by Paul R. Spitzzeri
With the Los Angeles City Council, in spring 1928, identifying three desirable sites for municipal airports—these being Mines Field, southwest of the city, Sesnon in the San Fernando Valley near modern Northridge and the existing Vail Field in Montebello/City of Commerce, just southeast of downtown—a $6 million bond issue was scheduled for a vote on 1 May along with primaries for presidential candidates ahead of the fall general election.
Mines Field, named for the realtor, William W. Mines, who represented owner J.P. Martin in negotiations with the city, was also being touted, in competition with other locales, as a host site for a national air races meet in September and the 22 April edition of the Los Angeles Times reported that the California Air Race Association chose it with the event such that it was expected to “focus the eyes of the aviation world on Los Angeles for a period of nine days” while “every nationally known birdman will be here, as will the manufacturing heads of the rapidly growing aircraft industry.”
The next day’s number of the paper, always at the forefront when it came to promoting greater Los Angeles and its economic opportunities and possibilities, ran an article under the title of “DRIVE FOR BOND ISSUE GROWING,” and which began with “speeches before many civic organizations and radio talks by prominent citizens will be the outstanding features this week of the campaign.” A citizens’ committee worked on plans for that last week or so and Municipal Court Judge William S. Baird was quoted in support as saying,
I cannot conceive of any project of more vital importance to the future prosperity and glory of Los Angeles than the establishment of adequate municipal airport facilities . . .
One has but to review the progress the automobile industry has made to gain an idea of what aviation, and its accompanying factor of manufacturing, will mean to this city if properly encouraged . . .
Los Angeles can do the same [as Detroit with cars] with the airplane industry. This city has been declared by aeronautical experts as an ideal spot for aviation experiments. Is it not logical that this city will gain as much in world renown and material benefits as Detroit from the automobile?
The Times recorded that endorsements of the bond issue were received from the Los Angeles and Hollywood chambers of commerce and organizations in the San Fernando Valley, including from the chamber in Zelzah, now Northridge. City Council President William Bonelli, meanwhile, noted that the three selected sites would specialize in defined aviation purposes, with Vail handling express, mail and passenger service, Mines on “coast-plane traffic,” dirigibles and aviation businesses, including manufacturing, and Sesnon for pilot training, plane service from northern California and future growth in regional aviation.
The following day’s edition provided a cartoon proclaiming “Next Stop Los Angeles!” as readers were urged to vote for the issue and planes were shown in the sky and on the ground at what appeared to be a rendering of the three proposed airports side by side and near the recently opened City Hall. In its issue, also from the 24th, the Van Nuys News, in a community that would launch its own airport at the end of the year, remarked that proponents latched onto a proclamation by Angel City Mayor George E. Cryer, in which he remarked,
While the approval will mean the issuing of $6,000,000 in municipal airport bonds the amount is not so great when it is known that the actual cost for each taxpayer is actually very little [42 cents annually for a home valued at $5,000] . . .
Airports pay for themselves the same as any other business. This is done by making monthly, or annual rental charges [at hangars] . . .
Los Angeles by reason of its climate is the motion picture capital of the world. It can be the aviation capital of the world . . .
The development of aviation means more to Los Angeles than any other city in the United States [in linking it to disparate areas of the western portion of the country]. . . It will develop Los Angeles commercially . . .
Los Angeles must be equipped to take care of this new industry. It can become the greatest air terminus of the United States. A few years ago the city became sea-minded and built a great world-port, so today it must turn its gaze skyward and become air-minded. It must provide for the future, and that future is written in the sky.
The Times of the 27th highlighted further support for the bond issue, asserting that “a deluge of indorsement, emanating from hundreds of citizens and civic organizations, is pouring in on the Los Angeles airport committee sponsoring the campaign” and this “exceeds expectations and indicates that public interest is greater than on any previous issue in the city’s history.” An official told the paper “the unsolicited indorsements . . . indicate that the citizens of Los Angeles are awake to their opportunity to establish adequate flying fields.”
Within the last day, the prominent Downtown Business Men’s Association offered its support, which, in its resolutions, observed that “the rapid development of commercial aviation demands immediate provisions of airports for Los Angeles to secure her eminence in commerce and industry warranted by her location, her climatic conditions and progressive spirit.” Growth in property values, it was added, was dependent on the city’s remaining in the “van of progress” and not having satisfactory facilities “would jeopardize her leadership position and inevitably react [negatively” on the value of all real estate.”
Given that airports should, the Association continued, be publicly owned and good locations were available at decent cost and that these facilities were an “active stimulus” that were not just self-sustaining, but also drivers of revenue, the group was pleased to endorse the bond issue, while it was added that the Italian Chamber of Commerce joined in the effort to promote a positive result for the campaign.
The Record of the 28th reported that 100 members of the National Aeronautical and Professional Pilots’ associations gathered for a dinner at the Ambassador Hotel the prior evening “and had a heart-to-heart talk” about the bond issue, after which “they pledged themselves to support” the campaign, as well as support the national air races at Mines. City Council member Peirson M. Hall, who served from 1925 to 1929 and was a Superior Court judge and then served at the federal level for nearly four decades and who was a key supporter of the Mines site, exhorted the assemblage,
It was upon the insistence of aviators and citizens with vision that the council brought forward the proposition, but I want to tell you that the thing won’t ride through without continued help. It isn’t as easy as that and, though we are as convinced that airports are as necessary to Los Angeles’ future as a harbor or railroad station, not all Los Angeles people, who pay assessments, believe that now.
Efforts by the city Traffic Commission were also highlighted in the Times of the 29th as it was remarked that the trio of sites “will be made more accessible to the center of the city” through the major traffic street plan developed in 1924. For Vail field, this meant better access from what became Olympic Boulevard east of downtown, while work, with respect to Sesnon, efforts with San Fernando Road into the eastern part of the valley was emphasized.
Concerning Mines Field, the main impetus was the widening of Slauson Avenue from Figueroa Street to Hillcrest Drive in the Hyde Park neighborhood, with it expected that this would be done east to Central Avenue. Other work to be undertaken on Manchester Boulevard, Florence Avenue and Angeles Mesa Drive, now Crenshaw Boulevard, as well as an extension of La Brea Avenue south through the Baldwin Hills was cited as essential to improving access.
Under the heading of “AIR BONDS GIVEN WIDE APPROVAL,” the paper recorded that “approximately fifty leading civic and business organizations have formally indorsed the proposed bond issue and committee member Guernsey Fraser was cited as remarking that “Los Angeles is rapidly realizing that this should be the aviation center of America and the impetus to this goal is the acquisition of adequate and well-equipped airports.” A report on a committee-conducted survey was said to reveal that,
Los Angeles’ metropolitan district has one of the heaviest investments in aviation industries in this country, and despite the adverse conditions under which aviation has been progressing here, last year it showed an increase in business of well over 150 per cent . . . the fields can be made paying enterprises within [a] comparatively short time [through at least ten sources of revenue] on funding the bonds from each of the airports: hangar rental, passenger tax, repair service, servicing of planes, gasolines, concessions, leases of showrooms for airplane agencies, manufacturers, etc.
Notably, the committee sought to allay the “fear that dissatisfaction and lack of confidence of many citizens with the present city administration” might play in the election by informing readers that airports were under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Commerce as Fraser commented, “we want those who haven’t confidence” in the municipality “that the United States government has more to say about the method of operation, inspection of fields, approval of equipment, etc., than the local government.”
The Times also remarked that a trio of airplane builders (International, Mahoney and Shearman) left the area for other parts of the country because of poor conditions locally and it added that the German Fokker company would open a plant if the bonds were approved—this previously said about Goodyear Tire and Rubber’s dirigible division and the Ford automobile company’s plane subsidiary. The paper continued that “if the Pacific Coast is made the object of a hostile attack,” having these three airports was considered crucial for defense, as reserve pilots, mechanics and equipment could be quickly mobilized as auxiliaries to the Army and Navy.
With it noted that supporters included some “of the most successful and practical business institutions of the city” who favored the bond issue as “an economic and industrial enterprise that rapidly is becoming a necessity to modern business,” the piece closed with,
During the past year Los Angeles has made more rapid strides in aviation than any section of the country, and where timidity formerly held sway over a majority of people where airplane traveling was concerned, those who now look upon air travel as impractical are in the minority.
On the eve of the election, the Venice Vanguard, from the recently annexed (1926) area not far north of mines, produced an editorial, “Vote for the Airport Bonds,” in which it averred that arguments for passage were so numerous “that it will be strange indeed if they do not carry by an overwhelming majority.” It added that “Los Angeles is essentially a city of enterprise” with the remark that “it is the spirit of progress and opportunity that has spun the very texture of the metropolitan vestments in a loom that is threaded with sunshine and gold.”
The piece further reflected that “this is the psychological moment to muster the strength” for support and it identified the airport industry with the film industry as key to the city’s future and it tied in oil and tourism, as well. It cited the growth of aeronautics in recent years and noted that “in considering the issue of tomorrow the fate of a very great opportunity will lie in the hands of the voters” and went into some detail about the factories that were sure to develop in the aftermath of a successful outcome on election day.
The editorial echoed the vital aspect of the climate for the growth of aviation in greater Los Angeles and concerning the immediate area, the Vanguard posited that,
The benefits of the Mines field, close to the high class residential property developing in the Del Rey hills, becomes a very real benefit as an adjunct of modern travel facilities for people of means. As the traffic develops, the cost to the passenger will decline . . .
The promise of a yacht harbor [at Marina del Rey] . . . adds another element of the desirability of suitable airport facilities in the same general location. Yacht owning people are air riding people. The development of high class residential properties, about the university areas [where Loyola Marymount is now] in the Del Rey section, between an airport and a yacht harbor, marks this section for the ultra modern progress that it deserves.
A vote for the airport bond issues tomorrow will support this ambition.
When, however, the voters were cast and tallied, there was a narrow majority of just 225 more yes votes than naysayers, with 101,157 of the former to 100,932 of the latter, but a two-thirds majority, a high bar to hurdle to be sure, was required for passage. The Times offered its perspective that “the even division . . . indicates an honest difference of opinion,” but that the outcome “may be accepted as an unmistakable and a definite expression of lack of confidence in the municipal administration.”
The paper remarked that “this community is located ideally for the fullest expansion of every branch of air transportation” and “progress already made in airplane manufacture and design and in air navigation has placed Los Angeles and Southern California among the leading aviation centers of the world.” It considered, then, that the failure of the approval of the bonds “is merely a temporary obstacle,” but with the caveat that “when convinced that capable and disinterested public officials have the undertaking in charge, the people will approve the necessary expenditures.”
As for the feeling of the City Council, the Los Angeles Express of the same day reported that “they were not discouraged by the defeat” as “the airports will likely be established on a lease basis, the rent to be paid from general funds.” Rather than believe it was a referendum on city government, council members asserted that the problem was “the voters were not sufficiently interested to get out and vote, each leaving the task to his neighbor.”
The Record offered its view on the day after the election with the title of “Now Let’s Get An Airport,” expressing the opinion that the measure failed “because it smacked too much of real estate,” but that voters “are perfectly willing to vote the necessary bonds,” but refused to do so if it meant buying land “at twice of what it’s worth.” There were four recommendations the paper presented, including that the council and Chamber of Commerce “kick out of their counsels all of the selfish gentry who are trying to unload vacant land at high prices in a dull year.”
It then felt that one site, despite what was said earlier by others about the wisdom of having multiple locations with focuses for each, was needed and that city leaders “force down the price . . . to a decent figure, squeezing out all of the excess financial enthusiasm of the particular local ‘patriots’ who have fingers in the pie.” Lastly, the Council was entreated to “put up to the people an honest, concrete, bedrock proposal” that the electorate could get behind because “this is not a year when the people will toss their money around carelessly,” but would, the paper believed, “vote, overwhelmingly, for an honest airport.”
Council member Hall told the Record in the same issue that.
Too many disheartening public improvement assessments in the last two years resulted in the refusal of the citizens to vote for the bonds. We must proceed more slowly, but the majority of the people in Los Angeles know the benefits the airports will bring the city. Citizens who have stood for progress and development will eventually establish Los Angeles in the aviation world.
The title of the article was “AIRPORT SITE MAY BE LEASED,” which is what transpired and it was one site. The Vail and Sesnon locations were not pursued and Mines became the municipal airport, with an ordinance passed in early August and approved by the Council on a 10-2 vote. Bonelli held out for a time, apparently supporting the Vail site, but, after a couple of weeks and, as acting mayor, signed the ordinance. The lease took effect after the conclusion of the air races and was continued for a decade with an option to buy.
The first hangar was constructed in 1929 and leased to the Curtiss-Wright company for a flight school, while an official dedication was held on 7 June 1930. Though the Great Depression was underway, aviation manufacturers built around Mines Field, this ramping up during World War II and the Cold War period. In 1937, the city acquired the land as a precursor to apply for federal funds and, four years later, the name was changed to Los Angeles Airport.
A 1944 master plan was followed by improvements for passenger service, the building of a restaurant and airport department headquarters. Commercial operations were transferred in 1946 from Burbank Airport and the Grand Central Air Terminal in Glendale and, three years later, the current name of Los Angeles International Airport was adopted. Another decade brought the jet age as American Airlines began 707 service to and from New York City, while 1961 marked the opening of the Central Terminal Area, including the famous Theme Building.
For more, check out the great information on the website of the Flight Path Museum and Learning Center, the institution visited on Saturday and which inspired this post. The featured photo here is from the Museum’s collection and shows Mines Field in 1929 during an event.
As noted in this post, reviewing the rise of Detroit’s automobile industry could help understand how tremendous benefits Los Angeles would gain by aggressively developing its aviation industry.
When civic leaders in the late 1920s made this analogy, it was entirely justified. Detroit was then at the peak of its prosperity, with its population surpassing 1.5 million and a vast middle class emerging as a result of well-paying jobs being well protected by unions in the automobile industry.
As we all know, however, in recent decades Detroit has not merely struggled, it has collapsed. It was the automobile industry that transformed Detroit into one of the wealthiest cities in the world. Yet it was also the automobile industry that, after two of the Big Three automakers – General Motors and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in 2009 during the financial crisis, led to Detroit’s own bankruptcy in 2013.
Hi Larry, these are good points and, as the Cold War declined, the local aerospace/defense industry did so, having widespread effects (in this regard, one might look at Pomona as a smaller analog to Detroit?), but the economic diversity here, as opposed to the Michigan metropolis, of course, is what separated Los Angeles from Detroit. Recently, however, aerospace has seen a revival, so it’ll be interesting to see where this goes.