Solving
   two problems

   To the editor:
   The 2001 Santa Monica Resident Satisfaction Survey and the projected city budget shortfalls were both made public at the recent City Council meeting. In the Service Improvement survey respondents rated “Address Homeless” at the top. As always, “Reduce Crime” was in the Top 10. Over on the budget side, a $5 million to $13 million annual shortfall was predicted for each of the next five years. These are both very complex issues, but I believe there are some simple things that can be done right now to mitigate and improve both of these perennial problems. Bear with me and I will tell you how.
   Currently, Santa Monica residents are encouraged to recycle four different categories of household waste, each in their own separate container. They are; beverage containers & plastics, newspapers, mixed waste paper and green yard waste. At our house we dutifully separate these items and place them in the alley. Independent or organized thieves promptly steal everything of value, leaving only the mixed waste paper and the yard waste. The ultimate insult is when our city trash truck empties the yard waste directly into its regular waste compartment destined for the landfill.
   What are we really doing here? It is my contention that the city “looks the other way” at recycling theft. It is seen as a “harmless” way of providing cash to our homeless population, thus theoretically decreasing the city’s outlay for homeless services. To test this theory, just call the police department and report a recycling theft. They routinely ask, “Is it a homeless person?” The obvious implication is that if it is a homeless person, they will not send a police car to investigate.
   New York City proved years ago that if you attack petty crimes, you will decrease the occurrence of serious crimes and their tremendous cost to all of society. By allowing recycling theft as an unofficially sanctioned activity Santa Monica is compounding several of our biggest problems. We are encouraging a larger homeless population by providing a free cash subsidy in stolen beverage containers. That cash can potentially be spent on drugs or illicit activities. We are encouraging organized thieves to cart away all the remaining valuables in our recycle stream. We are decreasing city revenue by running a costly sham recycling service for which all homeowners and renters pay.
   What should be done? The city should patrol our streets and alleys on both the night before and the day of recycling pick up in each section of the city. Citations should be issued and fines levied regardless of residency status. A single new recycling container should be issued to each residence, so that valuables can be placed at the bottom and less valuable articles layered on top. The cost of sorting the recyclables at a depot is far less than the loss created by separating and displaying the valuables them for the thieves.
   As recycling theft is curtailed, city revenues will rise, allowing money to flow from the program into the city treasury, rather than out. That revenue could be earmarked for additional homeless services, such as food, shelter and healthcare. The homeless would no longer be forced to rove our residential streets and pick through our trash to simply survive. The organized thieves will no longer be cruising our streets and alleys, being tempted to steal more than the recycling.
   I challenge the City of Santa Monica to conduct an audit of the monetary and human costs being borne by our homeowners, renters and our homeless population. My own personal observations tell me that the costs are far too high. And by the way, it would be nice if the city would provide residents with a free composting bin, rather than having our trash trucks pick up our yard waste and haul it to the landfill at our expense. Other progressive cities, like Burbank, provide one free composting bin to each home every year.
   Jim McGillis
   Santa Monica

   To an impatient
   driver

   To the editor:
   This is an open letter of sorts, addressed to a frighteningly impatient motorist.
   Dear driver of a maroon-colored SUV, headed South on Ocean Ave. in Venice on January 9: I was in my gold sedan and failed, while stopped at a traffic light ahead of you, to proceed when it turned green. All you could do was press your hand on the horn and leave it there for an unbearably long time, as if I did not know the light had turned. You made sure to do this first before finally going around (there was very little traffic), as if to first try to tell me what an inconsiderate idiot I was.
   I was having a very panicked struggle with my dog who just one minute before went into a seizure. He has never done this before, and his thrashing was both scary and dangerous to all concerned. I had not even had the time to negotiate moving out of traffic. He was partly on my lap and I was at once trying to calm his movements and get him back onto the passenger’s seat.
   Your inability to consider that SOMETHING might be wrong amazes me. This world desperately needs more people who think of themselves second once in awhile, and to practice empathy, interest and concern for others.
   Juliana Harrison
   Venice
   Real problem

   To the editor:
   What’s really wrong with Santa Monica was clear from the list of its most influential people (January 2-8, 2002). No brown, no black, no yellow. All white.
   Frank Deffry, Ph. D.
   Santa Monica

   Ed. Note: Actually, one of the most influential people, Nat Trives, is African American.

   Walking
   the talk

   To the editor:
   It’s time to walk the talk!
   I am thrilled to be participating in the updating of the Sustainable City Program. Santa Monica has done much to earn the reputation of being environmentally friendly. However, no city can call itself truly sustainable or environmentally progressive when it provides so few alternatives for transport by single-occupant vehicle. We need more alternatives besides a great bus system.
   The car is the biggest polluter on the planet and there are too many of them in Santa Monica. The city’s paltry system of walk and bike ways is a shame.
   Relative to motor vehicle travel, walking and bicycling are energy efficient, cost saving, and beneficial to air quality, health and public safety, social equity, and the local economy. It will mean breaking from the past to redesign streets and scale land-use patterns to include pedestrians and bicyclists as essential parts of abalanced, multi-modal transportation system. An analysis for the Federal Highway Administration of successful city bicycle and pedestrian programs showed that they included at least one full-time staff position to oversee non-motorized (sustainable) transportation issues.
   It is crucial to non-motorized programs that they be adequately staffed by people who themselves walk and bike, know the city and are not guided by outdated thinking. If Santa Monica has a commitment to being sustainable, it should put its money where it’s mouth is: fund the staff to oversee the transformation of Santa Monica into a liveable, walkable, bikeable city.
   Barbara Filet
   Santa Monica