Same Old Story and Grammar Police

May 20, 2003

Dear Editor:

Santa Monica Rent Control Board Commissioner Alan Toy describes attorney Rosario Perry's skills as "harassing tenants and their SMRR advocates" and goes on to say that Mr. Perry has "precious few skills in anything else useful to humanity." (“LETTERS: Dear Mr. President,” May 20)

Are we to conclude that Mr. Toy believes harassing tenants and their SMRR advocates is useful to humanity? Why else use the "else"?

Jean Sedillos
Grammar 'R' Us

May 20, 2003

Dear Editor,

Your article, "Bracing for the Worst of Times" (May 20) explains that the City is attempting to reduce the budget by $40.5 million.

This may seem like news, but the same story was being told ten years ago. On June 13, 1993, The Outlook ran the front page headline, "Small city + big costs = cuts." The story, written by John Buzbee, opened with the following two paragraphs:

" A used car. A new kitchen. Or a really big weekend in Vegas. That's what every Santa Monica resident could buy with the $185 million the city plans to spent this year: $2,133 each, enough to get everyone a few things they really need or a few things they don't."

Those were the good old days, when the City was ONLY spending $2,133 for every resident and the budget ONLY had a $11.2 million shortfall. According to your article the budget must NOW be reduced by $40.5 million in order to reduce it from $394.2 million to $353.7 million.

Is this "progressive?" I guess Santa Monica is "progressive" in the same way that Las Vegas slot machines are described as "progressive." Look at how much the budget has increased over the past ten years.

According to the Santa Monica Mirror, published the week of January 3 - 8, 2002, the population of Santa Monica declined from 86,905 to 84,084 between 1990 and 2000. And according to The Lookout and the City Budget Report the City's budget is being REDUCED to $353.7 million per year.

By dividing $353.7 million by 84,084 people who now reside in Santa Monica, the City spends $4,206.50 per person per year. Therefore, the Budget has nearly doubled over the past ten years, and the only reason it did not double is because the City plans to reduce the budget by $40.5 million.

A budget of this size for local government is absurd, and I have to wonder when, if ever, the majority of voters in this City will come to their senses and throw the big spenders out of office.

I wrote the ballot argument against Proposition GG, which was placed before the voters last November. That measure proposed doubling the salary of Rent Board Commissioners and giving them full medical and dental insurance.

The proponents of that argued in the ballot argument, ". . . Rent Board members are the only elected officials in Santa Monica who do not receive basic health insurance."

I argued that rather than increase the compensation for Rent Board commissioners, the City should consider reducing the perks and benefits for all the other City boards. That suggestion was not followed, although Proposition GG was defeated.

Proposition EE, which proposed increasing property taxes for public education, was also defeated, although another ballot initiative to increase those taxes will appear on the ballot in a few weeks, and should meet the same fate.

City support of the schools is another thing has not changed over the past 10 years. In the June 1993 Outlook article, the amount of the City's budget allocated to the school system was not included in the analysis because it was less than 1%. That is still true.

Last year the Santa Monica school system only received $3 million per year, which is equal to 8/10ths of one percent of the budget.

This City has a strange set of priorities and ways of reducing the budget. The only way Santa Monica students will get adequate support from this City is if they become homeless or get themselves elected to a City commission.

James L. Jacobson