Encouraging Big and Ugly, Coincidence? & The Big Lie

January 30, 2003

Dear Editor,

I am writing in regards to your story "Council Bans 'Monster Mansions' in Two More Neighborhoods (Jan. 29). The proper headline should have been "Council Guarantees 'Monster Mansions' in Two More Neighborhoods."

The City Council, who has failed to stop a single "Monster Mansion" from being built in the North of Montana neighborhood, has now elected to impose the same set of failed policies in two other neighborhoods. The bottom line is that until the city puts meaningful limits on building mass, there will be no meaningful reduction in the size of new homes.

35% Lot Coverage x 2-Stories = 75% Mass

7,500 Square Foot Lot x 75% Mass = 5,625 square foot house.

A 5,600 foot house on a 7,500 foot lot = "Monster Mansion"

To make things worse, the City imposes draconian restrictions on side-yards and building heights which do nothing more, but insure that all new houses have flat roofs, and are shaped like rectangular boxes. The result is that new homes are not only very big, they are also very ugly.

Unless the city is determined to see its residential districts become one of the ugliest in the state, it should give architects the freedom to design beautiful homes, and limit its regulation to controlling the mass of homes.

Restrictions on building mass (FAR) are currently in place on all commercial, industrial and apartment districts. It would not be difficult for the City to restore the zoning code that existed back when beautiful homes were built, with restrictions on mass to protect the harmony of the neighborhoods.

Sincerely,

Jeff Segal

January 30, 2003

Dear Editor,

Does anyone think it strange that the City delayed considering the monster mansion proposal until former SMRR Council member Tony Vazquez and SMRR School Board Member Maria Vazquez obtained permits and variances to build a second story addition that will almost double the size of their home in Sunset Park? (The architect was SMRR member Ralph Mechur)

Does anyone think it strange that the R-1 single family zone of the Pico Neighborhood located East of Stewart Street where SMRR leaders Denny Zane, Michael Tarbet, Marcia Zimmer, Linda Sullivan and Bob Meyers own homes is EXEMPT from the Monster Mansion restrictions?

Mat Millen
Santa Millen

January 29, 2003

Dear Editor,

Both Matt and Melissa Dinolfo have spoken eloquently in the past several days about the impact of the state budget upon the local unified school district. ("Claim the Problem as City's Own," Jan. 28 and "Protecting Priorities," Jan. 22)

As an elementary school teacher (McKinley) I am heartened by the support of these fine people, as well as the 62.7 percent of the voting citizens of Santa Monica and Malibu who voted last November in favor of a much needed parcel tax to continue the excellence that has been an unbroken hallmark of our schools. Alas, it was 5 percent too little.

But now the wolves are truly at our front door. Librarians, nurses, P.E. aides, music teachers, instructional aides, office staff, administrators and virtually every non-tenured teacher in the district (totaling nearly 100) are soon to receive notice via a small pink sheet of paper, that their services are no longer required by the children of this district.

THIS IS A LIE. They are needed now more than ever. It is a question of money, and of priorities. Since when are our children anything but number one, with a bullet?

The ultimate question is merely this. Are we to be the first generation of parents in United States history to do less for our children than our parents did for us? Will we, the children and grandchildren of the so-called Greatest Generation go down in the history books as the generation that let it all slip away?

Yes, I am a tenured teacher, and a union officer. But I am also a father and a taxpayer. I can think of nothing so important as tomorrow. We must act today to insure that they will have a tomorrow worth looking forward to.

Respectfully submitted,

Marc Sanschagrin