 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT RIFT ENDORSEMENT LIST (click here)
The initiative, known as RIFT, is a reaction of the belief that officials in Santa Monica City Hall are completely out of touch with the sentiments of the average resident when it comes to development, growth and traffic. Evidence that RIFT's supporters are right can be seen by the City Council majority's recent decision to advance a plan to substantially increase the allowable densities and height limits of new development throughout Santa Monica. It appears that only Councilmen Ken Genser, Kevin McKeown and Bobby Shriver, all of whom voted against the plan, understand that the last thing Santa Monicans desire is bigger and taller developments that produce more and more traffic.
– Kelly Olsen (LA Times 8/22/08)
As a member of Santa Monica’s silent minority (homeowner, two working-parent family, property tax payer with two kids at Grant Elementary) it takes a lot to prod me into action. But the recent letters to the editor opposing the RIFT initiative based on potentially “lost” income to the city really pushed my buttons.
What will these people claim next, that a vote for RIFT will cause earthquakes, floods, or a plague of locusts? Based on their bizarre logic, if we don’t keep building bigger and higher then the city will soon see massive financial devastation. The last time that I checked, there weren’t that many vacant parcels of land within city limits. Santa Monica is already 100 percent developed. What they, and the City Council, desire is to over-develop the city. More, more and more is not always better and residents want it to stop!
I find it truly amazing that city government officials are so out of touch with the will of those that elected them, that the citizens of Santa Monica — those of us who actually live here, pay taxes here and send our children to school here — had to place the RIFT initiative on the ballot to force them to listen to us. The only silver lining in this situation is that this is the last straw. That they have finally motivated citizens like me to take action against their build at any cost agenda.
–Steven Brand (SM Daily Press 8/6/08)
"Attitude: it is clear to me that the "build to bigger, best and highest use" is the prevailing attitude both on the Planning Commission and City Council. This is wrong for our city. Where are the brakes? Where is the "go-slow" approach? Where is the "watch and analyze as we progress" plans? Where do we say NO!--don't even study this or that?" ... read full endorsement
–Jay Johnson (SM Planning Commissioner)
"Trading the quality of life of the residents of a city such as ours for some presumed minority benefit to be gained by answering the endless, destroy-and rebuild siren call of “more must be better,” is a risky gamble to take."
–David Latham (SM Daily Press 7/14/08)
"If the council really cared about citizen concerns, it would act to resolve our complaints at community meetings, instead of selling the city agenda. If the council really wanted to reduce congestion it would enact the Residents' Initiative to Fight Traffic."
–Jon Mann (SM Daily Press 7/5/08)
"There’s a force gathering in this city — an anger, and a determination. Residents are sick of telling the City they want to keep the beach town feel of Santa Monica; tired of telling the city they want a low skyline and don’t want density; tired of telling the city that traffic is the number one problem."
–Ellen Brennan (SM Dispatch 7/3/08)
It’s a good sign when politicians and ex-pols are running scared of a public initiative. Former mayor Nat Trives (June 26, page 4, “Letters to the editor”) says the consultants’ study of RIFT shows a “potential” negative impact to the city’s General Fund. How about the thousands of subsidized units the city’s LUCE proposes?
Won’t that be a drain on the General Fund?
Santa Monica is one of California’s richest cities.
This year, while the economy is faltering elsewhere, it passed a half billion dollar budget for a city with only 80,000 residents. Don’t be fooled by Trives’ vague threats that there might be cuts to police, fire or school projects. The city has vast pads of fat in that budget. It can start by cutting out fees to consultants and let paid staff do the work.
Councilman Ken Genser, who is up for election this November, is one of RIFT’s opponents. RIFT calls for a cap on commercial (not hospitals, residential, schools) development. No wonder, he was one of the councilmen (1990-present) who sat on their hands when the Water Garden with 1.27 million square feet and thousands of cars in three levels of parking lots was delivered to Santa Monica. Thanks, Ken, for bringing us the daily car jam that’s turned the Cloverfield area into a nightmare.
Now he wants more unbridled development guided only by the “wisdom” of the City Council.
Ten thousand Santa Monicans who signed the petition to get RIFT on the ballot think otherwise.
–HP Epstein (SM Daily Press 6/27/08)
Dear City Councilmembers,
Many of the basic concepts and goals of our (Land Use and Circulation Element), such as sustainability, walkability, connectivity, etc., are very important in and of themselves.
However the concept of “Public Benefits” has not been adequately debated. Many, many of your constituents feel that the benefits being proposed in no way compensate for the level of development envisioned in this plan.
We are only 8-square-miles, and in this space multiple Urban Village Centers are proposed … the terms “Village” and “Urban” are contradictory. Terms like modest growth, low scale, community values re-scale and heights are not defined. Our city staff seems to think that anything under six stories is modest and low scale.
We are a very well developed city with adequate public benefits.
What we want is adequate parking for residents in Wilmont, a library in the Pico Neighborhood, preservation of our trees, less traffic from workers, students, and visitors so we are not trapped in our neighborhoods, maintenance of a low scale sky line (defined as mostly one, two, and some three to four stories, depending on the neighborhood centers) and less development.
Under the guise of providing workforce and affordable housing, you are asking for an increase in density that is not acceptable.
There is no way we can build or grow ourselves out of the overcrowding and gridlock we now have.
This LUCE document pleases the developers, the city staff, and what seems to be most of you. There is only one voice among you who listens and represents our interests and concerns. The rest of you seem quite sure you know what’s best for “the city,” and that seems to exclude us residents.
– Lorraine Sanchez (SM Daily Press 6/25/08)
At the last (Land Use and Circulation Element) workshop, the speakers from (City Hall) and the consultants were really good with their “spin.” Their solution to “save our neighborhoods” and “lessen traffic” was to have many massive building projects along the transit corridors. How did all the input from SM residents get turned inside out and become exactly what most city officials originally had planned? Who is in control of this city anyway? Also, one consultant mentioned the city’s concern for global warming and CO2 emissions, which somehow does not match the (City Hall’s) planned removal of large environmentally friendly ficus trees on Second and Fourth streets.
– Zelia Grund (SMDaily Press 4/8/08)
The March 29th article, “Chamber opposes potential initiative,” refers to The Residents Initiative to
Fight Traffic, “which has been endorsed by several neighborhood groups and the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City.”
In fact, the boards of all five active neighborhood groups in Santa Monica have now endorsed the RIFT initiative. On the www.smRIFT.com Web site, there are position statements from Friends of Sunset Park, North of Montana Association, Ocean Park Association, Pico Neighborhood Association, and Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition.
Over 100 volunteers have been out collecting signatures since February. On election day, I spent six hours standing 100 feet away from polling places in order to collect 98 signatures. Since then, some of us have been going door-to-door, some have stood outside grocery stores, some have stood outside schools, some have gone around their apartment or condo buildings, and some have just asked friends — whatever we can do to find registered voters. This is a grassroots, citywide
effort. And it’s very time consuming. On election day, I was averaging 15 signatures per hour. At one grocery store, I averaged 10 signatures per hour. At another, only five signatures per hour. So it’s definitely a labor of love for the volunteers.
But you should see the expression on people’s faces as I explain why I’m collecting signatures. When people take time to stop, they listen politely, then it registers on them what I’m saying, then their faces light up, and then they say, “Yes! Finally! Where do I sign?”
–Zina Josephs (SMDP 4/5/08)
"The WILMONT board has voted to endorse RIFT. Our area's biggest issue is lack of street parking, and more development brings more traffic and less available parking for our residents. It's time to take a stand against the escalating congestion that threatens the quality of life and safety in our neighborhoods"
–Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition
"The Pico Neighborhood has felt the impact of ongoing unlimited commercialÊdevelopment firsthand and with even more major development proposed on the East side and the possible Paper Mate project in a few years something must be done NOW. RIFT is that something. PNA endorses RIFT because it is a reasonable alternative to the current uncontrolled growth that will further increase traffic on our already congested streets. RIFT is the answer to residents stated concerns about the current quality of life in our town."
–Pico Neighborhood Association
"...a projected future rate of 150,000 sq. ft. per year would be a continuation of the pace we have experienced in Santa Monica for the past dozen years. It is also important to note that future demand can easily exceed such projections, and that present zoning regulations would permit a substantially greater rate of development than is projected."
read full report: Patterns of Land Use in SM
– Giles Smith
"The FOSP Board has endorsed the RIFT initiative because our members have said, over and over again, that Santa Monica has encouraged too much development over the years, resulting in cut-through traffic congestion in Sunset Park that makes it difficult for us to get to and from our homes. Residents feel that we need to dial down the amount of new growth until our city's transportation infrastructure can catch up with the growth we've already had."
– Friends of Sunset Park
"The NOMA Board voted to support RIFT because our membership told us they think Santa Monica has had too much development. People are fed up with the amount of growth and the traffic it's brought."
– The North of Montana Association
"The City of Santa Monica has pledged to promote sustainability "to ensure that Santa Monica can continue to meet its current environmental, economic and social needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same."
The Board of the Ocean Park Association (OPA) is deeply committed to sustainability and believes that further increases in traffic congestion and commercial development will generate more air pollution and greenhouse gases, waste scarce fossil fuels, negatively impact local small businesses and create stress and diminished productivity in residents and visitors alike while undermining the prospects for a sustainable city for the next generation.
For these and many other reasons we voted to endorse RIFT. It's time to slow the growth of traffic and commercial development to a reasonable pace so that City Hall's proposed transportation improvements can have a genuine impact on our mobility."
– Ocean Park Association
"While it’s obvious that the city of Santa Monica would be unhappy with an initiative limiting development (SMDP “Coalition wants to limit development,” page1, Jan 18). It’s also obvious they should have seen it coming.
City (Hall) has created the perception that it is ignoring the residents’ concerns on development, and perception frequently is reality. Not one person I know supports that over-scaled mess at the civic center, but planning chugs right along. Restricting resident input on low income buildings of less than 50 units makes clear the city’s continuing intended grip on the development process, which, if necessary, will be unilateral.
City (Hall) must maximize revenues to continue its egalitarian journey, and will push hard to that end. Fair enough. Just don’t be surprised when disenfranchised residents start to push back."
– Robert Scura (SMDP 1/29/08)
"This is clear reminder of who's really in charge of local government, the voters. The initiative acknowledges that our congestion woes are worsened primarily by office and retail, not housing, and if residents want to cap commercial growth at a more sustainable level, we should listen."
– Kevin McKeown (SMDP1/5/08)
“It just doesn’t make sense and it really is, I believe, something to screw us up and stop us from doing what we should do.”
– Mayor Herb Katz (SMDP 1/18/08)
"The council couldn’t find $200,000 in its multi-million budget to do an actual study of vehicle movements. It prefers to hide behind an out-dated methodology and its “estimates” and “projections.” When the city failed to act, the civic group, Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, put together a ballot referendum that would force the city to restrict commercial development to less than 75,000 square feet a year and thereby reduce the cars and trucks on our roads.
For those who have been stuck in traffic jams in their hometown, this proposal will offer a chance at relief. All Santa Monicans should want to sign the SMCLC petitions to get the proposal on the ballot and then vote for it because less commercial building means less traffic.
Mayor Herb Katz has already condemned the proposal for no legitimate reason except it cuts into the council’s authority to make the rules. Note to Mr. Katz: It’s a historic American tradition for citizens to act when their government fails to do so. If he thinks he can defend his indefensible position, he should hold a public debate with an SMCLC representative."
–H.P. Epstein (SMDP 1/28/08)
"If top City officials honestly believe that 'community' workshops, usually attended by about 100 people and run by 'facilitators,' are a better measure of residents’ wishes and views than the vote of all the people in a general election, then the SMCLC initiative is not only timely and vital, it’s mandatory."
– Peggy Clifford (Santa Monica Dispatch 1/17/08)
"As an egotistical columnist, I keep track of things like who in this town said what and when. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am reasonably certain that I was the first commentator on the LUCE update to write about how out of whack development under the 1984 general plan had gone. That was in April 2005, when I wrote a column pointing out that while the 1984 general plan had foreseen about a doubling of office space in Santa Monica, the square footage of offices had nearly tripled -- an unplanned for increase of about 4.5 million square feet!"
– Frank Gruber (SM Outlook 2/19/08)
"The city knows we are in trouble. The last general plan update underestimated growth by 300% and provided little mitigation. That growth overwhelmed the infrastructure and the city's administrative abilities. The city has not demonstrated why we should trust them moving forward."
– Peter Tigler
“RIFT really is 'smart growth'. This is an analyzed, measured response."
– Don Gray
“It’s a sad commentary that I have to consider whether or not to enjoy Santa Monica’s wonderful resources based upon the small window of opportunity everday when traffic will allow reasonable access."
– Sherrill Kushner, North of Montana
"Sunset Park residents believe our pleas for less traffic and limited growth have gone unanswered, and we believe RIFT will give all Santa Monica residents a voice in solving these problems."
– Brian Bland, Sunset Park
“Due to the fact that the city hasn’t adequately responded to citizen’s calls for limiting development and mitigating traffic now, RIFT deserves your signature to qualify it for a citywide referendum this fall. Power to the people. Yeah!"
– Bill Bauer, Santa Monica Daily Press
