Hundreds of people filled the Assembly Area of the Campus Center at Los Angeles Mission College last week, eager to hear more about the findings from the years-long study examining the future of Whiteman Airport.
Among them was Maria Arzola, a resident of Pacoima who’s in favor of closing the airport. Living near the facility, she knows the concerns residents have raised regarding safety and the environment.
Whiteman has created plenty of controversy over the years because of airplane crashes near the airport; two of them took place earlier this year.
On April 20, a Cessna 172 aircraft struck a power pole while en route to the airport, knocking down power lines and leaving the plane overturned in the parking lot of an auto parts store. The second was on June 17, when a plane landed on the airport’s runway, but when the landing gear didn’t deploy properly, the aircraft crashed through the perimeter fence before coming to a stop.
The airport has faced calls to shut down operations, both from elected officials, including LA County Board of Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Imelda Padilla, and organizations like Pacoima Beautiful.
In 2024, the county voted to move forward with a taxpayer-funded study, costing approximately $2.1 million, focused on closing the airport. The findings from that study were presented on Oct. 28 to Arzola and many other community members.
The county’s consultants presented three possible scenarios for Whiteman.
The first two would see the airport continue its operations. Scenario 1 has minimal change, where old hangars are renovated and newer ones are added in a process that would last around five years. Scenario 2 is similar, but adds non-aeronautical land development and improvements to aviation activities.
The second option is projected to generate a financial return, providing approximately 2,000 jobs, though the process would take 10 years.
On the other hand, the third scenario would close Whiteman and have the land redeveloped for other uses, including housing, office space and commercial use. However, consultants reminded the audience that closing an airport requires approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which, by their estimates, would take until 2050.
Even then, according to the study, redeveloping the land for other uses would cost LA County approximately $3.5 billion, and it would take up to 40 years to realize potential revenues. However, this option would provide approximately 12,000 jobs at full buildout around 2075.
At the end of the night, after hearing the findings, one major point that still stood out to Arzola was the incredibly long time it would take to close Whiteman and redevelop the space.
“But at the same time, I think we need to stop looking at immediate turnarounds and think about the future because there’s only one way forward,” Arzola said. “I’m more in support of doing something better with the land. Obviously, it would take the longest [time], but it also would be the best option in the long term, in my opinion.”
She also had issues with the methodology of the study, as the county consultants said that they didn’t have the time to do an environmental analysis for scenarios 1 or 2.
“I feel like they’re not really talking about the effects of pollution on the environment and residents,” Arzola continued. “They’re all just talking about money, what it’s going to cost and what it’s going to bring in. They’re not talking about safety and health concerns as much.”
Although some, like Arzola, are in favor of Whiteman closing, there were plenty of others in support of keeping the airport operational, some of whom wore “I love Whiteman” pins on their shirts.
At one point in the presentation, the consultants said that among the county’s five general aviation airports, Whiteman was the only profitable one, which earned some applause from the audience.
Matthew Stone, a pilot who uses Whiteman and a vocal advocate, was also present at the meeting. When looking at the third scenario, he likened it to “selling your car for gas money.” He added that the redevelopments would not be financially viable and would take decades to come to fruition.
“It’s patently ludicrous as far as public safety and infrastructure goes, and it’s just not something that anyone really should take seriously as an option going forward,” Stone said. “It’s very obvious that Whiteman needs to stay open, operational and functional for Angelenos.”
That being said, though, Stone acknowledged that keeping the status quo is not good and safety improvements need to be made at Whiteman. He did point out, however, that the county, particularly Horvath, froze federal funding for the airport that would have otherwise gone toward those improvements.
“We should be taking the federal monies because … there’s a whole long list [of improvements] that have been proposed in the last 15 years that anti-airport folks opposed,” Stone said. “If the county got behind the airport and off the closure bandwagon, the county could begin backing youth program efforts and educational things of that nature.”