Intolerance

The following letter was written by Lisa M. Mead, a resident of the Third Street Historic District to Council member Pam O'Connor. It refers to the following statement made by he council member as reported in The Lookout:

“I’ve seen a lot of intolerance here,” said Council member Pam O’Connor, who noted that the owner was called a “carpetbagger” because he had moved in from out of town. “I think we need to be more tolerant of other views.” ("Council Punts Project Back to Commission," May 1, 2008)

May 1, 2008

Dear Council member O’Connor:

I am writing to address a serious allegation you made at Tuesday night’s City Council hearing against an entire neighborhood in the community you represent as a member of the City Council. At Tuesday night’s meeting you accused the residents of the Third Street Historic District of “intolerance.”

By intolerance, it appeared you meant “an attitude of not accepting or respecting different opinions, practices, or people.” Intolerance is a very serious allegation and not one that a public figure should use cavalierly when referring to their constituents.

First, to provide technical clarification of the matter that appeared to prompt your allegation of intolerance, the use of the term “carpetbagger”:

The Merriam Webster On-line Dictionary definition of carpetbagger is “outsider; especially : a nonresident or new resident who seeks private gain from an area often by meddling in its business or politics -- car·pet·bag·gery."

One of our neighbors indeed used the term “carpetbagger” in the following context: “Do not be misled by the appearance of support for the Cantilever from the applicant's carpetbagger friends and business associates at the April 22 meeting. 75 speakers chits were submitted. 41 oppose the project. Only 34 support the project. But 23 of the 34 ostensible supporters are not Santa Monica residents. Only 1 District Resident (the applicant's live-in girlfriend) spoke in support of the project. 15 District Residents oppose it."

However, in your remarks last night, you accused one or more of the Third Street Historic District residents of inadvertently forwarding you a communication that had not omitted the term [carpetbagger] you found offensive. Indeed, you knew or should have known that the use of this term was not an unintentional slip in anyone’s communication to you as you represented at the hearing, but actually a direct and intentional communication to you via email at approximately 10:30 a.m. on the morning of April 28, 2008.

The term was not used to refer to the appellant, as you also indicated, but was clearly used to refer to the 23 people who are not Santa Monica residents but nonetheless were allowed by the City Council to speak in favor of the project, thus preventing many City and District residents from effectively being heard.

Second, to address the substance of your allegation of “intolerance”:

I strongly contend that the Third Street Historic District has been a very tolerant and supportive community from the time I moved here over 10 years ago. I vehemently reject your label of “intolerant,” and these are the reasons why (please note that I have only provided information that I have personal knowledge and documentation of):

1. We are a wonderfully diverse/eclectic group of homeowners and renters who have come together, despite our many differences, to form a community. We participate in neighborhood watches, neighborhood yard sales, and potluck events. We speak to each other on the street and wave when passing by. We disagree with one another and get frustrated with one another, but we have always tried to look out for one another. Relevant and specific examples that relate to the appellant and his girlfriend include:

• From the time they purchased the 2617 Third, the appellant and his girlfriend were repeatedly invited to attend the neighborhood watch meetings and other neighborhood events, including but not limited to a neighborhood potluck party at our house in February 2006;
  
• Our good friend, former tenant and contractor, Adam Finkel, was asked bid on their project early in their process as we recommended him highly to them based on very positive experience with him;
  
• In response to their inquiry, my husband referred the appellant to the law firm, Harding et al, that had helped us with several of our own land use issues (and this is the law firm the appellant continues to use today). This referral was in response to an email communication from Mark Woollen and his girlfriend Erin Fotos on May 13, 2005, in which they stated: “We are experiencing several ludicrous snags with the city and hoping you have some insight on the parking issues. The city is trying to require us to concrete our backyard for additional parking even though we are only adding one bedroom. This would involve us cutting down our trees which we have NO intention of doing They are saying that we cannot use the parking on the side of our house as an option. They won't consider it because it's tandem and beside and in front of the house.” [Please note: subsequently they did cut down trees in their backyard];
  
• Before realizing that the moving of the front house was a part of larger and yet to be revealed plan to build the Cantilever project, several residents hosted meetings for the appellant and his girlfriend to share their plans with the neighborhood and several also spoke in favor of their front house renovation, including our neighbor Karen Blechman.

2. I contend that in reality it is the appellant and his girlfriend who have been hostile and perhaps “intolerant” as you use the term, and these are the reasons why (please note that I have only provided information that I have personal knowledge and documentation of):

• When Ms. Fotos learned that Ms. Blechman felt misled or betrayed by the appellant and no longer supported their project, she followed after Ms. Blechman down the street and called her extremely derogatory names ( I will refrain from repeating them since I find them so utterly offensive);
  
• When Ms. Fotos learned that my husband opposed their project, she blocked my car in my driveway while yelling hostile and offensive statements at me and my children (5 and 7 years old at the time); I had to endure her tirade for several minutes before she would move so I could pull out of my driveway with my children (who were quite traumatized by this spectacle). (Please note that we share a driveway with the appellant);
  
• Still angered by the knowledge that we opposed their project, Ms. Fotos later knowingly and intentionally barreled her car down our shared driveway while my children (again 5 and 7 at the time) were at the foot of the driveway attempting to get into a car. My youngest son panicked and fell in the driveway when he saw her car heading toward him, further endangering him. My children were so frightened and I was so outraged that I wanted to report the incident to the police but my husband discouraged from doing so in an attempt to de-escalate the situation;
  
• A few months ago, the appellant’s neighbor just to the south awoke one morning to find a black t-shirt strategically hung over the appellant’s porch (that directly faces her house), that read “f**k you hippy” in large white letters.

It is likely that there are many similar stories that other neighbors could tell and, as a result of your accusatory and derogatory comments on Tuesday evening, I would not be surprised if others are also moved to share them with you for your edification and in defense of their own reputations.

May I respectfully suggest that, in the future, before you publicly condemn a neighborhood or members of the community, you know your facts and ensure that you have an adequate understanding of the complexities of the matter before you. Anything less is simply irresponsible.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and consider my concerns.

Sincerely,

Lisa M. Mead
Santa Monica