ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
groups, community leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation of only $200, totaling $100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements). (See Exhibit 3.) Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.” (See Exhibit 4.) In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process which: 1) is not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores the role and expertise of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City Council then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions necessary and proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.” (See Exhibit 5.) Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making processes or public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries are recognized to have significant challenges and shortcomings:
1. Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise or qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.
2. No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions and recommendations.
3. Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual motivations will be unclear.
4. Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
5. Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6. Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7. Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require specialized knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete, inaccurate, uncertain, or deceptive.
8. Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging for them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9. Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability, discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10. Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result lottery-selected panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs. As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North America” so its use would essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects in Santa Monica’s history. Staff also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A process that is untested, is by definition not cautious. (See Exhibit 6.) The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random lottery process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that advocate for “prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of randomness and uncertainty, rather than direction and vision.
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City should not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the City Staff should not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes that are consistent with the clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, which have been consistently supported by the electorate and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing body of work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is transparent and consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list) Exhibit 4.
2014 Charter Amendment LC
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
1 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM Alan Levenson Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now. 10-06-23 at 01:40 PM Charles Blum Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the intelligence of those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a party to appreciate as open land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM Tanya Troglin
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM Elizabeth Van Denburgh
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM David Klass The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will of residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM David Goddard The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far. 10-06-23 at 07:55 PM Christine Hardin We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM Joseph Hardin Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa Monica funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially children and the elderly. Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and wildlife that surround SMO.
It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor Measure LC.
Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors. 10-06-23 at 10:41 PM Quynh Nguyen Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote! 10-07-23 at 01:09 AM John C Smith I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.” 10-07-23 at 02:04 AM Joseph Schmitz As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights.
Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of residents nearby our Airport.
Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their airplanes at SMO.
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM Joan Schmitz Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa Monica residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM River Huston
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM Allyson Dworkin
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM Susan Vandebunt
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM Robert Brown
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM Dirk W van de Bunt
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM Charles Gibson
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM Elizabeth Lerer
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM Diane Sabatini
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
2 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM Lisa Sandbank This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-approved measure LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their infamous power lawyers.
A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution.
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM Victor Fresco
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM Sean Meehan The question is too skewed toward development and omits mention of green space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM Karen Comegys-Wortz The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing and abide by our wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM Constance Stewart
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM William Schoene Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM Jack Drutz
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM Asa Greenberg
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Gregg Chadwick
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Flavia Baptista
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Chris Waller The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as a park.
Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already conjested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Jeffrey Felz
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM Andrea hricko
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Alvin Crown
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Benjamin Shore Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park no other use. 10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jennifer Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people.
Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jacqueline McDonald do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Se Jong Ding
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Jeffrey Rosenfeld
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM Gerard Raether
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM David Konell
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM Andrea Maitra
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM Richard Drapkin Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC made that clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport 10-07-23 at 12:20 PM Roberto Schaefer
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM David Abramis My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D:
Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
David Abramis
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough! ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
3 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Weber Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in his 2 million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM Iris Souza Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
Iris Souza
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM David Ginsburg
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough! 10-07-23 at 12:28 PM Patricia Braun
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Karen Croner
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Susan Hartley
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM theo swerissen We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM Victor davich The fish stinks from the head 10-07-23 at 12:33 PM John C Smith Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal. 10-07-23 at 12:33 PM William Sadler Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already overwhelmingly decided.
Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Annie Sabroux
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Paola Levenson We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We were promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Margot mcleay We already voted on this issue 10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Will Pirkey
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Devon Pothier
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Sandra Casillas I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course, that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it.
Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM carrie davies
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM Nurit Pereh We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether.
Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses. 10-07-23 at 12:48 PM Ingrid Mueller Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's weakening SMO Park Support.
Please check history and create a better future.
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM Yvonne Guy
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
4 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Betsy Katz
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Jessica Tracy
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM Michael Jerrett Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise, air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Joy Abbott Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the most impacted by any re-use development of the that space. 10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Ed Arias
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Jason Knapp
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Chutney li
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM Alison Buell The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby way of doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM Eileen Tunick Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park transition.
Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM igor meglic
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM Brenda Goodman
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM Stephen Hewitt
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM Jamie Dunham
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM Joseph Lutz Close the airport and build a park. 10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Kevin Kinigstein
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Andrea Lieberman I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM Gary Glickman We have been asking for your representation for many years. Are you abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM barbara whitney I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft. 10-07-23 at 02:02 PM Randall Klarin
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM Jordan Ellis
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM William Josephs
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM Mara Thompson
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM Suanne Ware-Diaz Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors. What the Westside lacks us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large developments already underway throughout the area and the continued allowance of one family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever. 10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM Alex Gardos Close the airport please! 10-07-23 at 02:55 PM Hal Bogotch A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.) 10-07-23 at 03:16 PM Chris Toussaint
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM Ann Bowman Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge. 10-07-23 at 03:23 PM ALAN KERNER A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM airport. The City Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass this resolution.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
5 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM Jilla sardashti Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the future of SMO.
Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Karen Comegys-Wortz List to the residents NOT the developers 10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Anita. Byrd
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM Tracy Orloff Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to do.
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM David Krauss
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM Maureen Jacobson This is shameful. 10-07-23 at 03:55 PM Justin Braun
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM Mia Levenson
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM Philip Baily
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM Mary Duprey It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM Rebecca Nelson
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM Stephen Unger Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it with a public park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM Adrian Harewood
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM John Campisi
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM Donna Rosescu
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM William Arbenz
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM Roy Rico Please honor the will of the people. 10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Will von Bernuth
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Kelly Hsiao
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM Will Guston
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM SULINH Lafontaine
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM Elin Katz I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a public park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM Megan FitzGerald
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM Jeanne Laurie Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to the developers. 10-07-23 at 10:28 PM hal lindes
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM Elizabeth Estrup
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM Jan Simonovic
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM Tim Whalen
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM Kurt Gary
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM Sarah Braff Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM Allison Greene Honor the original LC vote. 10-08-23 at 08:26 AM Susan Kirch
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM Phyllis Chavez
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM Dorinne Tye The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional processes and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding principals and future.
Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and future.
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM Miki Barnes
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM Mathew Millen Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing between Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM Peter Spelman
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM Larry Graber
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
6 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM Jon Casazza
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM Kenny Fields We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM Amanda McConnell We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We support the park and updated traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM hep ingham Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!! 10-08-23 at 10:12 AM Jen Murray
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM Sharon Rubin How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle? Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so many times
that I have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us.
Please consider our needs! I already , weekly have to wipe off my deck and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property daily!
Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air! 10-08-23 at 11:05 AM Max Greene
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM John Greenwood
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM Kirsten Campisi
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM Clare Thomas A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues, and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica 10-08-23 at 12:36 PM Natalie Greenberg Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and nuisance to our families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Luana Rubin
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Jill Rosen Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain. 10-08-23 at 12:39 PM Leslie Seki
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM Brian Kelly
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Haily Jovich The voters decided SMO would be a park.
The conversation is finished.
Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals.
Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and education.
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Alessio Burgio
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM Natalie McAdams Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again. Will this never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as. 10-08-23 at 12:49 PM Lauren wallenstein
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM Jacquie Jordan Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM Zina Josephs
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM Matthew Muranaka
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM Toby Berlin Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM Patrick Ney Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM Jonny Pray
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
7 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM Grady Hall Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public -- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was never the intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces, increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM Frans Klinkenberg
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport 10-08-23 at 01:17 PM Vic NoRMAN Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation industry.
Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us to re-elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM Bonnie smith
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM Marta Vago
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM Donna Urban
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM Stephen Mark I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has been made. The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM Patrick Davenport
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM John Humble
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM Joey Reynolds
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM MICHAEL OSMENT Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop the new Grand Park
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM Flynn Osment Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old. 10-08-23 at 01:42 PM Ava Osment Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years old 10-08-23 at 01:43 PM Lara Osment
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Nora Foran
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Lucia Klass
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM Fae Horowitz
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM Jonathan Stein This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive mask. Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM Patrick Reardon
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM Lauren de la Fuente Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM Melanie Merians All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this shameful lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM Ellen Mark
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM Jay Abramowitz The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature, trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM James Wilson Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM Louis Bon
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM Karen Blechman Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Lealani Ranch Dawes
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
8 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Richard Moore
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Patrick De Feo
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM Erin Ferro
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM Jan Simonovic Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10-08-23 at 02:59 PM John Greene Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP selling leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM Leona marolo Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business. 10-08-23 at 03:07 PM Eric Garner
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM Adam Simon Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent. 10-08-23 at 03:14 PM H. Martin The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently. 10-08-23 at 03:19 PM Laura Lacamara Close the airport; build a great park. 10-08-23 at 03:20 PM Brian Stecher I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM Cynthia
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM Laura Kaiser
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM Olivia Kelly
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM Beverly Haas
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM Ilene Weingard
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM Kristina Hagman
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM Alice Ellis Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM Alex Novakovich
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM Ofer Grossman
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM Mimi Wheeler
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM Marla Eby
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM Michael katz The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer. 10-08-23 at 06:22 PM Lorri Benson This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by 2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM Simona Garon Please stop this lottery process 10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Patty
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Nicola Goode Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council, reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM Katharine Dreyfuss
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM Min Shi
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM Makoto Kato
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM Joan Wilder The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM Matt Schlegel
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM Michael Jerrett
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM Jennifer Josephs Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage 10-08-23 at 08:31 PM Nancy Owens
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
9 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM John Ventura
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM Denise Gerber
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM Jan-Peter Flack We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica bought the land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM Steven T Benson This needs to be a park 10-08-23 at 10:20 PM Dawn Joyal No changes to Measure LC 10-08-23 at 10:29 PM Howard Wolfe
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM Mazi Lombard
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM Mindi Shank One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM Carol Joffe 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM Cathy Hillman
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM carol joffe This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health.
Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM Stacey Abrams-ShericK The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a park. 10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Ose Dalldorf
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Robert Sherick The City already voted on this with Measure LC. 10-09-23 at 12:30 AM Jack Sherick
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM Fariba Weiss
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM Ursula Fox
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM Marla Eby
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM Elaine Miller
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM John Reynolds WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY votes to undue the 60/40 decision
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM Suzanne joffe Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart. 10-09-23 at 06:31 AM Karla Klarin We want and need a PARK! 10-09-23 at 06:33 AM Dorothy Chapman
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM Tracey Hennessey I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM Val Davidson CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted on. 10-09-23 at 08:10 AM Ashley Simonsen
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM Ann Lewis We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014 rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM Sarah Lewis Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote.
Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM Chuck Mason 3480 Maplewood Ave
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM Stephanie Tainsky Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!! 10-09-23 at 08:42 AM Eddy Winston
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM Steven Brady
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM John Reynolds
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM Tregg Rustad Let's build a park, and only a park! 10-09-23 at 09:49 AM Dennis WIlder Stick with LC as you should. 10-09-23 at 09:50 AM bea nemlaha Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM Chuck Hoover
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM daniel funk i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
10 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM Lisa Detamore Please stop this nonsense. We already voted. 10-09-23 at 10:34 AM Shawn Barry we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM Brian Barry
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM Emily Dawe
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM Ronette Barry WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror.
Let me know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM Barry Friesen
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM mark ford
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM Mark Abdou
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM Joy Abbott Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM Susan Jain
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM Dorothy Cramer The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their choice! 10-09-23 at 12:55 PM lois banner I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain the beautiful residential community 8it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM Sarah Bryce This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of Sunset Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM Ellen Hannan
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM Margaret Hannan I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!! 10-09-23 at 01:55 PM Mark Schubb
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM Kenneth Abbott
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM Lynn Robb
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM Darlene Yaplee
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM Deborah We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica. 10-09-23 at 03:58 PM Tom Lynch The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned damage to many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM Christine Lynch Keep your agreements 10-09-23 at 04:39 PM ARTHUR BARROW
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM Danielle Litak I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all to enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM Frederick Pringle
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Kenneth Kirschbaum
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Elizabeth Oakes Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the citizens.
Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Gavin Scott
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM Andrea Ware The land needs to be ALL park! 10-09-23 at 05:35 PM Dawn Bailey
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM Nicola Scott We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park to be overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM Francine Duran
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM David Kimball
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM Kathy Knight Please support an open, democratic process in our city government. 10-09-23 at 08:59 PM Stephen Molstad This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be fired.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A - the answer you get depends on the question you ask.
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Councilmembers,
Much of the documentation submitted to you appears to have been written in a parallel universe where Measure LC never became part of the City Charter.
That is not the universe in which we live.
I’d like to suggest a simple reframing of the proposed lottery question, if you choose to pursue that process:
Following residents’ overwhelming support for Measure LC, enshrined in the City Charter, how should the diverse needs of our community inform the future use of the Airport land? Thank you for your time and attention.
Andrew Gledhill
Ocean Park
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Kabir Chopra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject: (10/10/23) Item 7A - Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Pro Tem, and Councilmembers,
I have lived in Santa Monica for 20 years and write to express my support for the democratically selected panel proposed for the Airport Conversion project (Item 7a on today's Council Agenda). This process seems very different from typical government outreach, and I especially like the way it engages actual residents to voice their perspectives directly to the City Council (and not through staff). It also seems to offer engaged residents a way to get a deep understanding of the trade‐offs for the Airport Conversion project instead of only getting a half‐hour presentation from staff and then having to formulate a slapdash opinion. This seems so much better.
I hope that you approve this process so we can get down to business on the Airport Conversion process as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Kabir Chopra
WilMont Resident
SMMUSD Parent x2
Santa Monica Fanatic
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Deborah Dinsmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7-A on tonight's agenda
EXTERNAL
Please, no lottery.
Deborah Dinsmore
Santa Monica, CA
Never again is now. Vera Sharav
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 10/10/23 - agenda item 7-A - Future of Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
Future of Santa Monica Airport – 300+ petition signatures & comments:
Petition: REQUEST TO REJECT THE “LOTTERY PROCESS” FOR SANTA MONICA AIRPORT – https://smofuture.weebly.com/reject-the-lottery.html
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor:
(1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and (3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City of Santa Monica.
“Democratic lotteries” are not democratic elections, and “random selection” does not necessarily mean “unbiased.” Lottery‐selected panels can also be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs.
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM // Alan Levenson // Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM // Charles Blum // Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the intelligence of those who elect you and trust you will govern with integrity and ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a park to appreciate, as open land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM // Tanya Troglin //
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM // Elizabeth Van Denburgh //
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM // David Klass // The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will of residents.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 10-06-23 at 07:32 PM // David Goddard // The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM // Christine Hardin // We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM // Joseph Hardin // "Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa Monica, funded primarily by out-of-town, mostly out-of-state aviation interests! The private jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially children and the elderly. Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and wildlife that surround SMO. It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor Measure LC. Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors."
10-06-23 at 10:41 PM // Quynh Nguyen // Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM // John C Smith // I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM // Joseph Schmitz // "As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights. Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of residents nearby our Airport. Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their airplanes at SMO. "
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM // Joan Schmitz // Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa Monica residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM // River Huston //
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM // Allyson Dworkin //
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM // Susan Vandebunt //
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM // Robert Brown //
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM // Dirk W van de Bunt //
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM // Charles Gibson //
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM // Elizabeth Lerer //
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM // Diane Sabatini //
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM // Lisa Sandbank // "This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-approved measure LC—authored by City Council—which the residents fought for and won despite the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their infamous power lawyers. A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution. "
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM // Victor Fresco //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
3
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM // Sean Meehan // The framing question is too skewed toward development and omits mention of green space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing and abide by our wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM // Constance Stewart //
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM // William Schoene // Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC! 10-07-23 at 10:50 AM // Jack Drutz //
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM // Asa Greenberg //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Gregg Chadwick //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Flavia Baptista //
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Chris Waller // The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as a park. Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already congested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Jeffrey Felz //
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM // Andrea Hricko //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Alvin Crown //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Benjamin Shore // Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park -- no other use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jennifer // "Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people.
Close the airport and make it a park as agreed upon."
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jacqueline McDonald // do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Se Jong Ding //
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Jeffrey Rosenfeld //
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM // Gerard Raether //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // David Konell //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // Andrea Maitra //
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM // Richard Drapkin // Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC made that clear. Do your jobs.
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breathe and our kids are getting sick.
The noise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do the right thing and close the airport
10-07-23 at 12:20 PM // Roberto Schaefer //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
4 10-07-23 at 12:22 PM // David Abramis // "My email to the SM City Council RE Item 3D: Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, David Abramis"
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Weber // Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brother who lives in the flight path, in his $2 million home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM // Iris Souza // "Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, Iris Souza"
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM // David Ginsburg //
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:28 PM // Patricia Braun //
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Karen Croner //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Susan Hartley //
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM // theo swerissen // We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM // Victor davich // The fish stinks from the head
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // John C Smith // Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // William Sadler // Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already overwhelmingly decided. Elections have consequences.
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Annie Sabroux //
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Paola Levenson // We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We were promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Margot mcleay // We already voted on this issue
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Will Pirkey //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Devon Pothier //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Sandra Casillas // I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course, that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it. Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must close the airport in 2028 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
5 you put it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there, and fulfill the edict of the voters.
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM // carrie davies //
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM // Nurit Pereh // We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether. Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses.
10-07-23 at 12:48 PM // Ingrid Mueller // "Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's weakening SMO Park Support. Please check history and create a better future."
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM // Yvonne Guy //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Betsy Katz //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Jessica Tracy //
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM // Michael Jerrett // Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise, air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Joy Abbott // Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the most impacted by any re-use development of the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Ed Arias //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Jason Knapp //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Chutney li //
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM // Alison Buell // The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby way of doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM // Eileen Tunick // Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park transition. Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // igor meglic //
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // Brenda Goodman //
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM // Stephen Hewitt //
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM // Jamie Dunham //
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM // Joseph Lutz // Close the airport and build a park.
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Kevin Kinigstein //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
6 10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Andrea Lieberman // I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been highly affected by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM // Gary Glickman // We have been asking for your representation for many years. Are you abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM // barbara whitney // I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft.
10-07-23 at 02:02 PM // Randall Klarin //
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM // Jordan Ellis //
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM // William Josephs //
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM // Mara Thompson //
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM // Suanne Ware-Diaz // Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors. What the Westside lacks is common green area that enhances life and community. With the large developments already underway throughout the area and the continued allowance of one-family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM // Alex Gardos // Close the airport please!
10-07-23 at 02:55 PM // Hal Bogotch // A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)
10-07-23 at 03:16 PM // Chris Toussaint //
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM // Ann Bowman // Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM // ALAN KERNER // A few years ago, I participated in a process to close the SM airport.
Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass this resolution.
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM // Jilla sardashti // Wake up and respond to the citizens’ wishes regarding the future of SMO. Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken, but our very legitimate demands fall on deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // Listen to the residents, NOT the developers.
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Anita. Byrd //
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM // Tracy Orloff // Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to do.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
7 10-07-23 at 03:30 PM // David Krauss //
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM // Maureen Jacobson // This is shameful.
10-07-23 at 03:55 PM // Justin Braun //
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM // Mia Levenson //
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM // Philip Baily //
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM // Mary Duprey // It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM // Rebecca Nelson //
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM // Stephen Unger // Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it with a public park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM // Adrian Harewood //
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM // John Campisi //
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM // Donna Rosescu //
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM // William Arbenz //
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM // Roy Rico // Please honor the will of the people.
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Will von Bernuth //
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Kelly Hsiao //
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM // Will Guston //
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM // SULINH Lafontaine //
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM // Elin Katz // I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a public park in its place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM // Megan FitzGerald //
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM // Jeanne Laurie // Honor the residents and the election results, not kowtow to the developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM // hal lindes //
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM // Elizabeth Estrup //
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM // Jan Simonovic //
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM // Tim Whalen //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
8 10-08-23 at 07:38 AM // Kurt Gary //
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM // Sarah Braff // Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM // Allison Greene // Honor the original LC vote.
10-08-23 at 08:26 AM // Susan Kirch //
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM // Phyllis Chavez //
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM // Dorinne Tye // "The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional processes and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding principles and future. Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and future."
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM // Miki Barnes //
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM // Mathew Millen // Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing between Wilshire and San Vicente Blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM // Peter Spelman //
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM // Larry Graber //
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM // Jon Casazza //
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM // Kenny Fields // We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are, and this "democratic lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM // Amanda McConnell // We live in Sunset Park, just south of the airport. We support the park and updated traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM // hep ingham // Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!!
10-08-23 at 10:12 AM // Jen Murray //
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM // Sharon Rubin // "How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle? Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so many times that I have lost count! It is the residents that elect you to represent us. Please consider our needs! I already, weekly, have to wipe off my deck and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property daily! Thank you for your consideration of the residents’ needs for clean air!"
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // Max Greene //
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // John Greenwood //
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM // Kirsten Campisi //
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM // Clare Thomas // A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues, and ultimately easily ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
9 swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM // Natalie Greenberg // Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and nuisance to our families and community.
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Luana Rubin //
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Jill Rosen // Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain.
10-08-23 at 12:39 PM // Leslie Seki //
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM // Brian Kelly //
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Haily Jovich // "The voters decided SMO would be a park. The conversation is finished. Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals. Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and education."
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Alessio Burgio //
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM // Natalie McAdams // Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again. Will this never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as.
10-08-23 at 12:49 PM // Lauren wallenstein //
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM // Jacquie Jordan // Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM // Zina Josephs //
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM // Matthew Muranaka //
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM // Toby Berlin // Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM // Patrick Ney // Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM // Jonny Pray //
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM // Grady Hall // Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public -- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was never the intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces, increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM // Frans Klinkenberg //
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breathe and are kids are getting sick.
The noise pollution is terrible. The residents voted, so do the right thing and close the airport.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
10 10-08-23 at 01:17 PM // Vic NoRMAN // Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation industry. Remember you are public servants, which means at some point you will ask us to re-elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM // Bonnie smith //
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM // Marta Vago //
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM // Donna Urban //
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM // Stephen Mark // I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a housing shortage.
Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has been made. The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM // Patrick Davenport //
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM // John Humble //
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM // Joey Reynolds //
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM // MICHAEL OSMENT // Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop the new Grand Park.
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM // Flynn Osment // Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM // Ava Osment // Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM // Lara Osment //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Nora Foran //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Lucia Klass //
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM // Fae Horowitz //
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM // Jonathan Stein // This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive mask. Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM // Patrick Reardon //
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM // Lauren de la Fuente // Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM // Melanie Merians // All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this shameful lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM // Ellen Mark //
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM // Jay Abramowitz // The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature, trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
11 10-08-23 at 02:22 PM // James Wilson // Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM // Louis Bon //
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM // Karen Blechman // Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Lealani Ranch Dawes //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Richard Moore //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Patrick De Feo //
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM // Erin Ferro //
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM // Jan Simonovic // Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-08-23 at 02:59 PM // John Greene // Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP selling leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM // Leona marolo // Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM // Eric Garner //
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM // Adam Simon // Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent.
10-08-23 at 03:14 PM // H. Martin // The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.
10-08-23 at 03:19 PM // Laura Lacamara // Close the airport; build a great park.
10-08-23 at 03:20 PM // Brian Stecher // I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM // Cynthia //
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM // Laura Kaiser //
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM // Olivia Kelly //
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM // Beverly Haas //
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM // Ilene Weingard //
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM // Kristina Hagman //
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM // Alice Ellis // Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM // Alex Novakovich //
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM // Ofer Grossman //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
12 10-08-23 at 05:53 PM // Mimi Wheeler //
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM // Marla Eby //
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM // Michael katz // The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer.
10-08-23 at 06:22 PM // Lorri Benson // This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by 2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM // Simona Garon // Please stop this lottery process
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Patty //
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Nicola Goode // Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council, reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM // Katharine Dreyfuss //
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM // Min Shi //
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM // Makoto Kato //
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM // Joan Wilder // The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM // Matt Schlegel //
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM // Michael Jerrett //
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM // Jennifer Josephs // Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage.
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM // Nancy Owens //
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM // John Ventura //
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM // Denise Gerber //
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM // Jan-Peter Flack // We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica bought the land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM // Steven T Benson // This needs to be a park
10-08-23 at 10:20 PM // Dawn Joyal // No changes to Measure LC
10-08-23 at 10:29 PM // Howard Wolfe //
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM // Mazi Lombard //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
13
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM // Mindi Shank // One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM // Carol Joffe // 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM // Cathy Hillman //
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM // carol joffe // This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health. Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM // Stacey Abrams-Sherick // The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Ose Dalldorf //
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Robert Sherick // The City already voted on this with Measure LC.
10-09-23 at 12:30 AM // Jack Sherick //
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM // Fariba Weiss //
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM // Ursula Fox //
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM // Marla Eby //
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM // Elaine Miller //
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM // Suzanne joffe // Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart.
10-09-23 at 06:31 AM // Karla Klarin // We want and need a PARK!
10-09-23 at 06:33 AM // Dorothy Chapman //
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM // Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola // Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat.
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM // Tracey Hennessey // I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM // Val Davidson // CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted on.
10-09-23 at 08:10 AM // Ashley Simonsen //
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM // Ann Lewis // We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014 rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM // Sarah Lewis // Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote.
Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM // Chuck Mason // 3480 Maplewood Ave ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
14
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM // Stephanie Tainsky // Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM // Eddy Winston //
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM // Steven Brady //
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM // John Reynolds //
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM // Tregg Rustad // Let's build a park, and only a park!
10-09-23 at 09:49 AM // Dennis WIlder // Stick with LC as you should.
10-09-23 at 09:50 AM // bea nemlaha // Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM // Chuck Hoover //
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM // daniel funk // i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport. 10-09-23 at 10:22 AM // Lisa Detamore // Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.
10-09-23 at 10:34 AM // Shawn Barry // we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings.
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM // Brian Barry //
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM // Emily Dawe //
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM // Ronette Barry // WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was going to happen. So sick of the bait and switch. How can you look in the mirror? Let me know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM // Barry Friesen //
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM // mark ford //
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM // Mark Abdou //
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM // Joy Abbott // Support Measure LC! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led by housing development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM // Susan Jain //
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM // Dorothy Cramer // The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM // lois banner // I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain the beautiful residential community it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM // Sarah Bryce // This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of Sunset Park will not stand for it.
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM // Ellen Hannan //
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM // Margaret Hannan // I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled apartment. If you want to ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
15 stay employed as a member of our city council get your A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM // Mark Schubb //
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM // Kenneth Abbott //
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM // Lynn Robb //
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM // Darlene Yaplee //
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM // Deborah // We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica.
10-09-23 at 03:58 PM // Tom Lynch // The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned damage to many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM // Christine Lynch // Keep your agreements
10-09-23 at 04:39 PM // ARTHUR BARROW //
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM // Danielle Litak // I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all to enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM // Frederick Pringle //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Kenneth Kirschbaum //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Elizabeth Oakes // Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the citizens. Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Gavin Scott //
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM // Andrea Ware // The land needs to be ALL park!
10-09-23 at 05:35 PM // Dawn Bailey //
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM // Nicola Scott // We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park to be overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM // Francine Duran //
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM // David Kimball //
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM // Kathy Knight // Please support an open, democratic process in our city government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM // Stephen Molstad // This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be fired.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Levenson Alan
Subject: ITEM 7a - Lottery Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Council and others,
ANOTHER VISIONING OVER THE FUTURE OF SANTA MONICA AIRPORT IS NOT NEEDED.
WHAT IS NEEDED IS TO BEGIN WORK ON VISIONING AND PLANNING THE PARK WE VOTED FOR.
A CITY SPONSORED AND PAID FOR RANDOM PROCESS THAT LARGELY IGNORES PAST HISTORY AND HAS AN EMPHASIS ON HOUSING AND COULD INCLUDE AN AIRPORT IS BULLSHIT.
WELL OVER 300 PEOPLE AND GROWING SIGNED THE PETITION TO REJECT THE LOTTERY. NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS HAVE WRITTEN LETTERS OF PROTEST.
WHO WANTS THIS PROCESS BESIDES THE STAFF, THOSE WHO STAND TO PROFIT, AND MAYBE THE COUNCIL?
WHERE ARE THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS PROCESS BEYOND THOSE LOOKING TO BUILD HOMES ON PARKLAND AND THOSE WHO WANT AN AIRPORT IN SOME FORM?
The residents were clear when they passed measure LC and defected measure D; we want a park. A park for everyone to enjoy for us and future generaƟons to come.
LC was clear. We did not want housing or commercial development on the land. LC could have passed just as easily if it said we want to close the airport and build the great park bought in 1926. I believe it was Gleam Davis and Marsh Moutrie, former city aƩorney, who added the unnecessary line about a vote. Now that voƟng clause is being used to change the outcome of LC as if we voted to have another vote. This aƩempt may not be illegal, but it is manipulaƟve and disrespecƞul of the democraƟc process. Arrogance is not a virtue.
It appears the current council may be willing to silence residents, acƟvists, and neighborhood groups and put their faith in a random group of folks willing to put in a limited amount of Ɵme. Let’s hope not.
This is a waste of money. A waste of Ɵme. A travesty of the DemocraƟc process.
DIRECT THE STAFF TO GET TO WORK PLANNING THE PARK.
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR HOUSING AS IF THE PARKLAND IS THE ONLY PLACE TO PUT IT.
STOP PROCLAIMING THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THE PARK WHEN THERE IS $15 MILLION OF LEASE MONEY PER YEAR AVAILABLE FROM THE SMO LEASES ONCE THE AIRPORT CLOSES.
SEND HEALTHY DEMOCRACY PACKING.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 PLAN THE PARK.
Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon.
Alan
P.S. The peƟƟon, their names, and comments can be found here. Scroll down for names and comments:
hƩps://smofuture.weebly.com/reject‐the‐loƩery.html
Alan Levenson
www.alanlevenson.com
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis
Subject: SMCC Meeting - 10/10/23 - Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport -- UNTESTED and UNPROVEN
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council:
SMO should NOT be a LABORATORY for Healthy Democracy and their UNTESTED and UNPROVEN process, especially with a pricetag in the MILLIONS of dollars. See the screenshot below.
City Staff references an AirTable with data to support the Healthy Democracy in their Staff Report. They point to “600 examples globally”. Please dig into it! The proposed Lottery is truly an untested process with an inexperienced organization. Should it be used on SMO? No.
There are actually only 574 cases (not 600) in the OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions.
(a) How many of these 574 were implemented by Healthy Democracy? Only 11 of the 574 worldwide (with one or none that are relevant). See the screenshot below of the 11. (b) How many of these 574 had Panels that were included Citizens (as opposed to business, academics, expert practitioners, or government representatives, etc.)? Only 40 of the 574 worldwide.
(c) How many of these of these 574 were in the USA? Only 20 of 574 worldwide.
So how much experience does Healthy Democracy have doing a project like SMO? Little to none.
None of their experiences are similar to the SMO project and most are CIRs (Citizen Initiative Reviews for Ballot Measures 85, 92, 97, 90, 82, 73, 74, 205). SMO is not a ballot measure question. That happened in 2014 with Measure LC, and we know the results already! Petaluma was a 1st of its kind, and the results are not even fully completed and documented.
SMO would be a true million dollar test case, on one of the largest and most important projects in the City’s history. This is not a cautious approach.
PLEASE use the City's precious time, money, and resources to FOCUS on closing the airport effective midnight 12-31-2028 and then transitioning it to public parkland, consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution 11026.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 Thank you,
Ben
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
3 -------------------------------
Ben Wang
Mobile: 310-663-9264
-------------------------------
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; David White; Jesse Zwick; [email protected]
Subject: 10/10/23 City Council Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Re: Santa Monica City Council Agenda 10/10/2023 Item 7A Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and City Councilmembers, I urge you to keep an open mind with regard to your discussion on the proposal of a lottery-selected panel process on the future of the airport.
While I completely understand hesitancy with this proposal, I would like to bring up several potential benefits to our community as well as correct certain misconceptions regarding the proposal.
For your convenience, I have organized several of these points by bullet points below:
More people of different backgrounds will have the opportunity to provide input on what the future park will look like after the airport is closed
o Measure LC restricts what we may do with the land at the airport after it closes and with the exception of certain educational or arts-related uses, it can only be a park. Any other uses would need to be approved by the voters at the ballot box o By using a lottery rather than relying on who chooses to come to a public meeting, we will have the opportunity for voices to be heard that we don’t generally get to hear from o By providing stipends and other supportive resources (like childcare) to participants, it will enable people who don’t normally have the capacity to participate to be part of the process such as parents or guardians of young children
The process will unite professional expertise with members of the public so they can make wellinformed suggestions to the City Council including what the park should aim to include o There are many different types of parks- those with playing fields, those with playgrounds, those with lakes or pools & water-related activities, those with carousels, those with or without concession stands, parks with off-leash areas for dogs, parks with walking paths, parks with groves of fruit trees, parks with barbeques and picnic tables, parks with community gardens, etc. - and combinations thereof
o With so much physical land, we need to approach the planning of what we want to see in a manner that takes into account the needs and wants of all different kinds of people who are all part of our community
o Members of the public will have the benefit of professionals in the different fields necessary to consider what is feasible and what might take some more work or resources to accomplish The participants’ recommendations are non-binding
o Similarly to many other types of advisory bodies of the City of Santa Monica, such as our Housing Commission, our Recreation & Parks Commission, our Human Services Commission, etc., the recommendations that will be made by the group of individuals will be provided to the City Council on an advisory basis and the Council may choose which recommendations to accept, to reject, and/or to amend.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 Thank you for your consideration of this unique public process. I look forward to hearing your discussion on this item tonight.
Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 7.A - Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed involvement of Healthy Democracy in using a lottery-selected panel process to determine the future of the Santa Monica Airport. While I wholeheartedly support the idea of engaging the community in such decisions, staff’s recommendation is not only deeply flawed but also potentially detrimental to the very principles that underpin our democratic system.
1. Brown Act: The Staff's recommendation, if adopted, raises grave concerns regarding a violation of the Brown Act found in CA Government Code §54950. This Act explicitly forbids the delegation of the public's right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not. By entrusting a lottery-selected panel with the responsibility of making decisions on behalf of our community, we not only risk undermining the core tenets of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Brown Act, but we also risk shattering the trust that the public has placed in our city's decision-making process.
Delegating such a pivotal responsibility on one of the largest issues affecting Santa Monica, especially to an entity with conspicuous ties to pro-housing and development advocates, is not only improper but also threatens to erode the very foundation of our democratic principles.
2. Framing of the Question: The suggested framing of the question concerning the future of the airport is deeply flawed. The essential prefatory question, "Should the airport remain as an operating airport?" must take precedence. Only after answering this fundamental question can the City proceed to explore how to optimize the airport's operations and address any concerns effectively.
Rushing headlong into alternatives without considering first exploring the resident's wishes of retaining the airport's operation fails to serve the best interests of our community.
3. Transparency: Prior to making any decisions about the airport's future, the City should first provide the public with a transparent summary of the impact of closing the airport, including the loss of Federal protections currently attached to the airport. As a preliminary matter, to the extent Measure LC survived the State’s changes in land use laws, the City must transparently disclosure that Measure LC only applies if the airport closes and that a vote to close the airport cannot be made until January 1, 2029. Furthermore, a transparent but concise analysis of the costs associated with the airport's continued operation, as well as the costs and timeline of any proposed alternative uses of the airport land should it close and the requisite funding sources to pay such costs, should be presented to the public before any further discussion about the airport’s future is discussed. It is absolutely imperative that residents have access to transparent information to make informed decisions about whether the airport should close including the City publicly clarifying that a vote has not and cannot yet occur about whether to close the airport. Anything less would be an affront to transparency and the rights of our stakeholders.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 I implore the Council to decline adopting the recommendation and reevaluate the current approach to ensure that the decision making process adheres to the fundamental principles of transparency, accountability, and public engagement. Our community's future, as well as the future of the Santa Monica Airport, is a matter of great importance, and it is essential that the process reflects the best interests and wishes of the residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope that you will take these concerns into serious consideration as you move forward with determining the future of the Santa Monica Airport.
Eve Lopez
Sunset Park
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Phil Brock
Cc: Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Bruce Leddy; [email protected] Subject: ITEM 7A. /Council Mtg 10-10-23
EXTERNAL
To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the
Re: Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council Members -
As you know, in 2014 Santa Monica voters overwhelmingly approved Measure LC which allows "the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities" on the airport land, and prohibits new development without voter approval. The Executive Board of NOMA therefore urges Council to proceed cautiously with any process that could circumvent the expressed will of voters. Friends of Sunset Park has enumerated many potential problems with the proposed plan for a lottery-selected panel (LSP) coordinated by Healthy Democracy. We support their concerns and have the following additional thoughts.
While an LSP is appealing in that it encourages participation by a wide cross-section of randomly selected residents, the proposal in the Staff Report falls short of that ideal. If Council insists on this process, we recommend the following changes:
1)REVISE THE FRAMING QUESTION - the framing question for the panel to consider must be neutral.
Currently, the suggested question in the Staff Report suggests the panel must find a "balance of land-uses and development," (p10) which pre-supposes the inclusion of development at the airport, in direct contradiction to Measure LC. We recommend striking that clause so the question remains neutral and open-ended, such as, "How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land in a way that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica's long-term vitality?" 2)VET THE PANELISTS - the Staff Report describes the LSP function as, "analogous to a jury trial" (p9) where impartial jurors are presented evidence and reach a conclusion. This is not an accurate comparison:
after random selection, jury members go through vois dire which removes people with vested interests in a particular outcome, or other relevant experiences or biases that would predispose them to certain conclusions.
A process must be added so that potential panel members who have a conflict of interest or any potential financial gain from a certain outcome in the airport plan are disqualified. 2)MAKE THE SCHEDULE WORK FOR MORE PEOPLE - In order for the LSP to be broadly representative of Santa Monica residents, it needs to be structured so the maximum number of people will agree to enter the lottery. The proposed schedule of full-day meetings, over three day weekends, for six weekends, eliminates anyone who works regular hours, anyone who has children that need care on weekends, anyone who has a job that includes weekends, etc. It leaves a narrow, unrepresentative pool of potential applicants. This could be mitigated by making the meetings once a week, only in the evening or on weekends, only a few hours at a time, holding them on Zoom... anything to make the meetings as easy as possible for a broader group of people to say "Yes" to entering the lottery.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 3)HOLD SEATS FOR FOSP- The Staff Report mentions potentially holding two seats for residents of West LA as they are likely to be impacted by airport changes. But Sunset Park residents will be far and away the most impacted. A purely random lottery might result in a panel with no residents from Sunset Park, leaving the fate of their neighborhood in the hands of non-residents. It is essential that some percentage of seats be reserved for Sunset Park residents to ensure they have a voice at the table. 4)DEFINE "DIVERSITY" - The report states that Healthy Democracy will take the respondents who enter the lottery and create a panel that "reflects the diversity of Santa Monica." (p7) But it doesn't define what the criteria are for diversity: is it racial, economic, geographic, age, gender, renter/homeowner/business owner...? Council should require a specific definition of "diversity" in this context so that the most relevant criteria are being considered in forming a representative panel.
5)VET THE GATEKEEPERS - The panel will only be as unbiased in its assessment of the airport land options as the people they hear from and the information they are given. Therefore, it is crucial that whoever administers the panel be impartial. Friends of Sunset Park raises concerns about Healthy Democracy's neutrality that should be carefully investigated. Further, the Staff Report mentions an Information Committee (IC, p10) which will control what is presented to the panel, ostensibly to ensure unbiased information flow. But it does not define who is on the IC and how they are chosen. This needs to be defined before going to contract.
6)MAXIMIZE TRANSPARENCY - as with any City Commission that functions in an advisory capacity to City Council, all meetings of the LSP should be open to the public via teleconference and recorded for the public's benefit. This will allow public scrutiny of the information presented to the panel and help ensure its accuracy. 7)QUESTION THE COST - nearly $3 million for this process seems egregious, particularly compared to other city projects run by Healthy Democracy. The cost needs to be justified, and if possible, the process opened to other potential bidders. Given the fact that residents have already explicitly indicated their desire for a park at the airport through Measure LC, one has to wonder whether this entire process, and the expense of running it, makes any sense at all.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bruce Leddy
Chair, NOMA
smnoma.org
[email protected]
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:05 AM
To: Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: Clerk Mailbox
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Meeting - 10/10/23 - Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Attachments: SMO - Reject the Lottery Petition - Signatures and Comments 10-10-23.pdf
EXTERNAL
Public Comments Submitted for:
Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport 300+
Authors and signatories submit the petition below
and attached as a PDF for easier readability.
===============
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
E-mail: [email protected]
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and (3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City of Santa Monica.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:
We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be studied by the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine the original expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would substitute an untested, nondemocratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues surrounding the present Airport) selected by Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on information largely provided by that same Staff. The elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution.
A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the purposes of a public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park. There was no mention of an airport or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land today, far past the end of World War 2, and far past Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long Beach in the mid-1970’s. (See Exhibit 1.) B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities, until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.” (See Exhibit 2.) In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed national aviation lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations, neighborhood groups, community leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation of only $200, totaling $100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements). (See Exhibit 3.) Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.” (See Exhibit 4.)
In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process which: 1) is not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores the role and expertise of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City Council then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions necessary and proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.” (See Exhibit 5.) ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
3 Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making processes or public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries are recognized to have significant challenges and shortcomings:
1. Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise or qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.
2. No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions and recommendations.
3. Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual motivations will be unclear.
4. Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).
5. Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6. Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7. Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require specialized knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete, inaccurate, uncertain, or deceptive.
8. Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging for them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9. Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability, discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10. Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result lottery-selected panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs. As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North America” so its use would essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects in Santa Monica’s history. Staff also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A process that is untested, is by definition not cautious. (See Exhibit 6.)
The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random lottery process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that advocate for “prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of randomness and uncertainty, rather than direction and vision.
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City should not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the City Staff should not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes that are consistent with the clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, which have been consistently supported by the electorate and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
4 Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing body of work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is transparent and consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339 To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list) To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Signed (with additional comments),
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
5 10-05-23 at 05:50 AM // Alan Levenson // Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM // Charles Blum // Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the intelligence of those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a party to appreciate as open land becomes absent from all surrounding regions. 10-06-23 at 04:21 PM // Tanya Troglin //
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM // Elizabeth Van Denburgh //
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM // David Klass // The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will of residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM // David Goddard // The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM // Christine Hardin // We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM // Joseph Hardin // "Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa Monica funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially children and the elderly.
Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and wildlife that surround SMO. It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor Measure LC. Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors." 10-06-23 at 10:41 PM // Quynh Nguyen // Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM // John C Smith // I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM // Joseph Schmitz // "As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights. Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of residents nearby our Airport. Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their airplanes at SMO. " 10-07-23 at 02:56 AM // Joan Schmitz // Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa Monica residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM // River Huston //
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM // Allyson Dworkin //
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM // Susan Vandebunt //
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM // Robert Brown //
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM // Dirk W van de Bunt //
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM // Charles Gibson //
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM // Elizabeth Lerer //
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM // Diane Sabatini //
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM // Lisa Sandbank // "This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voterapproved measure LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their infamous power lawyers. A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution. " 10-07-23 at 08:39 AM // Victor Fresco //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
6 10-07-23 at 08:45 AM // Sean Meehan // The question is too skewed toward development and omits mention of green space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing and abide by our wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM // Constance Stewart //
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM // William Schoene // Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC! 10-07-23 at 10:50 AM // Jack Drutz //
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM // Asa Greenberg //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Gregg Chadwick //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Flavia Baptista //
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Chris Waller // The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as a park. Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already conjested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Jeffrey Felz //
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM // Andrea hricko //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Alvin Crown //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Benjamin Shore // Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park no other use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jennifer // "Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people. Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon." 10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jacqueline McDonald // do your job! 10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Se Jong Ding //
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Jeffrey Rosenfeld //
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM // Gerard Raether //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // David Konell //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // Andrea Maitra //
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM // Richard Drapkin // Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC made that clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport 10-07-23 at 12:20 PM // Roberto Schaefer //
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM // David Abramis // "My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D: Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, David Abramis" 10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough! 10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Weber // Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in his 2 million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve the people affected. 10-07-23 at 12:25 PM // Iris Souza // "Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and homeowner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, Iris Souza"
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM // David Ginsburg //
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough! 10-07-23 at 12:28 PM // Patricia Braun //
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Karen Croner //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Susan Hartley //
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM // theo swerissen // We want a park. 10-07-23 at 12:32 PM // Victor davich // The fish stinks from the head 10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // John C Smith // Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
7 10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // William Sadler // Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already overwhelmingly decided. Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Annie Sabroux //
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Paola Levenson // We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We were promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Margot mcleay // We already voted on this issue 10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Will Pirkey //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Devon Pothier //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Sandra Casillas // I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course, that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it. Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM // carrie davies //
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM // Nurit Pereh // We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether. Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses. 10-07-23 at 12:48 PM // Ingrid Mueller // "Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's weakening SMO Park Support. Please check history and create a better future." 10-07-23 at 12:49 PM // Yvonne Guy //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Betsy Katz //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Jessica Tracy //
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM // Michael Jerrett // Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise, air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Joy Abbott // Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the most impacted by any re-use development of the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Ed Arias //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Jason Knapp //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Chutney li //
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM // Alison Buell // The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby way of doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM // Eileen Tunick // Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park transition. Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // igor meglic //
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // Brenda Goodman //
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM // Stephen Hewitt //
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM // Jamie Dunham //
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM // Joseph Lutz // Close the airport and build a park. 10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Kevin Kinigstein //
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Andrea Lieberman // I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected by the noise and air pollution for decades.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
8 10-07-23 at 01:55 PM // Gary Glickman // We have been asking for your representation for many years.
Are you abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM // barbara whitney // I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft. 10-07-23 at 02:02 PM // Randall Klarin //
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM // Jordan Ellis //
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM // William Josephs //
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM // Mara Thompson //
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM // Suanne Ware-Diaz // Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors.
What the Westside lacks us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large developments already underway throughout the area and the continued allowance of one family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM // Alex Gardos // Close the airport please! 10-07-23 at 02:55 PM // Hal Bogotch // A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.) 10-07-23 at 03:16 PM // Chris Toussaint //
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM // Ann Bowman // Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM // ALAN KERNER // A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM airport. The City Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass this resolution.
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM // Jilla sardashti // Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the future of SMO. Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on deaf ears over and over again! 10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // List to the residents NOT the developers 10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Anita. Byrd //
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM // Tracy Orloff // Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to do. 10-07-23 at 03:30 PM // David Krauss //
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM // Maureen Jacobson // This is shameful. 10-07-23 at 03:55 PM // Justin Braun //
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM // Mia Levenson //
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM // Philip Baily //
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM // Mary Duprey // It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM // Rebecca Nelson //
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM // Stephen Unger // Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it with a public park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM // Adrian Harewood //
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM // John Campisi //
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM // Donna Rosescu //
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM // William Arbenz //
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM // Roy Rico // Please honor the will of the people. 10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Will von Bernuth //
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Kelly Hsiao //
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM // Will Guston //
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM // SULINH Lafontaine //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
9 10-07-23 at 09:29 PM // Elin Katz // I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a public park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM // Megan FitzGerald //
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM // Jeanne Laurie // Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to the developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM // hal lindes //
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM // Elizabeth Estrup //
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM // Jan Simonovic //
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM // Tim Whalen //
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM // Kurt Gary //
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM // Sarah Braff // Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM // Allison Greene // Honor the original LC vote. 10-08-23 at 08:26 AM // Susan Kirch //
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM // Phyllis Chavez //
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM // Dorinne Tye // "The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional processes and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding principals and future. Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and future. "
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM // Miki Barnes //
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM // Mathew Millen // Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing between Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM // Peter Spelman //
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM // Larry Graber //
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM // Jon Casazza //
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM // Kenny Fields // We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure. 10-08-23 at 10:00 AM // Amanda McConnell // We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We support the park and updated traffic flow / control measures. 10-08-23 at 10:03 AM // hep ingham // Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!! 10-08-23 at 10:12 AM // Jen Murray //
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM // Sharon Rubin // "How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle? Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so many times that I have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us. Please consider our needs! I already , weekly have to wipe off my deck and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property daily! Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air!" 10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // Max Greene //
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // John Greenwood //
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM // Kirsten Campisi //
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM // Clare Thomas // A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues, and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM // Natalie Greenberg // Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and nuisance to our families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Luana Rubin //
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Jill Rosen // Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain. 10-08-23 at 12:39 PM // Leslie Seki //
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM // Brian Kelly //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
10 10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Haily Jovich // "The voters decided SMO would be a park. The conversation is finished. Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals. Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and education."
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Alessio Burgio //
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM // Natalie McAdams // Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again.
Will this never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as. 10-08-23 at 12:49 PM // Lauren wallenstein //
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM // Jacquie Jordan // Seriously ?!? 10-08-23 at 12:52 PM // Zina Josephs //
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM // Matthew Muranaka //
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM // Toby Berlin // Stop this madness 10-08-23 at 01:00 PM // Patrick Ney // Reject Lottery 10-08-23 at 01:07 PM // Jonny Pray //
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM // Grady Hall // Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public -- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was never the intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces, increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving community. 10-08-23 at 01:14 PM // Frans Klinkenberg //
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport 10-08-23 at 01:17 PM // Vic NoRMAN // Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation industry. Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us to reelect you. 10-08-23 at 01:18 PM // Bonnie smith //
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM // Marta Vago //
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM // Donna Urban //
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM // Stephen Mark // I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has been made.
The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM // Patrick Davenport //
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM // John Humble //
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM // Joey Reynolds //
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM // MICHAEL OSMENT // Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop the new Grand Park
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM // Flynn Osment // Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM // Ava Osment // Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years old
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM // Lara Osment //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Nora Foran //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Lucia Klass //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
11 10-08-23 at 01:52 PM // Fae Horowitz //
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM // Jonathan Stein // This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive mask.
Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM // Patrick Reardon //
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM // Lauren de la Fuente // Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for. 10-08-23 at 02:09 PM // Melanie Merians // All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this shameful lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM // Ellen Mark //
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM // Jay Abramowitz // The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature, trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone. 10-08-23 at 02:22 PM // James Wilson // Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM // Louis Bon //
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM // Karen Blechman // Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Lealani Ranch Dawes //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Richard Moore //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Patrick De Feo //
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM // Erin Ferro //
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM // Jan Simonovic // Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10-08-23 at 02:59 PM // John Greene // Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP selling leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM // Leona marolo // Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM // Eric Garner //
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM // Adam Simon // Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent. 10-08-23 at 03:14 PM // H. Martin // The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently. 10-08-23 at 03:19 PM // Laura Lacamara // Close the airport; build a great park. 10-08-23 at 03:20 PM // Brian Stecher // I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM // Cynthia //
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM // Laura Kaiser //
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM // Olivia Kelly //
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM // Beverly Haas //
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM // Ilene Weingard //
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM // Kristina Hagman //
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM // Alice Ellis // Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected to do. 10-08-23 at 05:00 PM // Alex Novakovich //
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM // Ofer Grossman //
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM // Mimi Wheeler //
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM // Marla Eby //
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM // Michael katz // The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer. 10-08-23 at 06:22 PM // Lorri Benson // This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
12 sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by 2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank you. 10-08-23 at 06:25 PM // Simona Garon // Please stop this lottery process 10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Patty //
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Nicola Goode // Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council, reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM // Katharine Dreyfuss //
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM // Min Shi //
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM // Makoto Kato //
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM // Joan Wilder // The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM // Matt Schlegel //
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM // Michael Jerrett //
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM // Jennifer Josephs // Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM // Nancy Owens //
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM // John Ventura //
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM // Denise Gerber //
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM // Jan-Peter Flack // We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica bought the land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM // Steven T Benson // This needs to be a park 10-08-23 at 10:20 PM // Dawn Joyal // No changes to Measure LC 10-08-23 at 10:29 PM // Howard Wolfe //
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM // Mazi Lombard //
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM // Mindi Shank // One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM // Carol Joffe // 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM // Cathy Hillman //
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM // carol joffe // This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health. Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM // Stacey Abrams-ShericK // The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Ose Dalldorf //
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Robert Sherick // The City already voted on this with Measure LC. 10-09-23 at 12:30 AM // Jack Sherick //
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM // Fariba Weiss //
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM // Ursula Fox //
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM // Marla Eby //
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM // Elaine Miller //
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM // John Reynolds // "WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY votes to undue the 60/40 decision "
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM // Suzanne joffe // Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart. 10-09-23 at 06:31 AM // Karla Klarin // We want and need a PARK! 10-09-23 at 06:33 AM // Dorothy Chapman //
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM // Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola // Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat 10-09-23 at 07:04 AM // Tracey Hennessey // I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM // Val Davidson // CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted on. 10-09-23 at 08:10 AM // Ashley Simonsen //
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
13 10-09-23 at 08:11 AM // Ann Lewis // We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014 rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land." Thank you. 10-09-23 at 08:14 AM // Sarah Lewis // Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote. Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM // Chuck Mason // 3480 Maplewood Ave 10-09-23 at 08:38 AM // Stephanie Tainsky // Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM // Eddy Winston //
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM // Steven Brady //
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM // John Reynolds //
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM // Tregg Rustad // Let's build a park, and only a park! 10-09-23 at 09:49 AM // Dennis WIlder // Stick with LC as you should. 10-09-23 at 09:50 AM // bea nemlaha // Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM // Chuck Hoover //
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM // daniel funk // i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport. 10-09-23 at 10:22 AM // Lisa Detamore // Please stop this nonsense. We already voted. 10-09-23 at 10:34 AM // Shawn Barry // we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings 10-09-23 at 10:40 AM // Brian Barry //
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM // Emily Dawe //
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM // Ronette Barry // WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror. Let me know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM // Barry Friesen //
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM // mark ford //
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM // Mark Abdou //
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM // Joy Abbott // Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM // Susan Jain //
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM // Dorothy Cramer // The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM // lois banner // I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain the beautiful residential community 8it has always been. 10-09-23 at 01:14 PM // Sarah Bryce // This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of Sunset Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM // Ellen Hannan //
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM // Margaret Hannan // I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM // Mark Schubb //
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM // Kenneth Abbott //
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM // Lynn Robb //
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM // Darlene Yaplee //
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM // Deborah // We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica. 10-09-23 at 03:58 PM // Tom Lynch // The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned damage to many.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
14 10-09-23 at 04:22 PM // Christine Lynch // Keep your agreements 10-09-23 at 04:39 PM // ARTHUR BARROW //
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM // Danielle Litak // I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all to enjoy and to not entertain an airport. 10-09-23 at 05:14 PM // Frederick Pringle //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Kenneth Kirschbaum //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Elizabeth Oakes // Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the citizens. Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Gavin Scott //
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM // Andrea Ware // The land needs to be ALL park! 10-09-23 at 05:35 PM // Dawn Bailey //
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM // Nicola Scott // We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park to be overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM // Francine Duran //
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM // David Kimball //
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM // Kathy Knight // Please support an open, democratic process in our city government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM // Stephen Molstad // This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be fired.
===============
-------------------------------
Ben Wang
Mobile: 310-663-9264
-------------------------------
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Public Comments Submitted for:
Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport 300+
Authors and signatories of the attached petition
respectfully request you take the following actions:
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor:
1. the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park,
2. the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and
3. reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City of Santa Monica.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
E-mail: [email protected]
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and (3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City of Santa Monica.
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:
We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be studied by the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine the original expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would substitute an untested, non-democratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues surrounding the present Airport) selected by Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on information largely provided by that same Staff. The elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution.
A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the purposes of a public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park. There was no mention of an airport or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land today, far past the end of World War 2, and far past Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long Beach in the mid-1970’s. (See Exhibit 1.)
B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities, until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.” (See Exhibit 2.)
In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed national aviation lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations, neighborhood
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
groups, community leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation of only $200, totaling $100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements). (See Exhibit 3.) Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.” (See Exhibit 4.) In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process which: 1) is not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores the role and expertise of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City Council then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions necessary and proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.” (See Exhibit 5.) Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making processes or public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries are recognized to have significant challenges and shortcomings:
1. Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise or qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.
2. No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions and recommendations.
3. Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual motivations will be unclear.
4. Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
5. Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6. Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7. Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require specialized knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete, inaccurate, uncertain, or deceptive.
8. Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging for them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9. Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability, discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10. Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result lottery-selected panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs. As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North America” so its use would essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects in Santa Monica’s history. Staff also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A process that is untested, is by definition not cautious. (See Exhibit 6.) The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random lottery process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that advocate for “prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of randomness and uncertainty, rather than direction and vision.
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City should not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the City Staff should not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes that are consistent with the clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, which have been consistently supported by the electorate and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing body of work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is transparent and consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list) Exhibit 4.
2014 Charter Amendment LC
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
1 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM Alan Levenson Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now. 10-06-23 at 01:40 PM Charles Blum Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the intelligence of those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a party to appreciate as open land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM Tanya Troglin
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM Elizabeth Van Denburgh
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM David Klass The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will of residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM David Goddard The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far. 10-06-23 at 07:55 PM Christine Hardin We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM Joseph Hardin Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa Monica funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially children and the elderly. Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and wildlife that surround SMO.
It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor Measure LC.
Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors. 10-06-23 at 10:41 PM Quynh Nguyen Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote! 10-07-23 at 01:09 AM John C Smith I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.” 10-07-23 at 02:04 AM Joseph Schmitz As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights.
Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of residents nearby our Airport.
Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their airplanes at SMO.
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM Joan Schmitz Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa Monica residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM River Huston
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM Allyson Dworkin
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM Susan Vandebunt
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM Robert Brown
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM Dirk W van de Bunt
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM Charles Gibson
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM Elizabeth Lerer
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM Diane Sabatini
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
2 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM Lisa Sandbank This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-approved measure LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their infamous power lawyers.
A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution.
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM Victor Fresco
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM Sean Meehan The question is too skewed toward development and omits mention of green space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM Karen Comegys-Wortz The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing and abide by our wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM Constance Stewart
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM William Schoene Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM Jack Drutz
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM Asa Greenberg
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Gregg Chadwick
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Flavia Baptista
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Chris Waller The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as a park.
Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already conjested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Jeffrey Felz
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM Andrea hricko
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Alvin Crown
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Benjamin Shore Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park no other use. 10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jennifer Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people.
Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jacqueline McDonald do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Se Jong Ding
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Jeffrey Rosenfeld
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM Gerard Raether
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM David Konell
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM Andrea Maitra
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM Richard Drapkin Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC made that clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport 10-07-23 at 12:20 PM Roberto Schaefer
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM David Abramis My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D:
Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
David Abramis
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough! ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
3 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Weber Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in his 2 million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM Iris Souza Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
Iris Souza
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM David Ginsburg
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough! 10-07-23 at 12:28 PM Patricia Braun
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Karen Croner
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Susan Hartley
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM theo swerissen We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM Victor davich The fish stinks from the head 10-07-23 at 12:33 PM John C Smith Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal. 10-07-23 at 12:33 PM William Sadler Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already overwhelmingly decided.
Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Annie Sabroux
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Paola Levenson We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We were promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Margot mcleay We already voted on this issue 10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Will Pirkey
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Devon Pothier
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Sandra Casillas I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course, that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it.
Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM carrie davies
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM Nurit Pereh We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether.
Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses. 10-07-23 at 12:48 PM Ingrid Mueller Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's weakening SMO Park Support.
Please check history and create a better future.
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM Yvonne Guy
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
4 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Betsy Katz
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Jessica Tracy
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM Michael Jerrett Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise, air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Joy Abbott Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the most impacted by any re-use development of the that space. 10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Ed Arias
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Jason Knapp
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Chutney li
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM Alison Buell The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby way of doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM Eileen Tunick Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park transition.
Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM igor meglic
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM Brenda Goodman
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM Stephen Hewitt
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM Jamie Dunham
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM Joseph Lutz Close the airport and build a park. 10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Kevin Kinigstein
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Andrea Lieberman I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM Gary Glickman We have been asking for your representation for many years. Are you abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM barbara whitney I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft. 10-07-23 at 02:02 PM Randall Klarin
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM Jordan Ellis
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM William Josephs
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM Mara Thompson
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM Suanne Ware-Diaz Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors. What the Westside lacks us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large developments already underway throughout the area and the continued allowance of one family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever. 10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM Alex Gardos Close the airport please! 10-07-23 at 02:55 PM Hal Bogotch A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.) 10-07-23 at 03:16 PM Chris Toussaint
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM Ann Bowman Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge. 10-07-23 at 03:23 PM ALAN KERNER A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM airport. The City Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass this resolution.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
5 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM Jilla sardashti Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the future of SMO.
Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Karen Comegys-Wortz List to the residents NOT the developers 10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Anita. Byrd
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM Tracy Orloff Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to do.
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM David Krauss
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM Maureen Jacobson This is shameful. 10-07-23 at 03:55 PM Justin Braun
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM Mia Levenson
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM Philip Baily
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM Mary Duprey It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM Rebecca Nelson
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM Stephen Unger Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it with a public park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM Adrian Harewood
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM John Campisi
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM Donna Rosescu
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM William Arbenz
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM Roy Rico Please honor the will of the people. 10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Will von Bernuth
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Kelly Hsiao
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM Will Guston
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM SULINH Lafontaine
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM Elin Katz I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a public park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM Megan FitzGerald
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM Jeanne Laurie Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to the developers. 10-07-23 at 10:28 PM hal lindes
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM Elizabeth Estrup
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM Jan Simonovic
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM Tim Whalen
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM Kurt Gary
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM Sarah Braff Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM Allison Greene Honor the original LC vote. 10-08-23 at 08:26 AM Susan Kirch
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM Phyllis Chavez
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM Dorinne Tye The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional processes and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding principals and future.
Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and future.
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM Miki Barnes
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM Mathew Millen Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing between Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM Peter Spelman
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM Larry Graber
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
6 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM Jon Casazza
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM Kenny Fields We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM Amanda McConnell We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We support the park and updated traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM hep ingham Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!! 10-08-23 at 10:12 AM Jen Murray
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM Sharon Rubin How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle? Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so many times
that I have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us.
Please consider our needs! I already , weekly have to wipe off my deck and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property daily!
Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air! 10-08-23 at 11:05 AM Max Greene
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM John Greenwood
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM Kirsten Campisi
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM Clare Thomas A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues, and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica 10-08-23 at 12:36 PM Natalie Greenberg Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and nuisance to our families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Luana Rubin
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Jill Rosen Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain. 10-08-23 at 12:39 PM Leslie Seki
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM Brian Kelly
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Haily Jovich The voters decided SMO would be a park.
The conversation is finished.
Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals.
Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and education.
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Alessio Burgio
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM Natalie McAdams Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again. Will this never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as. 10-08-23 at 12:49 PM Lauren wallenstein
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM Jacquie Jordan Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM Zina Josephs
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM Matthew Muranaka
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM Toby Berlin Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM Patrick Ney Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM Jonny Pray
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
7 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM Grady Hall Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public -- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was never the intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces, increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM Frans Klinkenberg
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport 10-08-23 at 01:17 PM Vic NoRMAN Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation industry.
Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us to re-elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM Bonnie smith
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM Marta Vago
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM Donna Urban
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM Stephen Mark I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has been made. The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM Patrick Davenport
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM John Humble
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM Joey Reynolds
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM MICHAEL OSMENT Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop the new Grand Park
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM Flynn Osment Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old. 10-08-23 at 01:42 PM Ava Osment Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years old 10-08-23 at 01:43 PM Lara Osment
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Nora Foran
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Lucia Klass
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM Fae Horowitz
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM Jonathan Stein This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive mask. Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM Patrick Reardon
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM Lauren de la Fuente Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM Melanie Merians All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this shameful lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM Ellen Mark
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM Jay Abramowitz The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature, trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM James Wilson Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM Louis Bon
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM Karen Blechman Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Lealani Ranch Dawes
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
8 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Richard Moore
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Patrick De Feo
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM Erin Ferro
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM Jan Simonovic Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10-08-23 at 02:59 PM John Greene Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP selling leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM Leona marolo Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business. 10-08-23 at 03:07 PM Eric Garner
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM Adam Simon Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent. 10-08-23 at 03:14 PM H. Martin The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently. 10-08-23 at 03:19 PM Laura Lacamara Close the airport; build a great park. 10-08-23 at 03:20 PM Brian Stecher I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM Cynthia
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM Laura Kaiser
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM Olivia Kelly
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM Beverly Haas
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM Ilene Weingard
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM Kristina Hagman
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM Alice Ellis Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM Alex Novakovich
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM Ofer Grossman
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM Mimi Wheeler
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM Marla Eby
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM Michael katz The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer. 10-08-23 at 06:22 PM Lorri Benson This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by 2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM Simona Garon Please stop this lottery process 10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Patty
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Nicola Goode Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council, reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM Katharine Dreyfuss
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM Min Shi
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM Makoto Kato
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM Joan Wilder The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM Matt Schlegel
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM Michael Jerrett
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM Jennifer Josephs Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage 10-08-23 at 08:31 PM Nancy Owens
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
9 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM John Ventura
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM Denise Gerber
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM Jan-Peter Flack We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica bought the land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM Steven T Benson This needs to be a park 10-08-23 at 10:20 PM Dawn Joyal No changes to Measure LC 10-08-23 at 10:29 PM Howard Wolfe
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM Mazi Lombard
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM Mindi Shank One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM Carol Joffe 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM Cathy Hillman
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM carol joffe This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health.
Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM Stacey Abrams-ShericK The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a park. 10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Ose Dalldorf
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Robert Sherick The City already voted on this with Measure LC. 10-09-23 at 12:30 AM Jack Sherick
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM Fariba Weiss
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM Ursula Fox
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM Marla Eby
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM Elaine Miller
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM John Reynolds WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY votes to undue the 60/40 decision
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM Suzanne joffe Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart. 10-09-23 at 06:31 AM Karla Klarin We want and need a PARK! 10-09-23 at 06:33 AM Dorothy Chapman
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM Tracey Hennessey I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM Val Davidson CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted on. 10-09-23 at 08:10 AM Ashley Simonsen
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM Ann Lewis We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014 rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM Sarah Lewis Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote.
Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM Chuck Mason 3480 Maplewood Ave
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM Stephanie Tainsky Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!! 10-09-23 at 08:42 AM Eddy Winston
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM Steven Brady
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM John Reynolds
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM Tregg Rustad Let's build a park, and only a park! 10-09-23 at 09:49 AM Dennis WIlder Stick with LC as you should. 10-09-23 at 09:50 AM bea nemlaha Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM Chuck Hoover
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM daniel funk i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
Signatories
10 Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM Lisa Detamore Please stop this nonsense. We already voted. 10-09-23 at 10:34 AM Shawn Barry we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM Brian Barry
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM Emily Dawe
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM Ronette Barry WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror.
Let me know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM Barry Friesen
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM mark ford
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM Mark Abdou
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM Joy Abbott Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM Susan Jain
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM Dorothy Cramer The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their choice! 10-09-23 at 12:55 PM lois banner I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain the beautiful residential community 8it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM Sarah Bryce This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of Sunset Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM Ellen Hannan
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM Margaret Hannan I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!! 10-09-23 at 01:55 PM Mark Schubb
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM Kenneth Abbott
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM Lynn Robb
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM Darlene Yaplee
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM Deborah We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica. 10-09-23 at 03:58 PM Tom Lynch The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned damage to many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM Christine Lynch Keep your agreements 10-09-23 at 04:39 PM ARTHUR BARROW
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM Danielle Litak I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all to enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM Frederick Pringle
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Kenneth Kirschbaum
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Elizabeth Oakes Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the citizens.
Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Gavin Scott
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM Andrea Ware The land needs to be ALL park! 10-09-23 at 05:35 PM Dawn Bailey
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM Nicola Scott We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park to be overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM Francine Duran
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM David Kimball
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM Kathy Knight Please support an open, democratic process in our city government. 10-09-23 at 08:59 PM Stephen Molstad This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be fired.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: stayfree7 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra Subject: ⛔oppose 7-A: seeks to bypass anti-discrimination laws by involving a nonprofit (linked to the Urban Growth Machine)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
The Council may not allow this undemocratic “lottery” panel to be formed by a nonprofit organization with ties to Leonora Camner who is the paid Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA, an organization which receives funding from CA YIMBY and engages in legislative advocacy promoting forced urban density.
It is undemocratic to seek that a certain part of the community, specifically long-time activists well invested in the city (disrespectfully referred to as “frequent fliers” by staff) be excluded from the process pertaining to the future of the airport.
The law does not allow the government to engineer the composition of a panel by using criteria like race or income, which is why the special interest groups advocating for forced urban density are promoting the “lottery” process to be put in the hands of a nonprofit organization that can bypass the public process and handpick the individuals more likely to support the outcome the nonprofit and pro-forced density special interest groups desire.
The staff who brought this idea before the Council should be questioned about any contact they had with Leonora Camner or any representative of AHLA, CA YIMBY, Santa Monica Forward, SMRR or any other special interest groups supporting forced urban density. It is a well-known fact that city staff, who for the most part do not reside in Santa Monica, are more interested in serving the interests of the Urban Growth Machine than those of the residents whose tax dollars pay into the staff’s salaries.
Referring to city activists as “frequent fliers” is insulting. Shame on City Manager White for allowing such wording.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
UPDATE: Why Is California YIMBY Hiding
the Names of Big-Money Contributors?
In News by Patrick Range McDonaldApril 20, 2022
FacebookTwitterEmailShare
Update, November 22, 2022: In an interview with Current Affairs, California YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for California YIMBY. He also told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, describing ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right. More details at the bottom of the article.
California YIMBY, the land-use lobbying group for Big Tech, continues to hide behind its nonprofit status and refuses to reveal exactly who contributes the big bucks to the organization. California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon has never replied to Housing Is A Human Right’s demand to name the lobbying group’s top 50 contributors, even though its progentrification agenda harms millions of Californians.
In October 2021, Housing Is A Human Right sent a letter to California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon. We wrote: “Over the past several years, California YIMBY has been working to pass and influence statewide land-use and housing legislation that negatively impacts the lives of millions of middle- and working-class Californians.
“With so much at stake, we believe California YIMBY should be transparent about its funding sources. We’re requesting that you release the names of your top fifty contributors and the dollar amounts of each contribution for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.” We never heard back from Hanlon and California YIMBY.
California YIMBY can hide contributors because of its status as a nonprofit, allowing the Big Tech lobbying group to withhold that information from the public.
But we do know that Big Tech executives founded California YIMBY, installing Hanlon as the chief executive officer. We also know that Big Tech executives have been major contributors to California YIMBY and its political action committee, California YIMBY Victory Fund. Stripe contributed $100,000 to the victory fund, and Arista Networks co-founder Kenneth Duda shelled out two checks of $100,000 each. Those are just two examples.
Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison also sent a gigantic $1-million check to California YIMBY, and Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, tech investor Jared Friedman, and Stripe executive Cristina Cordova also made contributions. Within its first year, California YIMBY had raised $500,000 from “tech bigwigs,” reported The Real Deal in 2017.
In that article, Hanlon stated, “Virtually all of the money that we’ve raised has come from the tech industry. I am certainly willing to accept money from developers, it’s just that I’ve gotten a much better reception from tech leaders than from real estate people.” Let’s repeat that: Hanlon is “certainly willing to accept money from developers.” Hmmmm.
That was more than four years ago when Hanlon said that. Housing Is A Human Right and other housing justice activists suspect that Big Real Estate has since jumped on the California YIMBY bandwagon. But no one knows to what extent because Hanlon and California YIMBY won’t divulge its contributors.
Hanlon tries to frame YIMBYs as underdogs, but that’s laughable.
California YIMBY was founded and funded by Big Tech, one of the most powerful and wealthy industries in the world. And California YIMBY most probably rakes in cash from Big Real ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
3 Estate, another heavyweight industry. On top of all that, California YIMBY has a direct connection to power in Sacramento through its close and longtime relationship with State Sen. Scott Wiener.
California YIMBY is hardly an underdog. Read our special report, “Inside Game: California YIMBY, Scott Wiener, and Big Tech’s Troubling Housing Push.” Instead, California YIMBY and other Corporate YIMBY groups are implementers for Corporate America. It’s why we regularly use the term “Corporate YIMBYs.” It’s more accurate.
The organization works feverishly to implement Big Real Estate and Big Tech’s progentrification, trickle-down, luxury-housing agenda by pushing statewide legislation. The legislation always enriches Big Real Estate, but devastates middle- and working-class neighborhoods.
California YIMBY must come clean about who finances its operations. Housing Is A Human Right still demands that Brian Hanlon and California YIMBY publicly release the names and amounts of its top 50 contributors. With millions of people negatively impacted by California YIMBY’s legislative push, the public should know who’s running the show behind the scenes at California YIMBY.
UPDATE: In a November 11, 2022, interview with Current Affairs, California YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for California YIMBY. He also told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right. Such bold lies and deceit underscore that California YIMBY simply can’t be trusted.
Current Affairs asked Owens about Housing Is A Human Right’s call for California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors and if Big Tech and the real estate industry delivered cash to the organization. Owens gave an astonishingly dishonest answer.
First, Owens tried to downplay Big Tech’s contributions to California YIMBY, saying “back in the day, tech founders gave money to YIMBY groups, and by ‘giving money’ I mean $100,000, and Stripe gave $100,000 to YIMBY groups.” That’s misleading and incorrect.
As we noted above, Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison handed over a staggering $1-million contribution to California YIMBY and “tech bigwigs” contributed $500,000.
For our “Inside Game” special report, we found that tech executives Nat Friedman, Patrick Collison, Jared Friedman, and Kenneth Duda delivered massive sums to the California YIMBY Victory Fund, according state filings.
Nat Friedman and Collison gave $10,000 each to the political action committee for a total of $20,000. Jared Friedman delivered $20,000. Duda shelled out $200,000. Stripe gave $100,000. There were also many smaller contributions from employees in the tech industry.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
4 As recently as 2022, Duda and Big Tech venture capitalist Ron Conway delivered $50,000 each to the California YIMBY Victory Fund.
Other Big Tech executives include Andrew Sutherland and Robert McGrew, who gave $10,000 each to California YIMBY Victory Fund in 2021.
Big Tech, in other words, has contributed mightily to California YIMBY and continues to deliver the big bucks.
In the Current Affairs interview, Owens also said that “real estate developers absolutely don’t fund us. That’s not true.” Another misleading and inaccurate answer — and one that doesn’t jibe with California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon, who told The Real Deal he wanted developer money.
According to state filings, California YIMBY Victory Fund raked in a $2,000 contribution from real estate developer James Frost and $5,000 from Dave Rand, an attorney with Armbuster Goldsmith & Delvac, a prominent land-use firm that represents numerous developers.
And there are many smaller contributions to California YIMBY Victory Fund from real estate industry players, including $500 from John Sayles of Ensemble Real Estate Investments and $250 from Beverly Hills-based Zach Zalben of Black Equities.
These findings show why Housing Is A Human Right called for California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors. Since tech and real estate insiders are shelling out cash to California YIMBY Victory Fund, they’re most likely handing over checks to California YIMBY.
Owens then went on to lie about AHF President Michael Weinstein and AHF’s housing work.
He called Weinstein a “Beverly Hills billionaire” and described AHF as “the biggest slumlord in L.A.” Both are completely false.
Weinstein, who was born in Brooklyn and comes from a working-class family, has been an HIV/AIDS activist going back to the 1980s when he co-founded AHF with very little funding. It now operates in 45 countries and serves more than 1.6 million clients in places such as South Africa, Mexico, India, and Ukraine.
Over the decades, AHF, the world’s largest HIV/AIDS medical-care nonprofit, has saved millions of lives by providing free HIV drug treatment and prevention services. Weinstein is not a billionaire — and he doesn’t live in Beverly Hills.
Maybe Owens mixed up Weinstein with California YIMBY’s contributors.
It’s interesting that Owens attacked Weinstein. Under his guidance, AHF led the charge to repeal statewide rent control restrictions in California through Proposition 10, in 2018, and Proposition 21, in 2020. California YIMBY refused to endorse both initiatives, essentially standing with Big Real Estate, which spent nearly $200 million to kill Prop 10 and Prop 21.
In addition, as a response to the worsening homelessness crisis in Los Angeles, AHF founded Healthy Housing Foundation. The nonprofit provides low-income and homeless housing by renovating old hotels and turning them into affordable housing.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
5 In only four years, HHF has created more than 1,400 low-income units in the L.A. area — and is in no way the biggest slumlord in L.A. It’s quite the opposite. By providing housing, while hundreds of unhoused residents die in L.A.’s streets every year, AHF and HHF are saving lives.
Owens outright lies show how low California YIMBY will stoop to hide and divert the truth from the public about its connections to Big Tech and Big Real Estate. In fact, the interview is proof that California YIMBY can’t be trusted for anything it says.
Housing Is A Human Right continues to call on California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors.
Follow Housing Is A Human Right on Facebook and Twitter. -- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Cynthia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra
Cc: [email protected]; David White
Subject: Support: Agenda Item 7A, Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport Attachments: 2023-10 CC Support Item 7A.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter from Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance supporting the lottery‐based process that reaffirms Santa Monica’s values of democratic inclusion and full representation. ‐‐
Cynthia Rose & Cris Gutierrez
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.
Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live, work and play.
October 10, 2023
Support: Agenda Item 7A, Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance strongly support the innovative “Lottery- Selected” public engagement process proposed for the future of the airport, Item 7A before you this evening. It is exciting to see that the Council is considering the lottery-based process, which represents Santa Monica’s values of democratic inclusion and full representation. The lottery-selected process ensures participation from people of all socio-economic backgrounds, all demographics, including youth and sectors of our community members, whose voices have historically been overlooked in policy choices.
Collaboration is essential for such a momentous undertaking as determining the future of the airport.
With a collaborative lottery-selected panel, listening to diverse stakeholders is built into the endeavor, one committed to working with a wide range of community groups.
Integrity is invaluable. The lottery-selected process is research-based and draws on input from all community stakeholders, individual community members as well as community groups, which leads to thoughtful and independent outcomes. This lottery-selected process invites us to envision an inclusive democratic community-planning process within the parameters of the LC Charter adoptions that voters approved in 2014.
Please support this lottery-selected process so that future generations will benefit from and feel part of an inclusive and democratic engagement process that will have created this long anticipated GREAT PARK.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A - October 10th
EXTERNAL
I am wriƟng to oppose the “loƩery selected panel process for the Airport.” ‐I believe the language does not follow the voter approved LC by including the word Development. ‐Further, I have great concerns about the funding of Healthy Democracy. I request that they disclose any and all funding including funding backed by developers.
‐I further request that the council require staff to provide all communicaƟons with Healthy Democracy, Notes taken on meeƟngs, calls etc. The residents require full transparency on the part of The Staff so we can understand how this proposal even came about. It appears that the Staff is trying to negate the will of SM residents who voted on the future of the airport. This is very serious.
Sincerely,
Karen Croner
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Melanie Winter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item #7 - Lottery-selected panel process for the airport
EXTERNAL
Honorable Councilmembers ‐
Writing to encourage you to support implementation of the proposed lottery‐selected panel process for the future of the Santa Monica Airport, and to commend staff for the thoroughly informative report.
The model proposed advances an inclusive, equitably representative, deliberative process that fosters a collaborative approach to making community‐informed decisions about a complex issue.
This process fosters outcomes that councilmembers can feel confident will be broadly supported by their constituents while also serving to build stronger relationships of trust among diverse communities of interest.
I urge you to approve the Staff recommendations, and make Santa Monica the model for future efforts across the region.
Respectfully ‐
Melanie WInter
‐‐
Melanie Winter
Founder & Director, The River Project
TheRiverProject.org
WaterLA.org
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: lisa klingenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NO LOTTERY
EXTERNAL
It is my feeling that a loƩery is not a good idea in determining the fate of the civic center…I am a SM resident and want to register my opinion on the maƩer as a NO LOTTERY vote.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Joe Schmitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A; Please reject Staff's antidemocratic lottery scheme Attachments: Malarky Midfield hard right turn.pptx; Unreported Reverse Thrust safety events.xlsx
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Please note the claims that I make below and know that I can support them with conclusive evidence.
As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), USAF Pilot (7,000 hours), safety consultant who trained FAA safety managers, and research methods professor ‐ I find Staff's lottery proposal to be profoundly antidemocratic and deceptive. It usurps the voters' clear wishes and residents' rights.
The stratified, random sample: 1) without identifying the stratification variables and, 2) with just a 40‐person sample is pseudo‐scientific gibberish. It’s a Staff/Consultant ploy to get a “convenience” sample of uninformed persons who would be unduly vulnerable to Staff and Consultant influence. These decision makers would be “protected” from hugely relevant information much like that I’ve outlined below.
Staff decisions, recommendations, and falsehoods (peddled to residents, the Airport Commission, and City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open well‐past 2015. At great costs to the City and far greater costs to the health and welfare of residents living near our Airport. The health burdens that SMO inflicts fall disproportionately upon infants & children, the aged, and the infirm.
During my tenure as an Airport Commissioner, I’ve been appalled by airport‐related Staff duplicity. Typically, Staff refuses to acknowledge and at times actively conceals: 1) systemic unsafe operations, and 2) harm to residents from excessive noise, lead particles, and fine air particulates.
As a 35‐year resident of Santa Monica, I’ve usually viewed City Staff as super‐competent, dedicated, and helpful people. My experience in helping Santa Monica conceptualize, develop, and field Santa Monica’s Public Electronic Network let me work with truly gifted folks. It saddens me to write what follows.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 Two high‐stakes examples of staff malfeasance follow. (I can produce “receipts” that support all claims).
1. Staff, primarily the Airport Manager, failed to report unsafe aircraft operations to the FAA, City Council, Airport Commission, and Santa Monica residents. ∙ The 2001‐2017 Noise Event record (obtained via a third‐party records request) shows six Emergency Thrust Reverser landings that registered more than 95dB at Noise Monitor 1, located 1,500’ from the end of the runway. 95dB sounds like a jackhammer at 50 feet.
o The attached ”Unreported Reverse Thrust Safety Events“ file documents these noise events and the conditions under which the emergency stops occurred. SMO Monitor 1 lies 1,500’ from the end of Runway 21. o These events were dangerous “close calls” – at least one and perhaps more jets nearly ran off the end of Runway 21 and crashed onto 23rd St. SMO lacked any Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) until 2017when runway shortening was completed. So residents who lived West of 23rd Street remained “sitting ducks” without Runway Safety Areas and code enforcement.
§ The loudest (104.7dB) was twice as loud to the ear and ten times more powerful than the 95dB noise limit.
§ Peter Donald, Airport Commission Chair, heard this jet’s reverse thrust upon landing and asked the Airport Manager about it during our next Airport Commission meeting. His reply minimized the event’s importance, said that a landing couldn’t be a noise violation (true), and then stated that the sound intensity wasn’t high enough to trigger Monitor 1 – a clear‐ cut falsehood.
§ Aviation safety experts know that atypical loud aircraft noise may serve as markers for unsafe aviation operations – as the reverse thrust events did.
§ The Airport Manager and a Deputy City Attorney have responsibility for assessing Noise Code violations, levying fines, and applying the Noise Code. ∙ One mitigating factor: Because the City Council was under intense pressure from residents who were fed‐up by trivial $500 fines for NetJets – the 2001 Noise Code has several unenforceable provisions that can easily be remedied.
∙ The Airport Manager does not report unsafe aviation practices or serious safety violations to the Airport Commission, City Council, or (presumably) to the FAA. Examples include:
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
3 o Hard right turns immediately after takeoff over rising terrain and dense housing areas without any safe landing area in the event of engine failure go unreported.
o The landing and takeoff of a Mexican H25B Jet – an aircraft type that cannot comply with minimum FAA takeoff or landing runway‐length requirements at our Airport.
§ The Airport Manager urged the pilot to limit fuel for takeoff but didn’t take any further action. The pilot refueled and flew to Florida. The Airport Manager should have asked the FAA tower to ground the airplane, informed the FAA, the City Council, and the Airport Commission. ∙ Commissioner Bruce Malarky, (retired Army Pilot, Base Commander for a joint military‐civilian airfield, and a Boing Aircraft engineer) and I repeatedly tried and failed to persuade the Airport Manager to institute Aviation Safety Management System (SMS) at SMO to enhance safety.
∙ During the past year, two fatal accidents killed three pilots and one teenager who was foolishly allowed to land a flight school aircraft during his first orientation flight. Both accidents will be deemed to be caused by “pilot error” in the NTSB final accident report.
2. Staff falsely claimed that Santa Mónica’s Noise Code was among the strictest in the U.S. with its escalating fine structure – a consequence of public outrage expressed during the 2000 election,
∙ While technically true, the Noise Code was gutted in practice. When the City Noise violations reported to the Airport Commission were compared to the master Noise Monitor Event records of noise events that exceeded 95dB:
o Staff consistently failed to escalate fines, as specified in the 2001 Noise Code. o Staff consistently misrepresented the Noise Code requirements to the Airport Commission as numerous audio tapes demonstrate.. o Using Monitor Events records from 2001‐20017, NetJets violated the Noise Code approximately 185 times. Typically, fines were not escalated. ∙ NetJets was fined $380,000 from 2001‐2017 If fines had escalated as the Noise Code specified (even using the bogus 3‐year “sunset rule”), to comply with the Code as the City Council intended and to deter NetJets, fines should have substantially exceeded $1 million dollars.
Given that the facts presented here are: 1) accurate, 2) representative of ongoing Airport‐ related Staff actions, and 3) documented – the City Staff proposal described in Item 7A must be rejected if Santa Monica is to be governed as a functioning democracy.
Respectfully,
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
4 Joseph Schmitz, PhD
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
• 15:02 - Thick marine layer discussed by
Copter 744NC (audio).
• 15:03 -N918AR (SR22) cleared to depart
Rwy 21 with early crosswind turn to
North.
• 15:22 - Thick marine layer reported along
coast by Copter 4512G (audio).
• 16:16 – N70EF (PA28) cleared to depart
Rwy 21 with early crosswind turn to
North.
VFR flights landing 21. Most flights departing
03 but some departing 21 with early right
crosswind turn.
Copter 744NC
Copter 4512G
N918AR
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
DATE TIME TAIL # TYPE SEL COMPANY ACTION
12/16/2014 18:38 N270MC GLF3 104.7 HAYMON SPORTS LLC. BANNED - REVERSE THRUST 1/15/2015 1:07 N777UV FA50 98.4 SMRK LLC c/o KNIGHT GLOBAL LLC WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST 3/1/2015 3:30 N777UV FA50 97.8 SMRK LLC c/o KNIGHT GLOBAL LLC WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST 1/9/2016 7:08 SIS517 GLF4 98.2 SILVER AIR WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST 4/17/2016 0:49 N901QS C750 95.2 NET JETS AVIATION INC WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST 3/24/2017 7:29 N208BH LJ60 95.1 RSH CONSULTING LLC WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: stayfree7 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren; Douglas Sloan; David White
Subject: Re: ⛔oppose 7-A: seeks to bypass anti-discrimination laws by involving a nonprofit (linked to the Urban Growth Machine)
EXTERNAL
Why was my email submitted as written public comment at 11:59am not included in the written comments posted under item 7-A on tonight's agenda available on the city website? Please see the enclosed original email.
Olga Zurawska
-- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 10th, 2023 at 8:59 PM, stayfree7 <[email protected]> wrote:
The Council may not allow this undemocratic “lottery” panel to be formed by a nonprofit organization with ties to Leonora Camner who is the paid Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA, an organization which receives funding from CA YIMBY and engages in legislative advocacy promoting forced urban density.
It is undemocratic to seek that a certain part of the community, specifically long-time activists well invested in the city (disrespectfully referred to as “frequent fliers” by staff) be excluded from the process pertaining to the future of the airport.
The law does not allow the government to engineer the composition of a panel by using criteria like race or income, which is why the special interest groups advocating for forced urban density are promoting the “lottery” process to be put in the hands of a nonprofit organization that can bypass the public process and handpick the individuals more likely to support the outcome the nonprofit and pro-forced density special interest groups desire.
The staff who brought this idea before the Council should be questioned about any contact they had with Leonora Camner or any representative of AHLA, CA YIMBY, Santa Monica Forward, SMRR or any other special interest groups supporting forced urban density. It is a well-known fact that city staff, who for the most part do not reside in Santa Monica, are more interested in serving the interests of the Urban Growth Machine than those of the residents whose tax dollars pay into the staff’s salaries.
Referring to city activists as “frequent fliers” is insulting. Shame on City Manager White for allowing such wording.
Regards,
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 Olga Zurawska
UPDATE: Why Is California YIMBY
Hiding the Names of Big-Money
Contributors?
In News by Patrick Range McDonaldApril 20, 2022
FacebookTwitterEmailShare
Update, November 22, 2022: In an interview with Current Affairs, California YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for California YIMBY. He also told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right. More details at the bottom of the article.
California YIMBY, the land-use lobbying group for Big Tech, continues to hide behind its nonprofit status and refuses to reveal exactly who contributes the big bucks to the organization. California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon has never replied to Housing Is A Human Right’s demand to name the lobbying group’s top 50 contributors, even though its pro-gentrification agenda harms millions of Californians.
In October 2021, Housing Is A Human Right sent a letter to California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon. We wrote: “Over the past several years, California YIMBY has been working to pass and influence statewide land-use and housing legislation that negatively impacts the lives of millions of middle- and workingclass Californians. “With so much at stake, we believe California YIMBY should be transparent about its funding sources. We’re requesting that you release the names of your top fifty contributors and the dollar amounts of each contribution for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.”
We never heard back from Hanlon and California YIMBY.
California YIMBY can hide contributors because of its status as a nonprofit, allowing the Big Tech lobbying group to withhold that information from the public.
But we do know that Big Tech executives founded California YIMBY, installing Hanlon as the chief executive officer. We also know that Big Tech executives have been major contributors to California YIMBY and its political action committee, California YIMBY Victory Fund. Stripe contributed $100,000 to the victory fund, and Arista Networks co-founder Kenneth Duda shelled out two checks of $100,000 each. Those are just two examples.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
3 Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison also sent a gigantic $1-million check to California YIMBY, and Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, tech investor Jared Friedman, and Stripe executive Cristina Cordova also made contributions.
Within its first year, California YIMBY had raised $500,000 from “tech bigwigs,” reported The Real Deal in 2017.
In that article, Hanlon stated, “Virtually all of the money that we’ve raised has come from the tech industry. I am certainly willing to accept money from developers, it’s just that I’ve gotten a much better reception from tech leaders than from real estate people.”
Let’s repeat that: Hanlon is “certainly willing to accept money from developers.” Hmmmm.
That was more than four years ago when Hanlon said that. Housing Is A Human Right and other housing justice activists suspect that Big Real Estate has since jumped on the California YIMBY bandwagon. But no one knows to what extent because Hanlon and California YIMBY won’t divulge its contributors.
Hanlon tries to frame YIMBYs as underdogs, but that’s laughable.
California YIMBY was founded and funded by Big Tech, one of the most powerful and wealthy industries in the world. And California YIMBY most probably rakes in cash from Big Real Estate, another heavyweight industry. On top of all that, California YIMBY has a direct connection to power in Sacramento through its close and longtime relationship with State Sen. Scott Wiener.
California YIMBY is hardly an underdog. Read our special report, “Inside Game:
California YIMBY, Scott Wiener, and Big Tech’s Troubling Housing Push.” Instead, California YIMBY and other Corporate YIMBY groups are implementers for Corporate America. It’s why we regularly use the term “Corporate YIMBYs.” It’s more accurate.
The organization works feverishly to implement Big Real Estate and Big Tech’s pro-gentrification, trickle-down, luxury-housing agenda by pushing statewide legislation. The legislation always enriches Big Real Estate, but devastates middle- and working-class neighborhoods.
California YIMBY must come clean about who finances its operations. Housing Is A Human Right still demands that Brian Hanlon and California YIMBY publicly release the names and amounts of its top 50 contributors. With millions of people negatively impacted by California YIMBY’s legislative push, the public should know who’s running the show behind the scenes at California YIMBY.
UPDATE: In a November 11, 2022, interview with Current Affairs, California YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
4 California YIMBY. He also told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right. Such bold lies and deceit underscore that California YIMBY simply can’t be trusted.
Current Affairs asked Owens about Housing Is A Human Right’s call for California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors and if Big Tech and the real estate industry delivered cash to the organization. Owens gave an astonishingly dishonest answer.
First, Owens tried to downplay Big Tech’s contributions to California YIMBY, saying “back in the day, tech founders gave money to YIMBY groups, and by ‘giving money’ I mean $100,000, and Stripe gave $100,000 to YIMBY groups.” That’s misleading and incorrect.
As we noted above, Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison handed over a staggering $1-million contribution to California YIMBY and “tech bigwigs” contributed $500,000.
For our “Inside Game” special report, we found that tech executives Nat Friedman, Patrick Collison, Jared Friedman, and Kenneth Duda delivered massive sums to the California YIMBY Victory Fund, according state filings.
Nat Friedman and Collison gave $10,000 each to the political action committee for a total of $20,000. Jared Friedman delivered $20,000. Duda shelled out $200,000. Stripe gave $100,000. There were also many smaller contributions from employees in the tech industry.
As recently as 2022, Duda and Big Tech venture capitalist Ron Conway delivered $50,000 each to the California YIMBY Victory Fund.
Other Big Tech executives include Andrew Sutherland and Robert McGrew, who gave $10,000 each to California YIMBY Victory Fund in 2021.
Big Tech, in other words, has contributed mightily to California YIMBY and continues to deliver the big bucks.
In the Current Affairs interview, Owens also said that “real estate developers absolutely don’t fund us. That’s not true.” Another misleading and inaccurate answer — and one that doesn’t jibe with California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon, who told The Real Deal he wanted developer money.
According to state filings, California YIMBY Victory Fund raked in a $2,000 contribution from real estate developer James Frost and $5,000 from Dave Rand, an attorney with Armbuster Goldsmith & Delvac, a prominent land-use firm that represents numerous developers.
And there are many smaller contributions to California YIMBY Victory Fund from real estate industry players, including $500 from John Sayles of Ensemble Real ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
5 Estate Investments and $250 from Beverly Hills-based Zach Zalben of Black Equities.
These findings show why Housing Is A Human Right called for California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors. Since tech and real estate insiders are shelling out cash to California YIMBY Victory Fund, they’re most likely handing over checks to California YIMBY.
Owens then went on to lie about AHF President Michael Weinstein and AHF’s housing work. He called Weinstein a “Beverly Hills billionaire” and described AHF as “the biggest slumlord in L.A.” Both are completely false.
Weinstein, who was born in Brooklyn and comes from a working-class family, has been an HIV/AIDS activist going back to the 1980s when he co-founded AHF with very little funding. It now operates in 45 countries and serves more than 1.6 million clients in places such as South Africa, Mexico, India, and Ukraine.
Over the decades, AHF, the world’s largest HIV/AIDS medical-care nonprofit, has saved millions of lives by providing free HIV drug treatment and prevention services. Weinstein is not a billionaire — and he doesn’t live in Beverly Hills.
Maybe Owens mixed up Weinstein with California YIMBY’s contributors.
It’s interesting that Owens attacked Weinstein. Under his guidance, AHF led the charge to repeal statewide rent control restrictions in California through Proposition 10, in 2018, and Proposition 21, in 2020. California YIMBY refused to endorse both initiatives, essentially standing with Big Real Estate, which spent nearly $200 million to kill Prop 10 and Prop 21.
In addition, as a response to the worsening homelessness crisis in Los Angeles, AHF founded Healthy Housing Foundation. The nonprofit provides low-income and homeless housing by renovating old hotels and turning them into affordable housing.
In only four years, HHF has created more than 1,400 low-income units in the L.A. area — and is in no way the biggest slumlord in L.A. It’s quite the opposite. By providing housing, while hundreds of unhoused residents die in L.A.’s streets every year, AHF and HHF are saving lives.
Owens outright lies show how low California YIMBY will stoop to hide and divert the truth from the public about its connections to Big Tech and Big Real Estate.
In fact, the interview is proof that California YIMBY can’t be trusted for anything it says.
Housing Is A Human Right continues to call on California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors.
Follow Housing Is A Human Right on Facebook and Twitter.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
6 -- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Michael Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:40 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; Rick Valte
Subject: City Council item 7 Study Session: Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport, October 10, 2024
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, City Councilmembers and City Staff
Greetings.
I am writing to encourage you in the strongest possible terms, to direct the City Attorney to draft framing language that ties and limits the mission of the Lottery‐Selected Panel to the land use parameters established by Santa Monica voters in the City Charter as a result of Measure LC. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1380&MediaPosition= &ID=6052&CssClass=
This is a matter of public trust. The Council is not above the people. There is no mandate for the City Council to change those parameters without first going to the people.
The use of a lottery panel to provide cover for an end run around a voter‐approved portion of the City Charter would be (i) disingenuous, (ii) an abuse of your positions as Councilmembers and (iii) effectively defraud Santa Monica voters, who voted overwhelmingly (60.5%) for one thing and now via a process sleight‐of‐hand, would see the City move down an official planning path to something potentially very different.
Is there a role for a lottery panel?
Yes. I think lottery panels are best utilized for issues like electoral and campaign finance reform, where you don’t want politicians voting on the rules that affect them and I think the City already generally does a good job in park planning under its current planning process.
But saying that, I am still open to the use of the lottery panel here, if and only if it is directed to specifically explore the implementation of Measure LC. Otherwise, you should vote ‘no’ on this process.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 Under no circumstances should 40 people be empowered to make recommendations to substantially change the will of the voters, just a few years after the will of the voters was taken via Measure LC. Such a process would be a betrayal of the public trust.
Mike Feinstein
Ocean Park
.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A: Study Session Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
As a long‐time resident of Santa Monica myself, I stand 100% behind this letter written by another long‐time resident of Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
As a long‐time resident of Santa Monica and a participant in many community engagement planning activities here, I feel compelled to share some concerns about the proposal to engage Healthy Democracy for the public engagement process for Airport planning. These issues are on the table as items 1 and 3 of your study session.
Sticker‐shock ‐ The price tag of $3 million:
SM is in dire financial straits due to litigation payouts and pension liabilities. Our libraries are not yet open.
Our historic preservation program is moribund due to the termination of City financial support. Our iconic landmark Civic Auditorium is being offered for sale.
How can we afford this new expense?
Elimination of controversy:
Land use planning always involves controversy due to the complexity of the issues, trade‐offs and differing views of stakeholders. It is not realistic to believe that the proposed new process, or any planning process, will eliminate controversy. Simply establishing Healthy Democracy as the lead team has stoked controversy at the outset, with neighborhood organizations believing that this team is not impartial.
Whatever process is established moving forward, transparency and public access needs to be embedded so that every community voice and point of view can be heard. The outcome is likely to require voter support.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Goals:
Outreach to constituencies and minority communities that have not been active in civic affairs is a worthy objective, and offering stipends, reimbursements and translation services are great ideas to facilitate that effort. This element should be retained in whatever process is established.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 However, there are some barriers in the existing proposal because the workshop structure of three‐day meetings (Friday – Sunday) will eliminate many families with children from participating. Who will be available to meet on such a schedule should be considered. Not mothers with young or school‐age children, or many such fathers.
The Lottery System
The Healthy Democracy model is based upon jury selection. However, we know that juries sometimes convict innocent people because of the biased information supplied to them by prosecutors. The burden therefore shifts to the Information Committee and other information channels, which are very tightly controlled in this process:
9. There is a strict process/content delineation over what and how the Panel receives information and then delivers recommendations. (p. 10 staff report)
Are there indicators that this process leads to better outcomes than the many other community engagement processes that have been managed by staff, with consultants used as technical support? These are my personal observations, and I am not speaking on behalf of any organization.
Many thanks for your service to the City.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer
Oct. 9, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Soloff, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 4:30 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Mike Soloff comments on Item 7-A on Council Agenda for 10.10.23 Meeting.docx Attachments: Mike Soloff comments on Item 7-A on Council Agenda for 10.10.23 Meeting.docx
EXTERNAL
Please find attached my personal comments on Item 7‐A on City Council’s 10.10.23 Agenda.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
October 10, 2023
To: Santa Monica City Council
Re: Item 7-A:
Dear Councilmembers:
As Mayor Davis and perhaps others of you know, on Friday September 29th I was struck by a vehicle while in the crosswalk across Ocean Avenue to Palisades Park that runs from the Northern corner of Marguerita Avenue. Phase I of my recovery and rehabilitation was under the care of the trauma team and the orthopedic surgery unit at UCLA Ronald Reagan hospital. I am now in Phase II, inpatient intensive rehabilitation. As a result of this, I have not had a chance to focus on this item until now. However, I believe this item—because it focuses on the future used on the Santa Monica Airport, is so important that I wanted to share a few purely individual thoughts with you. My apologies for getting it to you so late in the day.
First, I believe that using a statistically valid random selection process of the views of Santa Monica residents would be a useful additional tool. The “community engagement” processes used by the City in the past have not seemed very effective in determining community views, both because of the limited pool of people who self-select to provide input, and because of the bias—implicitly or explicitly—of those taking input. For example, before City Council unceremoniously removed me from the Housing Commission rather than let me complete the final six months of my term because of a new rule that everyone understood disqualified no present Board or Commission member than me, the Planning Department never brought presentations to anyone other than the Planning Commission, even when the item included important issues related to affordable housing (e.g., inclusionary zoning percentages) that fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Housing Commission except when I insisted as Chairperson that the Housing Commission receive a presentation and provide input. There was obvious bias in this approach, as the Planning Commission generally lacked expertise on affordable housing, and did not include—unlike the Housing Commission—either renters, disabled persons, formerly homeless individuals or recipients of Section 8. My feeling regarding the panels established to provide input for the 2021-2029 Housing Element—at least the one on which I served—was both stacked in favor of certain interests (those who would make money depending on the outcome, and so are motivated and probably paid to participate) and focused on those items important to those same interests.
Second, as presented, I do not think that the panel process proposed provides a statistically valid random selection process to determine the views of Santa Monicans regarding the airport.1 If the 40
person panel has to answer just a yes/no question, the margin of error surrounding the panel’s answer would be roughly plus or minus 15.5%, and might well not even be admitted as evidence in Court. If the views of some subgroup of our community mattered (e.g., those living close to the Airport versus those living much further away, those for whom this is an important issue versus those who do not, etc.), the results for the much smaller subset of the panel in each group would never be admitted as 1 While I am not a statistics expert myself, I have spent a significant part of my legal career working with my clients’ sampling experts, and cross-examining the sampling expert of my clients’ opponents, as to the validity of sampling results.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
evidence. Given that a much more complex question is being proposed, the risk that the panel’s answer is unrepresentative of the views of Santa Monicans in general is far greater.
Third, I think everyone knows from mass media coverage of polling that how questions are framed has a tremendous impact on the answers given. Here there is proposed a broad overarching question (which I have not tried to vet yet for answer bias). But more importantly, there is a whole process of engagement proposed which could well bias the panel’s decision which is only described generally, but would have to be vetted in specifics in order to determine implicit or explicit bias of the operators themselves and the processes to be used.
Moreover, from my experience as a civil litigator, what information is provided to a jury and by whom impacts the outcome greatly. Yet as of now we have no idea what information would be provided and by whom, and whether and whether and/or by whom the presenters of information will be cross-examined. Moreover, if “neutral experts” are used, my experience as a civil litigator is that there is no such thing. In every case I have my client engages a highly credentialed expert who says one thing, and the other side engages a highly credentialed expert who says the opposite. Moreover, juries often favor one such expert over the other for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of their competing opinions (e.g., which is a better communicator, which one has more charisma, etc.).
Therefore who is selected as the “neutral experts” and by whom is critical to the outcome. As staff itself has analogized the proposed panel as similar to a jury trial, the pitfalls in the jury trial process in reaching a correct decision undoubtedly would manifest in the proposed panel process as well.
Fourth, if any version of a panel process is used, it must be made clear by Council up front that this is simply one data point among many it will consider when taking action regarding the Airport, and not the presumptive solution. The only people with true democratic legitimacy in Santa Monica are the seven elected City Council members. Effectively turning 40 randomly selected people into the decision makers is not democratic.
In short, the concept of developing a more statistically valid community input is a good idea.
The current proposal does not appear to me to meet statistical validity, and for more work needs to be done to determine if it can be turned into one in a cost effective way. Moreover, far more information about the details of the process to be used in this particular instance would be needed to determine whether the process is biased. Finally, if any panel process is used, Council must make clear that the result would not be the presumptive decision of Council. Rather, it would just be one data point among many that the Council would consider in deciding what to do at the airport.
Thank you for considering these views.
Sincerely yours,
Mike Soloff (speaking solely as an individual)
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 5:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White
Subject: Pls say No to lottery chosen airport panel - agenda item # unknown
EXTERNAL
Hello council and city manager:
Two points:
1. My family supports the comments of FOSP and North East Neighbors on the matter of the airport park panel.
We live under the airport flight path and what happens at the airport matters greatly to us.
Randomly chosen people may not understand any of the nuances of the redevelopment. "Staff should not be allowed to introduce 'co-governance' to Santa Monica, and the Council should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without clear, unambiguous, voter consent," Friend of Sunset Park wrote. “'Democratic lotteries' are not democratic elections, and 'random' does not mean 'unbiased.
Lottery-selected panels can be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs."
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News‐2023/October‐ 2023/10_09_2023_Randomly_Chosen_Airport_Panel_Gets_Major_Pushback.html
2. Do not forget large areas of the airport land will be needed for very large staging areas in the event of a major emergency. In a major disaster, the need for "large space" open land to assemble large groups of people will be very important as this city grows. Think about the aftermath of a big earthquake and tsunami, working with FEMA and other disaster responders.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Lottery Selected panel process - Agenda Item 7
EXTERNAL
I object to the proposal for a “Lottery-selected panel process” to decide the future of Santa Monica Airport for several reasons, the first being that we should not be spending three million dollars asking if we should have a park after the airport closes when less than ten years ago we had a city-wide vote which already made that decision – in favour of a park.
My second objection is the fact that the people living closest to the airport - the stakeholders - won’t be allowed on these panels unless their name comes up in the lottery, which is manifestly unfair.
Nor – objection number three - will families with young children be able to participate, because the panels will take place over three day weekends, and what family with young kids can block out a time like that? And yet families with young kids are exactly the people who need a park.
Objection number four is the fact that the process will be managed by an organisation called “Healthy Democracy” one of whose leaders is already publicly committed to housing.
Objection number five is this whole idea of lottery-based selection panels and co-called “cogovernance”. It’s a major departure from traditional democracy that shouldn’t be made without finding out if the people of Santa Monica actually want it. I for one certainly don’t.
So please, don’t try to unpick the decision the voters have already made, which is incorporated in the city charter, that when the airport finally closes in 2028, it’s not paved over by developers into a vast new block of housing and traffic-filled roads, but back into the green, tree-filled open space it was when the city first bought it a hundred years ago, and consign the lottery panels to oblivion.
Sincerely,
Gavin Scott
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: stayfree7 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:31 PM
To: Xavier Mota; Nikima Newsome; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox Cc: Lana Negrete; Phil Brock
Subject: why is my written comment NOT included under 7-A on agenda posted online?
EXTERNAL
Why is my written input re 7-A submitted at 11:59am (with confirmation of receipt at same time) not posted under the item on the online mtg agenda?
Olga Zurawska
-- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: stayfree7 <[email protected]>
Date: On Wednesday, October 11th, 2023 at 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: oppose 7‐A: seeks to bypass anti‐discrimination laws by involving a nonprofit (linked to the Urban Growth Machine)
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, denise.anderson‐[email protected] <denise.anderson‐[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Why was my email submitted as written public comment at 11:59am not included in the written comments posted under item 7-A on tonight's agenda available on the city website? Please see the enclosed original email.
Olga Zurawska
-- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 10th, 2023 at 8:59 PM, stayfree7 <[email protected]> wrote:
The Council may not allow this undemocratic “lottery” panel to be formed by a nonprofit organization with ties to Leonora Camner who is the paid Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA, an organization which receives funding from CA YIMBY and engages in legislative advocacy promoting forced urban density.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
2 It is undemocratic to seek that a certain part of the community, specifically long-time activists well invested in the city (disrespectfully referred to as “frequent fliers” by staff) be excluded from the process pertaining to the future of the airport.
The law does not allow the government to engineer the composition of a panel by using criteria like race or income, which is why the special interest groups advocating for forced urban density are promoting the “lottery” process to be put in the hands of a nonprofit organization that can bypass the public process and handpick the individuals more likely to support the outcome the nonprofit and pro-forced density special interest groups desire.
The staff who brought this idea before the Council should be questioned about any contact they had with Leonora Camner or any representative of AHLA, CA YIMBY, Santa Monica Forward, SMRR or any other special interest groups supporting forced urban density. It is a well-known fact that city staff, who for the most part do not reside in Santa Monica, are more interested in serving the interests of the Urban Growth Machine than those of the residents whose tax dollars pay into the staff’s salaries.
Referring to city activists as “frequent fliers” is insulting. Shame on City Manager White for allowing such wording.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
UPDATE: Why Is California
YIMBY Hiding the Names of BigMoney Contributors?
In News by Patrick Range McDonaldApril 20, 2022
FacebookTwitterEmailShare
Update, November 22, 2022: In an interview with Current Affairs, California YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for California YIMBY. He also told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right. More details at the bottom of the article.
California YIMBY, the land-use lobbying group for Big Tech, continues to hide behind its nonprofit status and refuses to reveal exactly who contributes the big bucks to the organization. California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon has never replied to Housing Is A Human Right’s demand to name the lobbying group’s top 50 contributors, even though its pro-gentrification agenda harms millions of Californians.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
3 In October 2021, Housing Is A Human Right sent a letter to California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon. We wrote: “Over the past several years, California YIMBY has been working to pass and influence statewide land-use and housing legislation that negatively impacts the lives of millions of middle- and working-class Californians.
“With so much at stake, we believe California YIMBY should be transparent about its funding sources. We’re requesting that you release the names of your top fifty contributors and the dollar amounts of each contribution for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.”
We never heard back from Hanlon and California YIMBY.
California YIMBY can hide contributors because of its status as a nonprofit, allowing the Big Tech lobbying group to withhold that information from the public.
But we do know that Big Tech executives founded California YIMBY, installing Hanlon as the chief executive officer. We also know that Big Tech executives have been major contributors to California YIMBY and its political action committee, California YIMBY Victory Fund. Stripe contributed $100,000 to the victory fund, and Arista Networks co-founder Kenneth Duda shelled out two checks of $100,000 each. Those are just two examples.
Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison also sent a gigantic $1- million check to California YIMBY, and Yelp CEO Jeremy
Stoppelman, tech investor Jared Friedman, and Stripe executive Cristina Cordova also made contributions. Within its first year, California YIMBY had raised $500,000 from “tech
bigwigs,” reported The Real Deal in 2017.
In that article, Hanlon stated, “Virtually all of the money that we’ve raised has come from the tech industry. I am certainly willing to accept money from developers, it’s just that I’ve gotten a much better reception from tech leaders than from real estate people.” Let’s repeat that: Hanlon is “certainly willing to accept money from developers.” Hmmmm.
That was more than four years ago when Hanlon said that. Housing Is A Human Right and other housing justice activists suspect that Big Real Estate has since jumped on the California YIMBY bandwagon.
But no one knows to what extent because Hanlon and California YIMBY won’t divulge its contributors.
Hanlon tries to frame YIMBYs as underdogs, but that’s laughable.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
4 California YIMBY was founded and funded by Big Tech, one of the most powerful and wealthy industries in the world. And California YIMBY most probably rakes in cash from Big Real Estate, another heavyweight industry. On top of all that, California YIMBY has a direct connection to power in Sacramento through its close and longtime relationship with State Sen. Scott Wiener.
California YIMBY is hardly an underdog. Read our special report, “Inside Game: California YIMBY, Scott Wiener, and Big Tech’s Troubling Housing Push.”
Instead, California YIMBY and other Corporate YIMBY groups are implementers for Corporate America. It’s why we regularly use the term “Corporate YIMBYs.” It’s more accurate.
The organization works feverishly to implement Big Real Estate and Big Tech’s pro-gentrification, trickle-down, luxury-housing agenda by pushing statewide legislation. The legislation always enriches Big Real Estate, but devastates middle- and working-class
neighborhoods.
California YIMBY must come clean about who finances its operations. Housing Is A Human Right still demands that Brian Hanlon and California YIMBY publicly release the names and amounts of its top 50 contributors. With millions of people negatively impacted by California YIMBY’s legislative push, the public should know who’s running the show behind the scenes at California YIMBY.
UPDATE: In a November 11, 2022, interview with Current Affairs, California YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for California YIMBY. He also told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right. Such bold lies and deceit underscore that California YIMBY simply can’t be trusted.
Current Affairs asked Owens about Housing Is A Human Right’s call for California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors and if Big Tech and the real estate industry delivered cash to the organization.
Owens gave an astonishingly dishonest answer.
First, Owens tried to downplay Big Tech’s contributions to California YIMBY, saying “back in the day, tech founders gave money to YIMBY groups, and by ‘giving money’ I mean $100,000, and Stripe gave $100,000 to YIMBY groups.” That’s misleading and incorrect.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
5 As we noted above, Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison handed over a staggering $1-million contribution to California YIMBY and “tech bigwigs” contributed $500,000.
For our “Inside Game” special report, we found that tech executives Nat Friedman, Patrick Collison, Jared Friedman, and Kenneth Duda delivered massive sums to the California YIMBY Victory Fund, according state filings.
Nat Friedman and Collison gave $10,000 each to the political action committee for a total of $20,000. Jared Friedman delivered $20,000.
Duda shelled out $200,000. Stripe gave $100,000. There were also many smaller contributions from employees in the tech industry.
As recently as 2022, Duda and Big Tech venture capitalist Ron Conway delivered $50,000 each to the California YIMBY Victory Fund.
Other Big Tech executives include Andrew Sutherland and Robert McGrew, who gave $10,000 each to California YIMBY Victory Fund in 2021.
Big Tech, in other words, has contributed mightily to California YIMBY and continues to deliver the big bucks.
In the Current Affairs interview, Owens also said that “real estate developers absolutely don’t fund us. That’s not true.” Another misleading and inaccurate answer — and one that doesn’t jibe with California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon, who told The Real Deal he wanted developer money.
According to state filings, California YIMBY Victory Fund raked in a $2,000 contribution from real estate developer James Frost and $5,000 from Dave Rand, an attorney with Armbuster Goldsmith & Delvac, a prominent land-use firm that represents numerous developers.
And there are many smaller contributions to California YIMBY Victory Fund from real estate industry players, including $500 from John Sayles of Ensemble Real Estate Investments and $250 from Beverly Hills-based Zach Zalben of Black Equities.
These findings show why Housing Is A Human Right called for California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors. Since tech and real estate insiders are shelling out cash to California YIMBY Victory Fund, they’re most likely handing over checks to California YIMBY.
Owens then went on to lie about AHF President Michael Weinstein and AHF’s housing work. He called Weinstein a “Beverly Hills ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
6 billionaire” and described AHF as “the biggest slumlord in L.A.” Both are completely false.
Weinstein, who was born in Brooklyn and comes from a workingclass family, has been an HIV/AIDS activist going back to the 1980s when he co-founded AHF with very little funding. It now operates in 45 countries and serves more than 1.6 million clients in places such as South Africa, Mexico, India, and Ukraine.
Over the decades, AHF, the world’s largest HIV/AIDS medical-care nonprofit, has saved millions of lives by providing free HIV drug treatment and prevention services. Weinstein is not a billionaire — and he doesn’t live in Beverly Hills.
Maybe Owens mixed up Weinstein with California YIMBY’s
contributors.
It’s interesting that Owens attacked Weinstein. Under his guidance, AHF led the charge to repeal statewide rent control restrictions in California through Proposition 10, in 2018, and Proposition 21, in 2020. California YIMBY refused to endorse both initiatives, essentially standing with Big Real Estate, which spent nearly $200 million to kill Prop 10 and Prop 21.
In addition, as a response to the worsening homelessness crisis in Los Angeles, AHF founded Healthy Housing Foundation. The nonprofit provides low-income and homeless housing by renovating old hotels and turning them into affordable housing.
In only four years, HHF has created more than 1,400 low-income units in the L.A. area — and is in no way the biggest slumlord in L.A.
It’s quite the opposite. By providing housing, while hundreds of unhoused residents die in L.A.’s streets every year, AHF and HHF are saving lives.
Owens outright lies show how low California YIMBY will stoop to hide and divert the truth from the public about its connections to Big Tech and Big Real Estate. In fact, the interview is proof that California YIMBY can’t be trusted for anything it says.
Housing Is A Human Right continues to call on California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors.
Follow Housing Is A Human Right on Facebook and Twitter. -- Stay free! --
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
7 Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A.
October 10, 2023