Dear Editor:

I read with great interest Jorge Casuso's September 7th article on SMRR's latest Robin Hood scheme to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Here is some advice to the noble and compassionate supporters of this disaster in the making:

If you want this ordinance to pass, find a new poster boy. Jose Natividad
Casillas makes about $6.50 per hour at his job as a dishwasher. He also
receives a government subsidized four bedroom apartment in downtown Santa Monica for $448 per month. According to Mr. Casuso's August 20th article on increasing rental rates in Santa Monica, the market rate for a three bedroom apartment ranges from $1,009 to $1,800 (there was no information on four bedroom units).

Assuming that that Mr. Casillas' apartment would fetch $1,600 in the free market (a conservative estimate based on the information in the August 20th article) he is receiving a subsidy of $1,152 per month from taxpayers. Assuming that Mr. Casillas works an average of 8 hours per day, 22 days per month, he is actually making closer to $13 per hour ($1,152 / 22 / 8 = $6.55, $6.50 + $6.55 = $13.05). This does not take into account food subsidies that Mr. Casillas claims to receive. With passage of the ordinance, his hourly pay would figure out to be around $17.00 per hour ($6.55 + 10.50 = $17.05), pretty good pay for a dishwasher.

According to the article Mr. Casillas has a wife and six children. The
proponents of the ordinance contend that the $10.50 per hour living wage was arrived at by calculating how much money a family of four would need to make to get off of food stamps. This is an interesting calculation as I am not aware of any country in the world that guarantees a man and woman any number of offspring. Mr. Casillas has a family of eight. Using the proponents own "logic", this ordinance would do nothing to get a family like Mr. Casillas' off of food stamps.

I feel bad for Mr. Casillas. To support a family of eight on $13.00 per hour would seem to me to be impossible. At the same time I do not feel
responsible for his family planning (or lack thereof). A reasonable person
might argue that having children that one cannot feed, clothe, and shelter is tantamount to criminal neglect. I am particularly interested in Green Party councilmembers Feinstein and McKeown's opinions on Mr. Casillas' situation. I am no expert, but I am quite sure that the Green Party does not endorse large, unsustainable families. I look forward to Feinstein's and McKeown's responses.

If Mr. Casillas quit his job tomorrow, his position would be easily filled at
the same hourly rate. That is the simple reason why his employers do not
pay him more than $6.50 per hour. Mr. Casillas' only hope of elevating his family's standard of living above what he describes as that of a "rich man" is to obtain skills that are valued more than that of a dishwasher.

I predict that the council will pass some form of this ordinance. I also
predict many lengthy and coslty lawsuits aimed at overturning it once it is
passed. Ultimately, an outside body such as a court or the legislature will
overturn it. At that point SMRR and other ordinance supporters will claim
that "greedy" outsiders foiled a noble attempt to redistribute wealth. Let's
just pray that it doesn't take the 20 years it took for apartment owners to
get some relief from oppressive rent control laws.