Promenade Trees, Hotel Owners, Playhouse, Homeless, Sundance and ATMs

October 2, 2000

Dear Editor,

I'm sure the City is concerned about trees falling on Promenade shoppers. That's good. But "foul-ups" such as incorrect planting depth of trees is like hearing about the Belmont High School disaster -- no one knows who is to blame.

It makes me wonder, were professional tree personnel put in charge of the project? Who had the job of quality assurance? Was there a quality assurance plan in place? But the costly damage is done. Now, if there is not one in place, it's time to establish a quality assurance plan before new trees are purchased and planted. Then, why not look at some possible alternatives for funding the project.

Here is one idea of mine. It's based on the $400,000 figure for tree replacement and the number of households + businesses in Santa Monica. Households = approx. 44,866. Businesses = approx. 7,155. 44,866 + 7,177 = 52,021. Dividing $400,000 by 52,021 = $7.69 per household & business. If the City puts in $40,000 (50%), using the same arithmetic gives on $360,000 divided by 52,021 = $6.92 per household & business.

I know there are very low income people in Santa Monica and perhaps there would be a way for those households to contribute $1.00 each, (I believe everyone should contribute something, no matter how small, for amenities they enjoy.)

My data source comes from the current demographic data on the City. If my computations are wrong, just let me know. I am not a professional in this area. As a Santa Monica resident, I would be willing to pay a one-time $6.92 toward this project. I don't know how one would assess it or if there would be a method of contributions. But one way or another, it certainly could be done.

Thank you for reading, and hopefully discussing this idea.

Sharon Steck
Santa Monica

October 2, 2000

Dear Editor,

Responding to Bruria's September 11th Letter: "Little did we know then that these hotel owners would become the worst element in our community. "

Bruria, come now. Santa Monica's hotels may not pay as much as you would like them to, but calling them the "worst element?" Whatever happened to HMO's? Oil companies? Slumlords?

The primary hotel owners behind KK are apparently the Slatkin brothers, who happen to pay the living wage already, and were paying it long before the issue arose (unlike the Loews, which raised their wages only in response to the living wage proposal).

Hotels generate over $22 million in occupancy taxes, and the upscale ones, the "worst," pay their people a fair wage (whether recently coerced or not -- the fact is that no one ever lowers wages) given the skill set of their employees, and don't stress the city's fire, police, and social services at all. It's nearly free money.

The living wage movement has already raised wages at the hotels that would be covered under Pollin's naive proposal. Maybe it's time to lower the heat of the exchanges.

Sincerely,

Michael Sieverts

October 1, 2000

Dear Editor,

With all the real problems in Santa Monica why is the city spending its time (and money) trying to demolish the tree house of a five year old? It seems to me the city should formally apologize to the Levys and cover their legal costs since they had already received city approval.

The only people who have expressed any problems at all with the tree house are those who have either already previously approved it, or made decisions without really looking into the situation. We all make mistakes, those of us with class apologize and move on. It seems our city would rather do evil than simply admit to making a mistake.

Mark Robert Halper

October 1, 2000

Dear Editor,

I don't normally write letters to the papers for the simple reason that it makes me feel like I am pandering myself, but sometimes you get lied to or misled for so long that one just has to speak out eventually. Last Tuesday night's City Council meeting (September 26, 2000) was a normal meeting for me because they do this type of behavior on a regular basis. But for some people in this community, they don't realize that this is the status quo for our City Council.

A dozen residents of our community waited late into the night to express their concerns about an item that was on the agenda -'vagrants'. Oh, I am sorry, the political correct word is 'homeless'.

At this meeting, a lot of things happened that offended a lot of people, but for me, this was business as usual. Mr. Bloom referred to these people as our brothers & sisters, mothers & fathers while a mother & father in Pittsburgh were mourning the death of their young son who was brutally murdered by one of these so-called 'brothers'. Was this child also Mr. Bloom's brother? Two people in our community in the past three years have also fallen into the same ultimate demise which is something that S.M.R.R. and this Council know so well.

As for Mr. Feinstein, get real please! Four of us walked out on your rhetoric for the simple reason that when we stood at the podium and tried to convey to you (our council member) our feelings about this & many other issues, you and your colleagues Genser & Bloom, seemed to think it's ok to snicker & laugh at us. So, why should we stayed and give you the courtesy to inflate yourself and lie to us?

As for your puppets Rick Laudati & Ellen Brennan (Co-Chair & Chair of OPCO and South Beach Neighborhood Association), both of them turned in chits to speak just as the staff report was being read. If that's the case, how could they say that they were not going to speak on the homeless issue until they heard what was being said by others in attendance (yeah right, get real - just review the tape). The marionette strings are clear to all of us (remember the city funding for those so-called official 501-C neighborhood groups)!

In closing, I ask your readership to look closer at what will happen if these three incumbents (Genser, Feinstein & Bloom) get reelected in November. It will appall you if you really knew what they had planned for us and what they don't want us to know. So, get involved before it's too late and before one of your friends or family members get attacked by one of Bloom's and Feinstein's so-called 'brothers'. You might want to look at the police reports and decide if you feel safe or not in the environment that they have created for us. How much more of this do we have to continue to tolerate?

Sincerely,

Chuck Allord
Candidate for City Council

September 30, 2000

Dear Editor,
(Regarding the Sundance proposal for the Areo Theater)

Two restaurants and NO parking? Come on now!

James Mount
Santa Monica

September 27, 2000

Dear Editor,

I don't know about you but it seems to me that the number of homeless has increased over the years here in Santa Monica.

There was a time when I knew most of the faces I saw sleeping and surviving on our streets. But, now I see people I don't recognize and they seem to be in far worse shape.
My concerns brought me to this past Tuesday night's City Council meeting and its annual public hearing on homeless services.

As the clock neared midnight I noted that the crowd had dwindled in number. But, remaining to speak on the issue were the leaders of four neighborhood groups, former leaders of two other groups, a few residents (one a volunteer on our police homeless outreach team) and three City Council candidates (such as myself).

We spoke during our allotted two minutes about the suffering we see. The impact on children, adults and visitors and the mixed message we teach them when we encourage them to walk away and not to interact with or try to help the homeless.

We spoke of the need for crisis intervention teams to help people who are endangering themselves and the quality of life for residents impacted by this suffering.

We spoke that it was not right to create a community that ignores these needs.

We spoke about capping the funding, as required by the Public Safety Initiative, and to redirect the funds to more meaningful life changing programs.

And we spoke about rolling up the red carpet and treating those that are here and not inviting the nation's hungry and suffering masses to Santa Monica anymore. Everyone was passionate, sincere and frustrated. A few were downright angry.

The Council saw photographs and videotape shown by several of us. After speaking up I was told by our current Mayor that they did not "want a lot of dialog here."

And after we spoke the Council then spent forty minutes telling us we were misguided, misinformed, that it is more complex then we could understand, that they were offended we would talk about any single part of our community, that these people were not 'things' (nobody even implied they were less then suffering human beings), that they are our brothers and sisters and otherwise discounted and twisted our sincere comments.

When one Council member noted that many of the speakers had left and were not engaged in the dialog I had to laugh. Our Mayor had just said he did not want a lot of dialog and since when is listening to people distort and disregard public comment considered dialog. The public is not even allowed to respond to the limitless comments of Council members.

And as the Mayor did point out perhaps many left because it was getting late. Yes, one in the morning is late -- in fact I bet that's why it's called morning and many have jobs to attend to in order to stay fed and housed here in Santa Monica.

Council members admitted they knew of these problems but they seem to think that if an outreach team approaches a person and they refuse help then there is nothing else you can do. How, misguided they are.

Ask members of the Alliance for the Mentally Ill, a national advocacy group for families of loved ones suffering from mental illness. Many know that you must go the extra mile to get people help. That you have to use all the tools, skills and laws available to end suffering.

If these families knew Santa Monica has reduced its spending on emergency crisis homeless services from nearly 70% to less than 20% of the millions we spend they might be outraged. These families are the ones who know that crisis intervention teams save lives and can reduce suffering. But, our community focuses mostly on those folks that come to Santa Monica who already want help and are motivated.

Great and wonderful stories can then be told, but the forgotten, hidden, hiding and totally deranged are living lives that can only be seen or heard as the most unimaginable silent screams one can fathom. Imagine the collective screams of the 400 to 500 persons who are homeless each night here in Santa Monica.

So, why then does our Council disrespect any part of this community that points this suffering and injustice out to them? Is it because they are ashamed that they have no idea how to address the issue and have gotten Santa Monica in over its head? I would ask this community to seek a true public dialog on the issue. Let's convene an emergency commission, committee or study group to use the expertise that exists in California and create a real model program to end this suffering.

How can our City leaders sleep at night knowing that just around the corner or under their bedroom windows their brothers and sisters are roaming the streets, sleeping in carports, unclean, unfed and suffering from injuries, infections and extreme illnesses and despair?

Do I want to rid the streets of the homeless? Yes, I do. Do I want all the homeless jailed or tossed out of town? No, I don't. I want a program of compassion that takes on the tough cases as often as it takes on the relatively easy ones. And I don't want a City Council that insults people like me who care.

David Cole
Candidate for City Council

September 27, 2000

Dear Editor,

At midnight Tuesday the Santa Monica City Council held a public hearing for the Annual Review of the City's Plan for Homeless Services. The Public Safety Initiative of 1994 requires a yearly report on the plan's effectiveness. The hearing is required to solicit input on the impact on the residents, effectiveness of services, cost, and changes needed to reach goals and objectives.

After a brief and fuzzy disclosure, council members and staff patted themselves on the back for their award-winning policies. However, they once again refused to acknowledge the people whose backs actually carry the burden of those policies: the community. With utter disregard for public input that insisted the council cap the spending that continues to draw thousands of transients into our community; the council members merrily accepted and approved the report.

But it gets worse! Mayor Genser went so far as to righteously assert that the facts the public brought forth were either not true, or not relevant.

A woman played a video of three transients, drunk and foul mouthed, outside her bedroom window, one exposing himself to her. Our mayor's only response was, "Did you call the police?" No reaction of disgust or horror, again putting the onus on the community, rather than acknowledging what is going on and taking charge of the mess the council has made with their social programs that encourage transients to live in our public spaces. The woman had called the police, but as usual, they came well after the men had left. Transients harassing residents are not a priority call; our police force has become immune to this Santa Monica fact of life. Why shouldn't they? Our council has.

When I spoke, I pointed out that only one of the council members has young children. The other six have no idea of what it is like to have to shield your children from aggressive transients on the street. I also pointed out that parents now have to nurture fear in our children, not compassion. I have to tell my child, "Stay away from them," or "Ignore them." I wasn't raised to ignore people in need, people who are suffering, or people lying on the ground. But this is the legacy parents in Santa Monica are forced to pass on.

It's time to determine what Santa Monica's spending cap should be, and then put all of our resources toward programs that are life-changing; rehabilitating; and outcome-based, only. It's time to start encouraging our service providers to expand in neighboring communities. It's time to get a grip on the realities that we face daily, in this community.

Donna Block
Candidate for City Council

September 21, 2000

Dear Editor,

Did the Lookout realize the ordinance the City Council passed late Tuesday lifted Santa Monica's ban on ATM second fees ONLY pending the judicial outcome? Our pioneering consumer protection law goes back into effect the moment we win in the appeals court (and I continue to believe we will).

In fact, our refocusing of resources on winning the main case raises an interesting challenge to BofA and Wells Fargo. Since Nov. 11, 1999, they have electronically barricaded their Santa Monica ATMs against non-customers with signs blaming it on "an action of the Santa Monica City Council."

Our original voluntary suspension of enforcement left BofA/WF with the excuse that our law empowered INDIVIDUALS to file for damages against banks if they were charged double ATM fees. Now the megabanks have no excuse. Why are Santa Monica's BofA/WF ATMs still off limits to our residents?

Bet the banks won't be putting up signs, "Due to an action of our greedy corporate attorneys"!

Kevin McKeown
Santa Monica City Council