The
LookOut Letters
to the Editor |
|
Balancing Competing Interests and City Budget Woes Relative January 27, Dear Editor, Tom Cleys' letter entirely misses the point of Proposition A. ("A Transplant's Perspective on the Beauty of Santa Monica and Proposition A," Feb. 25) Let's agree that preservation of important and historical buildings, including certain private homes, benefits the community and is a goal worth pursuing. Let's also agree that when homes are designated as historic buildings, either individually or as part of a group in an historic district, restrictions automatically apply to changes you might wish to make to the exterior that don't apply to others. The issue is how best to balance these competing interests. Among cities that have historic preservation laws, the balance is struck in different ways. Some, like Santa Monica, give the City the ultimate power to decide whether your home should be designated and, therefore, subject to all of the restrictions that follow. Others give homeowners the right to make the final decision. One's home is usually the most important, personal and emotional investment that anyone makes. As a Santa Monica homeowner for almost 28 years, I fully understand the feeling that I should have the final decision on this important issue. Most of Mr. Cleys' arguments fall into one of two categories: the City has the right to make the final decision because preservation is important to the community; and the homeowner should not be concerned because it's really for his or her own benefit. I do not believe that the community's interest outweighs my own and I also believe that I should be able to make the decision about my own interests rather than have it made for me. The City's proper role is to provide education and incentives to encourage owners of appropriate homes to retain them. However, I do not believe I have the right to insist that some homeowners leave their homes as they are just because either I, other members of the "community," members of preservation groups or tourists like them the way they are. These laws differ substantially from ordinary zoning laws because they are not generally applicable. Ordinances, such as the restrictions on "monster mansions" are likely to reflect a consensus because they apply to everyone and, therefore, spread any burden relatively evenly. However, by applying only selectively, historic preservation laws apply only to a minority -- those who happen to own homes that the City or the "community" find important to maintain. I do not believe this is fair to those in this minority. So let's understand that Proposition A is designed to restore fairness and freedom of choice to owners of homes who might otherwise be involuntarily designated as historic buildings. Let's also understand that it applies only in single-family neighborhoods because of the unique importance of people's homes where individuality should be respected while preservation is encouraged. These are the reasons I have voted YES on Proposition A and actively support its passage. Tom Larmore February 27, 2003 Dear Editor, What's truly frustrating here is that the City of Santa Monica has an annual budget of over $400 million, and the school district is only asking the City Council to double its $3 million allotment. ("City Budget Woes Worsen," Feb. 27) I am sad that Santa Monica has its own shortfall, however, it pales
in comparison to its school Yes, these may be considered "popular programs" but they
are highly important to our school children. Keeping our schools strong
is paramount. Property values are assessed at Debbie Ricard |
![]() |
Copyright 1999-2008 surfsantamonica.com. All Rights Reserved. |