The
LookOut Letters
to the Editor  |
 Speak
Out! E-mail
us at :
Editor@surfsantamonica.com
|
| The
LookOut Letters
to the Editor |
| Speak
Out! E-mail
us at :
Editor@surfsantamonica.com
|
|
|
Cavorting Homeless, Toying with Alan and Uncommon Sense November 12, 2001 Dear Editor, On Sunday, November 11, I was walking in Palisades park with my children
and While we waited for the ceremony to begin, three extremely drunk bums
began There was a young man with a ponytail in the crowd who also was watching this, and I believe he is or was a City Councilman. He did nothing to stop this disrespectful, offensive display. When is the City Council going to do something about the drunks in our parks? Sincerely, Katherine Marie Anderson November 11, 2001 Dear Editor, I've been following Alan Toy's comments about the homeless and housing with interest ("Absurd Redevelopment, Shame on Union, Report Belies Cynics," Nov. 5). Alan says that if housing were available to the homeless, there would be less homeless. No kidding, Alan? The question is how much housing is to be made available, and who is going to pay for it. There is a high demand for real estate in Santa Monica and it is putting more and more housing out of reach for the financially challenged. Here, there is a particular crisis because many "homeless" people are drawn here from all over the United States by City policies that hold out great expectations; one of them being free housing. I remember a story in one of the local newspapers a couple of years ago about a homeless woman, living on the Promenade, who came to Santa Monica from Texas to "get a free one bedroom apartment with an ocean view." Once she got the apartment, she told the press, she would the be able relocate her invalid husband who was waiting back in Texas. And most likely, the both of them would live here on public assistance. Yes, they do come here expecting an apartment, handouts and free food -- in return for what? What about those who don't want any responsibility, won't take a job or accept anything they might have to pay for? Do we provide housing for them, too? There are those who call themselves "free spirits." Those who want to live on the streets, unfettered and unrestrained by society -- to be able to come and go, drink alcohol and do their own thing. Do we find free housing for them, too? If Toy would bother to do some personal research, he'd find out that some of our "homeless" do not want to be confined "in doors" -- it's a form of mental illness or paranoia about being confined by walls that affects some people and has been studied extensively at the University of California in Riverside -- in relation to causes of homelessness. Maybe Toy thinks that all of this is "being cynical," but it is the truth. Unfortunately, there is more to solving housing problems than providing handouts. Sorry, Alan. There is no free ride. Bill Bauer November 9, 2001 Dear Editor, I read the Weingart report that Alan Toy eked so much about. I found it very entertaining. The report states that "Homelessness is a complex problem..." Well then, Toy is a hypocrite, because in his letter to the editor
on 10/1/01, he states: "Homelessness is merely LACK of housing.
It is the other side of the same coin. If you can't find Once again, in the Weingart report, there's a section entitled New Construction Is Not The Solution. Whoops. That also goes against Toy's letter. Most people would find a report that supports what you say, not go against it. Sarah Heim November 9, 2001 Dear Editor, Your article about the Green Party achieving national status ("Green Party Recognized Nationally," Nov. 9) did not mention something we think all knowledgeable people in Santa Monica know. If SMRR had not backed Michael Feinstein and Kevin McKeown, there would be no Green Party in Santa Monica. We hope all of us Democrats wake up and see that the Green Party hurts the Democrats, and will result in more Republican presidents. We would also like to say that Alan Toy's letter has convinced us that he knows nothing about the homeless. If he lives in Santa Monica, he lives away from the homeless. Us "not so rich" people deal with it every day, so we know what it's really about. Finally, we think that Frank Gruber has done a wonderful job for your site. After reading many of his columns, we are sure that Mr. Gruber is not only a smart man, but a person who genuinely cares about what happens in this country. Please keep him. Tom and Jessica Martinez November 7, 2001 Dear Editor, I'd like chime in on the recent letters to the editor on the homeless. I moved to Santa Monica in 1990. Back then, I would give spare change to someone I saw in need, but almost immediately, I saw that my money was going toward the habits of these unfortunate people. It was Saturday evening, and a man asked me for spare change. Feeling
generous, I gave him a dollar. A few hours later, I was walking back
to my car, and the homeless man I had given a dollar to was sitting
in the same spot, but drinking a bottle of The statement from Joe Weichman is true. If this Alan Toy visits downtown on any Saturday night, he will see what Mr. Weichman and I are talking about. The homeless that I have bumped into are not the least bit interested in being housed; they are interested in their next drink. It may be harsh, but that's what I've experienced in this city, and nobody, including Alan Toy, is going to tell me otherwise. David Gordon November 6, 2001 Dear Editor, According to my research, there is an average $150,000 construction
cost per unit for low-income housing (this is a very conservative average).
This means that Alan Toy's solution to the homeless problem (homelessness
can be solved by providing housing) would cost well over $200 million
(which does not take into account the future maintenance costs). It's
not as if Santa Monica has undeveloped land, so where's the space to
build that housing? Wouldn't this money be better spent on our schools,
parks, police and firefighters? November 8. 2001 Dear Editor, Your recent article about the City of Santa Monica having to pay legal fees of $297,000 to a lawyer who sued the City ("City Pays Price in Granny Flat Suit," Nov. 7) was eye opening. The City had to pay this lawyer because the City Council ignored its own lawyer's and staff's advice and passed a law that was, to quote the former City Attorney, "legally indefensible." The City was sued and it lost. No surprise to the City's lawyers and professional staff. And this is not the first time the City has had to pay out a large sum. Your article reports $620,000 in legal fees paid to a lawyer who sued the City over its housing policies. It also reported another recent payment of $278,000 paid to Jack in the Box to settle a lawsuit filed against the City because the City tried to shut down Jack's business. By my calculations, this is about $1.2 million in payments the City had to make covering only three lawsuits. How many other settlements and payments have been made that we don't know about? They all add up. And how many of these lawsuits and resulting payments could have been avoided? Probably all of them. Santa Monica has a population of about 84,000, so these three large pay outs cost each resident slightly more than $14. But what about the unreported, hidden costs, such as the amount the City spent on defending the "indefensible?" When you consider the City had to have its own lawyers and advisors and expend resources, the actual cost likely doubles to roughly $2.4 million, and the cost to residents then increases to about $28 per resident. And what about the little boy's playhouse and the living wage issues? How much is it going to cost us to resolve the litigation over those and other avoidable City created problems? City Council members, who have no personal financial liability or accountability, seem to be doing some really dumb things, evidently with the belief they have an endless supply of public money to pay for their errors. Of course, we can vote the rascals out of office, but where is the money going to come from to keep paying for these mistakes when those who made them are gone? And what sacrifices are we as a community going to have to make? Are we going to have even less money available to keep our schools and parks clean and safe for our children? Will we have to do without police and fire protection? Are we going to have to dodge potholes as we drive down the streets? What else? With tourism declining and with other downturns in the economy, the City isn't going to have the money to throw around to pay for the unnecessary and misguided blunders made to appease personal friends and political patrons. It's time for us as a city to wake up, and this should start with our elected officials. They need to exercise some common sense. But this may be wishful thinking, for so far our elected officials have demonstrated there is nothing common about common sense. Sincerely, W.T. Dorr |
|
Copyright ©1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 surfsantamonica.com. All Rights Reserved. |
 |