Email List

To join our e-mail list, please enter your e-mail address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Shows

Sections

Classifieds

Directories

Contact

City Council, Opinion, Santa Monica

An Open Letter To Santa Monica City Council About Village Trailer Park Ordinance

Posted Nov. 25, 2012, 1:13 am

Letter To The Editor

To City Council,

RE: Village Trailer Park development agreement ordinance - 11/27/12 agenda item 7-A

I strongly urge you to vote "No" on this ordinance.

1) The election campaign website of one of the City Council members who was re-elected on November 6th states that he "Protected renters rights and affordable housing by voting to prevent evictions of Village Trailer Park residents." (I've printed out a copy of the "Issues" page.)

Yet on November 14th, eight days after the election, he voted in favor of the Village Trailer Park development agreement, which would force the eviction of the remaining Village Trailer Park residents.

2) Lots of verbal promises were made by VTP developer Marc Luzzatto during public hearings concerning the Village Trailer Park development agreement. However,

a) Here are the only promises concerning current VTP residents that are actually in the Development Agreement ordinance that the Council will be voting up or down on November 27th:

http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2012/20121127/s2012112707-A.htm -- "The Project provides for the donation of land and the development of parking spaces for future affordable housing and the provision of 16 affordable housing units within the proposed project, of which 7 will be affordable to extremely low income households and 9 for very low income households...."

I.e., the developer will be eliminating 109 rent-controlled spaces in the return for building 16 affordable apartments and donating an unspecified amount of land (supposedly for the 10 existing trailers of his choice).

Nothing in the Development Agreement ordinance language specifies how much land is being donated, how many trailers will be allowed to remain, how those residents will be selected, or how long they will be allowed to live there.

a) The City of Santa Monica does not have a great record when it comes to enforcing Development Agreements. Examples:

i. St. John's Health Center promised in its 1998 Development Agreement to build a 422-space subterranean parking garage. It never built the parking structure, much to the dismay of nearby residents and, in 2011, the City Council amended the DA, relieving St. John's of the parking requirement.

ii. "In Santa Monica, affordable-housing rental agreements are often not enforced" - Los Angeles Times - April 5, 2010 - http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/05/local/la-me-samo-housing5-2010apr05 -

"For decades, Santa Monica has allowed developers to add floors to their buildings or exceed other zoning restrictions in exchange for providing affordable housing to poor and moderate-income tenants. Such was the case with Dorchester House, a luxury condominium low-rise just blocks from the Pacific Ocean. Almost three decades ago, the city approved a development plan in which 15 first-floor units were earmarked as affordable housing."

But the city did not enforce the Dorchester House DA. In 2010, a prospective condo dweller found condo owners living in the income-restricted units instead of renting them to low- and moderate-income tenants. One rental was advertised at $2,000 per month, although the rent-control price would have been about $1,200. The city only moved to crack down on violators after threats of litigation, but nothing has been resolved -- all 15 units are apparently still out of compliance.

Again, I urge you to vote "No" on the Village Trailer Park development agreement ordinance.

Zina Josephs

Santa Monica

Post a comment

Comments

Nov. 25, 2012, 5:15:55 am

GeneParmesan said...

Nice segue there, Scott. You even got the punctuation and spelling right.

Nov. 25, 2012, 5:31:07 am

Carole Meltzner said...

Bravo, Zina! The City Council once again opened the door of the henhouse to the fox! The wishes and welfare of Santa Monica residents means nothing to them! They love gridlock above a livable city.

Nov. 25, 2012, 2:01:21 am

Scott Hanselman said...

Gee Zina, You discovered a politician who says one thing and does another? Wow, a prize for you! It must be dismaying...but I'm sure it's okay for your boy Obama.

Nov. 25, 2012, 7:37:16 am

Kay said...

Thank you Zina for keeping us informed.

Nov. 25, 2012, 8:36:18 am

Scott Hanselman said...

I am scared of poor people and the blacks. Let me spread my hateful right wing opinions on these boards.

Nov. 25, 2012, 8:38:33 am

Truth said...

Once again, I have been saying we need to investigate our city council for criminal corruption. Cities like Bell and Vernon unconverted massive corruptions and kicked these goons to the curb. Santa Monica needs to do the same.

Nov. 25, 2012, 9:39:08 am

mangeleno said...

All the SMRR sheep drank the Kool-Aid! How many times must the SMRR Steering Committee, i.e. the real Bosses of SAMO, pull the rug out from under the gullible voters? SMRR has a long history of saying one thing and doing another, yet their blind, ignorant members keep voting them in over and over. Get it straight - the SMRR and their lackeys on the City Council have never met a development project that they could not love - as long as there was consulting work to be had from the project! SMRR cares not a whit about its members or good government. It's all about what's in it for the Steering Committee members. And you pinheads keep electing these clowns!

Nov. 25, 2012, 1:11:58 pm

Louise Steiner said...

I understand there is a recall petition circulating to recall 2 council members who have not listened to the people but are all ears for the developers. Kevin Mckeown is not one of the council members on the recall petition.

SM Mirror TV