 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT RIFT ENDORSEMENT LIST (click here)
“The consequences of failing to pass Prop T would be runaway development and ever increasing traffic - which Santa Monica just cannot afford! The LA County Democratic Party urges you to vote YES on Prop T to protect our community and our way of life.”
–Los Angeles County Democratic Party
I support prop T because more traffic will decrease the quality of life for all residents of Santa Monica. Until we solve our current traffic problems with mass transit improvements and infrastructure upgrades it is foolish to allow rampant development of our city which will only benefit out of state real estate investors, who, in most cases, are just large pools of capital such as endowments, pension plans & hedge funds who can go elsewhere to find investment opportunities; we live here; and we need to protect what we have: a beautiful, pleasant place to live.
– Lance August
After more than 20 years overdeveloping our city, it’s time for Herb Katz to go. Katz is probably more responsible for our overdevelopment and traffic congestion than any other Santa Monica politician. To read his comments in this weekend’s newspaper, you’d wonder
how he has remained in office so long.
L.A. Councilman Bill Rosendahl joined our Councilmen Kevin McKeown and Bobby Shriver at a rally in favor of Measure T. Herb “Development” Katz and Richard Bloom are angry with Rosendahl for suggesting that traffic is a regional problem and that L.A. and Santa Monica need to work together. Of course, Herb Katz doesn’t mind if developers all over the country put up hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight residents or to fund his campaign. Those kinds of outside influences don’t draw a peep from our mayor.
– Mark Kreher (SM Daily Press 10/30/08)
YES – Measure T — It’s closing the barn door after the horse has left, but we need a plan, and this will help force the issue.
– David Pisarra, SM Daily Press Columnist
To the "Yes on Measure T" Committee:
Anti-T mailers from Save Our City feature the name of "Marian Blount, a 16-year Santa Monica resident" prominently featured on a list of those who oppose Measure T. For the record, I never told anyone I opposed T, never gave anyone permission to use my name and I have, in fact, already voted FOR T.
– Marian Blount
How interesting that the funding for a campaign against Measure T has come into question because it puts many of the initiatives opponents at odds with their belief in preserving rental housing.
Add to this the revelation that City Council incumbents Ken Genser and Richard Bloom balk at the concept that the receipt of $250 each by Santa Monica resident Gregory Ames, a senior vice-president of condo developer Trammell Crow Co., really isn’t a bribe, and what we have are hypocrites of the highest order.
According to City Council member Ken Genser, “The reality is people who want something from the city are people who give money and that is why we should consider public finance.
“I think we’ve done a good job limiting contribution at $250 because that reduces the influence of campaign contributions on policy makers.”
So, in other words, Mr. Genser, if it looks like a bribe, makes you act in accordance of the intended bribe, it’s still a bribe.
As for the group Save Our City, one heavily funded by condo developer interests, hotel interests, and clearly made up of ideologues, I ask the following question which is: What interests do Save Our City take into account other than to further the greed-ridden agendas of a lame-duck council and its developer cronies … ? Ken Genser, Richard Bloom and Herb Katz, your days of reckless abandon on the City Council are numbered.
– Jethro Singer (SM Daily Press 10/18/08)
Council members who defend developers’ donations to their campaigns must think us terribly naive. Are we really to believe that these donations have no effect on the way they vote? I don’t buy that argument when it comes to politicians in Washington, and I don’t buy it in Santa Monica. Developers are businessmen and they would not spend their money if they didn’t believe they would make a profit on it.
– Ellen Mark (SM Daily Press 10/17/08)
I and my family have resided in our Santa Monica home for over 20 years. During this time we have helplessly watched the steady degradation in the quality of living in our community due to the increase in traffic that is caused by continuous development in our area. It has been frustrating for us to see our city decision-makers cater to money-talk developers at the cost of robbing thousands of silent households of a peaceful place to live. Enough is enough. It seems that we cannot depend on our elected leaders to protect the interests of our community and so we are very glad to see the Prop T initiative become available to us as a way to stop the damage that is being done. The initiative may not be perfect in its present form but that should not be a reason to reject it. The restrictions it imposes can be amended and fine-tuned over time. It is a measure that is very much needed to turn around the misguided direction that we are on.
– Faustino Garz (SM Mirror 10/16/08)
I’ve been a resident of Santa Monica for more than 40 years and a small business owner for 20 of them. I care deeply about our community and closely follow Santa Monica politics.
In an election where so much developer money is being spent to punish the foes of unregulated growth, it takes courage for a council member running for re-election to stand up for his convictions. ("Shriver Supports Prop T," October 10, 2008)
Bobby Shriver has done just that. He has stood up against developers and taken a stand motivated by what is best for our city and our community.
I’ve been impressed with Shriver’s commitment to making the world a better place to live through his work on AIDS in Africa and I am impressed with his commitment to making Santa Monica a better place to live.
– Jacob Samuel (surfsantamonica.com 10/15/08)
It is very unfortunate that our beach town is being hijacked by big developers whose goal is to build mega projects, take the profits and run, leaving residents with more and more traffic congestion. They've been doing it for more than 10 years and want to do it as long as we will let them. ("Major Developers Bankroll Prop T Opposition," October 9, 2008)
It's a month before the election and I'm already exhausted by the endless lies the No on Prop T committee is mailing me. Why can't we ban contributions from out-of-town developers or anyone from running campaigns in our city? Santa Monicans are smart and engaged and can decide our future ourselves -- we don't need big money from outside our city to tell us how best to vote.
Shame on these out of town developers, shame on the "community leaders" who are the local faces on their profit-driven campaign and shame on the incumbents who take their dirty dollars.
– Fred Alexander (surfsantamonica.com 10/15/08)
As a college street area resident for the past 16 years, I’ve seen traffic become impossible/impassible on … weekdays from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
When trying to navigate Wilshire, Santa Monica, Broadway, Colorado, Olympic or Pico boulevards during these hours one becomes acutely aware of the impossible traffic. If Proposition T becomes a reality, it will insure that more developments … will be tempered by the impact of increased traffic.
Please don’t listen to those officials who … benefit somehow from developers who lovingly look at our city as a financial boondoggle to success and bypass the will of its people and the impact more commercial development would bring.
Would you like more Water Garden-type developments along our thoroughfares bringing hundreds or possibly thousands more cars during rush hour?
How many of you have tried to get out of Santa Monica for dinner, entertainment during these hours only to be thwarted by continuous traffic for hours by employees who live elsewhere and commute to our fair city? Do we need more cars, more companies building monstrous facilities for their employees?
Remember what Santa Monicaused to be like. It will not happen overnight, but passing Prop. T is a step in the right direction.
– Madelyn Tarfman (SM Daily Press 10/14/08)
I support Proposition T — also known as RIFT —because I believe we residents must protect our community from developers. It’s that simple.
I have read with interest the many editorials posted in your paper on Prop. T and it is now clear thanks to your good work that setting limits on growth in our city will not “hurt our schools” or as one opponent charged “contribute to global warming.”
I work at home and rarely do I leave my home in the evenings for events anywhere outside of Santa Monica because the traffic is so terrible that I cannot get out. It’s time for those of us who love Santa Monica to protect our quality of life.
–Tricia Crane (SM Daily Press 10/11/08)
I’d like to respond to your recent letter, “Traffic is a normal part of success.” Let me see if I have this right. Gridlock is normal? Gridlock is success? Twenty years of poor land-use decisions and giveaways to developers have brought us to this point. Santa Monica did almost nothing about traffic solutions until residents started collecting signatures for Prop. T. The writer, a candidate for Rent Control Board, has a glorious vision for Pico Boulevard. But Pico already resembles the 405 at rush hour. How much more traffic can we bear? He seems not to have read in this very paper that our City Hall has failed to collect tens of millions of dollars in traffic impact fees from developers that could have helped mitigate this problem. If neglecting traffic problems and not even collecting the traffic impact fees owed to our city is what he calls success, perhaps he’s not the kind of candidate we need for elected office.
–Phil Harnage (SM Daily Press 10/11/08)
I was saddened to read about the resignations from CEPS over the vote to oppose Prop T. CEPS was started to focus on our schools and our children’s education. Now, the majority of the steering committee has put politics over that mission. Prop. T has nothing to do with schools and will have no impact on school funding. The No-on-T folks are using our schools and now CEPS to defeat a measure aimed squarely and solely at traffic and overdevelopment. Sadly for our schools, yet another group has decided our kids come second to politics.
–Joanne Curtis (SM Daily Press 10/11/08)
Despite a most informative candidate forum sponsored by CEPS and LEAD, the participants, specifically, incumbents Ken Genser, Richard Bloom, and Bobby Shriver, proved, once again what a motley and disconnected team they are from the residents of the City of Santa Monica. This disconnect was made most apparent when the question was raised regarding Proposition T, the traffic initiative. As predicted, councilmembers Shriver, Bloom, and Genser exhibited the same disdain for any proposition which would compromise their self-aggrandizing aims, that they've exhibited during their over-rated tenure on the City Council. On election day, we Santa Monica residents must do everything to cleanse the elephant graveyard of bleached bones and add fresh blood.
–Jethro Singer (SM Mirror 10/3/08)
Apparently the city has been serving it up for developers to the tune of $45 million. What? Like they have to entice developers to come to Santa Monica? How many police officers could we hire for $45 million? How many computers could be purchased for schools? Once again, the city cheats the residents of Santa Monica in favor of developers. Overdevelopment is costing residents dearly in time trapped in traffic and now, we learn, in $45 million in [alleged] uncollected fees.
–Jeanne Laurie (SM Daily Press 10/2/08)
I am aware that in a recent mailer from the “No on T,” Save our City organization that my name and our organization was erroneously listed as opposing Proposition T. I want to clarify that the National American Red Cross has strict prohibitions on use of our name to either endorse or oppose political candidates or ballot issues. ... read
–John Pacheco, Chief Executive Officer, American Red Cross, Santa Monica chapter (SMDaily Press 9/30/08
As a supporter of Proposition T, I don’t think the Santa Monica City Council has fully grasped the impact of this grass-roots movement.
Council meetings, with the notable dissent of Councilman Kevin McKeown, devolve into long-winded tirades on trivial matters, all the while sneering at and dismissing Proposition T and its supporters.
Council members should recall that SMRR came to power on the second try in the rent control debate by countering landlord idealism with neighborhood nuts and bolts. Now, in an ironic twist, they argue model transit village idealism against the neighborhood nuts and bolts of parking and traffic. That is an argument they will lose ... now or next time.
–Robert J. Scura (SM Daily Press 9/29/08)
I look forward to hearing from City Council if and why they failed to collect $45 million from developers. (“Council Looks into $45 Million,” September 26, 2008)
City Hall seems to have no trouble collecting from me. Even if the final number isn't $45 million, can City Hall really afford to let developers off the hook for all the traffic they create??
No wonder traffic is so bad in this city-- we've got drivers that are asleep at the wheel and those drivers are our City Council.
–Sharon McGeeney (surfsantamonica.com 9/25/08)
As a former Santa Monica resident and now regular visitor, I would like to offer an observation of this town. Santa Monica is losing its identity and focus in a blur of construction.
The nice part of Santa Monica is the low scale, non-city like atmosphere. California’s assets of sunshine, beach, elbow room and greenery are at their peak in Santa Monica, yet all this seems lost on those wanting to build higher, bigger, more dense. It is foolish to aspire to a European or an east coast type of urban life. It’s a waste of assets. The natural riches can never be replaced by chock-a-block living, traffic, consumerism and hyper-urban fantasies.
–Teut Deese Munich, Germany (SM Daily Press 9/24/03)
In response to David Pisarra and Proposition T, I see it as a “no brainer” issue. What is there to debate when we have eight square miles of a tiny seaside city being trashed by developers?They make huge profits in our city, while residents get stuck with the huge traffic mess they create. How can one argue aboutwealthy absentee landlords making a profit while our quality of life turns ugly. More development is coming: Our city has refused to set any annual limits on commercial development.They have just greenlighted increases in new building heights on our major boulevards, from Wilshire to Pico, to as high as six stories tall. Prop. T is a grass roots effort with little money compared with the wealthy developers, so be prepared for big lies in opposition to our efforts.
–Ruth Rosen (SM Daily Press 9/20/08)
Your opinion story from the Chamber of Commerce about the Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic demands a response. The Chamber and City Hall have done absolutely nothing to deal with traffic congestion. If the Chamber and City Hall had not been so irresponsible for so many years we would not need a ballot measure to solve our traffic problems. The sad fact is that the Chamber and City Hall have failed residents year after year and judging from the new General Plan, they are going to continue to fail us.
–Phyllis Chavez (SM Mirror 9/18/09)
I was stunned by Tom Larmore’s article attacking Proposition T and arguing that we need more business as usual when it comes to traffic. Unrestrained development is not good for small business owners. Mr. Larmore and his colleagues have been behind much of this city’s overdevelopment and traffic. The list of large developments they’ve wrought upon Santa Monica include such notables as the Watergarden, where they added tens of thousands of new commuters without providing any significant traffic improvements.
Mr.Larmore and his ilk are why we need Proposition T, because traffic is out of control and going to get a lot worse if residents don't take matters into their own hands at the ballot box in November.
–Ellen Mark, Former Board Member,Friends of Sunset Park (SM Mirror 9/18/09)
I am writing in response to the recent letter from the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce about Proposition T – the traffic-fighting initiative.
It is surprising that the Chamber refuses to back off its claim that Prop T would somehow devastate city or school revenue. The Chamber made these same illogical arguments to our City Attorney who has the responsibility to inform the voters if Prop T will have ANY fiscal impacts on future city revenue. The City Attorney’s impartial ballot analysis for Santa Monica voters makes NO finding whatsoever of ANY fiscal impact if Prop T is enacted. Soon, all voters will receive their ballot summary and can determine this for themselves.
Now the Chamber is saying that Prop T is going to drive up rents, create a shortage of medical space, and devastate non-profit organizations.
Another argument and one easy to refute given the history of Santa Monica’s small businesses, most of which aren't represented in the Chamber.
The Chamber erroneously relies upon a simplistic supply and demand theory to justify their argument that rents for commercial tenants will rise if Prop T passes. If Santa Monica had a large amount of vacant commercial property, the argument might have legs. But the reality is that Santa Monica’s commercial lots already have buildings on them. In order to build a new building, an existing building needs to be torn down. There is a certain bottom line that the rents in new buildings are substantially higher than rents in older buildings.
So the reality is that Prop T would keep rents down by reducing the number of businesses that are forced to move from low rent older buildings, into high rent new buildings. There is a further reality that most small businesses cannot afford the rents in new buildings, and when their older buildings are demolished, they are forced to either leave Santa Monica or go out of business. That’s what has been happening and that’s why Prop T favors independent small businesses over chain stores and box stores in its provisions.
The Chamber also asserts a shortage of medical space that does not exist. Santa Monica, with only 90,000 residents, is served by over 1,500 medical-related businesses and three world class, recently renovated hospitals. Currently, there is existing medical space for lease and the city can allow existing office space to be converted into medical should the need arise for more medical space.
The Chamber’s claim that Prop T will hurt non-profits is also fiction. There are no non-profit organizations facing hardship from Prop T. As the Chamber admits, both the YMCA and OPCC have already completed their developments. The Santa Monica Boys and Girls Club is exempt from Prop T, under the provision that exempts facilities for children. The Santa Monica Red Cross is neutral on Prop T. It has now publicly acknowledged that Prop T will not interfere with its development plans and has also asked the Prop T opposition to kindly remove its name from its literature. The YMCA has raised a similar objection and also insisted that the opposition stop using its name in opposition to Prop T.
Finally, the Chamber makes the silliest claim of all. They claim that commercial development does not create traffic. The Chamber is disputing the findings of every environmental impact report done in the history of this city and our own city traffic engineers who have repeatedly stressed in public hearings that commercial development typically yields three to four times the traffic of residential.
Prop T would simply schedule or “phase” commercial development at 75,000 sq. ft. per year vs. the current 160,000-220,000, and thus reduce the increased traffic associated with commercial development. Its' the least we can do. Please vote YES on Proposition T.
–Jay Johnson, former SM Planning Commissioner (SM Mirror 9/18/08)
A brief history for the anti-RIFT folks. Once upon a time there was a city whose public places were being overrun by vagrants and criminals, destroying the quality of life, especially for mothers with small children and the elderly. A small number of brave, concerned citizens banded together to push to take back the city.
Over 12,000 citizens responded to the group’s call to arms. This unprecedented pressure forced the languid City Council to pass ordinances that had meaningful impacts on the problem.
That city was Santa Monica, and that group was the real Save Our City, of which I was a proud charter member and whose name you have shamefully co-opted.
Your group is but a cheap imitation of that group, stooping to Republican-style fear-mongering which grossly misrepresents the facts. RIFT will pass, despite your underhanded tactics.
–Jan Ludwinski (SM Daily Press 9/18/08)
J.W. Petoria closes his letter to the editor clearly admitting that Santa Monica is a city in a state of decay. For too many years, the city has backtracked from its glory days as a protector of the environment and has opted for a magnitude of growth that is worthy of a New York City borough, resulting in an unprecedented increase in traffic into and out of Santa Monica. So much so, that Santa Monica is now clearly recognized as the major influence of Westside gridlock. Santa Monica is now desperately seeking to have new arteries built to relieve the existing, now-clogged, arterial streets. Exposition Rail and Subway to the Sea will only continue to make Santa Monica feel more like New York City, but apparently Santa Monica cannot handle the New York load. Protecting established trees from unnecessary destruction addresses this out-of-control growth. It certainly also addresses global warming.
Visiting Santa Monica has become an uncomfortable adventure of fighting noise and traffic and the Wednesday Farmers’ Market has been replaced with a comfortable visit to the Sunday Mar Vista Farmers’ Market. The city argues the trees had to be removed for safety reasons, but one only has to walk or drive in Downtown Santa Monica to realize how unsafe it has become. With no usable sidewalks on either side of some streets due to construction and tree destruction, pedestrians are forced to walk adjacent to dangerous traffic. Where is the logic? J.W. Petoria got one thing correct; Santa Monica is in a state of growth decay.Monday’s column by Bill Bauer was, pardon the expression, right on the money (“Following the money,” page 4, Sept. 8). Santa Monica is fast becoming a victim of its own success. It’s a sad fact that the more development we allow to take place, the more we will be victimized by increased traffic, pollution and overcrowding.
What surprises me is the intensity of the reaction of the anti-RIFT (Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic) forces. It’s not like residents are asking for a zero growth ordinance or a moratorium on all development, as has happened in other cities. Ironically, when I was gathering signatures for the RIFT petition, not one person turned me down, and just about everyone who signed it said they wished it went further. Of course, they weren’t developers.
–Phil Harnage (SM Daily Press 9/13/08)
I was disgusted to read (”Following the money,” page 4, Sept. 8) on the anti-Proposition T campaign. A few months ago, I got a letter from Planning Commissioner Terry O’Day co-chair of the anti-Prop T campaign asking fellow community leaders for our support in opposing this anti-traffic initiative. The letter referred to a grassroots campaign to defeat this measure though we now know Terry knew full well at the time what Bill Bauer reported in the Daily Press [on Monday] — that the campaign against Prop T is entirely developer-funded. Knowing the anti-Prop T campaign is a front for developers, I’m offended that O’Day would think that community leaders working closest with the city on improving life for residents wouldn’t know the difference between a real grassroots campaign — Prop T — and the well funded corporate attack on it that he has aligned himself with. Traffic or no traffic, these kinds of dirty tricks have no place in our city.
–Nina Fresco (SM Daiy Press 9/11/08)
Thanks to the Daily Press for printing Bill Bauer’s story about who is behind each side of the traffic measure Proposition T on the November ballot (“Following the money, page 4, Sept. 8). It’s the first time I’ve seen any local paper reveal who is pulling the strings behind the campaign. I suspected developers would be seeing red over anything that limits development, but I was surprised at just how much money developers are spending and how almost none of the donations come from every day residents. No on T isn’t a grassroots campaign. It’s another AstroTurf campaign by developers who want to hoodwink residents. Thanks Daily Press for pulling aside the curtain on this charade.
–Jane Dempsey (SM Daily Press 9/10/08)
The initiative, known as RIFT, is a reaction of the belief that officials in Santa Monica City Hall are completely out of touch with the sentiments of the average resident when it comes to development, growth and traffic. Evidence that RIFT's supporters are right can be seen by the City Council majority's recent decision to advance a plan to substantially increase the allowable densities and height limits of new development throughout Santa Monica. It appears that only Councilmen Ken Genser, Kevin McKeown and Bobby Shriver, all of whom voted against the plan, understand that the last thing Santa Monicans desire is bigger and taller developments that produce more and more traffic.
– Kelly Olsen (LA Times 8/22/08)
As a member of Santa Monica’s silent minority (homeowner, two working-parent family, property tax payer with two kids at Grant Elementary) it takes a lot to prod me into action. But the recent letters to the editor opposing the RIFT initiative based on potentially “lost” income to the city really pushed my buttons.
What will these people claim next, that a vote for RIFT will cause earthquakes, floods, or a plague of locusts? Based on their bizarre logic, if we don’t keep building bigger and higher then the city will soon see massive financial devastation. The last time that I checked, there weren’t that many vacant parcels of land within city limits. Santa Monica is already 100 percent developed. What they, and the City Council, desire is to over-develop the city. More, more and more is not always better and residents want it to stop!
I find it truly amazing that city government officials are so out of touch with the will of those that elected them, that the citizens of Santa Monica — those of us who actually live here, pay taxes here and send our children to school here — had to place the RIFT initiative on the ballot to force them to listen to us. The only silver lining in this situation is that this is the last straw. That they have finally motivated citizens like me to take action against their build at any cost agenda.
–Steven Brand (SM Daily Press 8/6/08)
"Attitude: it is clear to me that the "build to bigger, best and highest use" is the prevailing attitude both on the Planning Commission and City Council. This is wrong for our city. Where are the brakes? Where is the "go-slow" approach? Where is the "watch and analyze as we progress" plans? Where do we say NO!--don't even study this or that?" ... read full endorsement
–Jay Johnson (SM Planning Commissioner)
"Trading the quality of life of the residents of a city such as ours for some presumed minority benefit to be gained by answering the endless, destroy-and rebuild siren call of “more must be better,” is a risky gamble to take."
–David Latham (SM Daily Press 7/14/08)
"If the council really cared about citizen concerns, it would act to resolve our complaints at community meetings, instead of selling the city agenda. If the council really wanted to reduce congestion it would enact the Residents' Initiative to Fight Traffic."
–Jon Mann (SM Daily Press 7/5/08)
"There’s a force gathering in this city — an anger, and a determination. Residents are sick of telling the City they want to keep the beach town feel of Santa Monica; tired of telling the city they want a low skyline and don’t want density; tired of telling the city that traffic is the number one problem."
–Ellen Brennan (SM Dispatch 7/3/08)
It’s a good sign when politicians and ex-pols are running scared of a public initiative. Former mayor Nat Trives (June 26, page 4, “Letters to the editor”) says the consultants’ study of RIFT shows a “potential” negative impact to the city’s General Fund. How about the thousands of subsidized units the city’s LUCE proposes?
Won’t that be a drain on the General Fund?
Santa Monica is one of California’s richest cities.
This year, while the economy is faltering elsewhere, it passed a half billion dollar budget for a city with only 80,000 residents. Don’t be fooled by Trives’ vague threats that there might be cuts to police, fire or school projects. The city has vast pads of fat in that budget. It can start by cutting out fees to consultants and let paid staff do the work.
Councilman Ken Genser, who is up for election this November, is one of RIFT’s opponents. RIFT calls for a cap on commercial (not hospitals, residential, schools) development. No wonder, he was one of the councilmen (1990-present) who sat on their hands when the Water Garden with 1.27 million square feet and thousands of cars in three levels of parking lots was delivered to Santa Monica. Thanks, Ken, for bringing us the daily car jam that’s turned the Cloverfield area into a nightmare.
Now he wants more unbridled development guided only by the “wisdom” of the City Council.
Ten thousand Santa Monicans who signed the petition to get RIFT on the ballot think otherwise.
–HP Epstein (SM Daily Press 6/27/08)
Dear City Councilmembers,
Many of the basic concepts and goals of our (Land Use and Circulation Element), such as sustainability, walkability, connectivity, etc., are very important in and of themselves.
However the concept of “Public Benefits” has not been adequately debated. Many, many of your constituents feel that the benefits being proposed in no way compensate for the level of development envisioned in this plan.
We are only 8-square-miles, and in this space multiple Urban Village Centers are proposed … the terms “Village” and “Urban” are contradictory. Terms like modest growth, low scale, community values re-scale and heights are not defined. Our city staff seems to think that anything under six stories is modest and low scale.
We are a very well developed city with adequate public benefits.
What we want is adequate parking for residents in Wilmont, a library in the Pico Neighborhood, preservation of our trees, less traffic from workers, students, and visitors so we are not trapped in our neighborhoods, maintenance of a low scale sky line (defined as mostly one, two, and some three to four stories, depending on the neighborhood centers) and less development.
Under the guise of providing workforce and affordable housing, you are asking for an increase in density that is not acceptable.
There is no way we can build or grow ourselves out of the overcrowding and gridlock we now have.
This LUCE document pleases the developers, the city staff, and what seems to be most of you. There is only one voice among you who listens and represents our interests and concerns. The rest of you seem quite sure you know what’s best for “the city,” and that seems to exclude us residents.
– Lorraine Sanchez (SM Daily Press 6/25/08)
At the last (Land Use and Circulation Element) workshop, the speakers from (City Hall) and the consultants were really good with their “spin.” Their solution to “save our neighborhoods” and “lessen traffic” was to have many massive building projects along the transit corridors. How did all the input from SM residents get turned inside out and become exactly what most city officials originally had planned? Who is in control of this city anyway? Also, one consultant mentioned the city’s concern for global warming and CO2 emissions, which somehow does not match the (City Hall’s) planned removal of large environmentally friendly ficus trees on Second and Fourth streets.
– Zelia Grund (SMDaily Press 4/8/08)
The March 29th article, “Chamber opposes potential initiative,” refers to The Residents Initiative to
Fight Traffic, “which has been endorsed by several neighborhood groups and the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City.”
In fact, the boards of all five active neighborhood groups in Santa Monica have now endorsed the RIFT initiative. On the www.smRIFT.com Web site, there are position statements from Friends of Sunset Park, North of Montana Association, Ocean Park Association, Pico Neighborhood Association, and Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition.
Over 100 volunteers have been out collecting signatures since February. On election day, I spent six hours standing 100 feet away from polling places in order to collect 98 signatures. Since then, some of us have been going door-to-door, some have stood outside grocery stores, some have stood outside schools, some have gone around their apartment or condo buildings, and some have just asked friends — whatever we can do to find registered voters. This is a grassroots, citywide
effort. And it’s very time consuming. On election day, I was averaging 15 signatures per hour. At one grocery store, I averaged 10 signatures per hour. At another, only five signatures per hour. So it’s definitely a labor of love for the volunteers.
But you should see the expression on people’s faces as I explain why I’m collecting signatures. When people take time to stop, they listen politely, then it registers on them what I’m saying, then their faces light up, and then they say, “Yes! Finally! Where do I sign?”
–Zina Josephs (SMDP 4/5/08)
"The WILMONT board has voted to endorse RIFT. Our area's biggest issue is lack of street parking, and more development brings more traffic and less available parking for our residents. It's time to take a stand against the escalating congestion that threatens the quality of life and safety in our neighborhoods"
–Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition
"The Pico Neighborhood has felt the impact of ongoing unlimited commercialÊdevelopment firsthand and with even more major development proposed on the East side and the possible Paper Mate project in a few years something must be done NOW. RIFT is that something. PNA endorses RIFT because it is a reasonable alternative to the current uncontrolled growth that will further increase traffic on our already congested streets. RIFT is the answer to residents stated concerns about the current quality of life in our town."
–Pico Neighborhood Association
"...a projected future rate of 150,000 sq. ft. per year would be a continuation of the pace we have experienced in Santa Monica for the past dozen years. It is also important to note that future demand can easily exceed such projections, and that present zoning regulations would permit a substantially greater rate of development than is projected."
read full report: Patterns of Land Use in SM
– Giles Smith
"The FOSP Board has endorsed the RIFT initiative because our members have said, over and over again, that Santa Monica has encouraged too much development over the years, resulting in cut-through traffic congestion in Sunset Park that makes it difficult for us to get to and from our homes. Residents feel that we need to dial down the amount of new growth until our city's transportation infrastructure can catch up with the growth we've already had."
– Friends of Sunset Park
"The NOMA Board voted to support RIFT because our membership told us they think Santa Monica has had too much development. People are fed up with the amount of growth and the traffic it's brought."
– The North of Montana Association
"The City of Santa Monica has pledged to promote sustainability "to ensure that Santa Monica can continue to meet its current environmental, economic and social needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same."
The Board of the Ocean Park Association (OPA) is deeply committed to sustainability and believes that further increases in traffic congestion and commercial development will generate more air pollution and greenhouse gases, waste scarce fossil fuels, negatively impact local small businesses and create stress and diminished productivity in residents and visitors alike while undermining the prospects for a sustainable city for the next generation.
For these and many other reasons we voted to endorse RIFT. It's time to slow the growth of traffic and commercial development to a reasonable pace so that City Hall's proposed transportation improvements can have a genuine impact on our mobility."
– Ocean Park Association
"While it’s obvious that the city of Santa Monica would be unhappy with an initiative limiting development (SMDP “Coalition wants to limit development,” page1, Jan 18). It’s also obvious they should have seen it coming.
City (Hall) has created the perception that it is ignoring the residents’ concerns on development, and perception frequently is reality. Not one person I know supports that over-scaled mess at the civic center, but planning chugs right along. Restricting resident input on low income buildings of less than 50 units makes clear the city’s continuing intended grip on the development process, which, if necessary, will be unilateral.
City (Hall) must maximize revenues to continue its egalitarian journey, and will push hard to that end. Fair enough. Just don’t be surprised when disenfranchised residents start to push back."
– Robert Scura (SMDP 1/29/08)
"This is clear reminder of who's really in charge of local government, the voters. The initiative acknowledges that our congestion woes are worsened primarily by office and retail, not housing, and if residents want to cap commercial growth at a more sustainable level, we should listen."
– Kevin McKeown (SMDP1/5/08)
“It just doesn’t make sense and it really is, I believe, something to screw us up and stop us from doing what we should do.”
– Mayor Herb Katz (SMDP 1/18/08)
"The council couldn’t find $200,000 in its multi-million budget to do an actual study of vehicle movements. It prefers to hide behind an out-dated methodology and its “estimates” and “projections.” When the city failed to act, the civic group, Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, put together a ballot referendum that would force the city to restrict commercial development to less than 75,000 square feet a year and thereby reduce the cars and trucks on our roads.
For those who have been stuck in traffic jams in their hometown, this proposal will offer a chance at relief. All Santa Monicans should want to sign the SMCLC petitions to get the proposal on the ballot and then vote for it because less commercial building means less traffic.
Mayor Herb Katz has already condemned the proposal for no legitimate reason except it cuts into the council’s authority to make the rules. Note to Mr. Katz: It’s a historic American tradition for citizens to act when their government fails to do so. If he thinks he can defend his indefensible position, he should hold a public debate with an SMCLC representative."
–H.P. Epstein (SMDP 1/28/08)
"If top City officials honestly believe that 'community' workshops, usually attended by about 100 people and run by 'facilitators,' are a better measure of residents’ wishes and views than the vote of all the people in a general election, then the SMCLC initiative is not only timely and vital, it’s mandatory."
– Peggy Clifford (Santa Monica Dispatch 1/17/08)
"As an egotistical columnist, I keep track of things like who in this town said what and when. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am reasonably certain that I was the first commentator on the LUCE update to write about how out of whack development under the 1984 general plan had gone. That was in April 2005, when I wrote a column pointing out that while the 1984 general plan had foreseen about a doubling of office space in Santa Monica, the square footage of offices had nearly tripled -- an unplanned for increase of about 4.5 million square feet!"
– Frank Gruber (SM Outlook 2/19/08)
"The city knows we are in trouble. The last general plan update underestimated growth by 300% and provided little mitigation. That growth overwhelmed the infrastructure and the city's administrative abilities. The city has not demonstrated why we should trust them moving forward."
– Peter Tigler
“RIFT really is 'smart growth'. This is an analyzed, measured response."
– Don Gray
“It’s a sad commentary that I have to consider whether or not to enjoy Santa Monica’s wonderful resources based upon the small window of opportunity everday when traffic will allow reasonable access."
– Sherrill Kushner, North of Montana
"Sunset Park residents believe our pleas for less traffic and limited growth have gone unanswered, and we believe RIFT will give all Santa Monica residents a voice in solving these problems."
– Brian Bland, Sunset Park
“Due to the fact that the city hasn’t adequately responded to citizen’s calls for limiting development and mitigating traffic now, RIFT deserves your signature to qualify it for a citywide referendum this fall. Power to the people. Yeah!"
– Bill Bauer, Santa Monica Daily Press
