More Letters: Playhouse, SMMR'S Legacy, Steering Away and the Homeless

October 9, 2000

Dear Editor,

I've been reading with interest the saga of Jacob's playhouse, and after reading the latest chapter I felt compelled to write again and express my disgust at councilman Bloom's defense of the city's and Mayor Genser's conduct.

In pressuring city staff on behalf of a friend, Bloom would have us believe Mayor Genser was simply ensuring his friend had full access to government representation. Apparently, Jacob's family's lack of access to elected officials is of no concern to Bloom. What dangerous nonsense.

I expect city council members to comply with the law, especially the city's own charter. Although I'm not an attorney, it was easy for me to access the city's web site and look up the city charter. For everyone's information, it's section 610 which clearly states that, except for asking questions, city council members are prohibited from communicating directly with staff except for the city manager. Perhaps Bloom and Mayor Genser, along with the other council members and city staff, should visit the city's web site and
become familiar with the city charter.

This section of the charter obviously prohibits what Mayor Genser did here, which was lobbying city staff to accept his legal theories, thereby helping his friend and forcing the demolition of a five-year-old's playhouse.

I agree with Bloom that the matter is no longer just about Jacob's Playhouse. But Bloom is dead wrong when he states it is not about what Genser said to city staff. Under our city charter, Genser's statements are of critical importance. Our charter was designed to protect those of us without a personal friend on the city council from the kind of political
favoritism and influence peddling which has victimized five-year-old Jacob and his family. Just because Bloom and Genser were elected doesn't mean they can do anything they please.

Bloom's personal attack on Jacob's lawyer misses the point, because it is a true shame that any resident of Santa Monica -- much less a five-year-old boy -- must hire an attorney to protect their rights from cronyism and government abuse. Bloom should be reminded that democracy includes protection of the rights of those of us in the minority, a place where all of us find ourselves at some point in our lives. If the city fails to respect these rights it is gratifying to know that there are attorneys who will fight city hall.

Sincerely,

Joanne Epstein
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

A parody of a previous letter sent October 8, 2000 by a SMRR activist who is also paid a very high salary at the rent control board.

When I drive past the big, gigantic mismanaged over-budget crater in the ground near city hall, and look from it across the street to the newly acquired $53 million Rand Property and further to the $300.00/sqft Aids Shelter on the beach, then drive in any direction to see all of the dilapidated apartment buildings with the Benz's, BMW's and Ferrari's in their parking lots, dodging homeless people all along the way who accost me
for spare change and yell four letter epithets in case I don't have any, I thank my lucky stars I don't have a child yet, to grow up under SMRR leadership.

Ken Genser, Richard Bloom and Mike Feinstein along with Pam O'Connor serve this city with tyrannical self-interest, as a launch pad to higher office, and are elected only because they support rent control.

With their policy setting and decision-making powers, these dedicated Council members abuse the Constitution by preying on a very small segment of the community and put the resources of this City back to where they will be assured of re-election -- to the tenants, tenant activists, unions and their own pockets through backroom deals and favors to others of their ilk.

To the latest City Council wannabes, good luck, we know you are the better people, and would love for you to be able to smell them, but there is a lot of manure in our roses.

S. Forest King
Santa Monica

Dear Editor:

I live in Melbourne, Australia, and clicked on your web page since I'd heard about Santa Monica, and how it was a great place to visit. Then I went to your letters section: trees falling on people, earthquakes, homeless and vagrants, murders, hostility and name calling at city council meetings! Wow, as a prospective tourist, I think I'm going to steer away from Santa Monica.

I'm sure the city has a lot to offer, but the 'Letters to the Editor' only show chaos. Doesn't anyone have anything nice to say about this town? Remember visitors check the Santa Monica web page now and then.

Sincerely,

Laurent Boulanger
Melbourne, Australia

Dear Editor,

What happens when a bunch of neighbors go to a City Council meeting on September 26, 2000 and comment negatively on the 1999/2000 Annual Review of Homeless Services? They are laughed and smirked at.

How does the City Council react when neighbors complain that after nearly twenty years and tens of millions of dollars and all the services and all the "success stories," we still host 1,000 hard core homeless each day in Santa Monica? We're told we don't understand the issues.

How does the City Council respond to the fact that many of the chronically homeless are alcoholic, mentally and/or physically ill, dysfunctional, dual diagnosed, and have extensive and serious criminal histories -- with many posing a danger to the citizenry? We're told they are "our brothers and sisters."

What do they say when we tell them that many of the homeless that we have invited to live on our streets refuse any real services preferring to just get free sack lunches, an occasional bed for the night, showers, lockers and a mail drop, as well as be free to wander the City and panhandle, get drunk and use our parks and streets as a toilet? They say, "its a law enforcement problem."

What is the Council's reaction when we tell them that the homeless (less than 1% of the City's population) account for 28% of the arrests and bookings by our Police and 12% of the calls to Fire Department paramedics? They answer, "We are doing more than other communities."

What is their response when we say that all the homeless services we've been supporting over the decades are supposed to be getting people off the street and have obviously failed miserably by attracting more than we can handle? They say, "we're compassionate and trying to stay ahead of the curb."

How do they react when we tell them, "You're right, we are," which is why Santa Monica is a magnet for homeless looking for both a hand and a free handout? They respond by saying they will not change any of their policies.

The City and its providers are being ripped off. No other City in Southern California Santa Monica's size provides the extensive array of services we provide and they don't have 1/10th, or 1/100th the number of homeless that we do, either.

It's time to end the failed social experiment and implement some long ranging and far-reaching changes. All City supported homeless services should be "life changing," not quick Band Aids. The forty or fifty free feedings in our parks must be cut back and controlled. We need to stop relying so heavily for policy input from social service providers/contractors with a vested interest in obtaining even more funding from the City to expand services. It's like putting the fox in the hen house.

We've got to stop offering help to anyone and everyone who comes here. We need to establish priorities -- real service to our own Santa Monican's in need, not the whole wide world. We need to make our community safe and a pleasant place to live as it was twenty years ago before the "Welcome" mat was placed on our door step.

If the members of this City Council insist on maintaining the high number of transients on our streets (and apparently they do) then we must elect new council persons who can and will solve the problem.