Fund Raising, Target, Term Limits and Playhouse

October 22, 2000

Dear Editor:

I read with interest your October 16 article on campaign fund raising by School Board candidates. Needless to say, I was gratified to learn that my efforts have been so successful.

By focusing on contributions to my campaign by civic leaders, however, the article may have given some readers the impression that my run for the School Board is being financed by large
contributions from a small number of influential people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As of October 21, my campaign has received contributions totaling $8,340. About 100 different people have contributed to my campaign, with individual contributions ranging from a low of $20 to a high of $250. More important, the overwhelming majority of these contributions have come from parents of children in the public schools who have met me and heard me speak at
informal gatherings in friends' homes.

Thus, while I am indeed proud that civic leaders from all points on the political spectrum support my candidacy, I am even prouder of the positive response that I have received from those who know best what our schools need. I interpret parents' generous contributions of money and time to indicate that they support my focus on strengthening the District's leadership, raising the level of academic achievement, and restoring accountability.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jose Escarce, M.D., Ph.D.
Candidate for SMMUSD Board of Education

October 19, 2000

Dear Editor,

There is a signal light at 6th & Wilshire Blvd. that is too quick to change for many of the senior citizens that live in the building slightly to the south & must use this crossing at their own risk.

I mentioned it at the commission on aging meeting. Fortunately, Councilman Richard Bloom, the commission liaison, was present & e-mailed the city managers office & they referred me to a city division that may help.

Some of the people crossing here are on those walkers with wheels and are in jeopardy, even when they press the walk button. If I can't get results at City Hall, I'm sure the A.D.A. (disability
act) can garner results.

George George
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

I would like to add my voice to those who are actively supporting Target moving into the neighborhood. As it stands, I have to drive to either Woodland Hills or North Hollywood to visit a Target.

There are no stores like it in our area, and an affordable store would be a huge benefit to the community. I appreciate your concern about traffic, but, perhaps it's just me, but when I go to either of the Valley Targets, I'm DRIVING and causing traffic anyway.

Thank you,
Celia Bonaduce

Dear Editor,

City residents are recommending to the Planning Commission that the development permit for the Target department store be approved. The Target store would blend in with the surrounding area and would diminish the limited existing parking. Target is conducive to the viability of the downtown area.

Due to its size and single tenant retail use, the proposed project is very compatible with the smaller retail, restaurant, office and residential uses that exist in the area and will become the greatest asset in the city's ill conceived and dangerous downtown redevelopment.

Target would complement the existing downtown Third Street Promenade shopping and business district. This project creates a more unified shopping venue. Because Target is a large retail store, it will provide on-site excessive parking spaces that will alleviate the downtown area parking crunch.

This would significantly benefit the over all design concept for the downtown area, especially in the areas of traffic flow problems caused by the lack of a master plan and due to a biased desire by staff to placate the needs of City Council to create a upscale non-affordable downtown area, a desired goal of having constricted traffic flow.

The Target store is the best last hope that the residents have in addressing both the city's ill conceived and dangerous downtown redevelopment and the issue of an ill conceived eight-story unaffordable up-scale hotel with 25 parking spaces going up across the street from the Target store.

Access is another key issue why residents are recommending to the Planning Commission that the development permit for the Target department store be approved. Target store will be the first retail store that will provide this level of accessibility in retail shopping, services, community room, bathrooms, parking spaces, parking structure, elevator entrances, exits, speakers podium and traffic flow. City staff and city council history on access is clearly visible by the fact that city hall lacks an accessible community room, men's bathrooms, elevators and services.

Pro Se
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

I like the idea of Target coming into downtown Santa Monica and believe they have adequately addressed every potential objection except the most important one.... TRAFFIC. Several times a day there is gridlock in the downtown area as traffic tries to funnel its way onto the 4th Street onramp.

Everybody knows Target's proposals of car pools, bike racks, and "encouragement of public transportation" will be inadequate in overcoming the habits of car-loving Californians. What happens to downtown Santa Monica when it gets an even worse reputation for gridlock? People will stop coming there altogether and the Target store will be responsible for reduced revenues to existing retailers.

Only by the city adding a 5th Street onramp could this problem be solved. When this happens and Target is up and running, I will grab my credit cards and the kids, hop in the car and drive to Target, Santa Monica.

Richard Orton

Dear Editor,

Thank you so much for the article you posted about the passing of La Verne King. She was truly a nice lady.

Sincerely,

Maria Sirotti
Santa Monica

October 16, 2000

Dear Editor,

I have been following the issue of Jacob's Playhouse for what seems like months now. What surprises me most is that it is still an issue at all.

The facts indicate that Dr. Levy worked not only to discover the city requirements but, once having found them, to follow them to the letter of the law. Additionally, he went even further by reaching out to his neighbors to ensure that his desire to enrich his son's life did not detract from the lives of those people who surround him. Reducing the playhouse's original size by half, lowering the height, even letting his unhappy neighbor, Tunde Garai, select the final color were all things he did to satisfy her at his own expense.

Then, after having given Dr. Levy her explicit approval, she nonetheless called her friend Mayor Genser and asked his assistance in having the playhouse removed. Although her action was less than forthright, it is really not the issue at hand. The issue is what Mayor Genser did on her behalf, and how city officials responded to his intervention.

Now, I read a letter form Councilmember Richard Bloom accusing Dr. Levy of "sinister motives," namely, "to deny us the benefits of this important American tradition." What precisely is the "American tradition" to which Mr. Bloom is referring? It is my understanding that all Dr. Levy and his Lawyer are requesting is clarification on what is and is not appropriate behavior on the part of our elected officials. This is not a question of the desire to "squelch public complaints by intimidating your elected officials," but rather a way to ensure that EVERY citizen knows EXACTLY where they sit vis-a-vis public policy.

Mr. Bloom's allegations notwithstanding, this IS about what Mayor Genser did or did not say! That is, after having granted its approval, the city, at the behest of the Mayor, did an about face.

Now Dr. Levy appears to be going the extra mile for the betterment not just of his own family, but for the citizens of Santa Monica. He is simply trying to ensure that what has happened to him does not happen to others. And for that, he is to be commended.

The fact that his attorney is, to use Mr. Blooms words, "Santa Monica's most prolific development lawyer" is absolutely irreverent to this case; rather, it is a very obvious attempt to paint Dr. Levy's motives in the most "sinister" light.

I agree with Mr. Bloom that "voters are entitled to have full access to a responsive government." But that requires a complete understanding of what are the boundaries of acceptable behavior on the part of our elected officials. We should not let elected officials deny us the benefit of one
of our most important American traditions: full disclosure.

It seems to me that the type of "American tradition" which Mr. Bloom employs here was best
reflected in the behavior of Senator Joe McCarthy -- just cloud the issue by attacking Dr. Levy's Lawyer. Let me repeat that whether or not Levy's attorney represents developers is not the point.

In this instance he is representing a CITIZEN who simply wants to know what policy is. Dr. Levy has nothing to gain from his efforts other than the knowledge that once his question is answered others will not suffer the same capricious fate he has over the last eight months... and who knows how much longer.

Vincent DeStefano

October 9, 2000

Dear Editor,

Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason.

I can't remember who is responsible for this quote, but in the case of Santa Monica's City Council, it could never ring more true. Our city has been ruled over by a tyranny for so many years that it is hard to imagine how wonderful it could become if it were led by people who understand how economic concerns are best left to individuals instead of people like our
current council, some of whom have never owned a business, a home, held a steady job or paid taxes in their life.

I am sure it would lessen the chance of our community becoming a laughing stock to the rest of the world by experimenting with such policies as the banning of ATM fees and a punitive
private industry "living" wage which eliminates jobs for the very workers it is trying to benefit.

Even with term limits, I doubt we would rid ourselves of this vermin, since there are so many of them who have migrated to our City by the Sea. The intent is good. However, the only real solution is to rid the City of rent control, where there will not be such a strong motivation for our fine citizens to vote for lower rents.

This is how the politicians in this city maintain their power, not because of their policies or their virtue or ability to lead, but because they have found a way to make a minority segment pay for their re-election. The only thing our fine citizens made up of 68% renters are voting for? To maintain the sweet deal they have found themselves in. They could care less for what happens to anybody once the rent control politicians are elected. If you were saving $1,000.00 per month, wouldn't you?

The SMRR candidates should list the $300 million it shorts the rental housing providers of this community as a campaign contribution. I wonder if that exceeds any legal campaign spending limits? Lets see, for you council members who have problems with math, that comes to $100 million for each of you up for re-election. Please check with the FPPC.

S. Forrest King
Santa Monica