Fines Bog Down in Violations of Curfew at Van Nuys Airport

The city of Los Angeles has failed to collect fines from more than a quarter of the jet owners who have violated the Van Nuys Airport curfew, according to city records obtained by The Times. A cumbersome system for collecting fines is a key reason.

Of the 60 violations logged by the city since it passed the Van Nuys Airport curfew ordinance in 1981, 16 cases, or 27%, are still pending and have been for an average of 16 months. In 32 cases, or 53%, the violators paid fines, taking an average of 14 months to do so.

City documents also show that the city has failed to revoke the airport privileges of a jet owner who allegedly violated the curfew 11 times in the past three years, even though city law calls for such violators to be banned from the airport after three violations.

The records raise questions of how aggressively the city has enforced the curfew, established by the City Council, which prohibits the noisiest jets from taking off from the airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The penalty is a fine of $750 to $3,500.

Neighbors have complained for years about helicopter and airplane noise generated by the airport. Word of the city’s delays in enforcing the curfew is likely to increase friction between nearby residents and the city, which wants to expand the airport.

Assistant City Atty. Breton Lobner, who wrote the ordinance and now supervises city lawyers who enforce the law, said he believes the city has “done an admirable job” of enforcing the curfew.

But anti-noise activist Gerald A. Silver criticized the city’s enforcement as weak. “I think it’s outrageous that any of these cases took that long,” he said.

By comparison, the city of Santa Monica takes only one to two months to collect fines from jet owners who violate Santa Monica Airport’s curfew, according to airport director Jeff Mathieu. However, fines in Santa Monica--ranging from $100 to $500--are much lower than in Los Angeles.

In addition to higher fines, collection delays in Los Angeles are also attributed partly to the city’s procedure, until last September, of filing a lawsuit against every jet owner who violated the curfew--even those who wanted to pay the penalties.

Jet owners had to appear in court--a process that took from a month to several years, in contested cases--before the city could collect a fine. Last September, the city attorney’s office streamlined the process so that jet owners could sign a statement admitting wrongdoing rather than go to court, sharply cutting the time it takes to collect fines, city attorneys said.

Lobner said that in the past, the city had to file a lawsuit first, rather than sending a letter requesting payment, because the request could have been understood as a threat to sue unless the money was paid--which could make the city subject to charges of extortion, he said.

The city continues, however, to require alleged violators to meet personally with city attorneys before attempting to collect a fine.

*

In contrast, Santa Monica simply sends a letter notifying jet owners of the date and time of their violation and requesting payment. In most cases, jet owners pay promptly because they do not want to have their airport privileges revoked, according to Santa Monica Deputy City Atty. Eriko Matsumoto. If the alleged violator feels a fine is unwarranted, he or she may request a hearing.

Santa Monica Airport, like Van Nuys Airport, is a general aviation airport. However, Santa Monica has an air traffic volume of 193,000 flights per year, less than 40% of the number of takeoffs and landings at Van Nuys--the busiest general aviation airport in the world with 526,000 annual flights.

Another reason that the Los Angeles cases have taken so long was because some jet owners resisted. In other cases--including one involving a plane owned by tennis star Andre Agassi--the city refused to accept payment until it had set up its new system, a process that took more than two years.

Since 1981, the city has recorded 60 violations of the curfew and collected fines on 32 offenses or 53%. Of the remaining 28, 16 or 27% are pending and 12 or 20% were closed because they were deemed too difficult to prosecute, the offenders could not be located, or for unspecified reasons.

Los Angeles has yet to collect fines from Jet West, which the city alleges has violated the curfew 11 times since April 20, 1993.

As of Tuesday, it has also failed to prohibit Jet West from using the airport, even though by April 1994 the company had allegedly violated the curfew three times, according to city records.

Deputy City Atty. Lynn Mayo said that the city did not cut off the company’s airport privileges because it wasn’t sure in 1993 whether the incidents were actual violations. For example, they could have been medical flights and thus exempt from the curfew.

Mayo, who is handling the Jet West case, added that the city still intends to revoke airport privileges for the aircraft, pilot and others responsible in the case.

The Federal Aviation Administration has general authority to regulate the nation’s commercial air carriers and general aviation craft, but gives local governments leeway to set curfews such as the ones imposed by Los Angeles and Santa Monica.

“Airport proprietors have the authority to set curfews,” said FAA spokeswoman Carol Long on Tuesday. “As long as the city’s curfew is reasonable and does not unduly interfere with the flow of air traffic, then the FAA leaves it alone. It’s their call.”