VILLAGE TRAILER PARK REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION

VILLAGE TRAILER PARK REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION

RE: VILLAGE TRAILER PARK REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION

Dear Rent Control Board,

This is in response to the Second Supplemental Staff
report on Removal Permit Application, Case No. 451R-D
and in the interest of the upcoming Rent Control
Board public hearing at City Hall on Thursday May 23
at 7pm to vote on the proposal to remove 99 extremely
low income homes which are owned by its residents at
Village Trailer Park, Santa Monica. The terms outlined
in the supplemental report do not measure up to serv-
ing the interests of the City of Santa Monica, nor
the neighborhood in the vicinity of the proposed pro-
ject and it is devastating to the homeowner citizens
who reside at the proposed redevelopment site, Village
Trailer Park. The Removal Application should be re-
jected. Here’s why:

CITY INTERESTS – PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Staff Report states that no market rate housing
developer has been granted a removal permit since
1999 in Santa Monica and so this in itself is unpre-
cedented and a new breed of Removal Application and
should be scrutinized all the more. The Staff Report
goes on to say that in most cases the Board has re-
quired a developer to even exceed replacement of the
number of affordable housing units removed, and this
is for rental properties that are not even owned by
the residents, such is the case with most of Village
Trailer Park. The Removal Applicant (the developer,
Mr Marc Luzzatto acting on behalf of VTP LLC) has
not been willing to conform to these terms. Most
cities in California do not even consider an appli-
cation to change use of and removal of mobile home
parks because of the unique protection they are
reserved under the California Mobile Home Law. Mobile
Homes are not rental units. They are homes that are
owned and maintained by the residents, which is true
of most of the residences at Village Trailer Park.
Additionally, in terms of local Santa Monica commun-
ity goals, according to the City of Santa Monica 2010
- 2015 Consolidated Plan : The main components of
the LUCE are:
• Conserve existing neighborhoods – and the
character, scale and housing that defines them.
(CLEARLY, THE DESTRUCTION OF AN ENTIRE FUNC-
TIONING NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEING PROPOSED BY THIS
REMOVAL APPLICATION)
• Create livable places with housing choices
for all – establish housing that meets the needs
of people of all ages and income levels, and create
new housing that enhances sustainability and con-
nections.
(WITH ONLY 3 EXTREMELY LOW INCOME UNITS PROPOSED,
THIS DOES NOT COME CLOSE TO MEETING THE NEEDS OF
ALL INCOME LEVELS, ESPECIALLY IN A NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT ALREADY HAS 109 EXTREMELY LOW INCOME UNITS.
LESS THAN 3% OF THE UNITS ARE BEING PRESERVED)
• Manage transportation and congestion –
comprehensively address the challenge of access
and mobility using strategies for walking, bi-
cycling, transit, and roadway management.
(THE CURRENT PROPOSAL GREATLY INCREASES TRAFFIC.
THE PLANNED MITIGATION OF TRAFFIC – EXTENDING
PENNSYLVANIA AVE – ONLY DUMPS TRAFFIC INTO A SIDE
STREET THAT IS NOT EVEN AN ARTERIAL AND ONLY ADDS
TO NOISE AND CONGESTION WHERE IT DID NOT PREV-
IOUSLY EXIST, FURTHER AGGRAVATING THE NEIGHBORHOOD)
• Increase open space and connectivity.
(THE CURRENT PROPOSAL GREATLY REDUCES OPEN SPACE)
• Ensure a sustainable Santa Monica.
(HISTORICALLY, VILLAGE TRAILER PARK HAS PROVEN
ITSELF SUSTAINABLE UNTIL THE CURRENT DEVELOPER
PURCHASED IT IN 2006, ILLEGALLY PROHIBITED HOME-
OWNERS FROM SELLING THEIR HOMES [CAL. CIV. CODE
§ 798.71 : California Code - Section 798.71
(b)The management shall prohibit neither the listing
nor the sale of a manufactured home or mobilehome
within the park by the homeowner ], ALLOWED THE
PARK TO DETERIORATE AND DEMOLISHED AFFORDABLE HOUS-
ING WITHOUT CITY PERMISSION)
• Provide community benefits – ensure change
contributes directly to the community’s core needs
including affordable housing, and healthy complete
neighborhoods.
(THE CORE NEEDS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE GREATLY
COMPROMISED BY REPLACING THE 99 – AND EVENTUALLY
109 – EXTREMELY AFFORDABLE UNITS WITH ONLY 3 EX-
TREMELY AFFORDABLE UNITS. THIS PRESERVES ONLY 3% OF
THE SAME CLASS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THIS CUR-
RENT REMOVAL APPLICATION. ULTIMATELY, WHEN EVERYONE
IS EVICTED IN THE RESIDUAL PARK, ONLY 2.75% OF COM-
PARABLE HOUSING WILL BE PRESERVED. THIS IS SO FAR
UNDER WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF RENT
CONTROL POLICY)
The Village Trailer Park Removal Application goes
against the stated City goals of:Consolidated Plan
Affordable Housing (AH) Objectives
AH-1: Expand housing opportunities for extremely
low-income, very low-income, low-income, and mode-
rate-income households through an increase in the
supply of decent, safe, and affordable housing and
rental assistance and services to sustain housing
for special needs populations
AH-2: Maintain and preserve the existing afford-
able housing stock.
Furthermore, NONE of the replacement units are of
a ‘like kind’ because the existing Village Trailer
Park units are OWNED by the residents. The Develop-
ment Agreement should provide for ultimately 109
units that are extremely low income which are OWNED
by the residents. That is what is being removed.
Displaced Village Trailer Park homeowners should
have first right of refusal of these units at the
rental rates they are currently paying today.

EFFECT ON VILLAGE TRAILER PARK HOMEOWNERS
Many of the homeowners under the current reloca-
tion plan, will not qualify for any alternative
housing and the $20,000 compensation for destroy-
ing their homes and neighborhood is meager com-
pared with what they have invested in purchasing
and maintaining their homes and will cause them
to flee Santa Monica altogether. Faced with such
a destiny many will refuse to leave their homes
at all because, in reality, there is no viable
choice for many of the resident homeowners. Is
The City of Santa Monica prepared to arrest an
entire community of men, women and children in
a forced eviction process? Nobody wants that.
Some Village Trailer Park residents have already
left in a more violent manner. Two have committed
suicide since the announcement of the initial,
if premature, eviction. Home displacement is one
of the most disturbing events anyone can be sub-
jected to.
There are many individual and unique living sit-
uations at Village Trailer Park. In order to avoid
any further destruction to life and community, we
suggest the Board only approve the Removal Permit
AFTER all residents’ needs are met satisfactorily
and that the eviction notice have a time span of
12 months. Currently the Removal Application will
preserve neither the affordable units nor the res-
idents involved. Both will evaporate never to be
seen in Santa Monica-by-the-Sea again.

In order to be fair to the residents of Village
Trailer Park the Rent Control Board should insist
that all economic requirements for all options
listed be removed so that the current 49 house-
holds in danger have viable choices and are not
restricted due to any condition that might other-
wise rightfully be applied to other members of
the public who are not being thrown out of their
homes. Furthermore, the Rent Control Board should
insist that residents at Village Trailer Park be
given the option to accept fair market in-place
value for their homes, to be determined by a neu-
tral assessor because these homeowners have al-
ready paid for and own their homes; but they are
being treated as if they were renters. The amount
the developer is offering does not even equal
the amounts invested in their homes, let alone
fair market in-place value. The Rent Control Board
and the City Council both have the authority to
demand this per California Government Code
66427.4 (d) This section establishes a minimum
standard for local regulation of conversions of
mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not
prevent a local agency from enacting more strin-
gent measures.

TACTICS OF EXCLUSION
There has been an attempt to exclude homeowners
from relocation options because they are either
deemed “seasonal” or earn too much income. These
residents are not ‘vacationing’ in a trailer
park and they are not volunteering to apply for
new housing. They are being EVICTED and to attempt
to apply any screening method other than ownership
is discriminatory. There should be nothing in
the Removal Application or the Development Agree-
ment that has any stipulations that exclude home-
owners because they earn any certain amount of
salary or that they possess assets outside Village
Trailer Park. To do so is the most grievous kind
of discrimination – that which is applied right
when a family or individual is at the greatest
disadvantage: kicking them out of their homes and
then kicking them when they are down and out.

Any distinction between homeowners in an attempt
to exclude them from any relocation options should
be nipped in the bud now. All homeowners should
be properly and completely compensated for their
homes if and when they are destroyed, irregard-
less of any discriminatory and arbitrary classi-
fications in an attempt to disenfranchise them.

THE FALLACY OF DEVELOPER COOPERATION
Mr Marc Luzzatto has stated numerous times at City
Council hearings and Rent Control hearings that
he is “bending over backwards” to accommodate
the residents that are proposed to be displaced.
But Mr Luzzatto has not replied to attempts of
homeowners to communicate with him. Other than
those few residents he has gathered into his
fold to create the impression that his treatment
to homeowners is fair, the majority of homeowners
have been ignored or pushed aside. In the eyes
of many of the Village Trailer Park residents,
Mr. Luzzatto has bent over backwards to do just
enough to give the appearance that he is operat-
ing with the interests of local residents in mind.
This calculated tactic will leave most of the
homeowners at Village Trailer Park in the dark,
in the interest of economizing on his expensive
project. Once construction is underway, if that
unfortunate day should occur, it’s reasonable to
assume that whatever good intentions the Rent Con-
trol Board and the City Council might have had
will be detected and disregarded.
The fact that some homes at Village Trailer
Park have been deemed by the developer as “un-
occupied” or “seasonal” when they are not, helps
demonstrate an attempt on the developer’s part
to ignore homeowners and unjustly reduce the
financial obligations of the developer through
under-handed tactics rather than straightforward
negotiations. This shows we are not dealing
with a transparent Applicant for Removal of
Affordable Housing in Santa Monica who purports
to have the interests of the citizens at heart.

Non-cooperation is also in evidence due to the
fact that all homeowners at VTP were not given
proper notice of reports prior to public hearings
per California Government Code 66427.4 (b) The
subdivider shall make a copy of the report avai-
lable to each resident of the mobilehome park
at least 15 days prior to the hearing.
The fact that a large portion of the units at
VTP have already been demolished and taken out
of the market years ago demonstrates that Mr
Luzzatto is prepared to proceed with or without
the blessing of the Rent Control Board. He is
only before you now because his hand has been
forced and he was required to stop demolition.
This indicates with certainty that everything
the Rent Control Board does will be of utmost
importance. Anything overlooked at this junc-
ture will come back to haunt us all because Mr
Luzzatto is prepared, if allowed, to bulldoze
over anyone. If the Rent Control Board does not
carefully consider each and every aspect of
this development proposal at this time, there will
be no other opportunity.

THE IRONY
Mr Luzzatto is president of a company which states
that they focus on distressed properties so that
they can be “repositioned”. In other words, in one
sense, The Luzzatto Company preys on the weak. That
is certainly the case at Village Trailer Park.
Mr Luzzatto has bought his way into a partnership
acquiring The Village Trailer Park and has lite-
rally distressed it at the expense of the residents
and is now poised to “reposition” it into his poc-
ket after throwing out the homeowners who rely on
this “asset” for their livelihood. I’m sure Mr
Luzzatto was under the impression that this was
going to be much easier than it has turned out
o be. The difficulty he has encountered is due
to one main factor: the citizens who remain in
Mr Luzzatto’s distressed property are not going
anywhere because they have not been offered a
fair deal. Every person has a right to defend
his or her home. That is a fact of life. This
is possibly what Mr Luzzatto did not take into
account. He may have thought it would be easier
to bulldoze over the citizens of Santa Monica,
but he was apparently wrong.
Ironically, Mr Luzzatto also manages the Real
Estate holdings of the Lawrence Welk Family,
which has substantial holdings in Santa Monica.
Lawrence Welk lived in Santa Monica and invested
in mobile home parks. One of his mobile home
parks in Escondido was converted but in the pro-
cess each homeowner was given the opportunity
to remain a renter and/or purchase their lot,
as reported in the Los Angeles Times in 1986:
“Government regulations and the “intention” of
[the developer] ensures that no residents will
be displaced if they “choose to remain renters
rather than become owners”
The residents of Village Trailer Park are not
being given this opportunity to remain homeowners
and they are mad about that. Lacking this option,
there must be due compensation: IN-PLACE VALUE
REIMBURSEMENT + OPEN ACCESS TO ALL RELOCATION
OPTIONS WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

Along with Lawrence Welk, J. Paul Getty, who was
no slouch, invested in mobile home trailers. He
was the owner of Spartan Company that produced
affordable housing in the form of mobile home
trailers, such as the ones which exist in Village
Trailer Park. In fact his company produced one
or more of the units that are proposed to be dis-
pensed with at VTP, should the Rent Control Board
acquiesce to the Removal Permit Application.
The first Spartan trailer that was produced under
J. Paul Getty’s ownership he personally donated
to a homeless person in Los Angeles and he went
on to produce affordable housing in this manner
throughout the USA. This type of concern for af-
fordable housing is in serious decline. It is the
main reason that the homeless continue to wash
up on the shores of Santa Monica and congregate
in Skid Row in downtown LA.
Denny Zane, former mayor of Santa Monica, declared:
“If you are looking for a strategy to seriously
undermine a civilization, just make sure there is
not enough affordable housing.”

We urge the Santa Monica Rent Control Board to re-
ject the VTP LLC Removal Permit Application unless
the developer is willing to agree to all the terms
as outlined and submitted to Rent Control Board for
consideration in the Thursday, May 23 meeting,
which includes: preservation of comparable afford-
able units at one to one ratio or better, in-place
home value reimbursement to all homeowners, no qual-
ification restrictions to all relocation options,
50 mile relocation distance amended to state-wide,
proceeds of sale of any trailer returned to home-
owner if sold rather than demolished, eviction per-
iod of 1 year, Residual Park’s life expanded to 25
years unconditionally, stricter construction hours,
compensation for and guarantees of limiting incon-
venience to Residual Park, substantial penalties to
developer if further transgressions are attempted
or undertaken.

Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens of Santa Monica and homeowners
of Village Trailer Park

PS: donations can be mailed to the Village
Trailer Park Defense Fund: One West Bank FSB
12401 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90025

WE’RE IN THE WAY

WE’RE IN THE WAY

In the late 1970s, when rents in Santa Monica began to
escalate beyond reason, a group of self-described “old
radicals” and frustrated ‘60s activists founded Santa
Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR) and put a radical.
meaning significant rent control measure on the ballot.
In 1979, voters approved it.

SMRR was originally meant to be, as the name implies,
a renters’ rights organization, but it inevitably morphed
into a political party. Leaders emerged, of course.
SMRRs soon won a majority of seats on the City Council
and, in addition to overseeing rent control, developed
some worthy and innovative social programs.

The landlords and their allies responded with painted
signs on rooftops that were visible from the freeway:
WELCOME TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF SANTA MONICA.

The SMRRs lost their Council majority once, but won
it back after a couple of years in exile and have held
onto it from that day to this. At the moment, six of
the seven Council members are SMRRs.

Early on, the good guys made some foolish moves.
Though there were 10 million people in the Los Angeles
metro area, and we had the beaches, the City of Santa
Monica founded the Convention & Visitors Center and
spent $1 million annually (today it’s $5 million annually)
on promotion, created a bed tax, and demoted the long,
wide,gorgeous beach to “a visitor-serving facility.”

Arguing that they needed a quantum leap in revenue to
do everything that needed doing, they triggered a build-
ing boom that, over time, fractured portions of this
gloriously idiosyncratic beach town.

Founded in 1875, Santa Monica is small — 8.5 square
miles — in the heart of the legendary Southern Cali-
fornia coast. It was built out years ago. When City
Hall’s 1980s building boom got underway, Santa Monica
was the most densely populated town in Southern Cali-
fornia. It had a famous old Pier, an ultra-modern
three-story shopping center, famous and talented res-
idents, and was, in the best sense of the word, com-
plete.

But City Hall had just begun. It welcomed a row of
new luxury hotels, created the frenzied Third Street
Promenade, an oversized luxe office district in the
heart of the city, an explosion of traffic – in all nine
million square feet of new commercial development,
an ever-enlarging City staff, ever-shrinking open space,
and an increasingly angry population. Today, the daily
transient population of Santa Monica is 300,000, and
gridlock is chronic.

In 1996, City Hall began referring to itself as “the City”
with a capital C, and the rest of us, the residents, as
“the city” – lower case c. Clearly, in its view, City Hall
was the star, and residents were mere extras.

In 2008, residents put a measure on the ballot that
would have controlled commercial development,
but an imaginary committee chaired by Terry O’Day
and SMRR stalwart Judy Abdo and fueled with
$700,000 from developers, City officials and staff,
alleged “community leaders” and the Chamber of
Commerce pelted residents with baseless lies, and
scared enough voters to kill the measure.

And so another building boom is taking shape now –
35 to 45 projects, including the already infamous
“opportunity sites,” whose principal features appear
to be sheer, dumb height – 195 to 321 feet.

The Miramar Hotel at Ocean and Wilshire proposes doub-
ling its size, tripling its height, adding 120 condo-
miniums, and topping it all with a faux Art Deco tower.
A developer has commissioned the famous and influen-
tial Frank Gehry to do an asymmetrical sculpted tower
rising out of a field of small buildings at Ocean and
Santa Monica Boulevard. Meanwhile, one of the owners
of the former Holiday Inn, now the Wyndham at the
Santa Monica Pier, told the Council that he and his
partners don’t need the money, but they’d very much
like a more attractive hotel – and some towers would
do the job.

Residents in ever-increasing numbers are angry at
City Hall’s arrogant posture. They attend Council
and Planning Commission meetings and workshops and
say more and more emphatically and eloquently that
they don’t want a new round of towers on Ocean Avenue
or gangs of mini-apartments (“pack & stack” housing)
in downtown Santa Monica, and they protest the City’s
cruel treatment of the residents of the Village
Trailer Park and its continuing truckling to devel-
opers. But, to date, City planners have virtually
ignored the residents’ comments and complaints, and
limited their complaints to what they see as their
own excessive workload.

According to a story in the online Santa Monica Look-
out, the City’s house organ, “A routine meeting erupted
into CHAOS (our emphasis)…when opponents of a pro-
posed $225 million redevelopment project for the Fair-
mont Miramar Hotel demanded the floor to speak. PAN-
DEMONIUM broke loose when residents were told that
the format of the meeting — geared to get feedback
about what they wanted to see studied in the project’s
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – would preclude
any general public comment.

“Instead, residents would visit five stations and tell
City staff and consultants at each station about what
they want studied as part of the report. About two-thirds
of those in attendance wore stickers in the shape of
Red stop signs, showing their opposition to the project.
When Senior Planner Roxanne Tanemori explained the
format of the meeting, the room ERUPTED into complaints
while some residents STORMED OUT, calling the meeting
a ‘sham.’

“Another resident seized the podium. ‘We want our public
comments to be public,’ she shouted into the microphone
to applause. Some residents claimed that they had been
deceived about the meeting and were being silenced.

“Planning Director David Martin said that there was no
attempt to deceive residents about the nature of the
meeting. ‘We advertised a scoping meeting, he said.
‘It’s about getting input on what should be studied in
the EIR.’

An EIR is required by California law and studies the pro-
jected impact a development would have on traffic, circu-
lation, the natural environment and even shadows and
light in the area.

“’Staff held the meeting to get input from residents to
see what else they would like to be studied in the report.
Some people may have misunderstood the purpose of the meet-
ing,’ Martin said.

In fact, the meeting was a revelation for, there and
then, Martin and company finally acknowledged – tacitly -
what we have long suspected. Like their bosses in City
Hall, their ubiquitous consultants, the developers they
court so enthusiastically and four of the seven City
Council members, they don’t know who we are. They
have no idea who we the people, Santa Monica residents,
are.

They just know we’re in the way.

SANTA MONICA GOING IN WRONG DIRECTION

SANTA MONICA GOING IN WRONG DIRECTION

To City Council, Commissions & City Staff,

Winston Churchill simply described “civilization” as
the subordination of the ruling class to the will of
the people.

In this regard, the Development Agreement process has
been more like a game of monopoly than one of environ-
mental and urban planning for the benefit of the com-
munity. What’s been proposed and supported to date is
going in the wrong direction. (Will it take rallies
and bonfires of the 60’s free speech movement to turn
city management around?)

It’s the job and responsibility of the city manager
along with the planning director and his staff to
carry out the LUCE reached over 3 years of public
participation. And hopefully staff will also have the
foresight to produce a truly creative zoning ordinance
for the downtown area and not yet another business
as usual exercise.

But Developers, along with support of city staff and
economic consultants, say that projects with community
benefits can only proceed if they are built to or over
maximum limits – and to that I say a loud BS! I suggest
that Planning staff spend less time on fancy rhetoric,
lengthy reports, and biased economic studies and more
time understanding and requiring quality urban design.
If city staff, commissions, and council are not capable
of carrying out the LUCE mandate, then there needs to
be a wholesale change in thinking.

Last week, yet another development agreement was ap-
proved building lot line to lot line with the only
slightest nod to open space being a 3 foot widening of
the sidewalk with the building overhanging above.
o trade for 2 additional affordable units and ignore
quality design and environment when you can easily have
both doesn’t make sense.

What happened with the overly dense Village Trailer
Park approval is worse than abysmal and what is hap-
pening piece by piece around Santa Monica also repre-
sents a huge lost opportunity.

The city manager, planning department, city council
and commissions, along with developers and attorneys
need to understand that being “business friendly”
is over time not the greatest density, but is instead
the greatest environment.

Submitting to developer pressure is tantamount to white
collar crime. Santa Monica is a wonderful community,
and everyone including the development community will
benefit if it is not plundered. As an architect,
urban planner, and developer of multi-family and com-
mercial projects – it is a shame to see what’s happen-
ing in this city. It’s time for staff and city council
to wake up and help create something we all can be
proud of. Time to create a downtown that is truly
special and distinctive. Shame on all of you if you
lose this opportunity.

Ron Goldman, FAIA
Santa Monica Resident

RENT CONTROL BOARD TO CONSIDER REMOVAL PERMITS FOR VTP

RENT CONTROL BOARD TO CONSIDER REMOVAL PERMITS FOR VTP

By David Latham

Re: VTP Removal-Permit Application, 451R-D [A con-
tinued consideration, following from 4/11meeting]

Our Rent Control Board wisely wanted to carry this
“pillage-the-VTP” matter forward, so here’s yet
more to update about it. Thanks for taking the time.

Dear Rent Control Board Members [et al.],

At least for the record, here are some briefer com-
ments ahead of this Thursday’s [5-23-13] RCB meeting.

Last Tuesday [5-14-13], I received the 20-page Sec-
ond Supplemental Staff Report on Removal Permit App-
lication the Board had mailed out. Thank you for that.

Interesting, though dry and mostly unhelpful reading.

Also interesting, and to me most regrettable too,
was that none of you Commissioners chose to respond
to that invitation offered in mine to you on 5-2-13.
The on-site, walk-around conversation I had then sug-
gested would, I think, have given you a visceral,
and much better sense of exactly how multiple-ways
destructive this development will be should it occur.

My take on your 4-11-13 voicing for more information
about this VTP matter was that you wanted much more
than that staff report provided. By omission of any
facts or comment about important aspects of this clo-
sure/development aim, I found it more [and yet again
] an obfuscating input than one which I would find of
much help, were I on the Board, and wrestling with
this application. Getting to the heart of what this
enterprise will truly mean for all involved, near
and far from these VTP grounds, entails much more
than just action histories and finances chartings.

If you want to actually do justice in this matter,
please give careful attention to what I previously
wrote you about, and to that which I imagine quite
a few others have by now also communicated to you.

If able to honestly imagine yourselves in our cir-
cumstance, deciding on this matter should then be
a laughably simple choice to make.

Anyway, the key action result on Thursday will
seem to bear on this:

As previously said, you on this Rent Control Board
seem tasked with matters concerning “rental” issues.
That is, you do not sit on a “Housing Control Board.”
We holding legal residencies on these VTP grounds
are at the same time holders of legal home-owning
greements, having with such also all the rights
those ownerships afford us sustaining over time
with those residencies.

Perhaps, should this situation yet need to head
to the courts, it will become clearer to me just
what legal right you 5 have to be choosing—for
some yet-to-be-stated reasonable cause [I note]—to
even remove our rights to reside on this property.
As also previously said, it is of even more import
to note that your granting of a removal permit
will then as well consequent a willful removal
of our agreed-to right to have the homes we own
on this property [and all that then also precipi-
ates in harms].

Please take care to recall my assertion that this
mobile home park situation is a unique 3-way realty
relationship. If it must take litigation to show
that it is not [or should not be?] in your purview
to be deciding upon land occupancy matters that are
really between homeowners and landowners, so be it.

My gathering ire about having you—essentially 5
of my otherwise good neighbors in this small town—
sans any legal trial about rights, [maybe] force
loss of living situation and our homes upon us, will
be one thing if that is the way this Removal Permit
Application consideration plays out.

Very much greater though [come seeming about-to-be-
necessary litigation] will be my unhappiness with
that majority on our City Council which has already
decided out of its private agenda* to devastate the
lives and holdings of us on this property.

Rather than listening to those who put them on that
dais so that Mr. Miramatsu might not skirt his res-
ponsibilities, and so that Mr. Luzzatto might not
game for profit both us homeowners and the City,
these 4 have chosen to act unjustly and with little
regard to their sworn duty to Santa Monica residents.

The only question to be answered then is whether
your courageous deliberating will put an end to
this travesty, or whether you also will choose to
become complicit with this criminal endeavoring.

Please use that earlier-shown clear and cautious
thinking to do the right thing now.

Denying outright this application is the only action
to be taken!

…And, to remind again, as said to you on 5-2-13:

It is the serving of justice in this matter that
is of greatest import!

Breaching a residency agreement and forcing the loss
of home ownership, assets, and lifestyle, are simply
unacceptable actions.

*Ps [of course, for those who know me],

When the government of a small town such as ours will-
fully chooses to actively and privately ally itself
with a private party to then seek the uncalled-for
destruction of one of its long-established neighbor-
hoods,something is very much wrong.

With all the other contention about unreasonable new
building again in the news, it seems also time to again
be re-looking at just how neighborhoods best change
and grow.

As the late Jane Jacobs well-noted, successful commun-
ities develop and sustain when it is the residents of
the neighborhoods in those town communities who have
the greatest say over what does or doesn’t happen in
them. In best circumstance, governments in such towns
have only peripheral, and supporting, management roles
with regard to such development and growth aims in
said neighborhoods.

[I attach a listing of some of her books for those who
may not already know of her thoughtful good work.]

David Latham, 2930 Colorado Avenue, D20, Santa Monica,
CA 90404, thedbl@verizon.net

MEMO FROM TOM HAYDEN ON ELECTION EVE

MEMO FROM TOM HAYDEN ON ELECTION EVE

I’m supporting Eric Garcetti for mayor because he best
represents the potential for new leadership in LA, but
the changes that we need run far deeper than a new mayor
can overcome. The city and county need more democracy,
more vision of sustainability, and now more than ever,
in order to overcome a dysfunctional system of remote
control. Is this rhetoric?

[1] Just remember that it took federal court orders to:

- reform of the LAPD;
- stop illegal dumping of pollutants into Santa Monica
Bay;
- stop racial disparities and order the MTA to provide
more buses for the poor.

[2] Los Angeles has been governed for several years by
court orders affecting police, the transit system and
the coastal environment because of failures by local
elected officials. That’s a breakdown of democracy
which leaves citizens powerless to exert much influence
over local politics.

[3] To the extent LA is governed locally, it’s largely
through appointed commissions [zoning, planning, the
ports, etc] composed of people who disproportionately
live in places like Brentwood, San Marino and Pasadena,
all further examples of governance by remote control.

[4] the city [and county] governments are designed to
be parochial bastions where the incumbent functions
like a quasi-potentate over most development decisions
even where those decisions affect the city as a whole.
For example, the first Council district has been notor-
ious for permitting most of downtown development for
several decades.

[5] As voter turnout in this election reaches historical
lows, it’s no accident that the spending on campaigns
climbs to historic highs — well over $33 million for
the mayors’ race alone, $60 million for all city races.
Most of that money comes from groups that have special
business before the city, not from groups interested
in the public interest overall.

[6] Reforms to address this lack of democracy are short-
lived. LA’s public finance law, which provided matching
funds, has been shredded. LA’s neighborhood councils
invented to offset neighborhood-based movements, are
powerless except for modest chores like tree-planting,
and are only advisory in nature.

[7] The LA Times, the original booster of LA’s brand of
uncontrolled growth, has turned critical on many issues
in recent years, especially on policing, but tends to
remain anchored to its downtown growth interests. The
Times investigative teams face constant cutbacks, and
the paper itself is subject to a billionaires’ bidding
war. Other than the Times current intelligence, the “en-
tertainment capital of the world” is an embarrassing
media wasteland in its television coverage of city
politics.

[6] In a sprawling 500 mile-square metropolis, only
three elected officials – the mayor, city attorney and
city controller – are mandated to campaign on their
vision of where the city is going and what its prior-
ities should be. Actually, it’s only the mayor who
has that leadership responsibility, since the control-
ler is a narrow watchdog over fraud, waste and abuse
and city attorneys concern themselves with prosecutions.
So everyone but the mayor is elected based on the
immediate concerns of the most vocal elements in 15
council districts.

Once in a while, a powerful cause arises which helps
sweep a mayor into office. Tom Bradley’s campaign was
lifted by the civil rights movement and angry calls
for police reform. Antonio Villaraigosa came to office
with the powerful support of a long-disenfranchised
Latino community. One can say that those elections mat-
tered. In recent years, the cause of the immigrant rights
movement has been embraced by most in LA as well, an
important outpost of reform. But most of the time,
however, city elections are an insiders’ game, the insiders
being an Iron Triangle of downtown developers, the pro
development labor federation and City Hall power brokers.
The best example of the Iron Triangle at its epic dysfunc-
tion is the current scandal of the 405 expansion project,
which will run millions over budget and years past its dead-
lines, provide few benefits in comparison to its costs, and
has been treated with shrugs and denials by virtually every
candidate in this year’s election. It took a frustrated
billionaire, Elon Musk of Tesla Motors, to stir any public
attention to the 405 issue, and only because of his zany
willingness to personally hire crews to expedite the con-
struction project.

It shouldn’t have to be this way. Great cities like San
Francisco, Chicago and New York face similar challenges
from their own “iron triangles”, but neighborhood interests,
the media and local political clubs in those cities are
far more powerful by a vast measure. Both political life
and public policy outcomes are arguably better in those
three cities.

LA has great entertainment, sports, vistas and beaches,
but little political culture. LA’s main influence on
national politics is due to the many millions of dollars,
and some stardust, donated by Hollywood and Westside
entertainment figures. Ideas and inventions mainly come
from the Bay Area and New York, and it’s not accidental
that so many of our power politicians – speakers, gover-
nors, presidents – arise from the vibrant political cul-
tures of those three mega-cities.

All these ruminations are a lengthy way of explaining
how small-bore the LA mayoral campaign has been. To the
extent she has a cause, Wendy Greuel may become the first
woman mayor, but that possibility hasn’t touched off
much of a spark. Most of the time she is portrayed as
the candidate not of vision but of Bill Clinton, Magic
Johnson and Richard Riordan. Substantively, she’s caught
in an endless argument over whether she really identi-
fied $160 million in government waste or not. Eric
Garcetti has the credentials and experience of a real
visionary, which is why progressives support him, but his
campaign has been an endless effort to prove that Greuel
is in the pocket of the DWP union boss. In summary, she
is campaigning as if she still is controller while Gar-
cetti campaigns as the president of the city council.
It is as if the only questions facing Los Angeles have
to do with cutting the budget of local government in a
city where 40 percent of the children are born poor. The
two candidates’ visions are limited to their current job
functions and to the parochial design of LA politics. There
is little incentive to have a vision of citywide issues,
which means that our vast metropolis, one of the wonders
of the world, operates with a natural life of its own,
conducted by invisible forces which are rarely seen,
little understood, and well beyond public grasp or accoun-
tability. It’s not that our political class lacks intelli-
gence or craft, it’s that all the incentives are toward
inflaming minute differences.

Thank God for the good weather and fascinating diversity
of Los Angeles, the main factors which make life quite
livable. But we should be governed more by democracy and
diversity than by an anarchic mix of geography and anthro-
pology.

It’s not inevitable that a new mayor must step onto this
same treadmill, although history says it’s likely. If, for
example, Eric Garcetti wants to run for another office
sometime in the future, he may want to establish a track
record of more than managing the status quo. If Hollywood’s
elite want to create incentives for the creative life in
this city, they could buy the Times and massively expand
its investigative bureaus. While they’re at it, they could
subsidize a television outlet that covers politics and culture.
And remembering the Beat poets and surfing of Venice, do
something to curb gentrification and save today’s starving
artists. People who care about the heart of the city could
support some pro-democracy initiatives, eg:

- make neighborhood councils real and democratic, with
greater-than-token powers over major development impacts
and the allocation of local funds for community-oriented
businesses and services [from independent bookstores to
citizen grievance centers];
- end the culture of cronyism that flourishes like fungus
in the absence of more effective lobbying and campaign
contribution regulations;
- the City Council [and county board of supervisors]
could be expanded in number to increase civic diversity;
- at least some City Council members should be elected
at-large, requiring them to advocate a vision of the city;
- current City Council members could delegate more local
dispute-resolution matters to neighborhood councils in
order to better concentrate on citywide subjects like
the budget and holding agencies like the DWP, LAPD, MTA
and the Port more accountable;
- our billionaires in sports and entertainment need to
keep their venues affordable to working class and immi-
grant families, and invest massively in arts, science a
and recreation facilities to develop the talent of the next
generation. And under no circumstances level Dodger Stadium
in the faux name of “restoring” Chavez Ravine to the Mexi-
can community [while planning to concentrate sports and
entertainment downtown];
- Los Angeles should lead the necessary urban revolution
in renewable energy and conservation of fuels and water
resources, both for the future viability of the city and
as a condition for the flow of personal contributions
to national candidates for office; it should never be
forgotten that the fight against air pollution and air
quality regulations arose in smog-ridden LA decades ago,
or that we are the only big city in American to have cement-
ed its own river.
- And LA should continue embracing its role at the cross-
roads of the Americas, immigration reform, the growth of
Latino political leadership, and achieving model wage
and working conditions for the emerging working class.
- etcetera – you fill in the blanks. The point is that
with a more inclusive democratic political process, LA
might take charge of its destiny, instead of leaving
things to private real estate development, uncontrollable
immigration trends, racial tensions which might erupt,
the gradual depletion of local resources, and the
frightening prospects of climate change.

If you think this is list too tough to take up, I have-
n’t even mentioned earthquake preparedness, where the
city and state have a long way to go. One hopes that the
next mayor is at least willing to be frank, open and
educational about these challenges to democracy, equity
and sustainability, and not continue the traditions of
official boosterism and stone-stepping to higher office
that have marked our past. That’s the least that we who
live here should expect from government. #

SM DEMOCRATS DISCUSS OBAMACARE WEDNESDAY

SM DEMOCRATS DISCUSS OBAMACARE WEDNESDAY

The Santa Monica Democratic Club will discuss the implemen-
tation of the new Affordable Care Act at its meeting on
Wednesday, May 22.

Dave Jones, California Insurance Commissioner, Dr. Matt
Hendrickson of Physicians for a National Plan and Gene
Oppenheim, family phsician at Kaiser are scheduled to
speak.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly
called Obamacare, was signed into law by President Barack
Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act, it represents the most sig-
nificant government expansion and regulatory overhaul of
the U.S. healthcare system since the passage of Medicare
and Medicaid in 1965.

It is designed to increase the rate of health insurance
coverage for Americans and reduce the overall costs of
health care, and provides a number of mechanisms—includ-
ing mandates, subsidies, and tax credits—to employers and
individuals to increase the coverage rate. Additional
reforms aim to improve “healthcare outcomes” and stream-
line the delivery of health care. It requires insurance
companies to cover all applicants and offer the same rates
regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex. The Cong-
ressional Budget Office projects that it will lower both
future deficits and Medicare spending.

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of most of its provisions in the
case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.
In the last several weeks, Congress has rejected over
30 efforts by Republicans to repeal the act.

The Democratic Club meeting will be held at 7:00 pm May 22,
at the Professional Development Learning Center at 2802
Fourth Street in Santa Monica, The meeting is free and open
to the public.

FILMS4CUBAN5 PRESENT A CLASSIC CUBAN FILM

FILMS4CUBAN5 PRESENT A CLASSIC CUBAN FILM

RETRATO de TERESA

PORTRAIT OF TERESA, Saturday, May 25, 7 p.m.

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

Before Film: Meet at Izzy’s, 15th and Wilshire, 5 PM
Free Street Parking @ Izzy’s Deli, rear lot, computer
store lot on 15th

After Film: Discussion, with end the embargo on CUBAN
COFFEE

RSVP (a must); RachelJay@earthlink.net
310-780 7363 (first 20)

RETRATO de TERESA 103 min. 1979 Subtitled

Daisy Granados won the award for Best Actress at the 11th
Moscow International Film Festival.

A Classic Cuban Film

”PORTRAIT OF TERESA,” a Cuban entry in the ”New Direc-
tors/New Films” series sponsored by the Film Society of
Lincoln Center and the Museum of Modern Art, bears a
glancing resemblance to ”Norma Rae,” because it’s the
realistic account of a woman struggling with the demands
of family and her job. Teresa is overwhelmed: with a
husband, three young sons, a job as a crew leader in a
textile factory, and volunteer commitments as cultural
leader of her union. Her husband, Ramón, wants more of her
attention; her feelings are mixed, wanting domestic peace,
feeling responsibilities to the revolution, and wanting to
control her own life beyond doing dirty dishes. They separ-
ate; he begins an affair. When he wants a reconciliation,
she asks what his response would be if she’d had an affair
too. “But men are different,” is his reply. He’s failed her
test, and to hold on to independence and self-respect, she
remains uncompromising and hard-edged.

“Women are women and men are men and even Fidel can’t change
that,” is Teresa’s mother’s advice.

$5 donation for International Committee for the Freedom of
the Cuban 5 www.thecuban5.org/

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, released from prison October 7, 2011 having served
in full the brutal and unjust sentence he was given.

René González has been given permission to remain in Cuba!

BREAKING NEWS: ST. JOHN’S SALE CHALLENGED BY COMBINE

BREAKING NEWS: ST. JOHN’S SALE CHALLENGED BY COMBINE

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the own-
ers of St. John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, The
Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, had, in effect, sold
the hospital to another group of Catholic hospitals
(see story below). But today a full page ad appeared
in the Times, which suggested otherwise.

The “Open Letter to the Communities of Santa Monica
and West Los Angeles From Saint John’s Health Center
Foundation, The Physician Leadership of Saint John’s
Health Center and John Wayne Cancer Institute,” is
headlined “What Saint John’s Means to Our Community
and Why We Support the Community Bid.”

The full text of the letter follows.

The Saint John’s Health Center Foundation and the
physician leadership of Saint John’s Health Center
and John Wayne Cancer Institute enthusiastically en-
dorse the Community Bid led by the Chan Soon Shiong
Institute for Advanced Health (CSSIAH) to purchase
the hospital and related assets.

We at Saint John’s have a long tradition of provid-
ing breakthrough medicine in a faith-based environ-
ment. This creates a truly unique healthcare exper-
ience. Our new state-of-the-art facility allows us
to deliver the highest quality healthcare. Saint
John’s has provided this exemplary service to the
people of West Los Angeles and Santa Monica for de-
cades. We are the only California hospital recog-
nized for seven consecutive years by Healthgrades
as one of the 50 best in the United States. Simi-
larly, the John Wayne Cancer Institute has been at
the forefront of ground-breaking research for over
two decades, profoundly impacting cancer treatments
worldwide. The people of our community deserve this
ongoing excellence that Saint John’s provides.

Our success is due in no small part to the extra-
ordinary generosity and dedication of Trustee and
community donors who have contributed more than
$580 million to rebuild the hospital and transform
it into a world-class institution, as well as to the
outstanding dedication and innovation of the Saint
John’s and John Wayne Cancer Institute physicians,
researchers and employees. We are extremely proud
of this long track record of excellence. Furthermore,
the close collaboration Trustees, community leaders
and physicians is truly unique among Southern Cali-
fornia hospitals.

The Community Bid will benefit all parties by stren-
gthening the Catholic identity and sponsorship of the
hospital under the distinguished name of the Archdio-
cese of Los Angeles, enabling the best possible fu-
ture for our community’s hospital. This local owner-
ship through CSSIAH would also ensure that significant
resources and capabilities be provided to the hospi-
tal over time, including the ongoing recruitment of
world class physiciana and furthering efforts in
genomic sequencing and personalized medicine in col-
laboration with John Wayne Cancer Institute. In add-
ition, the Bid will allow Saint John’s to pursue the
expansion of our relationships with outstanding orth-
opedic/sports medicine centers and physicians, helping
transform Saint John’s into one of the foremost orth-
opedic centers in the world.

On behalf of our community, the Trustees and Physi-
cian Leadership join together to strongly support
this Bid for local ownership led by The Chan Soon-
Shiong Institutefor Advanced Health.

The letter is signed by Donna Tuttle, Chair Saint
John’s Health Center Foundation,Paul D. Natterson,
M.D., President of the Medical Staff, and features
the logos of Saint John’s Foundation, Saint John’s
Health Center and John Wayne Cancer Institute.

THE RUNNERS ARE COMING!

THE RUNNERS ARE COMING!

More than 3,000 runners will gather in Santa Monica for
the 8th Annual Santa Monica Classic 5K and 10K races—both
of which finish steps away from the Santa Monica Pier –
tomorrow, Sunday, May 19.

Following the run, a post-race expo on the Pier will fea-
ture vendors promoting nutrition and fitness, and dispen-
sing free samples.

Registration is taking place today at FrontRunners in
Brentwood, and tomorrow on race morning near the starting
line at 2600 Barnard Way in Santa Monica.

The 5K and 10K races will once again support the conser-
vation efforts of Heal the Bay.

The 5K will begin at 7:30 a.m., and a 10K race at 8:00
a.m. Runners will follow a scenic point-to-point course
through the streets of Santa Monica to the Pier. Arrow-
head® Brand 100% Mountain Spring Water will be available
along the course and at the finish line. All finishers
will be given an ASICS finisher t-shirt and Wayfarer
style sunglasses that have become identified with the
race.

The post-race expo will feature a DJ, a NutriBullet
Blast Bar, free massages from LA Sports Massage, and
vendors promoting nutrition, sports fashions and fit-
ness,including FrontRunners, SportsFit, AMAzon Coco Teas,
American Laser and Five Star Organics.

At the post-race award ceremony, the top three male
and female finishers in each race will receive an ASICS
gift card for a pair of ASICS Blur33 2.0 running shoes.
The overall first place finishers of both the 5K and 10K
races will win unique recycled glass trophies.

In addition, the top three finishers in each age divi-
sion (both male and female) will receive medals, and
the winner of each age division, along with the overall
winners, will receive NutriBullets.

Registration and pre-race packet pick-up will be avail-
able today, May 18, at FrontRunners on San Vicente until
4 p.m. It will begin at 6:30 a.m. Saturday near the
start line at 2600 Barnard Way in Santa Monica. Late
registration fee will be $45 for both the 5K and 10K.

For more information about the race, which is operated
by LA MARATHON LLC, visit www.santamonicaclassic.com.

ST. JOHN’S SOLD TO ANOTHER CATHOLIC CHAIN

ST. JOHN’S SOLD TO ANOTHER CATHOLIC CHAIN

Los Angeles Times story

The owner of St. John’s Health Center intends to sell
the storied Santa Monica hospital to Catholic chain
Providence Health & Services.

The Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System in
Denver said it has entered into exclusive negotiations
with Providence, which owns St. Joseph Medical Center
in Burbank and four other Southern California hospitals.
Sisters of Charity said the proposed deal is subject
to approval by the California attorney general’s office
and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. State officials
routinely review sales of nonprofit hospitals.

No timetable was set on finalizing the deal, Sisters
of Charity said.

St. John’s has been subject to competing bids from
several major players. One bidder was a group that
included UCLA Health System and two large Catholic
hospital chains, Ascension Health Alliance and Dig-
nity Health.

Earlier this week, local billionaire Patrick Soon-
Shiong went public with his own bid for the hospital
that had support from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Providence, based in Renton, Wash., runs 31 hospitals
in California and four other states.

Roman Catholic nuns founded St. John’s in 1942 and over-
saw the rebuilding of the hospital after the 1994
Northridge earthquake. Hollywood stars Jimmy Stewart
and Julie Andrews raised money for the hospital. St.
John’s celebrity patients have included Michael Jack-
son, Maria Shriver and President Reagan.

This latest development adds to a months-long drama
playing out at St. John’s. In November, its owner abrupt-
ly fired most of the local board members and ousted the
top two executives.

Sisters of Charity began soliciting offers for the hosp-
ital this year.

MIRAMAR EXPANSION/DEIR REPORT UNVEILED THURSDAY

MIRAMAR EXPANSION/DEIR REPORT UNVEILED THURSDAY

BREAKING NEWS! The Fairmont Miramar Hotel’s re-
vised expansion plans ignore community input and
propose adding a Las Vegas-style condominium/
hotel/retail complex to a quiet residential neigh-
borhood.

The Miramar expansion Scoping Meeting/draft EIR will
be held Thursday, May 16, 6:30 to 8:30pm Santa Mon-
ica Main Library, Multi-Purpose room. If you care
about this beach town’s past and future, you will
be there.

Unbelievably, despite the Santa Monica Planning Commission
and hundreds of nearby neighbors asking for a smaller pro-
ject that complies with current City height and density
limits, the Miramar’s newly released plans call for an
even more massive project than they introduced last year,
bringing tremendous impacts to our community.

These hugely controversial plans would bring a massive Las
Vegas-style condominium/hotel/retail project to a transi-
tional, coastal neighborhood of Santa Monica. The com-
munity has and will continue to voice our strong objections
to the enormous impacts of this monstrous 500,000+ square
foot project (about the same size as Santa Monica Place,
but on a much smaller parcel) on traffic, parking, noise,
community character, and historical resources.

Learn more on this site about how the Miramar Hotel expan-
sion is not right for Santa Monica – and join us in demand-
ing that the developer create something that fits our com-
munity!

www.SAVESANTAMONICA.com

NOTE: Scroll down to related L.A. Times story: Icahn vs.
Dell.

STATE SENATOR VOWS TO SAVE EMERITUS COLLEGE

STATE SENATOR VOWS TO SAVE EMERITUS COLLEGE

By Hannah Heineman

Santa Monica College’s Emeritus College, which primar-
ily serves older students, has, like other state-sup-
ported educational programs, suffered cuts in its bud-
get during the recent recession. Now, despite the im-
provement in the state’s financial picture, a bill
(SB 173) has been proposed that would eliminate all
state funding for the program.

On May 10, State Senator Ted Lieu, whose district now
includes Santa Monica, spoke to a group of concerned
Emeritus students. Noting in his opening remarks that
California’s state budget is “turning the corner. Un-
employment is down to 9.4 percent and this is the first
time in a decade that we have a balanced budget with a
urplus. I hope we can restore some of the cuts we have
made.”

As he knew little about SB 173, which was proposed by
State Senator Carol Liu, Emeritus students explained that
the proposed bill would eliminate all state funding for
all noncredit courses for parenting and older adults in
the community college system. After listening to the
students’ defense of the program’s crucial role in main-
taining Emeritus students’ physical, mental and social
well-being, Lieu said he would oppose the Liu bill.

The Associate Dean of the college, Ron Furuyama, stated
the program would be able to offer classes at no charge
this summer.The fall classes will be funded through dona-
tions the program has already received. However, if SB
173 passes, the program will need a new funding source
for the winter session.

Furuyama also noted that the annual budget for the Emer-
itus program is about $1 million and consists mainly of
payroll and benefits costs. The state funding for non-
credit courses is one half the rate for credit courses
and is based on student attendance. Emeritus college has
about 3,200 students and offers about 150 classes.

The college held a number of focus groups with students
to discuss the funding issue and a number of committees
have been formed. One committee is working on alterna-
tives in case the program’s state funding is cut. Poss-
ible alternatives on the table include corporate sponsor-
ships, student fees or membership fees.

A new Emeritus Student Union has also been created and
has been focusing its energy on helping the program deal
with the funding issue.

Governor Jerry Brown’s May Revise of the budget was re-
leased yesterday, but at press time it wasn’t clear whe-
ther the Governor was supporting cutting the funding for
non-credit courses. The state budget is scheduled to be
approved in Sacramento by June 15.

HIGH-STAKES BIDDING WAR ERUPTS OVER ST. JOHN’S

HIGH-STAKES BIDDING WAR ERUPTS OVER ST. JOHN’S

LOS ANGELES TIMES story

A high-stakes bidding war has erupted for St. John’s
Health Center, a storied Santa Monica hospital, with
a local billionaire teaming up with the Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of Los Angeles on an unsolicited offer.

The latest bid, expected to be formally announced Wed-
nesday, comes from former drug-company executive and
healthcare entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, who said
in a statement the bid has the support of the archdio-
cese. This offer is competing against at least two other
bidders.

One bidder is a group that comprises UCLA Health System
and two large Catholic hospital chains. Another potential
buyer is Providence Health & Services, another Catholic
hospital company.

St. John’s is owned by the Sisters of Charity of Leaven-
worth Health System, a nonprofit chain based in Denver.
Officials there began soliciting offers for St. John’s
this year. No dollar figures have been disclosed publicly.
Whoever wins would inherit a hospital rich in history but
one that is steadily losing ground in a market that in-
creasingly favors bigger institutions. Roman Catholic
nuns founded St. John’s in 1942 and oversaw the rebuild-
ing of the hospital after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Hollywood stars Jimmy Stewart and Julie Andrews raised
money for the hospital. St. John’s celebrity patients
have included Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor and Pres-
ident Reagan.

This latest development in the bidding adds another chap-
ter in a months-long drama playing out at St. John’s. In
November, its Denver owner abruptly fired most of the
local board members and ousted the top two executives.

In a statement Tuesday, Soon-Shiong discussed the proposal
and described his offer as a “community bid that would
further enhance [St. John's] capabilities, bringing world
class physicians and potentially historic advancements”
in medical care.

Steve Valentine, president of Camden Group, a healthcare
consulting firm in El Segundo, said he expects controversy.
“This could get ugly for a period of time as the plot
thickens,” he said. “It’s a prestigious hospital with lots
of Hollywood firepower behind it.”

St. John’s said no decision on a buyer has been made.

“We are still evaluating our options for a strong partner-
ship to support our ministry at St. John’s,” said Cheston
Turbyfill, spokesman for the parent company in Denver.
“We’re not disclosing any of the people we are talking to.
We will consider any serious, strong bid that ultimately
leads us to like-minded goals.”

Just before the management shake-up last fall, Soon-Shiong,
a major St. John’s donor, and some hospital board members
were working on a deal to buy St. John’s. The change in
management scuttled that proposed deal.

Under this latest proposal, the Chan Soon-Shiong Institute
for Advanced Health, a nonprofit company, would acquire
the hospital with involvement of the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles. A spokeswoman for the archdiocese said the church
“would be involved in ensuring that the hospital continues
to follow ethical and religious directives according to
Catholic teaching.” The church said it would not be invol-
ved in day-to-day operations or funding of St. John’s.
This partnership has the backing of major donors and some
hospital physicians who have expressed frustration at their
lack of involvement in the sale process thus far.

Donna Tuttle, chairwoman of the hospital’s foundation and
former official in the Reagan administration, confirmed
that Soon-Shiong’s offer had been submitted, and she en-
dorsed it. She said she sent a letter backing the bid
Tuesday to Michael Slubowski, chief executive of the pa-
rent company SCL Health System. The letter of support
was also signed by Paul Natterson, president of the
hospital’s medical staff.

In an interview, Tuttle praised Soon-Shiong as a cutting-
edge medical researcher who could take St. John’s to new
heights while maintaining its commitment to the community
and local patients. Soon-Shiong, whose net worth tops $7
billion, is pursuing numerous ventures aimed at accelera-
ting medical breakthroughs and putting more data at the
fingertips of doctors in the field.

“I’m having a hard time intellectually understanding why
you wouldn’t go with his bid. How many hospitals have
this offer in front of them? Is there something personal
here?” Tuttle said.

Speaking publicly for the first time about the hospital’s
tumultuous last six months, Tuttle criticized the Denver
health system for its handling of the entire situation.

“The way it has been carried out has hurt the hospital,” she
said. “What’s been going on at St. John’s has been crazy,
and it didn’t have to be this way.”

The Times first reported in March that a bid involving UCLA
and Ascension Health Alliance in St. Louis was under consid-
eration. Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital chain based
in San Francisco, has also joined the Ascension and UCLA
bid, people familiar with the process said. Dignity offi-
cials couldn’t be reached for comment.

Tuesday, a UCLA spokeswoman said that “it would be inapprop-
riate for us to comment on or speculate about any proposed
sale of the hospital or its future.”

Ascension said previously that it doesn’t comment on pro-
posed deals. Providence, based in Renton, Wash., said that
“at this time we have no comment with regard to the deci-
sion pending by the SCL Health System.”

All three of these bidders have strengths and weaknesses,
said Valentine, the healthcare consultant. But “Soon-Shiong
has the doctor and community support and a boatload of
money to support the hospital. This option cannot be ignored.”

DRUMMING FOR HEALTH

DRUMMING FOR HEALTH

Mike Temple will lead a “Healthy Rhythms Workshop” at
the Church in Ocean Park on Sunday, May 19th at 2pm.

The class is FREE and participants will learn how to
heal themselves, using the vibrations from drums and
other percussions,and have a great time in the doing.

The people who attended Mike’s Drum Circle during the
Church’s Kwanzaa celebration can tell you what a magnif-
icent time we had.

Mike needs a certain number of participants to RSVP.

Please let me know ASAP, if you plan to attend. Pastor:
Rev. Janet Gollery McKeithen.
Email: Minister@churchop.org

…URBCONN

…URBCONN

…harmonica players from New Orleans wrote a piece
called “Between Iraq and a Hard Place” – about how
NOLA got shortchanged and the War in Iraq made a mess.
But it wasn’t just NOLA that got short shrift, so did
most of America. And the damage goes deeper than
mean…

http://fryingpannews.org/2013/05/14/the-debt-of-war/#more-21687

It’s a sad time in America, don’t you think?

JIM

Rev. Jim Conn
230 Pacific St #108
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310/392-5056

Associations:
The Frying Pan – Writer: www.fryingpannews.org
CLUE-LA – Member of the Board: www.cluela.org
ABCD – Circle of Friends: www.abcdinstitute.org/
United Methodist – Retired: www.cal-pac.org