Trading Values for Facts

October 4, 2006

Dear Editor,

Thank you for printing Frank Gruber’s impassioned plea against knowledge. (“Values or Data” by Frank Gruber.) Other than George Bush, I’ve never heard of anyone who is against having more accurate information before making important decisions.

How refreshing to find someone with a like mindset on a local level. And to think, Mr. Gruber even once served on the Planning Commission. Sort of explains how Santa Monica got into the traffic mess we’re in.

Mr. Gruber doesn’t want the city collecting more accurate information about traffic because more information will just be more confusing and open to misinterpretation. Instead of having a more accurate portrayal of reality, (or as some might call them: “facts”), he would rather we act on our “values.” Wait a minute. Acting solely on our values, without regard for facts? Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, it’s our Middle East policy.

Sadly, where Mr. Gruber does rely on a fact, he is factually incorrect. The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City is not asking the city to spend anywhere near the millions of dollars he suggests. We are, in fact, asking the City to spend nothing.

Instead, SMCLC wants the city to apply for a Caltran’s grant for $200,000 to fund the upgrade. This money would be given to our city so that planners would have better tools to more accurately measure how much traffic a new development might realistically attract. And we shouldn't have that knowledge, paid for by a Caltrans, why? Because, paraphrasing Mr. Gruber, the reasons so much traffic comes through our city are unknowable and therefore it is useless to study them. Better to rely on values.

Mr. Gruber also criticizes the SMCLC for exposing a City Councilwoman who paid off almost her entire campaign debt by taking contributions from one large developer several months before she was expecting to vote on an issue of extreme importance to that developer. (The Councilwoman says she voted "no" on the project but, like Mr. Gruber, she is also factually incorrect. She, along with other council members, voted "for" the developer to return with a new proposal, then took the developer's money while waiting for the new proposal to come back to council.)

Mr. Gruber says: a) if it was such a bad thing to do, she wouldn't have done it and b) such a thing would only matter if the SMCLC could prove the councilwoman was corrupt. Again, like the Bush administration, the bar for public service is apparently so low, a politician's ethics and judgment should not be questioned unless a proven crime has been committed.

Money in politics, and the access it buys, is an important issue on both a national and local level. Rather than condemn a community group for pointing out a potential conflict of interest, Mr. Gruber should be thankful someone is paying attention.

Mr. Gruber isn't concerned about traffic impacts on resident’s quality of life. Nor is he concerned about over-development or even a council member taking money from a company before she is to vote on their project. One wonders what “values” he’s embracing.

Sincerely,

Victor Fresco