Other Letters

What They Say: No to Target, Transit Mall, Homeless Recyclers

February 11, 2001

Dear Editor,

I received in my mail a flyer, apparently sent by Target Stores, asking me to write to my City Council regarding my feelings about the proposed Target Store. I would like to point out that there is no information about who sent this flyer, nor is there a return address. Is this legal? I am very much against even more building and crowding in Santa Monica.

We all agree that downtown Santa Monica is too crowded with too much traffic congestion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if you add yet another giant store, there will be even more crowding and traffic congestion. No amount of political mumbo-jumbo and double talk is going to change this; it is simple common sense.

Recently, we needed to do some shopping for various items. At Sears, we bought reasonably priced clothing for myself, my wife and daughter. I bought some tools I needed, a new battery for the car, some garden items, a toaster and several other needed things. We also got some books we wanted at the Borders, some stereo hookup items at the Radio Shack, jewelry for presents, and we got our drug store items at the Rite Aid. To sum up -- WE ALREADY HAD ALL THE SHOPPING POSSIBILITIES WE NEEDED, THERE IS PLENTY OF AFFORDABLE SHOPPING" ALREADY.

There is no need for the further traffic this store will cause. The streets are already too crowded and this store will bring in hundreds more cars per day, employees and customers. Enough is enough.

If they are just dead set on building this store in our city, let them build it on the extreme East side of Santa Monica. Say up by the Best Buys, then the traffic won't be impacted in downtown and people coming from other towns will only go to our eastern edge and not make the place even more crowded.

To sum up, let's leave it alone - the mall, the promenade, the other stores are enough to satisfy our needs,

Peter Davison
Santa Monica

February 11, 2001

Dear Editor,

Our family, four long-time residents of SM, are opposed to the proposed Transient Mall along Wilshire Boulevard. It will only add to the already congested streets of our city.

If our city council thinks that visitors to the new mall area are planning to take the buss or walk in place of driving their cars, they are dead wrong. Maybe they should try to find a parking place at the already crowded parking lots and streets around this town.

We are constantly being exposed to carbon monoxide from fumes of the over crowded streets now. The proposed project will only add to this problem.

Sincerely,

Ron and Barbara O'Meara
Santa Monica

February 9, 2001

Dear Editor,

I always love reading Frank Gruber's columns, and most of the time I agree with him. Nevertheless (and putting the merits of the project aside), the city has not complied with the California Environmental Quality Act with regard to the Transit Mall.

If a private developer tried to shirk its responsibility in this area, all of us would be outraged. There is no reason we shouldn't be equally as outraged about the City's lack of compliance with CEQA on the Transit Mall.

Thanks,

Chris Joseph
Santa Monica

February 6, 2001

Dear Editor,

The Santa Monica City Council and those that ardently support the Council's homelessness policies owe the rest of us (and there are many) an open and honest dialog and discussion about the City's policies. Unfortunately, in the few times I and others have tried to change the focus of the discussion from "What more can the city do?" to "Are the policies working and what are their impact on the community?" we are rebuffed and branded as mean-hearted anti-poor Gestapos.

Case in point: Mr. Gruber's statement in his article wherein he states, "Some residents vociferously denounced the city's failure to ticket, harass, arrest, imprison, exile to Siberia and otherwise throw the book at poor people who rummage for recyclables, but that was towards the end of the meeting and most people had left...."

I was at that meeting and Mr. Gruber's depiction of what people said is not only wrong, but it boarders on slanderous. I challenge him to dispute me on this. I believe the meeting was tape recorded -- hear it for yourself.

The whole homeless and recycling issue is unquestionably tough and complex. Unfortunately, in response to several members of the community's complaints about the current situation and asking the police for assistance in solving the problem, Mr. Gruber's started to accuse us of being mean-hearted people who were anti-poor. He never inquired about the specifics of or problems; I doubt that he knows the specifics.

Here are the details for your and his benefit: There is an alcohol-addicted group of individuals, that regularly dig though our trash and recycling bins to steal, yes, it is stealing because it is against the law to take items from the recycling bins. Such items are then sold to an illegally operated curb-side recycler in Venice for money to buy more alcohol.

Such individuals regularly urinate, defecate and litter on, or around, our property and have threatened us and our neighbors. These are not the down-and-outs that need our assistance; they are the habitual anti-socials that create danger in the community.

I have been working on the illegal recyling issue with the people at the St. Joseph Homeless Services Center on Rose Avenue and they agree that it needs to stop as it facilitates maladaptive behavior. These are the experts, hear what they have to say.

Are we frustrated? Of course. Those of us that live and work in Santa Monica and who look at other communities which seem to have a far lesser problem, are frustrated by the homeless situation in Santa Monica. No question, emotions can run high. But until such time that the supporters of the current policies stop branding us as awful, mean people, the real dialog, that really needs to take place, will never happen.

Tomas Fuller
Ocean Park