Frank Gruber on Prop U: 100% Correct or Words to Choke on?

March 2, 2002

Dear Editor,

I was very pleased to read Frank Gruber's last two columns (WHAT I SAY: "The Silence was Golden." Feb 28 and "Could the Judge Order Trial by Combat?" Feb. 22, 2002) Frank obviously went over all aspects of Measure U, and anyone else who does the same will reach the conclusion that Measure U is a wonderful opportunity for all citizens.

In particular, the surrounding community of Santa Monica College should be thrilled at this chance to increase the livability of their neighborhood. Measure U will provide funding that will decrease parking shortages, reduce traffic from the main campus, and enhance the overall perimeter of SMC, including the addition of new open space adjacent to Pico Blvd. and Pearl Street.

Measure U will also provide easier access to Santa Monica/Malibu residents through the availability of parking, satellite campuses, and the continued increase of distance education classes.

Measure U is a great opportunity for the college and city. By voting "Yes" on Measure U, you vote for education, sustainability, and your community. Make your vote count on Tuesday, and vote "Yes" on Measure U.

Joe Weichman
Santa Monica

March 2, 2002

Dear Editor,

There really isn't much more to say about Frank Gruber's piece, except that it was 100% correct.

Who are these elitists that think SMC is for local residents only? It is that type of NIMBY mentality that destroys communities, and I will not be part of something so negative. I'm voting Yes on Measure U.

Janice Atkins
Santa Monica

March 1, 2002

Dear Editor,

Frank Gruber in the LookOut 3/1/02 says: "… O'Connor, Herb Katz and Robert Holbrook have endorsed Prop. U, but Mayor Michael Feinstein and Kevin McKeown have said they will not take public positions on the measure."

Is this true, has Bob Holbrook ENDORSED Prop U? Can you set the record straight?

Peter Tigler
Santa Monica

(Eds. note: According to Holbrook, he did not initially take a stand on Prop U but has recently come out in support of the measure after his name was mistakenly listed among its supporters in recent campaign literature.)

March 1, 2002

Dear Editor.

I hope you choke on you anchovies the way I choke on your words. Ungenerous? How many affordable housing units do you provide on your block? How much money and time have you spent mentoring young people at risk?

You wouldn't recognize the light of day if you saw it. It is you sir, who are ungenerous with your stereotypes about the opposition, and oh-so narrow in your definition of "progressive." I'm looking forward to your new career as a food writer so that the ether ceases to be infested with your political tripe.

Cheers,

Steven G. Keats
Santa Monica

March 1, 2002

Dear Editor,

As is typical, Frank's analysis is excellent. What amazes me is that Council members who profess to want low-income families to be able to improve their situation in life oppose an expansion of educational opportunities for those very same people.

While many of us may disagree on the merits of the so-called "living wage" law, everyone ought to agree that the best way to promote increased worker incomes is through education at all levels.

Obviously a part of the problem of low-income workers is the existence of a labor force overflowing with ill-educated and ill-trained people-- if we were providing a higher quality education for more people, there would be fewer willing to accept low-paying jobs because they wouldn't need to do so.

By decreasing the supply, we would, at the same time, be assuring higher quality jobs for more Americans and higher pay for the steadily diminishing number at the bottom -- the classic supply and demand equation.

It ought to be sufficiently revealing to recognize the swelling number of unskilled workers in a technology-driven society which has to look to Europe and Asia to find a sufficient supply of workers with the education necessary to fill jobs in the technology industry.

What is ultimately behind the vocal opposition to Measure U by Messrs. Bloom and Genser, and the silent opposition of Messrs. Feinstein and McKeown, is frustration over the inability of the Council to micro-manage the College's development. We are indeed fortunate that this group does not have that power.

Tom Larmore
Santa Monica
(Eds. note: Larmore heads the Chamber of Commerce's Living Wage Task Force)