The Creepy, Yet Beautiful Street Art of Dan Witz Now in L.A.
Does Traffic Get Worse After the End of Daylight Saving Time?
Eye Nosh: Is This the Best Pastrami in America?
Silver Lake Art Crawl: Also a Food Truck Crawl?
Thomas Keller Comes Home: Book Signings and a Recipe(!)
Photo by shadowhound via Flickr
At their request (or so they say in an e-mail), the Santa Monica Coalition and its Residents Initiative to Fight Traffic got their ballot proposition to be "T." Now they can have catchy slogans relating Prop T to Traffic.
Prop T, which will be voted on in November by Santa Monicans, would amend the land use element of Santa Monica's general plan "to establish an annual limit on commercial development" within the city until 2023. The working theory is that traffic can't increase much if new jobs aren't made available in new developments. These days, the city's traffic is pretty gridlocked and it's hard to imagine it getting worse. Opponents say that growth is inevitable, future planning must be smart and that if passed, it will damage the city for years to come.
Below is the proponent's full e-mail blast. Take it for what it's worth:
Sent out Monday, August 18, 2008
Dear supporter, It's official. "RIFT" is now Proposition "T". "T" as in "traffic."We asked to be assigned that letter because we know that Prop T will reduce the amount of new traffic on our already congested streets by limiting new commercial development (office, hotel, and retail).
Our city's own traffic consultant says we can't fit any more cars on our gridlocked streets.
Yet our city has refused to set any annual limits on commercial development. None -- even while admitting that commercial development causes most of our traffic!
And more development is coming. Lots more. Our City Council just voted to INCREASE new building heights on all our major boulevards from Wilshire to Pico to as high as six stories tall!
We need Prop T to put modest limits on development. Developers want NO LIMITS on development and so will be spending huge amounts of money to defeat us.
Developers (some from San Francisco and Beverly Hills) and people who work for developers have contributed 99% of the money to the opposition group against Prop T.
They're going to hire experienced political operatives to craft the misleading and deceptive messages we're about to be bombarded with until Election Day. Their campaign, not grounded in any facts, is that somehow cutting traffic growth will hurt our most vulnerable residents - children, renters and the elderly.
It's utter nonsense; the old-school politics of fear. And they will lose.
The truth is that Prop T will effectively pace and control development without significantly impacting the city's robust $500 million budget.
The city's own study on Prop T says as much. The measure will have a $9.2 million effect on city revenue - and not until 2023. Since our city's projected budget will be over a $1 billion by then, this means RIFT will affect revenue by less than one percent. Not bad, considering the same city study showed development would be cut by 40%.
A 40% cut in commercial development while affecting revenue by less than 1%.
But don't take our word for it. The city attorney's impartial ballot analysis on Prop T makes NO FINDING of a financial impact on city revenues. None. The purposes of such an analysis is to warn voters of an initiative's financial consequences. This impartial analysis finds none.
Santa Monica is a relatively rich city, with many revenue streams. We don't need to give developers the keys to our city in order to have first class schools, parks, police and firefighters.
Join us and save this beach community we love from over-development and the traffic it brings.
If you haven't already, please volunteer to help our effort by calling 310*452*RIFT (7438). And please make a donation. We're going to need funds to fight the misinformation that's going to be thrown at us.
For more information or to donate online visit: http://www.YesPropT.com.
Thank you,
Victor Fresco, Susan Giesberg, Diana Gordon, Sherrill Kushner, Jeff Segal
Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Here is the new spokesman for Prop T.
Santa Monica has way too many jobs, and draws way too many tourists and shoppers. Somebody must put a stop to it. Who is thinking of the children?
The biggest causers of traffic in Santa Monica are the Water Garden and The Yahoo! Center.
So, unless they plan on tearing them down, I don't see anything helping.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My Mr. T picture did not appear. :(
This initiative is a non solution, with no effect on present horrible traffic, and a marginal influence on future traffic at best, with the consequence of stunting economic development.
Real solutions are creating affordable housing so more workers currently commuting to Santa Monica can actually live here. The subway to the sea cannot happen soon enough, and improvements to the bus lines with emphasis on the big job centers could help. Not sure the feasibility, but something I just thought of is what about park and ride stations at the borders of Santa Monica, with bus lines directly to places like the Water Gardens and Yahoo Center, reducing traffic within the city, since most traffic here is not from local residents.
Oh yes, and riding a bike, which is what I and over a dozen other co-workers do at Sony's Santa Monica Video Game Studio.
Affordable housing in Santa Monica will never happen, the yuppification is too entrenched at this point.
My already overpriced rental house is 2 blocks outside Santa Monica, and, if it were 2 blocks west, it would be 50% more.
Just another instance of well-to-do, ne'er-do-well Westsiders trying to stall the inevitable growth & densification of their 'gem' of a city, whose heart they sold out to commercial developers over twenty years ago. Double standard.
And to top it off, they are selling it with false information. The proposition will not ease the pressure of existing traffic. It will only limit growth, and ultimately slow the timeline for the Expo Line - a real, long-term solution to the traffic problems in SM.
Taunting and name calling ("ne'er do wells and westsiders"?) does not make a good argument. Property values are high here because it's a good place to live and there's tons of good jobs.
But this issue is not limited to Santa Monica and will become a very common question for other cities very soon (eastside as well): What does a city do once saturation has been achieved?
There's no denying Santa Monica is now 100% saturated with traffic as a result of commercial growth. Therefore, limiting growth - blasphemy to some - is a reality we have to face. People live here and, yuppies or not, quality of life for PEOPLE has to be put first before commercial interests. As such, limiting commercial growth for quality of citizens' lives is a necessary, real and viable option.