Going Nowhere & the Vehicularly Housed

April 29, 2001

Dear Editor,

It is Sunday afternoon about 4:30 p.m.

Appian Way is solid with cars from Pico to Seaside Terrace. The pier lot is full so two guys from Standard Parking have put up orange cones to prevent people from going to the pier. Seaside Terrace is closed (sewer construction). Hot-Dog-on a Stick lot is full. So people are sitting in their cars with no place to go.

I walked over and talked to the two guys from Standard Parking who were just standing there talking to each other ignoring the traffic. I asked them why they had closed the street.

"Lot's full."

I pointed out that nobody could move.

They said, "Well, people need to make a U turn and go back out."

I said, "Have you told anybody that?"

They said, "Well, people don't want to hear it."

I said, "I've been watching you for l0 minutes and you haven't done a single thing in relationship to this traffic. You haven't spoken to anybody, or signaled anybody."

At that point they moved the cones so people could proceed to the pier, even though the lot was full.

I called the police department and was told "We don't do traffic."

I reached Richard Bloom who said he would call the department.

There needed to be traffic control at Pico and Ocean to route people to the south lots instead of letting them sit in their cars to go nowhere.

I'm sure the people sitting in their cars on Appian Way will not have pleasant memories of this afternoon in Santa Monica.

Ellen Brennan

P.S. I can now add "Traffic Control" to my list of things the police don't do. I've been told by several watch commanders that they don't enforce the noise ordinance either.

Question: If the police don't control traffic or enforce the noise ordinance, who does? Or do we just not have those functions in Santa Monica?

April 30, 2001

Dear Editor,

I get a kick out of the letters The Lookout gets from SMRR sycophants. When they can't resort to intelligent discourse, they just hurl invectives, vilify those who they disagree with and show off their brilliant sense of reasoning.

Unfortunately, Linda Sullivan, (April 30, 2001, Letter to the Editor) just doesn't get it. Yes, we do need more laws on the books, especially when it comes to public health and safety. That's what the proposed vehicle camping amendment is all about.

Unfortunately, those, like Sullivan, opposed to the proposed amendment are trying to imply that "the Police (are) trying to drive out the poor and homeless." This is just not true and a terrible disservice to our Police Department and concerned citizens.

There are already restrictions against living in vehicles in most of the City's residential areas. The proposed vehicle camping amendment would add all the other zones -- including mixed use, commercial, industrial, light manufacturing and public parking lots and public properties not covered by present law.

The amendment allows the vehicle camping prohibition to be applied uniformly and consistently as has been requested by residents living in those neighborhoods not presently covered.

There are reasons why the City Council should approve this amendment and they have to do with appropriation of public property for private use and suitability of a vehicle without sewage, running water, gas or electricity as a place of habitation, among a list way too long to mention here.

Sullivan says, "They should be offered services, not ticketed." They are offered services and, for the most part, these services are refused. Many persons living in vehicles on our public streets are doing so as a lifestyle and to avoid paying the fees charged by regulation campgrounds.

Many of the vehicularly housed are "service-resistant" -- something which has been frustrating to the SMPD HLP Team and local social-service providers. But, I suspect that Sullivan already probably knows this and she really wrote her letter as a catty put-down of Donna Block, whose letter to the Lookout supporting the amendment Sullivan was responding to in the first place.

The vehicle camping amendment does not apply to private property, so if Linda Sullivan is so fond of the vehicularly housed, maybe she should post her address on The Lookout web site and offer her property up as a private campground. However I have a feeling she doesn't really want people living in vehicles in or around her home, either.

Bill Bauer
Santa Monica

April 30, 2001

Dear Editor,

This is in response to Linda Sullivan's misunderstanding and outright confusion of what the Santa Monica police department needs to do.

First I must correct Linda. Donna Block has not been leading any charge, and yes, she's trying to get more votes for the next election. But Donna Block also asked for a place to be built on the RAND property for these people. I disagree with that, and I'm sure Linda Sullivan's affordable housing advocates disagree with that too.

One thing I might add is that we both agree that Donna Block is only trying to get votes, and is quite as misinformed about the vehicle camping ordinance as is Linda Sullivan. There are already camping ordinances in the books. This is only a small modification to better protect the citizens of this city.

If Linda is so hell bent in turning our public streets into camp grounds, why doesn't Linda go out and solicit these people to park in front of her home? This is only about public safety. Must we remind people where these people put their urine and feces? In our curbs and parkways. Same places our children and pets are on a daily basis. We must have public safety before liberalism.

Must we remind Linda... without the support of the police department in the past elections, her party SMRR would have a much more difficult time being elected. This is not any member of the public's initiative...it's the police department's. They have to deal with this on a daily basis. Should we not rely on their better judgment?

Chuck Allord
Santa Monica

April 30, 2001

Dear Editor,

Linda Sullivan stated that people living in their cars should be offered services. I must respectfully disagree. I am not in favor of allocating any more funds to people who do not live in this community.

In case you are not aware, the SMMUSD is in a financial crisis once again, and if any extra money is to be given out, I believe it should go to the schools. We are also in need of more parks, open space, senior housing, etc. What I'm trying to say is that we must set our priorities. Residents' needs must come before non-residents.

I would also like to point out that the proposed vehicle camping ordinance was brought forth by Santa Monica police officers. If the police requested this, then there is a very good reason why. Therefore, I am inclined to support the police officers on this issue.

Joe Weichman
Santa Monica

April 29, 2001

Dear Editor,

(Re: Linda Sullivan)

Since you are unable to make the distinction between necking in a parked car and transient camping on our streets, I think a rebuttal would just go over your head.

Donna Block
Santa Monica