Santa Monica Dispatch

The Santa Monica Dispatch is an independent newspaper founded and edited by Peggy Clifford. Our objective is to give voice to the community.

Monthly archives "June 2012"


In the Wrong Body
En el Cuerpo Equivocado
Saturday, July 7, 7 pm

At the Home of Rachel and Jay, 601 9th Street, Santa Monica, California, one block East of Lincoln, one block North of Montana, Southeast Corner, Easy Parking

Before Film: Meet at Izzy’s Deli, 15th and Wilshire, 5:00 PM
Free street parking @ Izzy’s Deli, rear lot, computer store lot on 15th.
After Film: Discussion, end the embargo on CUBA COFFEE, Izzy’s cookies.

RSVP: 310-780-7363 (first 20)

(2010. 52 min.)

The film, “In the Wrong Body,” was produced in 2010 by Cuban award-winning filmmaker, Marilyn Solaya, The documentary is a moving portrayal of Mavi’s life. Mavi Susel has had to endure discrimination and abuse, but she courageously pursued her dream of realizing a reassignment surgery, the first to be performed in Cuba, in 1988. The growing national discussion in Cuba promoting inclusion and respect for diversity has been led by Mariela Castro, director of Cuba’s National Sex Education Center (CENESEX).

Fidel Castro and Vilma Espín, founder of the Federation of Cuban Women, helped Mavi with support for her journey. Today, with the leading role provided by CENESEX and other Cuban organizations, there is a broader campaign aimed at raising the consciousness of the population in Cuba with the goal of overcoming the holdovers from the past.

Cuba is conducting ongoing education and using popular culture to bring the issues of homosexuality and transgenderism to the people for discussion.

$5 donation
For the Cuban 5 defense
In September 1998, five Cuban men were arrested in Miami by FBI agents. Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez were accused of the crime of conspiracy to commit espionage.
RENÉ González Sehwerert, one of Cuba’s five anti-terrorist heroes, was released from prison October 7, 2011, having served in full the brutal and unjust sentence he was given.


By Brenda Barnes

We have handwritten petitions with signatures of about 200 of our neighbors in Mid-City and Pico Neighborhood, from just one guy going out for a few hours on two Sunday afternoons. Not one person said they were in favor of the development, 200 people signed, and five said they were watching the game and couldn’t take time to talk about anything right then. That’s the way support for us goes.

When we picket in front of the Park 5:30-6:30 Mon-Thur every week–as we’ve been doing since May 10 only–now 100s maybe 1000s of people honk and give us thumbs-up as they pass. We’ve decided since that group recognizes our signs now and knows what we are talking about, we’ll move to the two blocks before the light on Centinela where we can hand out flyers to every car because they are stopped for two blocks at the light. Then we’ll set up a lemonade stand with kids selling lemonade to help their parents pay the rent that is going to go from $500 to $1500 if this passes, in the next block, after everyone really understands the issues, and get them to sign our petition to the state government there at the same time that they help us with fundraising for our legal expenses in the future.

Our next step is picketing in the neighborhoods of the four City Council people running for reelection or the Assembly, and hit them with what they have actually done–supported developers who are going to bulldoze homes owned by 109 families covered by rent control–where their support most logically is. This is where they claim they have done something good, as Bloom claims he has gotten things passed in the Council and he would do the same in Sacramento. He sure would do the same thing he has done here–support Big Money instead of the people–but that is not what he is claiming he did.

Same with the others–for instance, Gleam Davis changed her vote on the second reading from no to yes on 710 Wilshire when Bobby Shriver changed his vote from yes to no because he had been shown the workers were not being guaranteed a living wage as the developer had claimed, since they would have to pay $3 an hour to get decent health coverage. It was more important to her that developers be sure they can develop than it was that workers be guaranteed a living wage.

We just have to get the truth out about what these people actually do. Big Money has bought them because they are in the revolving door–once they make developers happy, they will get cushy consulting jobs and no telling what else for the rest of their lives…Big Money rewards its friends. We have to elect people who will not look out for themselves at our expense..

Then we are going to picket at corners where SM voters are likely to be–unlike where we are on Colorado between 26th and Centinela, where most of the drivers going east during rush hour live somewhere else, which is why the traffic is gridlocked. We hope to get 20,000 signatures–the number we need to elect four Council members in November–on our petition to put reversing this on the ballot, and by the way elect four people who commit themselves never to allow destruction of homes for development. There are plenty of industrial buildings they can build on the land of over on this side of town. That is going to be bad enough if we don’t get them replaced, since they seem never to have seen a development plan they don’t like once its far beyond ridiculous first draft is cut in half to a still-ridiculous second or third one.

Let’s come up with some good, pithy stories and slogans for this. Together we are so much better than any of us alone.

We started a Stories of Village Trailer Park project some time ago, but didn’t get very many stories until the day-to-day having to live under stress of the very sick people whose stories would be heartrending intervened. Also, having to spend so much time on the legal processes. That’s our excuse, perhaps our reason, but this does show enough promise that someone(s) should take time to do it.

I think Patrick Corsaro is the most heartrending I know. He’s my neighbor and I remember him from when he walked around all gentlemanly and friendly when I bought our trailer 26 years ago. He has an English accent still, although he has been here 37 years and in America since before WWII. He was the gentleman scholar of the Park and knew everyone by name. Now he is 94 and so ill and almost bedridden that his three friends in SM from his life living here, going back to a Navy buddy, do everything for him. What would he do if he didn’t have them? He is so desperate to stay in SM that, like the other sick people, he has along the way been almost willing to take the $20,000 and go to rental housing, but now that there are both no redevelopment money and no Section 8 vouchers, he would last a year or so at most paying market rent. Then what would he do, sick and homeless at 95?

If the Council adopts the Planning Commission’s recommendation that people who choose the come-back-to-a-box if-and-when-it’s-ever-built option will get market rent paid by the developer as long as the construction takes, along with a bond we could charge against if the developer doesn’t build, as a condition precedent of the development agreement, then people like Patrick could choose that option, unfair as it is, and have something. However, when you multiply out the numbers, for 60 of us to be guaranteed even that will be paid, the developer will need to post a $12-50 million bond! (It’s $12M for just the 60 families remaining to be covered for five years of market rent and $100,000 for losing our homes, with no damages for loss of our leaseholds into the next generation–it’s $50M for covering all 109 families that have rights under rent control and to cover their heirs–as anyone who owns a home covered by rent control has a right to have.)

People have never been willing to accept how damaged all of us will be by losing our homes we own free and clear here, with rent and eviction protection as long as rent control lasts, which means with our protections under the Mobilehome Residency Law (right to sell and will our homes, and the new owner gets the same rights we had), we are as damaged as any homeowners on leased land would be. In Palm Springs that is half the population, since native American tribes own every other section. Similarly, in NY and London, which have had rent control for generations, many million-dollar flats are on leased land. It simply is not true that because we do not own the land we have no right to damages for our leaseholds and our homes being taken.

If we could get people to turn it around and see how much they would be damaged if they had to go into the rental housing market, the numbers add up. The developer has never been confronted with the true cost of this development because the City has not represented us or the voters who passed rent control to keep this from happening. Every agency we go to acts like they are doing us some favor by telling us how troubled they are to kick the can to the next agency. That is simply not confr5onting the issues.

Please respond with your ideas on how we can make this heartrending as it is, and clear at the same time.

In solidarity,




Ephron grew up in Beverly Hills, made a name for herself as a journalist in New York, got into screenwriting via collaboration with then-husband Carl Bernstein on a version of “All the President’s Men,” and grew into what People magazine calls today “one of the most powerful figures in Hollywood as the creative force behind such blockbusters as ‘You’ve Got Mail,’ ‘Sleepless in Seattle’ and ‘When Harry Met Sally.'” Ephron reportedly had leukemia.
Her son Jacob Bernstein, a journalist, told the New York Times that Ephron died in New York of pneumonia brought on by acute myeloid leukemia.

The NYT news story calls Ephron a “wry woman of letters” and says she was “an essayist and humorist in the Dorothy Parker mold (only smarter and funnier, some said) who became one of her era’s most successful screenwriters and filmmakers.”

She graduated from Beverly Hills High School in 1958. Ephron is also survived by her sisters Delia, Amy and Hallie, another son Max, and husband Nicholas Pileggi, the writer.

From the NYT:

She was a journalist, a blogger, an essayist, a novelist, a playwright, an Oscar-nominated screenwriter and a movie director — a rarity in a film industry whose directorial ranks were and continue to be dominated by men. More box-office success arrived with “You’ve Got Mail” and “Julie & Julia.” By the end of her life, though remaining remarkably youthful looking, she had even become something of a philosopher about age and its indignities.

“Why do people write books that say it’s better to be older than to be younger?” she wrote in “I Feel Bad About My Neck,” her 2006 best-selling collection of essays. “It’s not better. Even if you have all your marbles, you’re constantly reaching for the name of the person you met the day before yesterday.”
She turned her painful breakup with her second husband, the Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein, into a best-selling novel, “Heartburn,” which she then recycled into a successful movie starring Jack Nicholson as a philandering husband and Meryl Streep as a quick-witted version of Ms. Ephron herself.

Ephron’s parents, Phoebe and Henry Ephron, were a screenwriting team who wrote such films as “There’s No Business Like Show Business,” “What Price Glory” and “Desk Set.”

Mark Lacter recommends a New Yorker piece by Ephron from last year: My life as an heiress


Summer’s here. Can Santa Monica’s sixth Annual Fourth of July Parade on Main Street, presented by the Ocean Park Association, be far behind?

This year parade’s theme is science and technology, so put on your propeller hats and activate your anti-matter pods as organizers hope to see a spirited display of the imaginative, inventive spirit of our nation’s founders — Benjamin Franklin was an inventor, after all.

Applications to participate in the 4th of July are available on the OPA Parade page:

Unlike the Fourth of July fireworks, which will be shot off on June 30th (see story below), the Fourth of July parade will actually take place on the Fourth of July.

The parade will start at 9:30 am on Wednesday, July 4th in front of City Hall and proceed down Main Street to the Venice border. OPA urges everyone to join in as a marcher or spectator for this festive celebration of our nation’s independence.

Volunteers are vital to the success of the parade. Anyone who can lend a hand should send an email to General parade inquiries should be directed to

Sponsors underwriting the costs of staging the parade thus far include RAND, Brian Maser of Abbot Kinney Real Estate, Santa Monica Place, Friends of Sunset Park, Westside Rentals, the Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau, Pacific Park, the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, Santa Monica Place, Wells Fargo, the Sea Shore Motel, the Coalition of Santa Monica Municipal Employees, Downtown Santa Monica Inc., Union Bank, The Gas Company, County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and the City Of Santa Monica. The Santa Monica Daily Press, Santa Monica Mirror, Urth Café and Neighbor Electric Vehicle Club are providing in kind sponsorships. The parade still needs help with expenses: please contact if interested in sponsoring in return for inclusion on all parade promotional materials.

This year, OPA will have a special sponsor partnership with The Buy Local Santa Monica Committee.

“The Buy Local Santa Monica Committee is proud to be a sponsor of the 2012 Fourth of July Parade. This is a great opportunity to further link together our local businesses with our residents in celebration of the community. Thanks to OPA for this great opportunity,” said Jennifer Taylor, chair of Buy Local and Acting Economic Development Manager of the City of Santa Monica.

Buy Local Santa Monica was created by representatives of the Santa Monica business community and the City of Santa Monica to support local businesses and raise awareness of the community, economic and environmental benefits of choosing local first.


Once upon a time, Santa Monica’s Fourth of July
fireworks were legendary. They were shot off the
the beach, and they were glorious, dazzling, overwhelming — as well as legendary –- everything we want great fireworks to be. People came from all over Southern California to see them, and came every Fourth of July.

But the City didn’t like them. The town filled up early. By mid-afternoon, driving in downtown Santa Monica was impossible. Crowds, throngs of happy people gathered in Palisades Park and on the beach. There was some drinking, of course. And inevitably some incidents.

After a number of years and incidents, the City moved the fireworks from the evening of the Fourth of July to dawn of the Fourth. They called it “Dawn’s Early Light,” and added an orchestra, which played on the Santa Monica Pier. It was still great, but not as great as it had been at night. Still, throngs came, filled up the town. And there was still drinking – more actually, as some stout people drank all night. But, after a shooting on the Pier, the City cancelled the fireworks.

Residents and visitors were disconsolate, but
the City was adamant. That was some years ago, but people remembered them, and we still get calls about them every year.

For some time, Santa Monica College has held the fireworks show in Corsair Field – but not on the Fourth. This year, the 30th anniversary of “Celebrate America” will be held on June 30. In addition to fireworks. the rock and blues band, Chris Mulkey n’ Deluxe, a regular at the House of Blues, will perform, and there will be community service booths, food trucks and food booths operated by the Boy Scouts, Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica and the SMC Athletics Department. Picnicking is welcome, but alcoholic beverages, glass containers, barbecues, fireworks and chairs with pointed legs are prohibited. The college is at 1900 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica.

Gates open at 5 p.m., with entertainment at 6:45 p.m. and the fireworks at 9 p.m. The event is free and parking is $5. Call (310) 434-3001.

Sponsors of the event are SMC and the City of Santa Monica, the SMC Associated Students and Bourget Brothers Building Materials in Santa Monica.


Peggy Clifford 1 Comment

In their letter of support for the Miramar Hotel’s plans to double its size and substantially increase its height, the “Friends of the Miramar,” who number about 300, say that it will fulfill LUCE’s “vision of downtown Santa Monica as a vibrant mixed use place… enhance our downtown and make a gateway to the City…and make it relevant and competitive.”

At a hearing on the Miramar plans, Kathleen Rawson, who heads Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (formerly known as the Bayside District), said that the Miramar’s massive proposal, which includes 6400 square feet of new retail space on Wilshire Boulevard, would add some much-needed “excitement” on the northern end of downtown Santa Monica, which has, she alleged, lagged well behind the southern end. A business owner seconded the notion.

The “new” Santa Monica Place (which is about the same size as the proposed “new” Miramar) is the primary basis for escalating action in the southern reaches of downtown. But that’s just the beginning.

Mayor Richard Bloom recently said that the primary purpose of “The Village,” now under construction in the Civic Center, is to house hundreds of new customers for downtown Santa Monica businesses. And, in four years or so, the last station on the Expo Light Rail will start disgorging 400 people every six minutes (or is it 600 people every four minutes?) on Bloomingdale’s doorstep.

At a recent Planning Commission meeting on the Esplanade that will be installed on the west end of Colorado and has been described asa “gateway” to the Santa Monica Pier and the beach, someone said that surely the Esplanade should be reconfigured so as to be a gateway to….yes…. downtown Santa Monica.

Neal Payton, the consultant in charge of preparing the latest downtown specific plan, has wondered out loud whether the last four blocks of Wilshire “need to be that wide.” It’s four lanes.

What Payton seemed to be getting at was that if the west end of Wilshire were reduced to two lanes, the newly widened sidewalks could be the site of all sorts of frivols and revels, i.e. excitement.

It would also create a perpetual traffic jam at what Alan Epstein, chief flack for the Miramar, had previously described as one of the world’s legendary intersections.Wilshire is, he said, a legendary boulevard, running straight .from downtown Los Angeles to the Pacific,
a legendary ocean.

Clearly, the notion that Downtown Santa Monica Inc. is the star of this gloriously eccentric beach town has seized the self-anointed
shapers and movers, but we know residents who’d rather eat glass than go downtown.

In fact, the beach is the real star, the primary fact of Santa Monica. and more beautiful, valuable, interesting and useful than Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. has ever been, or ever will be. But City Hall has always been baffled by the beach (what is it, REALLY?) so it has left it more or less alone – for which we should all be grateful.

But the planners continue to monkey maniacally with Downtown Santa Monica Inc., at the expense of everything else, and have, over the years, produced a masterpiece of congestion, high gridlock, a perfect money mill, perpetual tumult at the heart of Santa Monica.

And it’s growing, shouldering its way south into Ocean Park via the new Santa Monica Place, the Expo Light Rail station, the Esplanade, the $47 million Palisades Garden Walk, complete with a “water feature” across the street from that other water feature, the Pacific Ocean, and the Mega-Village in the Civic Center, with its shops, cafes, and shoppers.

Now, Downtown Santa Monica Inc. is pushing its way north into a hitherto serene residential neighborhood. A while ago, the City quietly extended the downtown border to California Avenue to include the Miramar, which now wants to double its size to 556,000 square feet, add several stories to its new complex, including a roof-top pool and restaurant, along with the new retail installation on Wilshire.
The Friends of the Miramar believe its immense
proposal will “enhance downtown.” It won’t, of
course, it will simply enlarge it, and make a rather sizable and constant commotion in a previously peaceful residential neighborhood.

At tonight’s City Council meeting, neighborhood conservation districts will be discussed. Former Planning Director Eileen Fogerty spoke frequently of conservation, noting that 94 percent of Santa Monica would be unscathed by plans and planners

But Fogerty is gone, and the scathing is proceeding –in the Civic Center, at the Village Trailer Park, in the Bergamot area and at the Miramar…and it’s time for residents to tell the planners to get back in their boxes.


Two White Tailed Kites in flight soared toward each other, locked talons and dive bombed together towards earth, only to separate just before crashing. The rarely seen bird ritual was captured on film in the early 1960s by the young photographer Bill Beebe, and it sparked a passion in him to document the birdlife of the Ballona Wetlands, which he continues to this day.

Birding aficionados from all over the world know they can arrive at LAX and in 10 minutes see Heerman’s Gull, Elegant Terns, Allen’s Hummingbirds or the Great Egret and nesting Blue Herons in the Wetlands. Once the site of all forms of plant and animal life, it was a true coastal estuary with the ocean tide flowing in to meet the fresh water of the Los Angeles River. But by the 1990s, it was an area of neglect, riddled by rubble, European and African plant species, such as the invasive ice plant — some of it still buried under the land fill dredged from the construction of the Marina.

Fewer and fewer species of birds and animals called it home. Then, in 2003, after legal battles with two prior developers, an unprecedented plan emerged. Three groups decided the area could be returned at least partially to what nature intended: the Friends of La Ballona, the developers of Playa Vista and the government of California. After years of hard work by hundreds of dedicated volunteers, the Ballona Freshwater Marsh, the Del Rey Lagoon, the Playa del Rey Breakwater and Beach, “The Wetlands” and the area known as Dune Willows are being reclaimed as part of the ancient Pacific Flyway used for centuries by migratory birds.

The Santa Monica Bay Woman’s Club takes great pleasure in presenting a free multi-media presentation of a selection of Bill Beebe’s thousands of photographs which he has given to the library of the Friends of Ballona Wetlands.’ There will also be a presentation of the history and future plans for the Wetlands, the last large coastal estuary in L.A. county, by Lisa Fimiani and Patrick Tyrell. (

Beebe has photographed top news stories and wildlife in much of the world, but the Ballona Wetlands continues to compel his interest. Fimiani and Tyrell are dedicated to the restoration of the area and will recount the dramatic story of the negotiations that lead to its creation. Each year, more than 9000 people attend programs and lectures by The Friends of Ballona Wetlands’, including many schoolchildren who may have never seen the ocean.

The only remaining “wetlands” in Los Angeles County, they now provide safe harbor for 200 species of birds, including migratory species now returning after a 70-year absence. From 2000 to 2010, Friends of Ballona Wetlands’ 65,000 volunteers removed an estimated 10,000 cubic yards of invasive plants, trash and debris, equaling more than 500 tons of material. More than 1,000 native plants have been carefully planted and tended by dedicated volunteers and community groups, such as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America, as part of their merit badge activities.

The multi-media presentation, the “Birds of the Ballona,” will be presented Thursday, June 28 at 7 p.m. at the Santa Monica Bay Woman’s Club, 1210 4th St. Refreshments will be served.


Saturday, June 30, at 9 a.m., Lars Hjelmberg, founder of Hjelmco Oil, will take part in a seminar on the development of unleaded aviation fuel at the Santa Monica Museum of Flying.

Attendance is limited to the first 250 people to register. Register at

In 1979, Hjelmco Oil, developed an UN-Leaded 80/87 grade AVGAS. In 1991, the company developed an 91/96 grade UN-Leaded AVGAS, which is VERY close to 100 Octane. Coninental, Lycoming, Rotax and radial engine manufacturer Kalisz have all cleared the Hjelmco AVGAS 91/96 UL for use in some of their engines. The fuel has been widely used throughout Sweden for decades and millions of flight hours, including by the Swedish Air Force, and is the preferred fuel for general aviation there.

The fuel currently used in piston-powered aircraft, 100LL (low lead) AvGas, is the last leaded fuel in production. For years, environmental protection agencies worldwide have been working with refiners and other regulatory agencies to develop an un-leaded replacement for 100LL.

Tetraethyl-lead (TEL) used in 100LL AvGas acts as an octane booster to prevent engine detonation and pre-ignition. It also provides improved heat transfer for valve seats and piston rings. Due to the relatively small demand for AvGas, the TEL used in the AvGas has a very limited production.

There has been a lot of news recently about unleaded alternatives to 100LL, including a UL 91, which is being pushed by Lycoming Engines and TOTAL in Europe (see this news story –, 94UL, which is being pushed by Continental, a new 100UL being developed by a startup called Swift Fuel, and G100UL being developed by GAMI.

Additionally, recent national publications like Bloomberg have highlighted the potential health risks of leaded aviation gasoline.

Lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft and leaded aviation gasoline are Federally-regulated. EPA received a petition to determine whether lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft endanger human health and the environment. The EPA is currently conducting a national-scale analysis of the local impact of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft. It’s time to understand what the alternatives are to 100LL and where we are in the certification process.

The Museum of Flying is located ar 3100 Airport Avenue@ SMO Airport.


Peggy Clifford 1 Comment

At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, during the closed session, a City Attorney will inform the Council that the City and ACS/Xerox are ending settlement negotiations of the case concerning violations of California statutes governing parking enforcement.

Deputy City Attorney Jeanette Schachtner gave attorney Eric Benick, whose clients, Stanley and Harriet Epstein brought the case, the news on Friday.

Four weeks ago, the City submitted a redraft of the agreement to give legal protection to more than 20,000 motorists, doubling the number of those affected by its actions. The change was made after a citizen reported that although the City had claimed it had changed its notices as of May, 2011, “as a public service” in the wake of the Epsteins’ law suit, it actually had continued for over a year to use two illegal form letters. When confronted with the proof, the City agreed to add 10,000 drivers to the total.

On February 28, 2012, City Attorney Marsha Moutrie and City Manager Rod Gould told Council, residents and the media that a settlement had been reached and the Epsteins would be awarded $75,000 — less legal fees. The officials later retracted the statements, as they knew that at least a dozen major issues remained and that the Epsteins would receive only $12,500, with the balance paying legal costs.

The Epsteins alleged that Moutrie and Gould were “motivated by an intent to head off a joint press release critical of the City and to make it appear as if the plaintiffs were acting out of greed.”

With the City’s withdrawal from settlement talks, the case will go towards a court hearing and decision in November. Instead of admitting that it has erred in handling parking tickets, and making appropriate amends to affected motorists, as provided in the proposed settlement agreement, Stan Epstein said, “The City has wasted a lot of time and taxpayer money. And now when it already faces a budget deficit, the City will continue to spend money defending an indefensible cause.”

Epstein went on to say, “By taking this matter to court, the City is twice failing the public. Motorists affected by its failure to follow state law will now have to wait longer for relief. And, of course, taxpayers will pick up the bill for additional staff time and legal expenses because the City refused to go the extra mile to work out a fair settlement. After three years of failing to comply with state law, including 16 months of lies, coverups and stonewalling, the City Attorney and the Finance and Police Departments, under the supervision of the City Manager, will be forced to provide details and explanatory documents and sworn testimony. Under oath, the truth should emerge.”


Re: Case 447R-D, per 2930 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica

Dear Rent Control Board Members,

I’m now running out of patience. And please do not misunderstand me here. There are a lot of hard-working, well-meaning souls in our City’s government. You know that. You work with them, yes? As always, I intend no personal antipathy toward you reading this or anyone who will come to be involved in these regards…

But, the action of our over-worked, insufficiently informed, and it now seems, also inappropriately apprised Planning Commissioners this past Wednesday—in moving, as it then did its recommendation to City Council to accord the Village Trailer Park [VTP] development agreement [DA], 07-005—is about the last straw for me.

I’m not yet sure now just how I may best accomplish it, whether by litigation or media action perhaps, but I am not now going to stand by and let my home [nor yet more those of my neighbors’] be stolen.

And make no mistake about it, theft of our owned housing is exactly what I and my neighbors continue to face; and, per your “Notice of Consideration on Removal Permit Application” [NCRPA] letter of Monday to me and others living on these VTP grounds, and this week’s noted Planning Commission action, a threat now seeming even more imminent.

You know all the facts about this. More than enough has already been documented about the matter.

In a sentence though to recap said record:
We trailer homeowners, under RCB-permitted residency agreement contracts sustaining pad-site habitation rentals for said homes on this, since ’88 RMH-zoned property, have, since ’06, faced loss of those homes and our holdings in them due to intended abandonment of the trailer park management business by the property’s owner and developer so that zoning-changing development use by them on the property might instead then proceed.

Apparently, without the granting of ostensibly-required “removal permits” over the course of these past 22 years, ~40 trailer homes have, under your purview, somehow nevertheless already been sanctioned for, and then subsequently removed from the property. Whatever the facts about these seeming statutory violations, there are now vacant pad sites here attesting to said removals of those earlier-seen homes.

So, for me and my neighbors to now need contend to stop the granting of removal permits in effort to thwart illegal and unilateral “taking” of our owned homes, is felt particularly aggrieving.

If you, personally, might pause a moment and consider how you would feel if someone was so perfunctorily acting to steal your home, I imagine you would concur that such criminally-intended acting is the matter most deserving of first response.

All other issues, procedural and otherwise [i.e.,those you well-present in yours noted of 6-18-12], must then be held in abeyance until this intended thieving of our homes is addressed; for me, but for such serving of justice, no other matter has relevance.

That said, and for now, please take this as formal notice that I expect you to advise our City Council that NO removal permits will be granted this property owner with regard to this DA matter [nor any such possibly bearing on the memorandum of understanding regarding that DA which was also subsequently drawn and agreed-to by only the City those years back].
I will start my next actions by sharing this letter with others in our community to advise them of yours regarding this now-pending NCRPA action.
Too, as best I now can, I will commence action seeking to find legal counsel to assist me in the matter.

Cordially, but as you may appreciate, not at all happy about the way this reprehensible closure matter is now being progressed… We used to be a Nation that held ethics and the honoring of its laws in higher esteem…

David Latham

Dear Rent Control Board Members,

This, a follow-up to the letter I gave to Eric at your office yesterday, in which it was [essentially] suggested that a legal suit may prove necessary if further RCB-managed housing resource at VTP comes to be lost due to the granting of home Removal Permits.

As said, as well as being ironic, that is an especially distasteful and upsetting prospect now for residents, since apparently-failed Board oversight seems already to have allowed, and without the granting of any such permits as are now being talked of, the removal of some 45 or so homes from the property at various times over these past 2 decades.

Since dropping off that letter, several conversations have occasioned with some of my neighbors here in the Park.
…We living here often have casual contact when meeting on way from our vehicles to our homes, when getting some air and exercise walking the Park roadways, and when having pot-lucks and other get-togethers at the pool, barbeque, library, and meeting-room facilities on the grounds…

Several comments from these conversations, of import for us residents, which may also be of interest to you…{before those, though} :
I should note [of which you may already be aware], a significant number of my neighbors, many elderly, are not able to proffer submissions such as this. Too, this extended living for years with this threat against home- and life-situation, has had a daunting affect [year 7 commences next month, on the 10th]. Some have felt harassed by this ongoing unsettled circumstance. Many have been greatly angered by the basic injustice this taking of homes constitutes. In general, most have also felt to some degree or other “battered” in their living, what with being forced to hold stance of sustaining vigilance awaiting the eventual need to be taking some action with this poor-options matter. Many, by inclination or capability, seem just to have found it too difficult to manage energy and all needed in reacting to the stream of missives and meetings which have occurred these many years. Too, for some of these elderly souls, with aim to “just live and enjoy this time of life here”, having to instead wrestle with technicalities and ponderous decision-makings in these regards, are simply living choices some can’t manage to meld well enough, if at all.

Anyway, as said, from these just-had conversations with some of my neighbors, these observations relate to the 2 letters you recently sent us, the…

(1) “Notice of Filing of Removal Permit Application” [received 5-18-12}, concerning the “Application for Removal Permit, No.447R-D”, date-stamped in your office on 5-2-12, and the
(2) “Notice of Consideration on Removal Permit Application” [received 6-19-12]…

In reporting a bit about some of these conversations, for simplicity, I’ll refer to them as (1) or (2):

One neighbor became frustrated that, in wanting to try to explain why these Removal Permits should not be issued, felt need for deeper delving into the implications and perhaps inconsistencies of [in (1)]: the “Rent Control Law (Art. XVIII, S.M. Charter), section 1800(t), the SM Charter Section 1803(t), and the City Ordinance No. 4.24.030.

As alluded to (page-over), being then overwhelmed by that perceived need to study more was enough to make her feel not up to saying anything of greater- or more specific-substance than words to effect, “It just isn’t fair to allow them [the permits] to be issued.”

Another felt challenged enough to not even bother writing that permit issuing would, in his view… “This will be disastrous. It’s just wrong”. He also talked of these [in (2)] wonderings: “Just what is the intent here?”, “What kind of argument about the staff report would be of importance for the Board to hear?”, “Are we being asked to write about a continuance on this matter?”, “Permits are required and other permits? What permits for just what?”

Clearly, he was feeling confused to the point of not knowing exactly what usefully best to dispute about from among the many statements and suppositions which bothered him in the letter.

I, too, in reading [both in (1) and (2)], foundered some before recalling how neither addressed anything about the essential crime underpinning all these process concerns, and being reminded then that attending first to that core matter trumps spending much energy on what seems problematic in these letters.

But, just a bit on that…Along with also wondering about “the other necessary permits” my neighbor had puzzled about, it was the “III Analysis” section [in (2)], and especially the “may” justifying commentary in that which started to raise again my ire about all this. Actually, I could probably spend pages trying to write on assertions in all three, a through c, parts of the section which feel more obfuscating, deflecting, and word-spinning than truly justifying of the conclusions made in it. Too, in that section, I got wondering about the lines: “Currently there are no regulations enacted under section 1803(t). Thus, the only statutory language governing removal permits is the Charter section itself.” ??? Another neighbor had mentioned that, for some unstated reason, the Board had apparently suspended prior, chapter 5?, regulations back in 1977. Which leaves me wondering “Why then and why still none now?” Some clashing of regulations with the needs of “vacancy de-control” back then, it was suggested might have occurred.

Altogether, not much of use to say after reading these very disappointing letters, other than that this application should certainly fail. I came away from reading (2) especially, thinking how very suspicious, a la Shakespeare’s “…doth protest too much, methinks”, it truly does seem to be.

Before recently first learning of this “Removal Permit” aspect of Rent Control Board duties, I had only thought of the Board in terms of it being a protector of resident rights, especially for those of lowest income. To see it now more acting in capacity [in affect] as an “agent of eviction”, via this RCB staff recommendation for approval of this Removal Permit Application, is certainly most disappointing.

Spending now all this energy to effect the killing of this VTP property and this now most rare affordable-housing resource, instead of acting to, as aggressively, seek to restore and strengthen it, looks certainly poles-apart from what the Board’s mandate seems to be toward moving its stated goals.

Personally, I can only wonder if the desire to destroy this piece of Santa Monica’s history might still be the aim if some in our City government hadn’t gotten so married in aspiring to what seems a broader problematic aim to also destroy what remains of the diminished [and soon to be again very needed] stock of manufacturing-, machinist-, and sundry other trade/crafts businesses in Santa Monica’s east end; an apparent aiming to assure that various Expo-line-supporting developments now in the works might instead have benefit of the land.

As must be endlessly stated : Hoping that that approaching line will do much to abate the traffic problems here , and thinking that massively devastating much of what presently still has business function in this east end of the City might in the end serve to give us a bettered community? Both are views sadly far from the mark and not the kind of planning thinking that should be encouraged.

*I could get far a-field here with too many more words about space needs for that train-line service, the wiser resident/business-friendly trolley alternative, earlier discussed thoughts about truly “green” people-friendly open-space options, needed business-refurbishing, etc., but…

Overall, I have now the sorry sense that, after last Wednesday’s disappointing Planning Commission recommendation to Council, too many still do not have a full-enough understanding of what this VTP property truly represents in terms of how us 100,000 now need to be thinking about our City.

Too, there seems still no understanding about what this unique home-owning/space renting arrangement really requires if this business relationship is to be at all honorably managed over time.

As has been from several perspectives now suggested to Council, this City cannot keep trying to build its way out of space-use problems and economic difficulties. It can though, if continuing with said sometimes short-sighted development and planning acting, almost guarantee that the enjoyment of life here in the years coming will lessen, and lessen proportionately to just how much wrong-headed, only-money-matters affairs-handling may again be permitted a part in the management of the City’s business.
As requested of you in my previous letter, please put this new input on record, and set right this matter. This Removal Permit Application should be denied.
To use the term this government so often invokes, there can be no mitigating of the great harm to lives the issuing of these permits would bring.

Thank you. David Latham