October 20, 2004

Dear Editor:

Just want to take a moment to clarify and resonate on couple things Mr. Gruber mentioned in his editorial on (“Gangs? What Gangs?” October 11, 2004).

A history note, mind you: Gangs as we know them today have been in existence since the early 19th century. In New York City, the “Forty Thieves” surfaced as one of the first gangs in the United States. In addition, the existence of gangs can also be traced back to the Middle Ages in Europe.

Gangs in Santa Monica have been in existence since the early 1930’s (maybe even earlier). Throughout the generations, countless “homeboys” and innocent bystanders have been murdered and shot. 1989 is certainly not a pivotal period or a milestone in the Pico Neighborhood; however, the early 1990’s did become an era of gentrification and the dismantlement of rent control that specifically affected the Latino and African-American community in the Pico Neighborhood.

On the issue of the word “gang” never appearing on political mailers, well I would certainly say politics and the image of keeping the city of Santa Monica, or “Paradise by the Sea” as some would call it, plays a big role.

Furthermore, whether there are five or 500 “gang members” living in Santa Monica, the issue is not simply to count their numbers but rather and most importantly, the goal is to curb the cycle of violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, and other pertinent issues affecting all youth living in our city.

In my opinion, the meeting at Edison Elementary appeared nothing more than a campaign stop for the incumbents and candidates running for local office. Where were most of these folk during the time “two-dozen youths have lost their lives on Pico streets due to gang violence?” Not to take anything from the meeting at Edison on October 5, 2004, the issues highlighted that night need to be addressed and the people need not only be heard, but immediate action to their demands must be taken.

Each and every life that is lost is precious. The deaths of our youth should even be more personalized when tragedy hits our community. It appears often times, however, that when a certain group is negatively affected, they appear to hold precedence over the Latinos and African-Americans in the Santa Monica community, and in this country.

Jaime S. Cruz
Santa Monica

October 19, 2004

Dear Editor,

The other evening I got a voice mail message at home critical of Michael Feinstein as not being supportive of education issues. True or not, I think it is appalling that CEPS uses money to condemn a candidate rather than promote those they deem supportive.

I have attended many City Council meetings mainly during the Dr. Schmidt (former Schools Superintendent) era. I cannot ever remember Mr. Feinstein not supporting the schools. I do remember one evening last year that he criticized the practices of some parents’ actions in pressing for more funding and more recently did not approve of the CEPS campaign for a ballot
initiative forcing the council’s hand. Does this mean he is not supportive of schools or that he just may realize other matters need to be considered.

I urge CEPS to keep it positive. It's a City Council election in a small enough city that people actually do know the individuals involved. Why be negative?

Does CEPS really feel it needs to take the lead on negative campaigning? I think the CEPS that has good goals in mind has started taking a quite undesirable path and I fear will end up doing more harm than good.

Intimidating council candidates into signing a pledge is also irresponsible. Who does CEPS represent? Not me, and I have two children at SMMUSD schools and invested a good deal of my own time in our public schools.

Maybe the people at CEPS should take a look at their methods and see if Michael actually had a point that evening.

Sincerely