Other Letters

Schools, Wages and Transit

April 6, 2001

Dear Editor and members of the SMMUSD community,

After attending last night's SMMUSD Board of Education meeting, I cannot in good conscience tell anyone that lobbying the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting is a constructive use of your time. The Board did not consider their first Agenda Action Item until 10:30 PM. It is not reasonable to ask people to take precious evening hours away from their families for a chance to speak for three minutes to an embattled and exhausted Board of Education.

Important decisions about your children's futures are being made at your School Governance meetings between now and August, 2001. The Ralph M. Brown Open Meetings Act requires that School Governance agendas be published 72 hours prior to the meeting. All members of the public have a right to place a Discussion Item on the School Governance agenda prior to posting.

All School Governance meetings must be open to the public and must allow the public an opportunity to speak. Ask your School Governance Chairperson to tell you the procedure for adding an item to the Governance Agenda. If you take a group of like-minded people with you, the committee is less likely to table your item. Inform the Press and the Board of Education about your concerns and invite them to the meeting.

Organize others to help you keep students' educational interests the top priority when school policy decisions are being made. School Governance was established to ensure local community oversight of your Public School Educational Plan. Don't wait to be invited. If you are not satisfied with the quality of your child's education, participate in School Governance now!

Dorothy Chapman
Santa Monica

April 2, 2001

Dear Editor,

I agree whole-heartedly with Beth Leder-Pack's assessment (in "More Letters, April 2") -- my family is indeed fortunate that they do not have to rely on my creative achievements.

However, if it were necessary that they do so, I guarantee that I would work hard enough to provide a reasonable living without the necessity for public assistance.

Tom Larmore
Santa Monica

March 31, 2001

Dear Editor,

I think the concern about the "transit mall" is more about the long term impact of restricted traffic in the super-congested downtown area, (which I now avoid whenever possible- after all, the same services are more conveniently available elsewhere.)

One of the issues mentioned by opponents was misrepresentation by Suzanne Frick, et al, of the current and projected traffic and parking conditions downtown to the Commission that considers the EIR. If the transit mall is such a grand and glorious idea why did they have to cheat?

The truth is -- people do drive, not just within SM but from elsewhere to SM. Guys who own a BMW are not likely to leave it at home and take the BIG Blue, or any other bus. So, unless there is a massive carpool campaign aimed at folks who work downtown - with free distribution of bus tokens like UCLA has done -there is going to be one big, largely empty bus lane and a single lane each way for the same number of autos as before. Exactly how is the City Council's wishful thinking going to help? Build it and they will stop driving?

"Traffic calming" be damned. I for one am sick and tired of the manipulations of city staff and the council to further SMRR's social agenda. Santa Monica smugly thinks it is always on the cutting edge. "Because we are willing to dream and set the limits," Feinstein said, "we continue to set an example for this region, this country and this planet." Yeh, right. Those folks don't have to live here... but many do. They keep coming - and most of them drive a car.

I was born at SM Hospital and have lived only in SM all my life. Under many moons, I have watched angle parking on third street develop into parallel parking, become "the Mall", then turn into the ultra-chic Promenade. Right now I'm thinking about retirement and seriously considering a move to the desert.

Politics is the only culture here. Let the yuppies and mini-moguls have the bluff by the sea. People are rude. Traffic is awful, parking is worse. I'm house-poor here and could live much more comfortably and far less expensively elsewhere. Why stay?

Alison Wentworth
Santa Monica

March 29, 2001

Dear Editor,

I could not believe what I heard at the city council meeting on 3/27/01. During the meeting, I heard council members casually speak about being sued over the approval of a living wage in the coastal zone.

What is casual about being sued? Court fees are very costly, and it comes at the expense of the Santa Monica taxpayer.

The City Council was warned by staff and other credible individuals that they did not have the legislative authority to enact a living wage into a specific section of the city, and that they would in fact be sued. But did the SMRR council members listen? Of course not. They all voted for it.

The city council continues to waste Santa Monica taxpayer money in court fees, and once again, we have the SMRR council members to thank for it.

Joe Weichman
Santa Monica