January 27, 2000

Dear Editor,

I'd rather not pit one art form against another, which is what we are
constantly forced to do. I'm totally in favor of keeping the music
program in the Santa Monica Schools.

However, on a larger picture, we need to reconsider our curriculum guidelines so that they include the arts as part of the core-curriculum. Our own country has done studies to determine why other nations are producing students superior to ours and we refuse to acknowledge the results of those studies.

I'd be happy to send to anyone of you documentation of the results.

In the meantime, isn't it amazing the results we're seeing from the
Stanford 9s? I mean, we're now training our 7 year olds to fill in
bubbles so that we adults can figure out that schools in economically
deprived areas are not faring as well as those in the richest areas.
Come on. Can't we spend that money to give our children an education
that promotes enthusiasm for learning and curiosity for the world? An
education that gives our children alternative ways of communication and
expression?

There are people out there who think our prison system is working
because it's full. Maybe if we could educate our children, we could
live to see the day that those people eat crow. Please help.

Elissa Tognozzi, Ph.D.
Department of Italian
UCLA

January 27, 2000

Dear Editor:

I hope your readers read my letter to you on the subject of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO), especially our city council members. Next, I hope they read the piece by Teresa Rochester, dated 1/26/00 for the latest bungling event.

That brings us up to date. Today, January 27th, the City staff once again successfully crafted a betrayal by convincing the SMO commission to unanimously pass a lease for the 3rd FBO (fixed base operator). I spoke, albeit late, at the commission meeting, again leaving my family for a late night meeting which is probably meeting #2050, on this issues of history and concern for our neighborhood.

I regret to say that I failed and staff prevailed, even though two of the three commissioners are supposed to be neighbor-friendly, one a board member of the "Friends of Sunset Park." They must be star struck by the power they feel being a commissioner. They have not taken the time to understand the issues in their proper context or they are easily swayed by a corruptable staff; a staff that wants to hide the city's mistakes in mismanaging the airport land.

To hear the discussion that followed public comment was embarrassing to me, as it represents the ignorance of some very bright commissioners. It went like this: I feel that 42 months is a better lease term than 60 months.... Another, Oh, I don't know, I think 48 is better, but I won't argue with 42 months... and back and forth on this issue.

No one, neither commissioner nor staff brought up the recent petition by 260 Santa Monica residents who pleaded with the City not to lease this parcel out. These voices go unheard year after year while staff plays its shell game. Remember, Santa Monica residents are less likely to sue than the pilots! Habitual lying is common place among staff.

Further discussion was directed towards the new master plan that the Feds have to fund because it is so expensive. Staff elaborated on several hurdles that must be jumped prior to commencement of the new master plan study and the cost of multi-millions. Here is the truth: this master plan will never occur and staff knows it. The reason they want a new master plan is to white wash the mistakes that they made after the 1984 agreement, which had behind it a 1983 Master Study with a widely noticed public process drawn by a reputable engineering company. The plan went to the assistant City Manager, John Jalili, for review and comment (letter on file September 1983). Jalili prepared a staff report to the City Council, which then initiated a complete and comprehensive EIR dated November 1983.

The public process was massive and complete; they had to do it right because Judge Hill of the Ninth District Court commanded this! Then by January 31, 1984 a Federal Agreement was born and with it a Master Airport Layout Plan (SMO-1 dated January 31, 1984). I encourage you to pull it out and look at it. Most people, with a bit of study can understand the basic tenants, the major footprints, the "building restriction lines," the "aircraft parking limit lines," the locatins of the 3 FBO's, location of the maintenance building and the, oh yes, limits of the residual land property lines now called "non aviation land" by some stroke of magic.

If you happen to read the document, you will notice language that pertains to noise sensitivity and restrictions on certain activities. If you read the master study and the EIR, you would have the knowledge and background on how and why the buildings and operations were studied and resolved in the manner indicated on SMO-1. Then you would ask the most obvious question, why spend millions of dollars to re-do a master study?

The answer is that later in 1984, the Airport Director, went off on his own and redrew the Master Airport Layout Plan, SMO-1, (dated it 1986) and rearranged the configuration of the airport without a public process, no Airport Commission Approval, no Planning Commission Approval, no City Council approval. He made substantive changes without anyone's knowledge. He allowed two jet centers to swallow up the majority of the land on the north side; he allowed Clover Park land to be built upon; he allowed a museum to be built by a wealthy Texan who owns one of the jet centers, displacing land for the 3rd FBO. He also built a building adjacent to our residential neighborhood to house maintenance equipment routinely used to clean the field at 4:30 a.m., house an FBI aircraft and liter the surrounding neighborhood. He allowed for the 3rd FBO to be located in the southwest corner of the field where this lease is being let; he did not allow for a 2nd fueling station to be placed upon the north side; he re-drew the proprty lines of the residual land. And he did all this in the privacy of his office with the FAA with the authority of our City Manager.

Every subsequent decision at our airport was made from this new SMO-1 Plan without the public being aware. A true story about a lie that multiplied exponentially. And instead of fessing up to it, the city manager retired and left us with a law suit, whereby the small plane pilots have had enough of staff's lies and mismanagement. All they wanted was an FBO and fueling station that they didn't get on the north side. Why they didn't have influence back in the 1986 plan escapes me. Bad vision and leadership, I guess, or they were privi to it and were promised certain things that never happened.

All the neighbors wanted was that the City keep its promises and abide by its settlement. We are now 2nd class citizens in our own city with the quality of life in and around our homes deteriorating day by day. More noise than ever before, more pollution than ever before, less open land to enjoy and more lies to shake our heads at.

Now, when this current law suit is settled, I am sure that the residents of Santa Monica will lose again because we have no lawsuit in the mix. There will be a settlement without our representation and we will lose again. We have no one in the settlement conferences, no lawyer representing our interests. We thought we did that in 1983 and 1984.

So what will the outcome be? I am NOT OPTIMISTIC! I'm sorry the LA residents have also sued. What will we get? Most Federal law suits return to the original hearing judge. In our case, Judge Hill passed away recently. How will a new judge know and remember. Don't think for a minute that our city attorneys will go in pitching the righteousness of the 1984 Agreement and SMO-1 dated January 31,1984; remember they messed up to begin with.

I have sent numerous letters to the City Council without any reply. They turn a deaf ear. All I get is silence from my representatives. Our new, most recent council member helps get a board member on the commission who represents our neighborhood and even though a bright person, she caves to the staff. At one time we had three board members on the Commission and I watched staff methodically get to each of the other two to help sway their votes. We ended up not being able to send any recommendations to council.

I am amazed at how reporters have not grabbed on. They too are silent. The LA Times refuses to return phone calls. The Outlook did a very small piece now and then, Thank You Skip; however, the reason I believe is that the owners and managers use private jets! The entertainment industry uses private jets.

It is time for real leadership to step up to the plate. Will one council member please step forward and be counted upon? Will Susan McCarthy, our new city manager, make the wrongs right? I await their phone call. She and they have my number. They need to help, and no one else can.
There is more to write and God willing I will be back on line to provide more.

Brian H. Ouzounian
Former Airport Commissioner, 1990-1998

January 22, 2000

Dear Editor and School Board members:

I am once again writing to urge you not to allow our
exceptional Music program to be cut. The fact that the Stanford 9 tests
do not include the arts seems to be the only reason for putting them
first on the list to be cut. If anyone suggested cutting our Math
programs they'd be rightfully ignored. The same should be true for
Music. It is not a luxury, it is the right of every student to develop
his or her mind and talent. Do not allow this excellent program to go by
the wayside.

I have heard, and I would like clarification, that our current fiscal
crisis is due in part to the absence of a waiting list for out of city
students. Is this true? If it is, how could such a simple remedy have
been overlooked?

Thank you,

Robin Bartlett

January 21, 2000

Dear Editor,

I urge you to save the orchestra and bands from Santa Monica High School from budget cuts and the slashing of programs.

The finest orchestra in the country just returned from a triumphant concert
in Chicago. That orchestra belongs to Santa Monica High.

Please do what you can. Thank you!!

Larry Shulman
Proud father of two SAMO high students

January 17, 2000

Dear Editor, Mayor Genser and members of City Council,

As you well know, fine arts programs, in the school district are being dismantled. They have already lost $165,000 in funding for the year 1999-00, and face further cuts in teachers, aids, transportation, facilities, and the position of Fine Arts Coordinator. In addition, over the next five years, the risk of jeopardizing the future of one of the most highly regarded, inclusive programs in the district is absolute.

The 52nd annual Stairway to the Stars program has already started to feel the effects and is facing serious repercussions due to the cuts that have already been made. General elementary music disappeared before its implementation in this year's curriculum, after three years of lobbying from parents, teachers and the community, to increase arts programs.

Because of the dire need to preserve the arts in our school districts, I appeal to you to designate funds, specific to the funding of the arts, in your school budget. It is obvious that unless restricted funds are appropriated to the continued funding of the arts, the existing programs will rapidly deteriorate as further cuts are made.

Furthermore, the community at large has overwhelming expressed their desire to the city, to save the arts in the school district. They have also expressed their desire for you to allocate city dollars that will be restricted to the continued funding of the arts. This request is being made in order to ensure that the district arts program will not be affected every time the district has a shortfall, something that has happened far to often to ignore.

The state and the nation acknowledged the necessity to restrict a majority of funds that go to public schools. They are aware of the budget process and how certain programs can slip through the cracks of the "general fund" and so they ensure their existences by restricting their funding. It's that simple.

Let¹s keep the politics out of this and just do what we need to do to save the arts in the school district. In this year's budget, set aside restricted funds for the continued funding of the arts. I realize that Council does not like to hold future Councils to funding commitments, but, once in place, I believe that put to the vote, future Councils will support the arts.

Sincerely,

Donna Block
Secretary, DAC on Fine Arts
Coalition for Music Education

January 17, 2000

Dear Editor,

The City of SM recently set aside approximately 60 MILLION dollars for
multi-family LOW INCOME HOUSING from redevelopment bond revenues. The money obtained from sale of the redevelopment bonds must be used for capitol improvement projects within the earthquake redevelopment zone (over half the city). The City is using unrestricted general fund money for capitol improvements.

If the City used the redevelopment bond money for capitol improvement projects (sewers, street improvements, etc.) this would "free up" the general fund money FOR THE SCHOOLS. However, because the SMRR
steering committee decided they wanted more multi-family low income housing to expand their voter base, they coerced the City Council into setting aside the bond revenues for low income housing instead of capitol improvements.

By the way, is there room in our overcrowded schools for the hundreds of more children who will be living in the new low-income units? It not, how will the SMMUSD deal with that problem? So, if you want more money for the schools petition the City Council to reverse themselves. Spend redevelopment revenues for capitol improvements, not hundreds of units of low-income housing, and use the general fund money for the children currently attending Santa Monica schools.

Mat Millen
Santa Monica