New
   parcel tax

   To the Editor:
   I am writing you regarding your coverage of the Santa Monica School District parcel tax on the November ballot. I was polled by phone by the agency hired by the school district to conduct their voter poll. The person conducting the poll did not know what a parcel tax was - nor does my home owner neighbor. In fact almost know one knows — except the school board and the City Council.
   As a news service, I ask that this parcel tax increase be explained to your readers for what it is — a regressive, negative tax where the most expensive parcels of land in Santa Monica worth tens of millions of dollars (e.g. Shutters Hotel) pay the same tax that an entry level condominium does — $300.
   Facts need to be explained. Is this tax on top of the recent $90 parcel tax increase already in place? Where does Santa Monica rank in terms of funding within the state school districts? How much does the district spend per student per year? Why is the district going with a parcel tax instead of a more equitable special bond property levy?
   David Luce
   Santa Monica

   Light rail
   picture
   bright

   To the Editor:
   Westside support for mass transit in the form of light rail remains strong, as evidenced by the strong turnouts of the two transportation forums held in the past two months by the Mar Vista Community Council (150 attendees) and the Ven-Mar Neighborhood Association (75-100 attendees), where overwhelming support for the proposed Exposition Light Rail Line was more than apparent.
   As a strong advocate of Westside light rail, I was gratified by this overwhelming pro-Expo sentiment—and I am equally gratified by the efforts of Rep. Henry Waxman’s staff locally and in Washington to lead the political charge to ensure that the Expo Line receives federal funding for the next six-year budget cycle.
   I would like to clarify some misconceptions that could easily be concluded by the recent announcement that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was transferring $155 million in federal dollars away from the Expo Line, and that the Expo Line is therefore “doomed.” Nothing could be farther from the truth!
   In a memo from Jenna Dorn, who heads the FTA in Washington, the transfer of funds occurred for two reasons:
   1) Money for federal transportation infrastructure such as Expo is spent in six-year budget cycles — and the current cycle ends this year. Preliminary engineering for Expo is not completed — and, in fact, bids for this preliminary engineering are just now going out. In other words, the MTA would not be able to spend that $155 million this year—and since the FTA must either spend this money this year somewhere or lose it altogether, they chose to transfer it to other national projects that are ready to go.
   2) The FTA has come out with a “strong recommendation” for Expo, and we have the FTA leadership as quoted being very pro-Expo, but they did conclude that the $155 million, which was transferred from the now-indefinitely-postponed Westside Red Line extension, is for a different transportation corridor than Expo and is not appropriately used for Expo.
   In other words, the FTA has concluded that the Westside Red Line extension and the Exposition Light Rail Line serve two different regions and that money from one project is not appropriately used for another. What this means about someday resurrecting the Westside Red Line is purely conjecture, but it does further justify the FTA’s decision to transfer the Expo funds.
   The upshot of all this is that the federal government, at its highest levels, is strongly pro-Expo—and Roger Snoble, CEO of the MTA, has been quoted as supporting a $400 million request in this next six-year budget cycle (2003-09) for the FTA to fund a full Exposition Line from downtown L.A. to Santa Monica.
   I emphasize that this proposal is for a full Expo Line—not just Phase I to east Culver City by 2009. I strongly urge the Santa Monica City Council, as well as all Westside citizens, to write their state and federal representatives—as well as the MTA—to push for this expedited Expo Line funding.
   Log onto www.Friends4Expo.org to learn more about the Expo Line and Friends4Expo Transit.
   I will be pushing for an “Expo Expo” in or near Santa Monica for local business and political and citizen groups to discuss and come to some concensus on expediting a full Expo Line by 2009. Let’s do this!
   Kenneth S. Alpern
   Steering Committee, Friends4Expo

   P.S. I had the pleasure of attending the first meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Lincoln Corridor Task Force, which is run by the LADOT and other local transportation agencies. There was a strong concensus for a variety of short-term improvements on Lincoln—affordable housing, improving the appearance, Smart Growth land-use initiatives and other ideas.
   Of interest is that there appeared to be an overwhelming concensus of pursuing a light rail of some sort connecting the future Expo Line along Lincoln Blvd. (perhaps elevated to avoid street widening and reducing traffic lanes) down to LAX and the Green Line as the ultimate long-term solution for Lincoln Blvd.’s traffic woes. Maybe the Westside has a bright future in urban planning after all!

   Early
   warning

   To the Honorable Mayor Michael Feinstein and Council Members:
   As a past resident of Santa Monica, I view with considerable alarm the current plans to close the Museum of Flying on June 30th of thie year.
   I am certain that the Council is aware that the Museum houses an irreplaceable historical treasure of aircraft and artifacts depicting the city’s role in the history of flight.
   Douglas Aircraft virtually built the city and, to a major degree, helped win World War II. To allow the Museum to vacate its current location at the airport would be a tragedy of major proportions generating a huge disservice to our citizens, young and old.
   I was at the Museum last Saturday, and there were several hundred “young and old” people there, including visitors from the University of Chicago, plus a large group of 5 to 15-year-old “inspired engineers-in-training.” We must not let the Museum escape the city. Santa Monica and the airport must support the Museum. It is in our cultural and financial interest to do so. It would seem essential that both the city and airport provide this support.
   December 17, 2003 will mark the centennial celebration of the Wright brothers’ first flight. We can’t allow the city to observe this national event in silence!
   I certainly can’t claim to represent all of the 150 volunteers and staff who have conscientiously devoted their time and effort these past years. I’m a new volunteer who can’t let it happen. But as a concerned community, we must not let it happen.
Your prompt response would be greatly appreciated.
   Al Bernstein
   Malibu

Ed. note: The foregoing letter was sent to the City Council in May. The Museum is currently planning to close on July 28.

   On code
   enforcement

   To the editor:
   I just read the story in the Santa Monica Mirror by Hannah Heineman, Mirror staff writer. regarding code enforcement by Building and Safety. It is of interest to me due to the fact that I have had reason to question the enforcement of Santa Municipal Code Section No. 9.04.10.08.220, Use of required off-street parking spaces which reads as follows:
“Required off-street parking spaces shall be available at all times during the hours of the use for which the parking is required. Assignment of parking spaces to individual users or tenants within a mixed use and/or multi-tenant project shall be prohibited except when such spaces are reserved for disabled parking, car or vanpool users or residential units. (Prior code 9044.22)”
   I was given this code by Transportation Management when I inquired about whom to contact regarding posted signs at a mini-mall in Santa Monica which to me were unclear, did not give time limits, and cars were being towed from the parking lot at this location. I was informed that although many places do it in Santa Monica, they are not supposed to assign parking spaces. To date, this has not been clarified for me.
Julia Reeves
W. L.A.

   Make auditors
   independent

   To the editor:
   It has been suggested that the solution to the problem of lack of investor confidence in the stock market lies in the shaky reports by the auditors.
   At present, we have the auditors hired by and responsible only to the corporations they are supposed to audit. Enron paid Andersen $52 million, last year. Do you expect an unbiased audit when Andersen is dependent on Enron’s engagement for the following year’s audit ? The suggestion is that the stock exchange assign the auditing firm and bill through dues to the corporation and the auditors report directly to the stock exchange and thereby to the stockholders. This would give a degree of independence to the auditors and consequently we could expect a greater degree of integrity. As a retired auditor, I say we must have independence for a fair and revealing audit. It seems to me that this is the simplest way to deal with a difficult situation. The corporations will fight it with all they have but that simply endorses the validity of the idea.
   Art Chesluk
   Santa Monica

   Stewart
   more than likable

   To the Editor:
   In his review of “Road to Perdition,” your reviewer comments that Tom Hanks has a dark side, unlike “Mr. Likable” — the late Jimmy Stewart.
   He is mistaken; Jimmy Stewart’s nuanced complexity was in fact what drew Hitchcock to cast him in such disturbing films as “Vertigo,” “Rear Window” and “Rope.” Furthermore, Stewart’s work in such classic Westerns as “Winchester 77,” and, in particular, “The Naked Spur” is tinged with the brooding characteristics of self-contempt and self-doubt which are hallmarks of his film persona. Even “It’s a Wonderful Life” — erroneously viewed by many as a Norman Rockwellesque fairy tale — derives much of it power from Stewart’s ability to convey the pent-up frustrations of small town life which are expressed in verbal, near-violent outbursts at work and at home and which culminate in his suicide.
   Mendy Rand
   Santa Monica

Ed. note: The writer’s contention that Jimmy Stewart is more than“likable” may be right, but she is wrong about the gender of Mirror film critic Sasha Stone. She is a her, not a him.

   Homeless
   response

   To the editor:
   The incredible rhetoric and horrible homeless scapegoating coming out now from the Bayside District for its alleged homeless “problems” is an appalling, shameful sign now in Santa Monica.
   The current claims now endorsed by the Bayside District that homeless people are urinating and defecating on the Promenade is pure hate speech. The filth I see aroud the Promenade is from patrons of the increasingly rowdy bars on and near the Promenade. The vomit of their drunk “patrons” is what I’ve found on the streets.
   Moreover, it is very apparent to those of us in the homeless community that for the last six months there has been a concerted effort by the Santa Monica Police to tell homeless people on the street that it was OK to sleep on the Promenade. Of course, this was while sweeps and arrests continued in other parts of the city. The Police and the businesses got what they’ve schemed for: to cry “poor us,” as they have now deliberatly engineered this attempt to make it appear to the rest of the city that homelessness in Santa Monica is worsening — or that we homeless now deserve the hate campaign they (some in the police and in the business community) are now about to launch.
   Will no moral leaders in this town step forward to denounce this? Besides having a perfect right to eat in the park just like everybody, food lines exist in parks because the city doesn’t even feed three meals a day to the 1 percent county-wide average of Santa Monica which is homeless. One percent of Santa Monica is about 850 people. The only homeless who get three meals a day here from the city itself are the 400 in shelters. The City of Santa Monica is not doing its fair share. And it is now out to enable a hate campaign to cover that fact.
David Busch
   Homeless in
   Santa Monica