Rent Board "Witch Hunt," Shattering Vibes and "Those People"

December 26, 2001

Dear Editor,

After seeing my name in print in the article ("Landlords Score Symbolic Win in Ellis Ruling," Dec. 18) and the comments made by the Rent Control Board general counsel about me, I feel compelled to respond.

The lawsuit, which was filed against me by the Rent Control Board, was frivolous at best, a "witch hunt" at the very least. The Board had no facts and the case had no merit, which is why it was dismissed.

What was a real eye opener was the fact that the Rent Board was ordered not to do this kind
of thing in a prior lawsuit or lawsuits that they had filed. Judge Parnell even reprimanded the Rent Board attorney for doing exactly what they were told not to do prior to my case.

The reason I "Ellised" my four-unit building was to tie two units together to make my home a little larger and to build a deck. The Rent Board knew my reason but claim that my motives were different. I have paperwork filed with the Rent Board for this purpose and the plans submitted to the City for approval, along with the fees I paid for them.

After having submitted the plans I found out that this process could take upwards of two years (this is not an isolated case). The required upgrades/improvements I would have had to make would have run in the tens of thousands of dollars and made this project undoable for me. Therefore, I withdrew the plans and decided to go back into business per all the rules and regulations the city required.

I have never sued anyone nor have I ever been sued by anyone before this. This has been a very stressful and expensive experience. Why? For exercising my legal rights, and, trying to have a nicer place to live.

Are these the lengths to which the Rent Board and the City will go? To frivolously sue someone by claiming his mother (who was a tenant on this property 10 years prior to Ellising and tenant after going back into business), is a "sham?"

This is one of the most flagrant abuses of power of our governmental system I can possibly imagine. I guess I should find some comfort in knowing that this was a "benign" lawsuit. I wonder how bad a "malignant" lawsuit would be?

Robert Hackamack
Santa Monica

December 24, 2001

Dear Editor,

Santa Monica has done little to staunch the tide of aural insult that has ensconced us. In speaking with the police I've been told that a car stereo is considered illegally loud when it can be heard more than fifty feet, yet I've seen police cruisers ignore the window shattering vibes from cars that can be heard for blocks!

Some kvetchist has posited that there's a fear of violating first amendment rights afoot in this regard. Rights? The right to make noise that is loud enough to be physically damaging? This is not freedom of expression, but rather a callous disregard for people's right to the quiet enjoyment of their neighborhood.

Short of physical violence there's nothing more damaging to the people of Santa Monica than these pugnacious, arrogant jerks who cloak themselves in their constitutional "rights" whilst denying those same rights to their neighbors. Sadly the failure of the city to aggressively enforce the relevant laws is no surprise, but rather de rigeur for our whisper- whimpering, criminal hugging emperors.. I mean leaders.

And what about all the broken mufflers and flatulating Harleys (A loud motorcycle that's almost as slow as the people that ride them!) that are equally and disgracefully ignored by the police?
There can be no law and order without peace and quiet. If the police were permitted to be as responsive in these matters as they are when 911 is called, Santa Monica would have something to brag about.

Steven G. Keats
Santa Monica

December 21, 2001

Dear Editor,

Good long article on the park plan ("Planning Commission Okays Park Plan," Dec. 21). I thought you covered the issues but left out the fact that 20 something speakers protested and only 5 or so were in support... and all of the support was from insiders -- VAPAB or Rec & Park Commissioners.

The fact that the Planning Commission fell all over themselves to vote this up was an oddity... have they ever seen a development they loved at first sight?...especially after such pointed resident protest about impacts?

I had expressed strong skepticism about the race issue with Don Gray & Clyde (Smith) before the meeting. But after hearing the unwitting remarks by the Planning Commission, I was stunned. "Those people" and "so they can feel comfortable" type phrases did not escape you.

Unfortunately the shine from the halos around here blinds most of the vision. You were subtle; I hope it does not escape your readers.

The politics of the pool and the market will push a decision on the plan, but I predict it will be money that decides the reality.

Peter Tigler
Santa Monica