Zane on Katz, Target and Countering Bloom on Playhouse

October 13, 2000

Dear Editor,

When Herb Katz claimed in his ballot statements that he "led" the revitalization of the Third Street Promenade and the Santa Monica Pier, I just chalked it up to election-year hyperbole. But, when I read his ad here on the Lookout, a line was crossed from hyperbole into fiction.

Here is candidate Herb Katz complaining about "more traffic, poorly managed growth" claiming to be an environmental champion; the same Herb Katz who as an eight-year City Council member voted for more development than any other council member in the history of the city.

But then, in an instant, I understood: he means that the city hasn't managed the growth and the traffic that Herb and his allies created.

C'mon, let's be square with the voters. The overwhelming commercial development in Santa Monica was approved between 1984 to 1988 by Herb Katz and his allies when they had control of the Santa Monica City Council. Period. End of sentence.

This includes most of the new hotels, the major office developments out along Colorado and Olympic (just now being completed), the legendary ultra-luxury beachfront McCarty hotel project (ultimately rejected by the voters), even an office project on Ocean Avenue yet to be built.

Would you like examples?

The Arboretum, over 1 million square feet, just now being completed: approved by Herb Katz and his allies, 5-2, in 1986 over the objections of myself and my SMRR council colleague, David Finkel.

The Water Gardens, over 1 million square feet also just now being completed: also approved by Herb and his allies, 5-2, in 1987 also over the opposition of myself and Finkel.

Why are they being completed now, 14 years later? Because Herb and the gang approved development agreements that gave them more than a decade to get their developments started and completed. That way they could weather any recession or changes in council majority or political philosophy.

In fact, Herb Katz and his allies approved over 5 million square feet of commercial development (that's a lot!) in his eight years on the Santa Monica City Council.

A question: Of all the commercial development built in Santa Monica, how much has now-Mayor Ken Genser voted to approve in his 12-year tenure on the Santa Monica City Council?

Approximately zero.

(In fact, no current SMRR council member, including the incumbents, has ever voted for a single commercial development.)

Ken did vote once for a small commercial office building that was to replace a liquor store on Wilshire Blvd. But, it never got built. And, he just voted to approve RAND's proposed development at the Civic Center, as did all council members. It was a replacement for the RAND building that will be torn down.

I, for one, thought Ken was too tough on development. Though I disagreed with Ken on some projects, I still voted for about 1/4 of what Herb and his allies approved in those four years they held a majority.

I suppose candidates are entitled to reinvent themselves. Herb now says he is an environmentalist. Now, I see, Herb also is a champion of the schools.

If memory serves me well, there was only one development that Herb Katz ever voted against in his entire tenure on the Santa Monica City Council: the Doubletree Hotel on 4th Street, the one developed on school board land that would generate significant lease revenue for our under-funded school district.

Come to think of it, I hope Herb has reinvented himself.

Denny Zane
Santa Monica Council member, 1981-1992

Dear Editor,

As a 30 year resident of Santa Monica, and one who is becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of affordable shopping in Santa Monica, I am in support of the proposed Target store at 5th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard.

Target proposes a customer friendly store, an esthetically pleasing building, underground parking, and they have a proven track record of putting money back into the community.
It would be really nice not to have to drive to Culver City or Manhattan Beach to shop at Target, as I currently do. Just think of the gas I'd save (and the fact that I can take the Big Blue Bus there) and the sales taxes that would go to our city instead of some other city!

We seem to have more than our share of expensive department stores, boutiques, and restaurants that certainly bring a lot of people to Santa Monica, but we do have a population in town who I'm sure would love to have a convenient Target store.

Lynda Auer
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

I'm writing about Richard Bloom's recent letter in which he unsuccessfully tries to defend his city council colleague, Mayor Genser, by using the disingenuous political trick of ignoring the facts and attacking the other side.

I really find Bloom's belief in the importance, necessity and propriety of using the political influence of elected officials quite disturbing. That is the true, sinister motive at play here.

By way of example, Bloom tells us about a time when his 80-year-old parents, who live in the City of Los Angeles, needed the help of their Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Feuer to intervene with Los Angeles City agencies on their behalf to remedy a problem with a neighbor.

Bloom uses this as an example of the appropriateness of Mayor Genser influencing Santa
Monica City staff on behalf of a friend. This is a really bad example.

Shame on Bloom and Genser, for what may be appropriate in the City of Los Angeles is absolutely not allowed in the City of Santa Monica. Los Angeles does not have the city manager form of government like Santa Monica. That a Los Angeles City Council Member may contact and influence Los Angeles City staff is irrelevant in Santa Monica because members of the Santa Monica City Council clearly may not do this.

Perhaps one of Bloom's and Genser's problems is that they don't know what city they were elected to represent and which rules apply to them.

Sincerely,

W.T. Dorr
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

In response to Mr. Bloom's letter, perhaps I was in error regarding the nature of Mr. Genser's assistance to the constituent. It appeared that the city's building department was asked to reopen the case regarding the Levy playhouse, which had already been approved by that department.

I suppose I am surprised that the parties involved were not invited in to see if they could settle the matter between themselves. It seems to me that this would have been quite reasonable, and a wonderful way to use this "critical part of the American system of government" to help settle a dispute between neighbors peaceably. Unlike Mr. Bloom's parents, the Levy's neighbors do not appear "defenseless." It also seems that they could have informed the Levys of their complaints about the playhouse while the Levys were making changes to the plans according to their neighbors' wishes.

I was also under the impression that it is the degree of the "reasonable response" that was in question regarding the Levys' attorney's argument. Or is the main concern the identity of the attorney the Levys have retained? It is kind of the city to offer to allow the playhouse to remain, since it was signed off by a city official, but it sounds kind of temporary. Does this mean the order to demolish has been rescinded?

From what I have seen reported, the "main goal of the Levy case" has nothing to do with anything so grand as "[squelching] public complaints" or keeping city employees from doing their jobs. A city employee signed off on the playhouse to begin with.

Chelsea Cochrane
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

I have read two interesting comments recently by our Councilmember Richard Bloom. The first comment was regarding his opposition to building parking structures in the city because they would increase traffic.

As evidenced by the ongoing increase in preferential parking zones within our city limits, we have an ongoing, unsolved parking problem in the City of Santa Monica, with no real solution provided by our City Council. Our parking problems are not caused by new
development, but rather the lax parking standards of the older developments in the city, both businesses and residential uses.

Many older apartment buildings do not provide adequate parking for their tenants, and many older business do not have adequate parking for their customers or their employees, resulting in an ongoing battle between residents and businesses. It need not be that way.

The City Council should provide leadership, and try to develop a parking plan for the
city, with shuttle services for both residents and businesses. Building parking will not increase traffic, it will help us deal with the critical shortage we all experience daily. It may result in a slight decrease in traffic, as people need not circle the block time and time
again in search of that elusive parking spot. It is time for our city leaders to provide leadership and provide solutions that benefit both residents and businesses rather that solutions that pit residents and businesses against one another.

The second comment was regarding the Jacob Levy playhouse. Mr. Bloom's comments misstate the real issue of the Levy playhouse. The point is that it never should have needed to go to an attorney. The City had already approved the playhouse, and signed off on the approval. That should signal the end of it.

The City's stance was that the playhouse was not conforming, and would need to be removed should the Levys subsequently decide to sell their property. It should never have gotten to that point. Once the approval had been signed off by the City, the playhouse was allowed. It is a simple matter of the City living up to its commitments.

If the City asks our company to bid on police vehicles, we can not back off our bid, and claim we made a mistake by a lower staff person with little experience. We would be expected, and rightly so, to live up to our bid. It would be a legally binding contract with the City.

The City's response has been embarrassing, and they should stop the embarrassment before it gets worse, and costs us taxpayers money that would better be used toward solving the real problems in our community.

Mark Harding
Santa Monica

October 10, 2000

Dear Editor,

Our potential tourist from Australia said his/her (Laurent ?) piece very well. Sounds like this community is up in arms. It happens every two years like clockwork and I too hate this time in our city.

People forget to be reasonable and considerate. Elections USA. Please come visit us after the elections on Nov. 7th. The holidays are beautiful here as good will and peace to all human kind returns to our community.

(On another front) This is the first time in my recollected memory of this city that OUTSIDERS had spent SOOO much money to do so little. Shame Shame Shame on Edi and his friends.

If you wish for strangers to not meddle in our community issues, let them go
elsewhere. Then Vote NO on KK, Vote NO on KK, vote NO on KK.

Bruria Finkel
Santa Monica

Dear Editor:

In a final edit to my October 8th letter giving kudos to the SMRR leadership, I inadvertently left off Kevin McKeown's name. He, too, serves this city intelligently, creatively and honorably. Today is Yom Kippur and I atone for my mistake. Councilmember McKeown, please accept my apology.

Beth Leder-Pack
Santa Monica