It went from rumor to reality in just under a week.
Yesterday, three Santa Monica residents began a process that could lead to a citywide vote on whether to allow housing to be built on land currently occupied by Santa Monica Airport after its scheduled closure on January 1, 2029.
Hajar Muqtasid, a board member with the Santa Monica Housing Authority; Christina Navarro, a hotel worker and member of UNITE HERE! Local 11; and Ralph Mechur, a member of the SMRR Housing Committee, submitted language to the Santa Monica City Clerk for approval. The measure would allow up to 3,000 units of housing to be built on airport land.
The clerk will either approve the language as workable under state and federal law or return it to the applicants for revision. Once the language is approved, the applicants will need to gather signatures or secure City Council approval for the measure to qualify for the November ballot. From there, it would need only a simple majority to pass.
As written, the “up to 3,000 units” could not occupy more than 25 percent of the airport land. At least half of the units would be priced as affordable for people earning 80 percent of the area median income, with the remainder priced at 120 percent. The City Council could increase the number of higher-income units if certain conditions are met.
In 2014, Santa Monica voters passed Measure LC, which states that if the airport is closed, the city may not plan for any uses other than open space and education without voter approval. In 2017, the city was granted the authority to close the airport in 2029 through a legal consent decree, following decades of conflict with the federal government. In 2024 and 2025, the city conducted a public process examining potential future uses for the airport land should it close in 2026. Currently, every City Council member has pledged to support closing the airport, although all are up for re-election between now and January 1, 2029.
Opposition Lines Up
Opposition to the measure is emerging on several fronts. Longtime opponents of dense housing are already criticizing the proposal on online message boards.
However, they are far from alone. The Great Park Coalition** states that its core mission is “to reclaim the land at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) to rebuild and restore the Great Park that existed on the site before the federal government took control of the park and closed it to recreational use, converting it into an airport and industrial site as part of the World War II war effort.”
The coalition released a statement to Next confirming its opposition to the ballot measure.
“We strongly oppose any ballot measure to amend Measure LC, which Santa Monica voters overwhelmingly approved in 2014 and which restricts development of airport land to parks,” the statement reads. “Although we have not yet reviewed the proposal that was filed Thursday, introducing a ballot measure at this stage disregards the extensive public planning process that resulted last summer in a 6–1 City Council vote to create a Great Park at the airport site, consistent with Measure LC. That process is continuing with planning for the park. The ballot measure risks undermining the community consensus to close the airport and risks delaying the park planning process.”
Concerns that the measure could undermine community consensus were echoed by two City Councilmembers generally considered “pro-housing.”
“Our focus remains on completing the airport closure and advancing a legally feasible, voter-approved future for the site that reflects the community’s values, including open space, public benefit, and long-term environmental health,” wrote Mayor Caroline Torosis, who is up for re-election this year. “Any proposals or ballot measures related to the airport must be evaluated through that lens and must not undermine or delay the agreed-upon closure of the airport.
“At this time, the City Council has not taken action to place a housing ballot measure on the airport site, and our priority remains honoring the closure timeline and commitments already in place.”
Councilmember Dan Hall, who is not up for re-election, expressed a similar view. “I think this is unwise and puts our consent decree at risk,” he said. “Everyone should be united in our shared goal of closing the airport on December 31, 2028—not a day later.”
What Do the Proponents Say?
So far, proponents of the ballot measure have not issued public statements, perhaps preferring to wait for a formal announcement or campaign kickoff. However, speaking on background because they were not authorized to speak on behalf of their affiliated organization, one supporter argued that the 2024–2025 process was biased against a housing option. They said voters should be given a chance to direct the city to include housing before formal planning begins for a future Great Park.
The supporter also noted that because the proposal preserves 75 percent of the airport land as open space, it would still leave more than 170 acres available for new parkland.
The author of this piece is listed on the Great Park Coalition’s website as a supporter, a designation stemming from their previous service on the Mar Vista Neighborhood Council in Los Angeles.
Author
About The Author
