"Elitist...selfish...stupid" and Begging to Differ

August 10, 2001

Dear Editor,

Frank Gruber says in his Lookout column ("Free Recipe with this Column," August 8), "On the other hand, the traffic-calmer in me likes preferential parking, because I know that the availability of parking affects how much people drive. Restrictions on parking make people drive less."

It also prevents people from participating in the governing process and enjoying the amenities the City has to offer. Worrying about whether you are going to find a parking spot within five blocks of your home after a City Council or Planning Commission meeting is a great deterrent against participating in various City functions or even going downtown for dinner and a movie.

In addition, it is discriminatory. People living in single family homes or condos with driveways and garages can "participate" 'til their hearts content while those of us living in apartments stay home and watch TV. It is the reason why a very large majority of our citizens are not involved in the process or are even knowledgeable about what goes on in town while residents such as Frank Gruber can and do "fully participate" at will.

But that's OK. Frank is happy. "Restrictions on parking make people drive less." How elitist. How selfish. How stupid.

Bill Bauer
Santa Monica

August 9, 2001

Dear Editor,

As a volunteer who is opposed to the Hotel Owner's attempt to repeal Santa Monica's historic living wage, it caught my eye that you state in your article that this historic living wage law covers "businesses with no direct ties to the City."

I beg to differ. This historic living wage law will say to businesses that have lobbied, supported, and asked for "special business zones," and tax-exempt municipal bonds to bankroll improvements like the Third Street Promenade for their business's expansion to also give something to the workers in those businesses. Our living-wage law states that this "direct subsidy" gives us the right to say too, that the workers, and not just owners, will benefit from this government support.

Please don't sign the hotel owners' anti-living wage petition -- or fall for the Chamber of Commerce's specious argument that the millions that this city has spent to promote these business and to protect them -- isn't a "direct tie" between business and government. It's the most "direct" tie these big hotels want: money, protection, and corporate welfare for their owners -- while denying decent wages for these Santa Monica workers.

Sincerely,
David Busch

August 1, 2001

Dear Editor,

As a long-time resident of Santa Monica, I strongly oppose the changes in the City election process being proposed by VERITAS. While no government structure or process is perfect, it is every community¹s duty to design, implement and secure the model which best reflects its own needs, will and character.

In a city as small and diverse as Santa Monica this means: holding elections in a straight-forward and timely manner to maximize voter turn-out; maintaining structures which compel each of us to think not only about our own priorities and needs, but also those of our neighbors; adhering to a model of leadership that maintains balance of power among elected representatives; and limiting the impact of "deep pockets" funding on election results. VERITAS would, in my opinion, undermine all of these by institutionalizing fragmentation and partisanship.

People are most election-conscious in November -­ not in the Spring -- and therefore most likely to participate at that time. Santa Monica will have truly representative government only if each voter has the opportunity to assess, respond to and hold accountable all candidates rather than one, each of us through our own eyes and experience. This same collective wisdom, allowed to determine how long a person in office should serve, ensures a natural weeding-out based on shifts in community priorities rather than arbitrary term limits.

Finally, the current process of selecting a mayor ensures a balance of power which would be compromised if an elected mayor were heavily indebted to one particular neighborhood or constituency. Our best mayors, while clearly holding true to their particular beliefs, have been superb communicators and bridge-builders. Let¹s keep it that way.

While I don¹t always rejoice at each new face or particular vote on the Council dais, it is right that other voices than mine are being heard. Those in the community who do not feel their views are adequately represented, whoever they are, should work toward increasing voter participation, improving access to information and enhancing opportunities for meaningful dialogue on critical issues.

The democratic process, and that is what we currently practice in Santa Monica, is noisy, messy and goes on far too late into the night to please any of us all of the time. But it is democratic and VERITAS as I understand it would severely hog-tie the Council's ability to arrive at decisions which best reflect the will of our diverse citizenry. I encourage people NOT to support any initiative, this time called VERITAS, that threatens to muffle certain voices while lending extra volume to others.

Sincerely,

Katherine K. McTaggart
Santa Monica