Other Letters

Homeownership, Camping and Death

April 22, 2001

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your article "The Politics of Homeownership" (April 20). Why is it that all the SMRR leaders live in houses they own, while they preach the wisdom of being a renter for life?

It sounds too much like the situation in the story Animal Farm -- where the pigs' mantra was "four legs good, two legs bad" -- to be a coincidence.

Was George Orwell thinking of SMRR when he wrote his book, or was he just writing about the hypocrisy that runs strong in every totalitarian government?

Sincerely,

Rosario Perry
Santa Monica

April 22, 2001

Dear Editor,

Vehicle camping has gotten out of hand in Santa Monica. Our police department needs our support in their efforts to update our current municipal code, amending or redrafting the ordinance on vehicle camping in public areas. Currently, our code does not allow for adequate enforcement, so the problem has continued to get worse.

Two hundred and ten complaints have been made by residents of Santa Monica to the SMPD in the last two years. Hundreds more have been made by residents to other residents. If you call about campers in a van parked in front of your home, the police will come, but they can only tell the campers to move. Currently, the van can move a couple of inches and it would be in compliance with our law. A new complaint would have to be made to pursue the issue of illegal camping. This can go on forever, the police cannot chase campers around. They need the ability
to ticket the violation, forcing campers to move on to a site that is designated for camping. When we, as residents, park illegally, a ticket is issued in a heartbeat.

Vehicle camping occurs in all the neighborhoods of the city, not just some. Campers usually prefer the parks and recreational areas, but neighborhood streets are used too. Because vehicle camping has become such a public safety issue, municipalities across the county have passed stronger laws against it. Some of the cities that have strong restrictions are Marina Del Ray, West LA, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Beverly Hills, Culver City and Torrance.

On May 8th, the SMPD will ask our City Council to draft a new vehicle camping ordinance or amend our current one. It should clearly state that living/camping in vehicles, at any time, is prohibited in all areas of Santa Monica: residential, commercial, and mixed-use areas, public parking lots, playgrounds, and recreational areas. The new proposal should include living in cars, campers, vans, trucks and small RV's. We have campgrounds for camping, some very nearby and very inexpensive.

Our streets should not be used as alternative affordable housing or campgrounds for transients. If the goal of the City is to accommodate the vehicular housed population, they should designate an area specifically for that purpose. Perhaps the parking lots of the shelters or the homeless services providers, or maybe at City Hall. Affordable housing funds from the RAND property redevelopment project could be used to build a transient camp ground on that property. This issue needs to be addressed with a solution that will prioritize public safety and the
environment.

Donna Block
Santa Monica

April 22, 2001

Dear Editor,

Frank Gruber has written a good and compassionate piece ("Death Does Not Become Us," April 20). But the horse has long since fled the barn and the door will not be closed again on the use of the death penalty. This is because of the fact that death as a solution to social problems has been embraced by both the right and the left. The left has its late-term abortions on demand, assisted suicide and now in the Netherlands legal euthanasia. The right has its vengeance in the form of lethal injections and the chair.

A few months ago the NY Times buried a small piece on page 16 related to the seventy-five million "Missing women" of Asia. Today's Sunday Times has a front page article on India's declining birth rate for women now that ultrasound is being used in an ongoing search and destroy method on unwanted females.

A sanctity of life ethic begins with a consistent position. It is wrong to take human life or it is not. However, since the world is a tissue of gray uncertainties sweeping generalizations never translate well into law. For me the imperative is to try and reconcile myself to a world wherein death is part of the fabric of life itself on all levels and yet have an ethic of life that gives meaning to the word "beauty." And so I am left with the reality that there is no way to do more than decide what sort of creatures we want to be and become.

For instance I know that we need a military and police force, but I "know" this in a regretful sort of way. I also know that some women will always want and perhaps even need abortions. I "know" this in a regretful sort of way as well. I guess the point is trying to draw a circle around some sacred high ground of humane behavior then to try and defend that circle as best you can. I draw the line at abortion on demand as a "right" and at capital punishment for the same reason that the law recognizes a difference between premeditated murder and crimes of passion or manslaughter. Death is less the issue here than cold-heartedness.

To me the sheer mean calculation of strapping someone to a table and killing them or the calculation involved in coldly assessing the health or desirability of your unborn child then aborting that child is far greater than in the convenience store robbery gone bad where some clerk is shot by a panicked teenager. When the state lends its calculated imprimatur of respectability to the dirty business of killing people one-by-one as a matter of state policy, be it the Dutch parliament, the US Supreme court or the state of Texas something horrible happens. Death becomes a proactive state-sponsored solution to social problems.

When a cop fires at an armed suspect or our nation reacts to real threats by sending in the Marines, it is a case of violence being used as a last resort to protect the nation and the individual against predatory behavior. But good soldiers try to avoid war. And the best towns are the ones where cops don't have to be called too often.

Death is not therefore a policy of choice but a reaction to extreme circumstances. However, by the time a criminal is coldly executed he or she no longer poses a threat to society. The criminal is already off the streets. Death is a mere social policy at that point and not a policy of last resort. And when a female child is aborted in India or China, or a child is deemed "unfit" because of some amniotic test conducted on behalf of an upscale American couple that feels entitled to a "perfect" "normal" child, death is no longer the sad result of circumstances and a last resort to prevent violence and barbarity but a calculated premeditated choice otherwise called murder.

Frank Schaeffer
Santa Monica

April 21, 2001

Dear Editor,

Thanks (to Frank Gruber ) for the fascinating historical perspective on death penalty reform. I had no idea the push had come from the evangelicals. It makes sense -- more sense than today's muddle.

Paul Rubell

April 19, 2001

Dear Editor,

I recently read Frank Gruber's column "Mothers and Fathers, Sons and Daughters" relating to the tragic Isla Vista accident. It really stuck with me, presenting a different perspective on the accident yet bringing us back again to the tragedy of it all.

I am a Junior at UC Santa Barbara, double majoring in Theater and English; however, I am currently in England as I have taken my Junior year abroad at Oxford University this year. When I return to UCSB next year, I would like to put on a short play relating to the incident.

The incredible magnitude of it has had a profound effect on me, and I think that it is most certainly an event that should not be forgotten. I feel that there are definitely lessons to be learned from it, if nothing else than the incredible importance and fragility of life, seen in both the obvious loss of life of all the victims and also the loss of future for the alleged driver.

Sincerely,

Sarah MacKay