12 comments for Vote! Nov. 4, 2008 »

1. 

   I find the existence of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to be very helpful in making decisions. I vote the opposite of their recommendations.

   Likewise for any group with the words “chamber of commerce” in their name.

   Comment by Don Hosek — October 6, 2008 @ 8:53 am

2. 

   Siel,

   If you want to catch the remaining city council candidate forums, there is one tonight on Santa Monica Airport issues, moderated by former Santa Monica Mayor Mike Feinstein, 6:30-8:30pm at the Ken Edwards Center, 1527 4th St.
   http://jetairpollution.com/

   Mon, oct. 13 The Shores Resident Assoc., 7pm, North Bldg, 2700 Neilson Way

   Thur, Oct. 16 is the City Tv Candidate forum taping, 1-4pm, Nebraska Ave

   Wed, Oct. 22, the Daily Press “Squirm Night” at the library, 7pm

   cheers,
   Lisa

   Comment by Lisa — October 6, 2008 @ 4:35 pm

3. 

   I’d love to hear more about santa monica measure t, if you have a chance to consider the eco-impact of it. i’ve had lots of propaganda from both sides and haven’t had the time to sit down and make sense of it.

   Comment by liz — October 6, 2008 @ 4:44 pm

4. 

   Lisa — Is there a sched of these upcoming debates on a public site somewhere? I’m wondering why Santa Monica residents, by and large, haven’t even been informed of them — Thanks for letting me know!

   Liz — Will def. talk about Measure T later –

   Comment by Siel — October 7, 2008 @ 12:29 am

5. 

   No unfortunately, I haven’t found a site that lists all the debates. Last nights candidate forum was listed in the events calendar in the Santa Monica Mirror.

   My friend and longtime environmental activist Linda Piera-Avila is running for the council, so I got a list that she put together, because obviously she has to be at all these forums!

   As I think I mentioned in another post, the SM Daily Press has been running the full 1,000 word questionaire answers of all the 13 candidates, about 3 per issue. You can find those in their web archives.

   Comment by Lisa — October 7, 2008 @ 10:55 am

6. 

   economic and health benefits for voting yes on 7. http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr091708.htm

   Comment by Kelly — October 7, 2008 @ 11:23 am

7. 

   I personally am against Measure T. I think it is a deflection from real ways to address solving traffic, and will under cut the measures in LUCE. I also found it really shady that part of how they got this on the ballot in the first place was going up to people coming out of places like the Co-Op and saying if you don’t like traffic, sign this petition, without really explaining what it was. I know because they tried to get me to sign it and I said I would read the fine print first.

   Comment by Gary Kavanagh — October 13, 2008 @ 3:29 pm

8. 

   I have started this blog to argue against Prop T. While I understant that a measure to limit commercial development in order to limit the increase in traffic might seem like an environmental winner, I strongly disagree, and believe that, tragically, it will make matters worse. Why?

   Well,it’s because this measure simply won’t reduce traffic, not one little bit. Indeed it will more than likely increase it.

   How can this be you ask? Isn’t it a given that less commercial development= less traffic? Isn’t that what RIFT’s supporters confidently argue on their own web site?

   “Despite what the opposition claims, traffic engineers agree that new development creates more traffic.”

   Well, no it isn’t a given. The fallacy is evident when one asks the question, what traffic engineers are they talking about? Not one competent traffic engineer I know (and I actually know at least 50 working in small towns to large cities–and in universities) would ever make such a bold claim. Most traffic engineers will tell you the effect on traffic depends on factors including: what kind of development, what’s in the area, what the context is, how much parking is provided, what sort of Transportation Demand Management programs are part of the project, if congestion pricing part of the equation, etc. So the question remains: What kind of development are those traffic engineers talking about? Not all new development creates new traffic.

   “Our only hope for curbing traffic growth is to slow down the type of development that generates the most traffic.”

   Well, on this point I do agree, but that type of development, the kind that generates the most traffic, is the low-density, single-use development that got us here in the first place. Unfortunately, that development is precisely the opposite of what Proposition T aims to accomplish.

   So let’s get back to global warming. We know that 40% of carbon emissions come from transportation, so every effort to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use should be the highest priority.

   But does anyone really think that putting a cap on commercial development in Santa Monica will somehow make the demand go away? Does anyone think that the demand will not simply be satisfied somewhere else, like West L.A, Venice, Marina D.R or Culver City? From a tax revenue point of view, S.M’s loss is their gain. But wait a minute, people will still have to drive there. Santa Monicans will drive further, and folks coming in will cut through Santa Monica to get there. Moreover, the possibilities for true mixed-use development here in S.M. will be diminished, and we will return to making housing-only bedroom communities. What do you think that will do to the traffic? That’s what Terry O’Day means by arguing that true mixed-use development adjacent to transit is an ESSENTIAL part of the project to reduce, and ultimately reverse global warming. We do not live in a little cocoon here in Santa Monica

   Wouldn’t it make sense, therefore, to locate a mix of jobs and housing at, say the future light rail stop at Bergamot Station, so folks could take public transit to work? Walking, bicycling and using public transit to get to jobs and retail services are effective at doing reducing global warming. Minimizing Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMTs) is another method. That is, even if you have to drive in your car, if you drive less, you burn less fuel and emit less carbon. Proposition T, will clearly have the opposite effect. Santa Monicans will drive further to get to services outside of the city. Medical office workers and patients will drive between hospitals and doctors’ offices where they could have otherwise walked. Employees will drive through Santa Monica on their way to new jobs in Venice and Marina Del Rey, where they would have previously stopped in Santa Monica.

   But maybe you’re thinking: Look, I get what you saying, but don’t we have to do something? Yes, and there’s plenty the city could do. We could emulate cities like Belleview, WA, or Boulder, CO, cities that, like Santa Monica, lack rail transit, but have made serious inroads into traffic congestion without mindless development caps: In downtown Bellevue, utilizing Transportation Demand Managment techniques, the drive-alone commute rate fell by 30% from 1990 to 2000, falling from 81% driving alone to 57%. In Boulder, since 1995, the drive-alone rate for employees working downtown has fallen almost 30%, from 56% driving alone to 36%, while the transit mode share (busses) has more han doubled from 15% to 34%.

   Moreover,extension of the Purple-line “to the sea”, which if funded, offeres real opportunity to get folks out of their cars, I believe, will likely not get to the sea if Prop T passes. I believe it will find itself a nice terminus in Westwood. For more on that reasoning see: http://norift.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-antonio-villaraigosa-was-elected.html

   So, once again I’m not arguing for the status quo and for doing nothing. I am arguing for a more thoughtful land use strategy that combines a mixing of uses with robust Transportation Demand Managment techniques that allow us to create a much more vital, equitable, convenient, and sustainable city than we have today. Proposition T takes us in the opposite direction. To see an expanded version of this post see: http://norift.blogspot.com/2008/10/reason-8-this-measure-will-hurt-our.html

   Or to see all 11 reasons why I think Proposition T is the worst Urban Planning idea of the Year visit: the blog and read it all, starting from the oldest post and working backwards: http://norift.blogspot.com

   Comment by Neal Payton — October 19, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

9. 

   Terry O’Day — you mean the guy who all the big developers paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and get elected in 2006?

   Developers love Terry O’Day and his greenwashing of their overdevelopment.

   Neal, you work for developers. Plain and simple. You take a developer view of the world and it’s a world where residents and voters just get in the way.

   Comment by Samantha — October 20, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

10. 

    Anybody wondering who’s behind the blizzard of mailers Santa Monica voters are getting claiming Prop T will end the world as we know it? No matter who’s quoted, or who the message SEEMS to be from, just look at the return address. “Funded by Equity Office Properties and Belle Vue Plaza.” Equity and Bellevue are big-money developers.

    Why am I, as an environmentally-oriented and sustainability-committed City Councilmember, so much in favor of Prop T?

    Our struggle in Santa Monica is with our jobs/housing imbalance, which feeds the commute and pollute lifestyle. We are already the second densest city in the region, behind only West Hollywood. That’s why we earned the right to be the destination for the Expo light rail line, and perhaps in another decade or more a Wilshire subway line.

    Prop T paces commercial growth, then sunsets in 15 years. If we have REAL mass transit by then, our jobs/housing balance might be less of a problem.

    Meanwhile, though, Santa Monica is seriously out of whack. Our job/housing ratio was bad, 1.32 to 1, ten years ago, and has gotten worse. It is now 1.57 to one. In the latest Sustainability Report Card, this was called out as one of the prime challenges facing us.

    Right now, we need more housing, not more commercial development. Prop T caps the commercial, but continues our policy of encouraging new housing above existing retail along transit corridors. Prop T allows replacement of existing commercial without triggering the cap, so a boulevard lot now relatively wasted with single story retail can be redeveloped with replacement retail on the ground floor, parking underneath, and several stories of housing above. That’s the sprawl-fighter we need, not willy-nilly unlimited commercial growth motivated merely by profit.

    If Prop T passes, we have a real shot at balancing our job/housing ratio, or at least moving in that direction instead of letting it get worse, as has happened over the last decade despite all our efforts to create incentives for housing, particularly affordable housing. We will continue to work on housing production, but capping commercial for a limited time will give us a chance to catch up.

    And remember, the cap allows us to pick the BEST projects for sustainability purposes. We can, under Prop T, choose transit-oriented mixed use and pass on regional big box or office complexes that generate more vehicle miles traveled.

    Developers hate Prop T, and are willing to spend a fortune — some $730,000 reported so far — on cheap scare tactics. Fortunately, Santa Monica voters are sophisticated and know enough to “follow the money.”

    Comment by Kevin McKeown — October 30, 2008 @ 12:04 am

11. 

    Council Member McKeown is complaining more about the campaign than the substance of the No on T argument, which is signficant and important. His comment about “cheap scare tactics” could be applied to his own post, which seems to be developers are against this so you should be for it. His argument about existing retail being being replacable without triggering the cap assumes that the retail has been occupied within the past two years. If not, then it is considered as if it doesn’t exist. This is a major flaw with ordinance. Within a year, if the Wilshire Theater isn’t occupied, for example, it will be as if it doesn’t exist. See http://norift.blogspot.com/2008/10/other-day-i-noticed-aging-little.html
    for more on this issue. Even though the ordinance exempts hospitals, it does not exempt medical office space, a point that both major hospitals in Santa Monica are seriously concerned about. There are loads of other flaws with the ordinance, including the naive view that putting an arbitrary cap on commercial development is somehow more environmentally sustainable. The separation of uses resulting from that strategy is a recipe for more traffic. I have emailed all of the sitting Councilman with a request that they at least look at the blog, not that I expect least to change anyone’s minds, but familiarize them with some views that may not have considered. He alone has not responded in any way.

    Comment by Neal Payton — October 30, 2008 @ 4:15 pm

12. 

    Prop T is bogus, and fails to acknowledge real traffic solutions. It doesn’t take developer campaign contributions to see it is a weak and flawed effort to curb traffic. I was glad to see the no endorsement from green LA girl.

    Comment by Gary Kavanagh — November 3, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

name

e-mail

website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail