Chris W of Penmar Park area …Consider wisely the choice for a City Attorney. Trutanich may not be perfect but he at least is an experienced trial lawyer and knows the system verses Feuer the consummate multi-pensioned politician. In my opinion, we would all be better served if Mike Feuer retired and went to law school or some other passion of his than administrate the laws of our City with absolutely no trial or court experience or any other experience such as business other than his political speaking ability.
Deborah L of Abbot Kinney area …
Mark,
OPDs would cause many more problems than they would solve. It is obvious this is part of your plan/the major developers’ plan to get rid of all unHoused people in Venice and not much else. There is no parking problem in Venice between 2-5 am. We all know this. Why create one by making people pay to park on the PUBLIC street outside their homes? It is a discriminatory idea plain and simple that has NO place in Venice–“the people’s beach.”
It will restrict Coastal Access for many Venetians as well as people from other areas—which is mandated in our California Constitution—(just like the illegal Boardwalk closure that you were behind as well) and that is why the Coastal Commission has voted OPDs down TWICE. The only reason they are having to deal with this all over again is because you are suing them to get your way.
We need to get unHoused people the services they need–in Venice–so they can successfully get off the street and into housing. Pushing them around and criminalizing poverty is a horrible elitist move and does nothing at all but bring Venice a step closer to the private gated community some developers, and consultants to developers, would like to see. You say you stand for getting
housing yet you block real, local services so people have a much harder time making it off the street.
L A has been dubbed the cruelest city in the nation regarding homeless people. With the OPD idea, you would only make things worse. Please stop bullying our most vulnerable population! They need actual assistance–not this!
Laura S of Penmar Park area …Ref: Santa Monica airport … While I agree with some of what Chris Williams said, such as having the jets fly over Santa Monica and the need for relief to Venice from the noisy prop planes, I do not see the idea of closing the airport as negative, since there are very real health concerns.
The lead level is elevated 2 to 4 times normal in areas tested. At our forum there were no student reports. Since the prop planes repeatedly fly over our neighborhood schools, we need a correct reading of the lead levels to see how these planes affect children in our community. We do know that lead is cumulative and there are no safe levels.
We have looked at the important negative noise effects on student learning as stated in the UCLA pediatric 2010 assessment report which result in learning deficits that are very striking. And the research on the ultra-fine particles from jets idling, take off and landings has been fairly extensive. Those particles are extremely damaging. We are looking at the impacts not just to Venice but to Mar Vista and the areas east of the airport.
Obviously a comprehensive plan needs to be developed for future use of the airport property, whether the airport is closed or not. It seems the size of the airport will be reduced at any rate. We in Venice need to work on making sure the airport does not impact us the way it has. Those living in Santa Monica near the airport are just as concerned as we are about over-development of the airport land. Working together with all the concerned parties will create a result that will be better for us than what we now have.
Nancy P of Triangle …That was sweet of Heather; don’t you just love happy people?
514
Comments–4 May 2013
Chris W of Penmar Park area …Consider wisely the choice for a City Attorney. Trutanich may not be perfect but he at least is an experienced trial lawyer and knows the system verses Feuer the consummate multi-pensioned politician. In my opinion, we would all be better served if Mike Feuer retired and went to law school or some other passion of his than administrate the laws of our City with absolutely no trial or court experience or any other experience such as business other than his political speaking ability.
Deborah L of Abbot Kinney area …
Mark,
OPDs would cause many more problems than they would solve. It is obvious this is part of your plan/the major developers’ plan to get rid of all unHoused people in Venice and not much else. There is no parking problem in Venice between 2-5 am. We all know this. Why create one by making people pay to park on the PUBLIC street outside their homes? It is a discriminatory idea plain and simple that has NO place in Venice–“the people’s beach.”
It will restrict Coastal Access for many Venetians as well as people from other areas—which is mandated in our California Constitution—(just like the illegal Boardwalk closure that you were behind as well) and that is why the Coastal Commission has voted OPDs down TWICE. The only reason they are having to deal with this all over again is because you are suing them to get your way.
We need to get unHoused people the services they need–in Venice–so they can successfully get off the street and into housing. Pushing them around and criminalizing poverty is a horrible elitist move and does nothing at all but bring Venice a step closer to the private gated community some developers, and consultants to developers, would like to see. You say you stand for getting
housing yet you block real, local services so people have a much harder time making it off the street.
L A has been dubbed the cruelest city in the nation regarding homeless people. With the OPD idea, you would only make things worse. Please stop bullying our most vulnerable population! They need actual assistance–not this!
Laura S of Penmar Park area …Ref: Santa Monica airport … While I agree with some of what Chris Williams said, such as having the jets fly over Santa Monica and the need for relief to Venice from the noisy prop planes, I do not see the idea of closing the airport as negative, since there are very real health concerns.
The lead level is elevated 2 to 4 times normal in areas tested. At our forum there were no student reports. Since the prop planes repeatedly fly over our neighborhood schools, we need a correct reading of the lead levels to see how these planes affect children in our community. We do know that lead is cumulative and there are no safe levels.
We have looked at the important negative noise effects on student learning as stated in the UCLA pediatric 2010 assessment report which result in learning deficits that are very striking. And the research on the ultra-fine particles from jets idling, take off and landings has been fairly extensive. Those particles are extremely damaging. We are looking at the impacts not just to Venice but to Mar Vista and the areas east of the airport.
Obviously a comprehensive plan needs to be developed for future use of the airport property, whether the airport is closed or not. It seems the size of the airport will be reduced at any rate. We in Venice need to work on making sure the airport does not impact us the way it has. Those living in Santa Monica near the airport are just as concerned as we are about over-development of the airport land. Working together with all the concerned parties will create a result that will be better for us than what we now have.
Nancy P of Triangle …That was sweet of Heather; don’t you just love happy people?
Previous Post
Garden & Home Tour Tomorrow
Next Post
Saturday Brunch at Gonzalez Home