Several California municipalities have been involved in legal battles over governing air traffic lately. We've mentioned Santa Monica where the city is trying to ban jets of certain sizes and has been repeatedly told it doesn't have the right to impose such restrictions. California's Solano County recently tried to tax the charitable actions of a US hero as business.

None of these battles are over yet and more are brewing. The thing is, the government keeps siding with aviation and against local governments. You'd think that they'd get the idea.

The newest conflict is centered around Burbank's Bob Hope Airport. The city of Burbank recently asked the FAA to approve a nighttime curfew at the airport from 10:00 pm to 6:59 am. The LA Times reports that after thoroughly evaluating the issue, the FAA rejected the proposal, continuing to guarantee the freedom of air traffic in the area.

The city provided research claiming that their ban on nighttime flights would generate $67 million in benefits for local citizens as opposed to $48 million in costs to aircraft operators and passengers (those passengers being the same people who claim the benefits already mentioned.) In spite of this, the FAA ruled that "...it is not likely the benefits will outweigh the costs to users." The bottom line is that, our nation relies on air transportation and a city whose airport receives federal funding doesn't have the right to deny use of that airport.

The Times quotes Joyce Streator, president of the Burbank airport commission, as saying, "We are disappointed, but we have not given up the fight." The funny thing is that I believe her. In fact, she probably isn't the first one to have made such a statement since this exact fight has been going on for nearly 40 years.

It turns out that the city of Burbank tried to impose a very similar curfew on nighttime air traffic back in 1970. I found an archived copy of FLIGHT International at flightglobal.com that relates the story. The FAA gave the exact same response back then that it gave today and the case was eventually elevated to the US Supreme Court in 1973. In a landmark decision, the Court sided with the FAA and the need for freedom of air traffic.

It seems that the old adage, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it," applies to the city of Burbank. They fought and lost this fight because they have no legal authority whatsoever to impose the types of restrictions they want. I fully expect that they will lose it again this time. Maybe it's cynical of me, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear about them losing the fight a third time somewhere around 2050 or so.

The saddest part of this story is that the people of Burbank didn't learn enough from their first loss to prevent future problems. If noise was a concern for them 40 years ago, why did they continue building and occupying homes in the noise corridor for so long? Why not think before moving into that area and selecting somewhere else with less noise? 40 years is more than enough time for a responsible city council to help guide people to put commercial and industrial interests in the areas where high noise is an issue. It's also enough time to implement ordinances requiring soundproofing of buildings in that area too. The people of Burbank had 40 years get the message and help themselves. Even after all that time, it appears they couldn't figure things out.

In an update to a related story, the AOPA is trying to be named a "friend of the court" in the city of Santa Monica's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals over their desired (and overturned) ban on certain types of jets. The AOPA wants to be able to ensure that the court understands how the federal airport grant program works and the responsibilities that go along with accepting that taxpayer money.

The story in Santa Monica is very similar to that in Burbank. People convinced themselves that it was a good idea to build houses right next to an airport and then tried to impose restrictions on air traffic at that airport after they realized what a stupid decision they'd made. As with Burbank, the city of Santa Monica has been overruled more than once. I don't expect their appeals to do anything more than waste their taxpayers' money, but I suppose that's their prerogative.

Will these California cities ever pick up on the hints that are being repeatedly given to them? Mostly I doubt it, but we can always hope can't we?

Picture via LA Times