The Battle Over Hawthorne Airport

In the South Bay city of Hawthorne, local elections can get downright nasty, but they seldom draw much interest beyond city boundaries. This time, however, the arguments extend through Southern California and reach even into federal offices in Washington.

An advisory measure on the Nov. 6 ballot asks voters to weigh in on the future of the city’s historic but underused airport, located on 80 acres of prime property alongside the Century Freeway and about two miles east of Los Angeles International Airport.

Measure A, as it is known, has pitted aviation interests, who see the Hawthorne Municipal Airport as a vital cog in the region’s--even the nation’s--air transportation system, against Los Angeles developers. The builders are seeking to replace the airport with a “family friendly” open-air center of stores, restaurants and a hotel they promise will generate millions of tax dollars for public safety and schools.

Each side accuses the other of promoting outside interests and distorting the facts, including how the small airport fits into the post-Sept. 11 climate and whether closing it would lead to LAX-bound jumbo jets thundering over Hawthorne skies.

Hawthorne Airport is “our proudest and most precious asset. Don’t let these out-of-town developers take it away,” Councilwoman Ginny McGinnis Lambert recently implored voters in an emotional letter.

But Daniel Weinstein, one of two principals in Paladin Partners, the Los Angeles-based firm that wants to redevelop the airport land, countered: “Our opponents represent the old guard, and a few pilots who don’t even live in Hawthorne, not the whole city of more than 80,000 people.” He added, “They have made no positive arguments for keeping the airport.”

Even the wording of the ballot measure has caused controversy, with airport supporters charging it is an unfair pitch for closing the nearly 60-year-old facility. Placed on the ballot by a 3-2 vote of the City Council, it reads, “Shall the city be directed to pursue the reuse of the property currently operated by the city as an airport to generate additional revenues, to improve education, police and other community services, to diversify the economic base, and to create jobs for the residents of the city?”

The battle over the ballot measure dominates debate in the campaign to fill two seats on the City Council. Four of the candidates support the development proposal. The other two candidates want to keep the airport open.

At issue is the future of an airport that had its origins when the city promised aviation pioneer John Knudsen Northrop an airstrip if he would locate his aircraft-manufacturing factory in town. In 1942, the new airport was turned over to the city to operate as a general-aviation facility, and in 1960 the federal government deeded its 20-acre share of the site to the city on condition the property remain an airport.

Today, the airport, which has a mile-long concrete runway and a control tower, is home to flying clubs, a flight school, an aviation maintenance and fuel facility, and some charter plane and helicopter services. A small museum recalls Hawthorne’s place in aviation history, and a coffee shop beside the runway provides charter flight passengers and other visitors a place to grab a sandwich.

An Alternative to LAX for Smaller Airplanes

The Federal Aviation Administration has designated Hawthorne a reliever airport to accommodate smaller planes that might otherwise use LAX. Dignitaries sometimes arrive at Hawthorne as a more convenient alternative to landing at its big, crowded neighbor. It serves as a base for police, fire and other emergency missions. The National Air Transportation Assn., a business lobby, includes Hawthorne on its list of “America’s 100 Most Needed Airports.”

The airport manager has said the facility yields $150,000 to $200,000 for the city annually. The developers promise that their complex would bring at least 2,000 permanent jobs and almost $4 million in tax revenues to pay for more police, fire and other municipal services. They say they would keep and upgrade the museum and add a police substation there.

“The way I look at it, the airport is not really doing much for the city. It’s mainly a playground for a few people,” said Francisco Medina, a Hawthorne resident and a carpenters union official, who says he and his neighbors want to shop and dine in town and not spend their money in other cities.

“Older people think the airport is a landmark and we shouldn’t mess with it, but the younger people want to see something there that will help the whole city,” Medina said.

But airport supporters, who doubt developers can fulfill their promises, say the community benefits from the facility in several ways, and could significantly boost revenues by improving it and encouraging airport-related businesses to locate there.

“We could have the best of both worlds, an airport and more city revenues--those two are certainly not mutually exclusive,” said Chris Miller, who owns Security Aviation, which operates an airplane maintenance, fueling, tie-down and rental business at the airport.

Saying the airport land should be used only to benefit Hawthorne residents would be like arguing that California’s beaches should be available only to those who live along the ocean, Miller added.

Earlier Plan to Build Football Stadium Cited

Airport supporters, calling themselves the Committee to Protect Hawthorne Homes/Save Hawthorne Airport, have cited an earlier Paladin idea, floated in a letter to the city, to build a football stadium on the airport site and adjoining land, demolishing a tract of homes to the north that could be seized through the city’s power of eminent domain. They say this is evidence that the developers have something more grandiose--and disruptive--in mind.

Weinstein, however, said the commercial center, proposed for the airport site only, “is the project we want to build.”

In addition, airport supporters--including a test pilot who sits on a regional airspace board--have said repeatedly that if the facility closes, its airspace, which is now reserved for small planes, would be gobbled up for the large, noisy jets streaming into LAX.

FAA spokesman Jerry Snyder, however, said that although the airspace would go to LAX, it could not be used by low-flying large planes except in emergencies.

“They couldn’t make the turn sharply enough. [The Hawthorne airspace] is not really something that . . . they would be able to utilize in any efficient manner,” Snyder said.

But other issues remain, including the question of whether the city could get out of its agreement--made to get federal airport-improvement grant money--to keep the airport open until at least 2011. The developers have begun discussions about whether the airport could be closed if the grants are paid back. Snyder said there is no precedent for granting such a request but the FAA would consider it.

The specter of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijacking and crashing of four jetliners also looms in this local contest:

“Today, with the threat of terrorism at major airports, we need Hawthorne Airport more than ever,” Measure A opponents say in campaign brochures.

Paladin’s Weinstein sees it differently. “People have to think long and hard whether what they want in their community is a general aviation airport with a flight school and questionable security just two miles from LAX,” he said, appearing to raise the issue of terrorists having taken flight lessons at small U.S. airports.

The pro-Measure A group, the Committee to Revitalize Hawthorne, is seeded with large cash contributions from commercial real estate investor Richard Ziman, Paladin’s other principal partner, and Upstream Partners, which shares a Los Angeles business address with Ziman. Ziman and Upstream contributed $230,000 of the $235,350 the group had collected by Sept. 22, the end of the latest campaign finance reporting period. They have been able to vastly outspend airport supporters, who had raised just $14,413.

Much of the pro-Measure A money has gone to mailers calling pilots and other airport users “selfish” and “outsiders.” One controversial mailer featured an official-looking letter to voters from County Assessor Rick Auerbach, who, based on information provided by a pro-development campaign consultant, urged support for Measure A. Airport supporters complained that Auerbach had abused his title. But Auerbach stood by his letter, saying that the pro-development campaign, not taxpayers, paid for both the stationery and the postage and that it was not a county document.

“In my opinion, what they are proposing is a better use of that land and would provide revenue and jobs for the city of Hawthorne,” Auerbach said.

Although airport supporters are well behind in cash contributions, they are hoping to sway opinions at an open house at the facility from noon to 3 p.m. Saturday, starting at Security Aviation, 3732 W. 120th St. It will feature a tour, “a couple of speeches,” and free hot dogs and soft drinks.

They got a $1,000 contribution from the California Pilots Assn. and are getting help with strategy--but so far, no money--from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assn., a national group that has lobbied in Washington to keep the airport open.