Jet Air Pollution
August, 2000 - Plantiffs' Position...and more on lawsuit.
Home
PETITIONS
Federal Legislation Progress Links
COMING EVENTS
To be on our CONTACT LIST
Contact your Public Officials
Mail CRAAP Contributions to:
Recent Studies
UCLA School of Law Evaluation of the City of Santa Monica authority to address environmental ...
1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement
SM vs. FAA - 2010
Videos - YouTube
S.M. Airport Commission-Agenda
LINKS
E-Noise/Fume Complaint Form
Noise & Fume Complaints Received
January 11, 2010 FORUM
Protest - Sunday, April 18
Celebrity pledge not to travel by jet at SMO
AJR37
Runoff Safety Areas and SMO
January 29, 2008 Washington DC meeting on Runway Safety
News Articles
SMO Runway Safety Areas???
AQMD's Airport Air Quality Study for Santa Monica and Van Nuys Airports
The LAX Expansion Controversy
(C.R.A.A.P. ) REPORT
New Permanent Noise Monitors
August, 2000 Plantiffs' Position...and more on lawsuit.
Fume Event Graphs
Candidates for SM City Council: Answers to Airport Questions
Santa Monica Airport Commission Meeting Report and Letters
Current Events
No on LAX Expansion Petition
"Share the Cost" Jet Travel Ads
February 2, 2005 -Teterboro, N.J.- corporate jet skids over highway.
Plane Crash - March 16th, 2004

The following two documents are related to the most recent lawsuit that was decided in October, 2001.

Plaintiffs' atorney, Andrew R. Henderson explains that the following position paper was written because the Plaintiffs attempted to resolve the case before trial by asking the City to curb the more air polluting aircraft (which are invariably the jets), using the City's proprietary powers to do so.  The City's deputy attorney had until then refused, and still to this day refuses, to acknowledge the City's proprietary powers, insisting instead that such powers are "preempted" by the Clean Air Act. 

 

Mr. Henderson says, "The position paper explains that the City's Clean Air Act preemption argument is incorrect.  The City does in fact have the powers (as the proprietor of the Airport) to curb the air polluting aircraft.  It simply refuses to act on its powers, for reasons it won't explain."

Cole, et al, v. City of Santa Monica   (Case SC 055183)

 

Plaintiffs’ Position Concerning

the City of Santa Monica’s Ongoing

Legal Right to Regulate

Aircraft Operations at Santa Monica Airport

 

August 17, 2000

 

 I.                    INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.

 

In recent years, the Santa Monica Airport (the “Airport”) has been used with increasing frequency by particularly highly-polluting jet aircraft.   Because residential neighborhoods immediately surround the Airport, the pollution from such aircraft directly and unreasonably burden those who live nearby.  This situation is now the subject of a pending lawsuit brought against the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) by nearby homeowners (“Plaintiffs”) who are, because their homes are located at the east end of the runway, extremely and in some ways uniquely impacted by the Airport’s changing uses. 

To read the full document click the following small link.

CLICK HERE to view Position Paper

You can e-mail me your views about the document.

For the preceding lawsuit the City of Santa Monica presented the following (FOUR DAY!)Air Quality Study. There are many things that I could say about it, and none of them are complimentary to how the study was done or to it's conclusions. I will put it on without further comment for now, so that you can look at it. Again E-mail me your comments, if you like. I will be posting my thoughts about the study soon. I also hope to publish the critiques from members of the environmental sciences.

CLICK HERE to view study

Last updated on