The Time Has Come to Close Whiteman Airport

On Nov. 12, 2020, a single engine personal aircraft crash landed on Sutter Street in Pacoima, just 50 yards from the Whiteman Airport runaway destroying two cars, damaging three homes and killing the pilot. Fortunately, no one was killed on the ground.

This tragedy was one death in a long line of deaths and injuries suffered at an airport that by its owner’s own admission is “substandard” and whose runways do not meet Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

The owner of this outdated urban airport is LA county. 

To the credit of the area representative, LA City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez immediately called for the closure of a 75-year-old municipal airport that serves 600 private individuals and provides no ascertainable benefit to the local largely Latino community. Rodriguez went on further in her public statements and legislation to challenge all of us to think bigger and see the airport as an opportunity to bring equity, environmental justice, economic investment, and housing to Pacoima.

Concurrently, the economic justice organization of the San Fernando Valley, Pacoima Beautiful, reiterated its decades-long opposition to Whiteman Airport, called for its closure and assisted the residents and those impacted by the latest in a long line of tragedies.

Whiteman Airport occupies 187 acres or over eight million square feet of land surrounded by residential and industrial uses in Pacoima. It is the most developable piece of property in the San Fernando Valley.

With easy access by bus, freeway, train, and bicycle, the Whiteman Airport land could be a beating heart for Pacoima residents to live, work, exercise, and enjoy their community. Instead, for nearly 80 years private planes have passed over these Angelenos, dusting them with toxic air and pollution and reminding them that this airport is not for them.

A community driven re-imagining process could create open space, educational and recreational opportunities, and light industry supporting future thinking jobs, workforce housing and relevant retail space. Developing just one quarter of this space with industrial and commercial space would generate upwards of three thousand jobs.

A similar amount of space used for residential space could create over 1,000 homes for families.

Of course, any development would need to be preceded by  soils and air testing in order to really understand the toxic impact this airport use has had on Pacoima. After 75 years in operation, the combination of airplane fuels and oils will necessitate significant study and potentially major remediation. 

There are defenders of the airport. The county has said there is a need for Whiteman Airport, even though by their own admission, there are no plans for improvement to the substandard landing conditions for the next five years. On the other hand, there are two other airports in the vicinity of Whiteman: Van Nuys and Hollywood/ Burbank, as well as others north in Palmdale, and south at El Monte and Hawthorne.

In this time of an unprecedented discussion about equity and social justice in our country, isn’t it time we all rethink what it means to live in a “liveable city”? And how does an airport that serves 600 non resident plane owners contribute to the livability of Pacoima?

After all, there is precedent for closing down a municipal airport in LA county.  The Santa Monica Airport will close at the end of 2028, following years of negotiations between city and county leaders. Surely the same case that was made for the closure of that facility in that affluent, largely Anglo, beach city can be made here in the mainly Latino community of Pacoima to shutdown Whiteman Airport.

Dr. Benitez is president of Initiating Change in Our Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation.

(1) comment


The article is riddled with mistakes, unproven claims and outright falsehoods, among them:

• Despite the article’s claims, the November crash aircraft was NOT a personal aircraft: it belonged to the Civil Air Patrol--an auxiliary of the US Air Force--commonly involved with such public welfare work as search and rescue missions

• No sources are given for the claimed admissions of “substandard” conditions (quoted persons' names?)

• No sources are given for the claims of federal regulatory failures (what regulations?)

• Despite the article’s claims, the community tangibly benefits from the airport routinely--this is most visible during fire season as the airport serves as a base for protective efforts of the local community against nearby fires

When one reads through the article, the actual motives of its writers become clear:

“see the airport as an opportunity”

“It is the most developable piece of property in the San Fernando Valley”

“Developing just one quarter of this space with industrial and commercial space would generate upwards of three thousand jobs”

As the article itself mentions, the group Pacoima Beautiful has railed against the airport for years--its outrage over the recent tragic accident is not organic. They only care to speak about this matter and portray outrage because it fits their agenda. (Reviewing their stances over the past few weeks on this topic, I found it intriguing to note just how closely the stances of PB and local developers intermeshed on this issue.) By all appearances, Pacoima Beautiful seems to be a front for local special interest groups.

Overall, this article is just a hit piece with a lot of nonsense and fake claims made up against the airport. Based on the article’s own comments, it appears to have been written up by developers. By encouraging locals’ resources like the airport be seen “as an opportunity,” it is obvious their agenda has nothing to do with what is right for the community.

This article can be fairly described as fake news--it’s just a propaganda piece for real estate developers.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.