Homelessness, Transporation, Education, the Living Wage and Code Enforcement

May 5, 2001

Dear Editor,

There were lots of City staff, employees/supporters of OPCC and other social service providers present at the Social Services Commission's Homeless Forum on
May 3 at Ken Edwards Center. Many homeless and "formerly homeless" were also in attendance as were the SMRRs and limousine liberals who fully support the City's polices of providing lots of programs and services to the homeless. There were even a few -- just a few -- of us residents and concerned citizens in the hall who think what the City has been doing for the last 15 years is all wrong.

Those of us who feel the City's homeless policies are a miserable failure were outnumbered ten to one by those who wanted more services and even more help for our growing homeless population. Why do the homeless and their supporters have such a strong voice in the community? Its because most of the so-called "community activists" and "wanna be politicians" who sit back and carp about the City's homeless policies were "too busy" and didn't bother to show up.

The homeless and providers alike whose lives and livelihoods depend on the City's social service commitment attend these events in large numbers because they have a lot to lose if they don't show up. And, they speak out because it is in their interest to preserve the status quo and expand services even more.

There was no new ground broken here. We heard the same old tired rhetoric and whining. Some in attendance thought it was wonderful that various factions of the community were all in one room communicating. But, weren't we all making speeches to ourselves? In other words, our side didn't win any converts and neither did the other side. It's also not likely that any meaningful changes will be made in City homeless policy as a result of anything said at this Forum.

Would I go to another "homeless Forum?" Not if it is sponsored by the City. As long as the City and the Social Services Commission are more interested in public relations spin as opposed to meaningful social service reform -- reform that would reduce the large numbers of homeless people on our streets through life-changing long-term care instead of a sack lunch and a mail box -- the plight of those in need will never improve no matter how much we talk about it.

Bill Bauer
Santa Monica

PS. Good coverage of the Forum in your May 4, edition.

May 4, 2001

Dear Editor,

(Re: Frank Gruber's column, "Clang, Clang, Clang Goes the Trolley.")

Having been to Seattle and ridden the monorail there and at Disneyland, I've noticed that an elevated monorail takes up very little space and is aesthetically pleasing. Why couldn't there be an elevated monorail above Wilshire Blvd. or even above wide sidewalks?

Sincerely,

Katharine King

May 3, 2001

Dear Editor,

(Re: Teresa Rochester's article, "Typos in Textbook Policy Worry Parents.")

Oh gee, it was only a typo, imagine that.

Frank Schweitzer

May 3, 2001

Dear Editor,

After having been personally assured on more than one occasion by Mayor Michael Feinstein that he would not be prepared to vote on the so-called "living wage" ordinance until there had been an opportunity for significant public discussion, I was startled to hear Patricia Hoffman assert at the Bayside District Board meeting last month that the Council was "committed" to vote on the measure on May 22.

Just so the status is clear:

1. There have been 4 public hearings on the proposed ordinance -- one in September, 1999, two last summer and one on March 27. Each meeting has allowed members of the public to speak for exactly 2 minutes and it appears that we will get one more 2-minute opportunity. It is outrageous for the Council to adopt an ordinance of this importance and complexity without more discussion.

2. The Chamber has prepared and submitted to the Council extensive comments on the economic report prepared by Professor Pollin; there has never been a response or an invitation from a single Council member to discuss the issues. The Chamber hosted a meeting with Professor Pollin last summer and 4 Council members attended. Before the meeting had to be abruptly terminated due to Pollin's childish conduct, we were able to discuss a few of the issues the Chamber had raised. Based on brief discussions after the meeting, I was under the impression that the Mayor realized that serious issues were involved which could have a significantly negative impact on the community. However, it now appears that no meaningful discussion will be permitted before passage of the ordinance.

3. As flawed as it is, the Pollin report assumed that there would be a substantial "tip credit" built into the ordinance. Now, the Council is proposing to adopt a law without any sort of credit or exemption for tipped workers. The economic consequences of this change is staggering for restaurants and the Council, apparently, is not planning to request Professor Pollin, or anyone else, to consider those consequences.

Restaurants typically have a labor cost of around 1/3 of their total revenues with waiters and waitresses being paid, by the restaurant, a salary close to minimum wage (today $6.25 per hour) because they make a substantial amount in tips (perhaps another $15/hour). Therefore, if the restaurant must pay these workers another $7.00 per hour or so, as is proposed by SMART, its labor costs will increase by at least 50% to around 1/2 of total revenue, or even more. Since a restaurant's profit margin is usually around 5-8% of total revenue, an increase in labor costs from 33% of revenue to 50% of revenue will obviously more than eliminate all profit putting the restaurant in serious financial jeopardy. Does the Council care about this enough to permit a fair discussion?

4. The Chamber has, over the last two years, made repeated efforts to meet with SMART representatives to discuss the important issues involved here, and been met with a steadfast refusal to do so. Even the Council has refused, despite a series of requests, to appoint a bipartisan committee to consider the issues, an approach which has been successful in addressing a number of controversial topics over the years, such as the homeless.

Irrespective of one's views on this measure, it is obviously one of potentially great significance. Already, businesses have elected not to come to Santa Monica because of the threat of this measure, and others will surely leave as its economic significance becomes clear. (Even Pollin's study showed that over 25% of affected businesses consider it likely that they will close.) A refusal on the part of the Council to permit a reasoned discussion, rather than one more 2-minute sound bite, is irresponsible and personally disappointing.

A final vote on an ordinance that no one will have an opportunity to review until a few days before the vote is taken will demonstrate the political power with this Council of organized labor without regard for local businesses or the public.

Tom Larmore, Chair
Chamber of Commerce Living Wage Committee

May 1, 2001

Dear Editor,

I applaud our School Board for the wisdom and integrity that went into the hiring of our new SMMUSD Superintendent. As a member of the interview panel that met with the candidates, I am one hundred percent behind the Board and their decision. Although there was a very high level of competition, John Deasy was without a doubt head and shoulders above the rest.

As a long time critic of the district's financial practices, accountability, responsiveness to the community and funding for the arts, I rest assured that things will change. I believe that we have found a man who will have a broad base of support from the community and the administrators of the district. I also believe that putting students first will prevail as the norm over politics, special interest and the continuation of past practices that are no longer effective or efficient.

The Santa Monica/Malibu School District and its students will be led into the 21st century by a man who has a track record of academic success as well as the respect of the community and his school district. Mr. Deasy will raise the level of the playing field, rather than lowering it, to ensure the equity of education for all students. His vision is sound, realistic and obtainable, he is not haphazardly experimental and unable to evaluate his course. I believe that we are in very good hands.

Thank You SMMUSD,

Donna Block
Santa Monica

(Editor's Note: The following testimony was delivered by Ellen Brennan to the City's Planning Commission last Thursday night. The item dealt with code enforcement. At the meeting, the Commission voted to write a letter urging the City Council to make enforcement a top budget priority for the Planning Department.)

The revelations of the last Planning Commission meeting were shocking. Having re-watched the tape, there are several comments that seem pertinent.

First, I commend Tim McCormick for his forthright telling of the truth about the current state of code enforcement. Staff maxed out. 800 complaints without a call back until he put his staff on emergency duty. I congratulate him for doing so, and note that up till then there were 800 people in this city who had not even had a call back on an issue of considerable concern.

That's so unacceptable, it's beyond shocking. In a city with a third of a billion dollar budget, the fact that the Planning Department had so poorly planned that code enforcement is impossible speaks to determination, in my estimation. If you don't fund it, you don't have to do it. "Let them pass all the ordinances they want. We just won't enforce them."

The ramifications are many. This means that public process has been stymied. All the time we spend making sure that new restaurant or apartment building next door doesn't impact us is a total waste. All the time we spend gathering signatures, speaking at public meetings is reduced to wind in the trees. It means that the legislative and quasi judicial functions of the Council, the Planning Commission, the ARB have been short circuited. They can pass ordinances and set stipulations, but if there is no staff to enforce them, these also become wind in the trees. It means that the trust of the citizens of this city, in a
word, has been betrayed.

This could not be more serious. When a city becomes dysfunctional, quality of life deteriorates. When the city staff stakes out territories and manages those territories to the detriment of public process and quality of life, the tenor and tone of discourse, process, and trust is adversely affected.

Tim McCormick inherited this department and he has told us the truth. Now we need to see a major effort on the part of everybody to correct this gross inadequacy he's described.

If the city of Los Angeles can create and maintain a Department of Building and Safety that can respond to citizen complaints in one day, Santa Monica has no excuse for anything less.

I suggest that the Planning Commission make Code Enforcement its number one, and only priority for this year. And I further suggest that the Planning Department make extraordinary efforts to insure that Tim McCormick gets at least 8 new enforcement officers who are unshackled and permitted to do the job.

This is critical to restoring a modicum of trust on the part of people who are tired of upset and outrage and expect a functioning government that handles the important business of code enforcement in a reasonable and rational and timely manner.

May 2, 2001

Dear Editor,

On Tuesday April 23, I, along with Pastor Michael Gutierrez of St Anne Church, took a drive up to the Capital Building in Sacramento to meet with Senator Sheila Kuehl about issues that affect residents of West LA. We did not have a chance to actually meet with Senator Kuehl herself, but did meet with her
staff member Loren Griffith.

We lobbied several issues that affect residents of the Westside. Here is a summary of major points that were discussed with Mr.Griffith is:

A) Tenant harassment issues occurring primarily in the Pico District. We shared individual stories of Santa Monica families who could not afford attorneys out on the streets. This includes children as well.

B) Bill AB-540 (D-Firebaugh); Equal Rights for education. We lobbied for a bill that would make education at the collegiate level a reality for any permanent resident of CA, regardless of the immigration status of that person's family.

C) Bill AB 106 (D-Cedillo). State Earned Income Tax Credit. This bill is geared towards the working class citizen who is not afforded any tax relief by President Bush's tax cuts. It would offer tax credits on a State level for school tuition, childcare and other similar issues for those who qualify. It is currently offered in 14 other States.

D) I spoke with Mr. Hill about my Santa Monica martial arts school and State assistance in initiating programs for our youth scholarship program.

Not all people would necessarily agree on these issues or even have the opportunity, as did I to go to our State's capitol. However, they are all lobbied on in the spirit of empowering the youth of our community to be a positive force for tomorrow, rather than a drain on society.

I welcome any and all feedback, as does Father Michael Gutierrez. My e-mail
address is Davila43@aol.com and Pastor Gutierrez can be reached at 829-4411.

Blessings,

Sean Davila