Genser is
   mistaken

   To the editor:
   Councilman Genser is mistaken.
In the VERITAS petition news release to which Councilman Genser refers in his letter (Mirror, 7/4) , we state the simple TRUTH that he supported the 1992 District Election Plan. His signature along with Tony Vazquez’s and mine is written clearly on the notice of intent to circulate the initiative petition. 
   In signing, he concurred with the text above his signature, which says in part “No longer will candidates have to belong to slates or compromise themselves to raise large sums of money. Instead they will be able to walk their own districts, meet the voters in person and directly respond to voter needs. They will much more often be able to run against incumbents on an equal basis where issues and personal qualities will be more important than entrenched power.” 
   Furthermore, when City Council considered placing the measure on the ballot for the November, 1992 election, Mr. Genser was one of three Council Members who voted in favor of putting it on the ballot. A report in the July 9, 1992 Los Angeles Times documents Mr. Genser’s vote, along with references to the support of district elections in general expressed by MALDEF and NAACP.
   Secondly, Mr. Genser is mistaken again when he claims that the VERITAS news release suggests that he presently favors the idea. It does no such thing. He is part of the “entrenched power” mentioned in the 1992 petition, so it should not be surprising that he now opposes district elections and term limits as VERITAS proposes.
   Irene B. Zivi
   Santa Monica

   Testament to 
   bad government

   To the editor:
   Michael Feinstein’s hysterical rant about the Veritas initiative is such a testament to the “bad government” he represents, that a full rebuttal is impossible in this limited space. Most of what he says is gibberish, the rest is pretentious and hypocritical.
   The idea of representational government is the foundation of our democracy. National, statewide and regional elections give people the opportunity to vote for candidates who represent their state or their district. There is no rationale for denying this opportunity to Santa Monica’s voters – only the self-interest of a few.
   Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and nowhere is this well-known phrase better illustrated than by Santa Monica’s political machine (SMRR), which has entrenched itself by stuffing our mailboxes at election time with propaganda that misleads, deceives and distorts. The main message is directed to tenants: “Vote for us or rent control will be gutted.” By instilling fear (which has no basis in fact) they have kept themselves in office for over twenty years.
   The damage they have done to Santa Monica is enormous. They have divided the city into hostile factions (tenants/landlords, employees/ employers) and they make no secret of their own hostile attitude to those who pay property and business taxes. Some of the more visible signs of their incompetence include alleys full of pot-holes, streets with diminishing traffic lanes and increasing obstacles, and the conversion of our Main Library into a virtual homeless shelter.
   Naturally they are afraid of losing power, and Feinstein seems particularly terrified by the idea of a separately elected Mayor. His “Point of View” article clearly demonstrates that a citywide vote for Mayor is essential if we are to have at least the possibility of a mature and responsible person in this post.
   Feinstein says, “Deceptive politics has no place in this community.”
   Quite right, Michael, and that’s exactly why it’s time for a change.
   Jill Renton
   Santa Monica

   Beach parking 
   rates exorbitant 

   To the editor:
   On July 6, the City took away the 30 minute parking option on the short-term beach lots. Several years ago, the City held three public meetings at the Ken Edwards Center to address “Parking at the Beach.” One of the concerns expressed was the lack of “Short Term Parking” for residents who go to the beach on a daily basis for exercise. The meetings were run by Kaku and Assoc., who printed up elaborate books of the results of their studies about coastal parking. There were different books available free at each meeting which must have cost the City thousands of dollars. The “study” of coastal parking must also have cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars. We were told in a very friendly, reassuring fashion that the needs of residents for short term parking (i.e. 30 minutes) for a quick run on the beach would be taken into consideration. 
   As I remember, the Coastal Commission also said that the City needed to have short term parking for residents.
   So how did the City respond to making short term beach parking for residents? By doubling the rates for street parking on Neilson and the other beach streets to 50 cents per half hour (twice the rate of anywhere else in Santa Monica). I guess they felt that residents should be punished for wanting to use their local beach. They also made the “short term parking” areas on the beach lots. These also had the 50-cent per half hour charge. I can almost understand doubling the rates in the beach parking lots (and at least have 30 minute parking for residents) but why did they have to double the street rates? I realize that people coming to the beach from out of town will pay, but what about those of us who live here, have businesses here, pay taxes here; shouldn’t we be able to use the beach without having our fees doubled?
   Now, apparently in celebration of Independence Day, the City has removed the 30 minute parking option on the short term beach lots. The least amount of time is now an hour for a dollar. So the whole reason for these lots (short term parking for residents who use the beach for exercise, etc. on a daily basis) is now gone. I am not going to pay the City a dollar every time I go to get exercise. I’ve been living in Santa Monica for 25 years. My reason for setting up my home and business here was to make the time daily to go to the beach for exercise. But now I find the punitive attitude of the City so disappointing that I don’t go to the beach as often for exercise as I used to. Now I do my jogging, walking and exercise on the streets around where I live. The City, at least at this point, doesn’t charge me to go out my front door. I’m sure if they can find a way to do so, they will.
   Peter Davison
   Santa Monica

   Innocent 
   until proven guilty 

   To the editor:
   What happened to the statement, “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”? The legal system, along with Child Social Services, have once again, jumped the gun with Paula Poundstone. With no Grand Jury, and no time to defend the accusations against her, Paula was dragged into court facing felony charges, and had her children taken into protective custody, “for their safety”(?).
   Let’s stop the media circus and help Paula get on with her life. Is some sick person seeking revenge against Paula for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with her kids? Just the facts please, and remember it really is “innocent until proven guilty.”
   God bless anyone who has the heart to take in needy children.
   Currently, 250,000 need homes. We should be concentrating on helping those kids, rather than tearing single adoptive moms down.
   Marie Roberts
   Los Angeles