, or if, the 1984 Settlement Agreement actually expires. That factor would be key to the City's ability to move forward with closing the airport.

(Image from file).

FMI: Read the Decision