To the editor::

There are lies being told in our community. And many of our community leaders (good people) will privately admit it, but are afraid to do so publicly because of the political and financial power of those who are telling them.

Developers from around the nation are funding a deceptive campaign against Proposition T — the local measure that would place an annual cap on new commercial development in Santa Monica

Let me say up front that I have not endorsed Proposition T, nor do I have anything against developers. Development isn’t my passion. Schools are. As a Santa Monica parent and 10-year advocate for increased revenues for our local schools, I’ve focused my volunteer energy on developing education funding measures here, organizing campaigns to pass those measures and as a volunteer statewide legislative advisor to PTAs on how to do the same around the state.

I haven’t paid a lot of attention to development issues. But when I opened my mailbox and saw threats about Prop T “cutting millions from classrooms,” “devastating our schools,” and “jeopardizing our children’s future,” I did pay attention. If Prop T were going to do this to our schools, I would be one of the leaders of the charge to defeat it.

So, I looked carefully at the issue. And when I learned that Equity Office Properties in Chicago, Stockbridge Real Estate Fund in San Francisco, and Felcor Lodging Trust, Inc. in Irvine, Texas have, among other developers, contributed more than $400,000 to pay for these frightening mail pieces… well, who knew that developers around the country were so concerned about preserving Santa Monica’s schools? OK, we know they are not.

The reality is they all own property here in Santa Monica. They all have plans to develop that property, and they don’t want to see any limits on their ability to do so. And, they have every right to make a fuss about that. It’s big money at stake for them. But do they have a right to lie about the impact that development limits would have on our schools? No, they do not.

Still, if Prop T were going to hurt our schools as an unintended consequence and developers were willing to foot the bill to get that message out, OK by me. So what could be the connection between a development limit and school funding? Here’s what I learned is the entire basis for their argument: If Prop T passes, and if the result is fewer new commercial development projects get approved under it than might otherwise be approved by the city under the limits in its yet-to-be-finalized land use plan, it is possible that this one revenue stream to the city (out of a very diverse budget portfolio that other cities can only dream of) could grow slower than … well, than whatever the land use plan would have allowed without Prop T in place. And, if all this happens, the city council might choose schools or even firefighters over say, more new bronze trash cans, to reduce funding for? What? Exactly.

The entire argument that this measure could impact city or school funding is wildly speculative. It is based upon comparing the potential rate of new development under Prop T to the potential rate of new development under a plan yet to be determined by the city. Perhaps this explains why the City Attorney’s impartial analysis in the ballot pamphlet does not include any dire warning against decreased revenues to the city, let alone our schools.

Prop T will put an annual cap on commercial development in Santa Monica. It has nothing to do with school funding, and will have no adverse impact on our schools. That’s why our local PTA, which studied Prop T, took no position on it. The well-heeled players funding the campaign against Prop T are not bad people, but they are a powerful interest group and an attractive ally to those in political power in our city. If you desire a future in the political establishment in Santa Monica, it’s tempting to align with them, and by the same token, risky to oppose them.

But the bottom line is this: whether you are for or against slowing commercial development in Santa Monica, this debate should be based on facts, not fiction. And the fact is the claim that Prop T would devastate our schools is false and irresponsible.

There is a real threat to school funding here that neither the developers nor anyone else for that matter is talking about. If Prop SM doesn’t pass (the reauthorization of a utility users tax that is already collected) it could be a direct hit on our local schools because it’s part of the formula to increase city funding to SMMUSD. Alas, there is no wealthy special interest to fund any campaign to pass it.

Rochelle Fanali