Catching up on the Mail

SMRR and the Ocean Park Community Center -- OPCC -- are plotting to establish
another shelter in the Pico Neighborhood. A few years ago OPCC established a 55- bed homeless shelter in the Pico Neighborhood...not in Ocean Park, but in the Pico Neighborhood, which already has more than 175 shelter beds. Now there is a proposal to move a shelter from 7th and Colorado to the Pico Neighborhood . This clearly smacks of environmental racism.

SMRR and the Ocean Park Community Center should move the shelter to Ocean
Park, North of Wilshire or Sunset Park and stop using the Pico Neighborhood
as the dumping ground for social services projects they don't want in their
own back yards.

Thanks for the fantastic service you are now providing the Westside community. I am a native of the area and read The Outlook daily. Your services have more than filled in the gap when the Outlook dissolved. The Lookout is superior.

I can now get all the local news I need without wasting precious wood products and without the pollution of distributing the papers. I must say that I wouldn't mind seeing more advertisments form local businesses. Especially restaurants, services and public sponsored events. I can see the Lookout is expanding and expect to see more advertizing to support the Lookout and keep it a stable entity like the Outlook was.

I would like to see more news on upcomming construction and development (and City Planning items), crime reports, business development (get that Chamber of Commerce to contribute) and maybe a local classifieds with message boards, private sales, etc.

Keep trucking Lookout!

It is interesting that SMRR encourages housing being built in vacant and commercial areas. They complain about gentrification, but who do they think will live in the vast majority of new housing units?

What a surprise to open your website and find an articulate newspaper.....a new experience for me.

It seems utterly absurd to me that the Council rejects the recommendation for more police officers, yet they approve 5 million dollars for low income housing restricted to the Pico Neighborhhood. Conveniently, no city council member lives in the Pico Neighborhood.

There is a correlation between the number and location of the shooting and the number and location of multi-family low income housing units.

The people of Santa Monica have good ideas. Does city council actually adopt them and expediently put them into use???

I cannot depend on any of our local newpapers or the L.A. Times to report on significant events in our city. If reported, one can only find a brief mention or incomplete data.

Thanks again for your most valuable service to those in Santa Monica who want to be kept informed on a timely basis and seek the real facts!

Good evening and thank you all for your attention. My name is Rich Smith, I am a pianist, vocalist, composer, songwriter, and veteran of the United States Air Force. Tonight, I would like to appeal your highest sense of reason, fairness, and justice.

The Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I'm quite sure you would not like it if you were told to move out of your elected positions every two hours and that you have to maintain a distance of 40 feet from each other at all times, and that you'll be cited if you don't comply, or you'll go to jail if you don't sign the
citation, or a vindictive performer might set up on you saying, "Get out of here - it's my turn now," while preparing to implode your ear drums if you don't move.

The past, present, and proposed ordinances abridge people's freedom of speech and right to peaceably assemble. A two hour time limit and forty foot distance requirement blatantly oppose the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Title 42 Section 1983 of the United States Code.

Free speech may not be regulated, and whoever enforces such a regulation or interferes with someone's right to free speech may be held personally liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

EXPEDIENCY HAS REPLACED THE CONSTITUTION!

Putting a time limit and distance restriction on free speech like it's community property and not a person's right borrows from the theory of communism in which everything is divided supposedly equally.

If performers are forced to move out of a spot after two hours or less with unreasonable distance requirements, most performers will not be able to get a spot to perform again on the same day.

If you want fairness, safety, aesthetics, and good business, look at the promenade the way it is now. In many spots you find two or more performers alternating and sharing one area, you find many performers naturally keeping a reasonable distance from other interested parties, you find captive audiences ready to cooperate on a moments notice in the event of an emergency, you find beautiful people, art, and music, people forgetting such sad troubles as JFK Jr’s passing on, and as for business -- just look at the revenues the performers are bringing into the city of Santa Monica.

Thank you for your time and for continuing to keep open the wonderful place in which I have peacefully expressed myself with my music.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871, Title 42 Section 1983 of the United States
Code:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Communism: (from Webster's in 1963)

Current police instructions for rotation:

A person may enter a space 30 min before the time slot begins and hold the time slot for 2.5 plus hrs.

If a person arrives even 5 minutes after the start time (on the even hours), that
2-hour period will not be counted until the next one starts.

This seems to be the opposite of the intent of the working group; places a greater burden on enforcement and removes any motivation for the performers to comply.

QUESTION: What happens to the responsible, "timely" performer who attempts to
rotate at the assigned times? That person will be left out of a location and have nowhere to rotate to.

The first lie every performer learns is. "I just got here." If it is not obvious they shouldn't be there, there will be no way to prove it.

What makes rotation work is the ability to find new spots to rotate to. The current instructions seem to close that door. Therefore, they remove any motivation for the performers to comply.

If there is a focal point for the performers, when everyone knows there will be spaces potentially available, there is a greater likelihood that rotation will work.

An unclear signal from the City on this issue will greatly impair any attempt to make this work.

Clarification of this issue for performers is critical -- enforcement starts this Friday. If someone has an answer, please let me know?

Thank-you for you help with this,

It's too inviting. I couldn't possibly punish my kids for being challenged by this structure. I want them to challenge themselves physically and that's exactly what will happen with people. It's confusing.

And I can tell you from leashes to towels things will be strewn all over it.

Imagine how slippery it will be full of suntan oils and the morning and evening dew from fog that will coat it. It will drip and drip every morning.

I can see a teenager having had one too many drinks with his girl strolling on the beach late at night and all of a sudden his overactive male testosterone takes over and he has to climb it to show her he can. And he falls.

I love art, but this isn't practical. Shame on the risk management report!!!

I think it will be an invitation for vandalism and a canvas for graffiti. Things will be scratched and etched in this structure that we don't need to see and read. And it could get hot, and I hear that is of concern.

I think if you are committed to buying this then you should sink it in one of the new municipal pools and let people swim through it like some underwater playground. It would be much safer that way.

And safety is what it is all about.

I love public art and think what you have supported is terrific. But this just doesn't work.

In regard to the meeting of the Parks and Recs. Committee, the controversy over Solar Web is not about the artwork. This piece is not a ground breaking, innovative, historic work of art; it is a 12 pointed star held up by poles. The controversy is not about people not being able to handle "the New" in art, this piece is not particularly new.

The controversy is about continuing to develop the beach, our last open space in Santa Monica. The Arts Commission feels that the citizens of Santa Monica are not sensitive or intelligent enough to appreciate the natural beauty of the beach and need artworks to interpret this for them. We have already seen the sculptures they've put up, none of
these in any way enhance the beach, which they all claim to do. They detract from the natural beauty, which needs no artwork at all. We just don't want any more of these on our beach.

As to the safety issue in their description of Solar Web the Arts Commission says: "Solar Web is designed for the public to interact with. The public will be allowed to touch and climb on it, much like a jungle gym."

This is from material presented to the City Council and Coastal Commission. What they voted for - a jungle gym. I have seen children and adults climb trees with limbs wider than 5 inches. And people fall out of trees and get hurt. By the way, how do they know children and adults will not be able to climb this? Have they tested this in some way? And how do they know that it is OK for a person to fall 16 feet (almost 2 stories) onto a cement slab covered with hard rubber? Do they drop a hundred people from this height and if only 5% become paralyzed and only 10% break limbs, that is a safe ratio?

It is hard for me to imagine that the city would allow a 16 foot-high jungle gym to be built. I went around to some parks and I could touch the top of the jungle gyms. If it is so safe, perhaps the Arts Commissioners would like to underwrite the insurance, without any expense to the citizens of Santa Monica.

As to the homeless problem, virtually every night transients are sleeping in every possible place at the beach, under the Pizza awnings, under the cement slab sculptures at the end of Ocean Park, under the life guard tower ramps, etc. The Solar Web is like a giant tent skeleton. Each night people will throw towels and blankets over it and
make a homeless shelter. There is no indication that the police will patrol this any more than the other areas on the beach. If they have to, do we really want to take away police presence from our neighborhoods to patrol this structure out on the beach?

But most important, we need to preserve our last bits of open space in Santa Monica. This 72 foot X 52 foot X 16 foot construction of dark aluminum poles out on the beach will severely detract from the natural beauty we all should be free to enjoy. Who benefits from this? As far as I can tell, just the people who end up making money from it. I hope we will stop wasting public and private funds on this and put the money
to better use, like arts in the schools to benefit our kids.

Peter Davison

RE: Vote on Playa Vista Mello Roos District

Dear Mr. Wachs:

I am writing as a leader and founding member of Citizens United to SaveAll of Ballona (CUSAB) a coalition of more than one million members in 92 organizations. We have thousands of citizens in your district who are members of such groups as Sierra Club, CALPIRG, PETA, Americans for Democratic Action, Surfrider Foundation, Gray Panthers, Pax Christi and many more.

On August 6th, the LA City Council is scheduled to vote to establish Mello-Roos districts for Playa Vista and grant them taxing authority.

This taxing authority will be used to levy special property taxes at Playa Vista to repay up to $428 million in bonds used to build the project’s infrastructure. I urge you to vote against formation of the districts. The following is a list of the reasons we believe you shouldconsider before your vote:

1. Hidden taxpayer subsidies: The Center for Tax Justice in Washington, D.C. has estimated that issuing $428 million dollars in tax exempt bonds will cost the California state treasury and U.S. federal treasury $335 million dollars in lost income tax revenues over the next30 years. This is a conservative estimate based on a 5.45 % bond rate. In contrast, Playa Capital only paid $101 million for the property in 1997. The tax payer subsidies are thus over three times greater than thecost of the property. Los Angeles city residents will be paying for the subsidies through their state and federal income taxes. Source: J. William Gibson, “Hold It Right There! City reconsiders subsidies for Playa Vista,” LA Weekly, July 16-22: pp. 16-17.

2. Playa Vista has no tenants: Playa Capital’s plan for rental sound stages is highly speculative given the ample supply of sound studios inthe region. Without tenants, Playa Vista can not repay the Mello-Roos bonds. Foreclosure is a real possibility. Although the City is indemnified, foreclosure would hurt the City’s credit rating.

Therefore,the City should not form Mello-Roos districts or grant taxing authority
to Playa Capital at this time. Source: Frank Swertlow, “Playa Vista’s Sound Stage Plans Called Into Question,” Los Angeles Business Journal, July 19, 1999: p. 9.
(Enclosed)

3. Liquefaction Zone: The State of California has recently released maps indicating that the entire Playa Vista property is in a high risk liquefaction zone. A major earthquake in or near such a zone could amplify destruction of buildings and infrastructure, leading to foreclosure and City assumption of unusable property.

4. Crucial Court Rulings on Playa Vista Are Pending: Part of the Mello-Roos bonds are planned to be used to build the project’s stormwater detention basin, what the developer calls a “freshwater marsh.” In June, 1998, federal district judge Ronald S. W. Lew revokedthe federal dredge and fill permits necessary for building the drainage system. This case is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- a decision is expected this summer or early in the fall. The City is thus planning to allow Mello-Roos bond money for a project that might be illegal. The entire project is dependent upon that stormwater system. If the appeal is rejected, the city will have to do a new Environmental Impact Report on a new stormwater drainage system,
complete with public hearings. Forming Mello-Roos districts and granting taxing powers to support a problematic plan is unwise.

5. Playa Vista’s Mello-Roos Bonds have been granted special favors: Because it was said that DreamWorks’s presence made everything in the project of great economic benefit to the city. Since DreamWorks is now gone, those special favors should be rescinded. The very least the council can do is make the Playa Vista bonds conform to standard practices. Playa Capital should only be allowed to use the bond money
to build regional infrastructure of “Extraordinary Public Benefit,” not every cul de sac, sidewalk, and curb in the project. Second, the bonds must be repaid within 25 years, not the 30 years granted because of DreamWorks. Third, Playa Capital should only be allowed to use thebond money to repay interest for one year, instead of two years, as is standard practice. Source: City Administrative Officer, “Various Council Actions for a Mello-Roos Financing for Playa Vista,” Council File No. 94-2246, April 25, 1996.

In conclusion, we urge you to seriously consider this matter. We believe that there is good reason to doubt that the Playa Vista project is a sound financial proposition which taxpayer dollars should support. The inability of Playa Capital to bring in DreamWorks as a partner highlights this. We believe that taxpayer support should go to areas ofthe city that have more need and show more promise than the Playa Vista
project. Therefore we ask that you consider the following options in order of preference:

1. Vote against forming Mello-Roos districts for Playa Vista.
2. Postpone voting for six months to allow study of risks associatedwith the project.
3. Remove all of the DreamWorks inspired special favors for the Playa Vista Mello-Roos Districts.

Enclosed are copies of the above referenced sources. Also enclosed is a fourteen minute video entitled “Nature’s Last Stand” which describes the Ballona controversy and the vision of more than 90 organizations who are members of Citizens United to Save All of Ballona.

Thank you for your kind attention to this important matter,

Bruce Robertson, Director
Ballona Valley Preservation League