Tugging over TJ's and Driving in Circles

December 2, 2001

Dear Editor,

(Re: "Planning Staff Turns Down New Trader Joe's Store," Nov. 26)

As a resident of this neighborhood for the past dozen years, it seems clear to me that the opening of a Trader Joe's on Wilshire Boulevard would do wonders to invigorate a certainly stagnant, if not slowly dying, part of town.

The foot traffic which a TJ's would encourage will get neighbors out on their feet, walking and doing business with the smaller local shops, and keep the menace of high-end corporate stores like J. Crew, The Gap, Banana Republic and the like from spreading East and taking over all the mom & pop stores in town.

I hope the City, which appears to be only too happy to appease the big money stores (as evidenced by the glut of them on 3rd Street and surrounding vicinity), will try thinking outside the box on this one. It's about neighborhood -- and a local TJ's is a grand opportunity for those of us in the neighborhood to cut down on the use of our cars and invigorate the local economy.

Do us all a favor. Say yes to Trader Joe's.

Hanna Levinson
Santa Monca

November 26, 2001

Dear Editor,

Why worry if Trader Joe's gets permission by (Planning Commission Chair Kelly) Olsen to open or not to open the new store in Santa Monica? Trader Joe's stores are located all over the LA area, and some of them in very nice and large parking lots. Just to name one, the Manhattan Beach store is super.

Really, I do not worry if we have another Trader Joe's in Santa Monica, but I do worry that between the Santa Monica City Council and "the Olsen" mentality businesses will not come to Santa Monica, and businesses will move out of Santa Monica and this will be very tragic for the city.

But then again, this is really what "they" want -- no more capitalists in this city. POWER TO THE PEOPLE, right Mr. Olsen?

Maria Sirotti
Santa Monica

December 1, 2001

Dear Editor:

(Re: "Big Changes for 26th Street," Nov. 30)

Last Tuesday's City Council meeting was a joke. The council members and staff were claiming to do what "the people" wanted. What a crock. A number of other members of this community and myself busted our behinds for weeks informing the neighbors what the City Council and planning staff wanted to do to 26th Street.

The City Council, and especially City Manager Susan McCarthy, were frightened by our efforts to derail this project. They hate anyone who shines a light upon their dirty deeds and we were asking why they insisted on center islands, curb extensions, traffic circles, additional crosswalks and to spend $1.3-million dollars when all the neighbors wanted was a pedestrian-activated crosswalk so school children could cross 26th Street at Washington.

Be aware, my neighbors, of the damage this will cause. City Council persons and City staff are claiming all this is "for safety." But is it? When you narrow through-traffic lanes, remove left-hand turn lanes, put large curb extensions into the street, and add a roundabout that no-one knows how to drive, you're begging for disaster.

How are MTA transit buses and Big Blue Buses, that range in width from 9'9'' to 10'1'', supposed to navigate a 10'6'' wide traffic lane safely? This only allows a three inch "safety" clearance on each side of the bus. Lord forbid some fool opens up the car door while a bus is coming down the street. Imagine what will happen next.

City Manager Susan McCarthy, sent out the word (as I was told by managers of different departments) to general City employees not to participate in any petition signings or activities pertaining to stopping this traffic calming proposal. When I presented the petition to City employees several weeks ago, nine out of ten expressed deep concern that if they signed it, they did not want this petition to fall into the "wrong hands," where their superiors might get it and try to use it against them.

The petition was supposed to show our City Council the concerns, number of and the diversity of the City employees who opposed the 26th Street proposal. Because I would not turn over the petitions to the City Manager, she took a cheap shot at me by inferring they were "blank" and stated publicly, "Chuck always submits blank petitions."

She refused to even look at them unless they were submitted as part of the official record. I would never betray the confidence of the City employees who signed the petitions, which is the only reason why I never physically handed them to Susan or anyone else.

I guess that's the difference between Susan and myself. It seems this City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager are more concerned about protecting the rights of hotel workers than the rights of City employees -- who they do have the jurisdiction over.

In closing, I hope everybody will remember when you're trying to find ways to get around 26th Street, you might want to drive over to Harvard Street and show Bob Seldon and other board members of the Northeast Neighbors neighborhood group how delightful all the extra traffic diverting from 26th Street is going to be on their quiet residential street because of their
support of the 26th Street a traffic-jamming project.

Sincerely,

The Anti-Traffic Calmer, and More Traffic Enforcement Person

Chuck Allord
Santa Monica

November 28, 2001

Dear Editor,

I believe that traffic problems and pedestrian injuries would be greatly reduced if the Santa Monica Police Department enforced traffic laws vigorously, and I do not understand the rationale for not increasing the size of the police force for this purpose. Examples of obvious disregard for the law are the large minority of pedestrians who ignore pedestrian crossing signals and drivers' disregard of the change from green signals to red at left turn intersections.

1. Is there any California law or Santa Monica ordinance that precludes hiring more police and funding the cost from the income from traffic fines levied by and retained by the City? If not, why does our City Council not do something about the problem? Vigorous enforcement combined with punitive fines would probably get Santa Monica a reputation as a place to stay away from if you do not want to pay the penalty for ignoring the law.

2. If there is a California law that precludes hiring police and funding them from income derived from traffic fines, the council should enlist the cooperation of other cities and counties with the same problem and bring pressure on the legislature/governor to change the law.

3.If the City retains any of the income from fines, an easy first step in getting more income is to have parking enforcement personnel write tickets for lack of a front license plate and for illegally darkened window glass in front doors of cars. (This assumes that California law allows this.)

I believe that strong enforcement accompanied by punitive fines, along with a large enough police force to permit police officers to routinely be present when scofflaws come up for trial would be a big step in reducing traffic problems.

Arthur Zukin
Santa Monica