Wages, Playhouses, Books and Harassment

March 23, 2001

Dear Editor,

Hooray for Tom Larmore and his take on the living wage ordinance in 2004. With his tongue planted firmly in his cheek, he has penned a look into the future that makes sense to anyone in this town trying to run a business.

The thing that jumped out of this piece was the remark that the living wage isn't about higher pay for workers in the coastal zone, it's about political pay backs to the unions for campaign contributions.

I'm sick and tired of the liberal political establishment whining about big money running the system while they get in bed with the big money unions when it suits their purposes.

Tom, you're my hero!!

Barry Barker
Santa Monica

March 23, 2001

Dear Editor,

This writer, Mr. Frank Gruber, in his article "Freedom and Dignity" stated that, "Between 1990 and 1998 the number of people living in working poor households... grew from 1.6 millions to 2.5 millions, a 51 percent increase..." and then he goes on blaming the Reagan and Bush years.

Well, if this is the case, where was President Clinton during 1992 and 2000? Perhaps Mr. Gruber needs to take another look to see who ran the country between 1992 and 2000, and as for the leaders of Santa Monica there is no question at all that they are for the "little people," and, since they cannot improve the lives of the poor, maybe these leaders are not capable of doing their jobs?

Maria Sirotti
Santa Monica

March 21, 2001

Dear Editor,

Mr. Levy is being hoodwinked by his attorneys. The real motive behind the playhouse lawsuit against the City is NOT to fight "for other families in Santa Monica." Rather it is a slap to intimidate residents who note a potential problem and ask one (any one) of their elected representatives to look into the matter.

One day last year, a neighbor of Mr. Levy's made a reasonable inquiry to a councilmember about nearby construction. Now that neighbor has to get an attorney and be pulled into a legal battle -- because she merely raised a question to a City official who was elected by the people of Santa Monica to represent her and the people of the City.

We, as Councilmembers, expect that opportunistic attorneys will make unfounded accusations about us in order to make political hay. It is a sad day when those attorneys use such tactics to intimidate the residents of Santa Monica.

Councilmember Pam O'Connor

March 21, 2001

Dear Editor and all elected members of the SMMUSD Board of Education,

On Friday, March 16, I drove to Olympic High School, bungalow 23, to pick up my "Stairway of the Stars" tickets. There, in boxes waiting to be unpacked, were samples of the MATH textbooks approved in January by the State Board of Education. You adopted the California Math Standards last month. When will you be giving the Superintendent your policy directive for approving the best textbooks?

It is my understanding that if Districts complete their orders for new textbooks in April, they are more likely to have their orders filled by September. It will take at least two weeks for the SMMUSD administrative staff to place separate "Discussion" and "Action" Items on the Board agenda once textbook choices have been made. It is now March 21, and the texts have not been taken out of their boxes.

What is the process for bringing teachers from across the District together to look at these books, discuss the State Standards in Math, compare their teaching strategies and results by grade level, and achieve consensus on the texts most likely to help them provide all SMMUSD students with the best possible math education? What information will you gather from other CA Districts? Bypassing this collaborative process will jeopardize your goal of creating educational equity from classroom to classroom and school to school.

And yet, it appears that not one meeting of an SMMUSD math curriculum committee has occurred. To continue a piecemeal textbook adoption process, as you have in the past, where teachers make choices individually or in isolated groups at their school sites, is unacceptable. The huge disparity in Stanford 9 results from school to school should warrant an immediate change from "business as usual".

The California School Board Association has provided each of you with a blueprint for creating a District textbook adoption policy. The adoption process involves public participation and careful deliberation. Your own textbook review policy, approved a decade ago, includes members of the public as well as teaching staff. Public participation is crucial in helping you accurately monitor the results.

SMMUSD students face tough competition for college entrance and employment. Please accept your responsibility to provide them with the best textbooks and instruction to meet their educational goals. Please create a District Curriculum policy with a budget for adequate teacher training immediately in order to provide quality instruction to every student when school starts in September, 2001.

Dorothy Chapman

March 10, 2001

Dear Editor,

Regarding the article "Landlords Call Harassment Charges Unfounded, Divisive and Political " by Jorge Casuso:

Has anyone explored the idea of Means Testing?

When I moved to Berkeley in 1988 I moved into a 4-unit building that had been the owner's residence. The rent was therefore not rent-controlled. The other three units paid less rent combined than the $700 I paid for my apartment, and they were occupied by three medical doctors.

Can't we all agree that the intention of rent control is perverted by affluent people using its provisions? But BMW owners in cheap apartments have this Council in its debt.

I'd ask you to consider this: the rent board has a $4 million budget. I am familiar with construction costs, and one can build a reasonable two bedroom apartment unit for $100,000.

If you already have the land, as the city must, all over town, and you use leverage (bank or other lending), you could build each unit for about $10,000 in cash. Occupants would own their units and make payments that build equity (a 30 year $90,000 loan at 6% is a $539 monthly payment).

In other words, this year the rent board budget could be redirected to build 400 affordable units that would create a real economic lift to people who certainly need it.

In the four years since I've lived here 1,600 affordable units were NOT built. In the 22 years that the rent board has been in existence, its funding could have been used to build 8,800 affordable units.

Why don't we just elect people who have the political courage to disband the rent board and use its funds to build affordable housing for those who can prove they deserve it? What am I missing?

Michael Sieverts
Santa Monica