"The City Council feels a need for speed when it comes to substantially shortening the runway at Santa Monica Airport." -- Today's paper.
This is the same city council that, in 30 years and counting, has not been able to deliver a commissioned stop sign to Main Street between Hill and Ashland.
And where are those promised parklets, by the way?
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Bikeshare should help get people out of their cars.
Bike riding supporters might want to reserve next Tuesday for a visit to Santa Monica's City Hall. The city council will be considering how to proceed with the bikeshare program. As the Santa Monica Daily Press reports, the “bikeshare will allow riders to check out one of the system’s 500 bikes from one of 75 locations in the city and drop it off at another.”
As proposed, the pricing for the system does not seem to be designed to maximize bike use, presumably the intended goal. “For an hour of riding, a tourist or an infrequent user will pay $6....More frequent riders can pay $20 per month for 30 minutes of daily riding time or $25 per month for an hour of daily riding. A basic annual pass — which gives users 30 minutes of usage 365 days of the year — will run $119 and an extended pass, which bumps that ride time to an hour, would cost $149.” This seems like an extension of the metering model used for parking, which runs contrary to the goal of maximizing use.
Why have time limits on use at all? If we really want locals and visitors to use bikes as transportation, it would make more sense to allow people to ride as much as they want. Thus, a user could, for example, ride to work, ride to and from lunch, stop at the library, pick up some groceries, stop for dinner, go the movies, meet for a drink, and go home. System bikes would be required to be returned to stations when not being ridden, thus freeing them up for other users.
“For Santa Monica residents, the basic annual pass will cost only $79 and the extended $99. Santa Monica College students are offered the greatest discount: $47 for six months of 60 minute daily riding.The $6 an hour casual fee simply buys 60 minutes of ride time that never expires. For monthly and annual passes, however, daily minutes do not roll over.”
Why limit the discount to Santa Monica residents? There are many thousands of non-Santa Monica westsiders who will be within walking distance of stations and should be encouraged to take bikes when going to Bergamot Station, Third Street, the beach or the pier. Also, don’t we want to encourage as many of the people who live elsewhere but work in Santa Monica to use bikes? The same discount should apply to employees as to residents.
“One of the things that city officials loved about the operator they selected, CycleHop, is that their technology allows bikes to be returned to locations other than the 75 stations throughout the city. If a bike is returned to a regular bike rack — even if it’s not an official station — within the Santa Monica-area, riders will only pay an additional $2. If a rider hops on that bike, which is not connected to an official Breeze rack, and returns it to a Breeze station, she’ll get a $1 credit for bikeshare usage. If a bike is locked up outside of the Santa Monica-area, the rider will pay a $20 fee. If a bike is returned to a generic bike rack within 100 feet of a hub that is full, the rider won’t be charged $2.”
This is all well and good, but it raises another question. Technology has advanced since the first bikeshare programs were installed in other cities. One change is that there is no longer a justification for a capital-intensive investment in stations. Bikes can be fitted easily with wireless devices that keep track of bikes wherever they are and allow them to be locked and unlocked by a downloadable app that will also keep track of payments. Users would be able to see the location of the nearest available bike. Such a system might make it possible to eliminate passes altogether, replacing them with incremental micro-charges, either capped or greatly reduced by frequent use. Being a laggard should be made to work to Santa Monica’s advantage.
Parenthetically, technology is also available to make the bikes cease to function if they are removed from the city, further lessening the need for expensive stations.
Additionally, it would make sense to explore whether there is a need for a system that would allow employees to pay an extra fee to take bikes home. This might make particular sense for SMC and private school students who live in nearby cities. This would increase the number of bikes available during working (and school) hours and encourage employees (and students) to use bikes on their off days when they return to shop, eat, go to the movies, Pier concerts, the beach, etc. Even if it cost double or triple the standard annual rate (see, next paragraph), it still might be worth it to people who do not want to purchase, maintain and repair a bike of their own.
So, assuming the bike stations are here to stay, here’s a proposal:
$6/day available to anyone for an unlimited number of trips and no limit on time.
$15/month available to anyone for an unlimited number of daily trips and no limit on time. This would encourage tourists staying three days or longer to pay the fee to have use of bikes throughout their stay.
$60/annual pass available to residents and employees for an unlimited number of daily trips and no limit on time. A student discount should be considered for the annual fee.
The rest of the story: Santa Monica bikeshare still on schedule; rates proposed by David Mark Simpson (Santa Monica Daily Press).
They're baaaaack!
Having failed to inflict sufficient damage on Santa Monica's planning process last year with its ill-conceived but successful referendum to hogtie the development of the admirable Hines project (you can see the not-unexpectedly mediocre aftermath of that effort here), nimby-oid Residocracy is back with a
non-binding digital petition designed to short circuit the reasonable, common-sense updating of the city's zoning ordinance, recently advanced by the planning commission after many months of study and debate.
According to the Santa Monica Daily Press, "Residocracy is asking for a 25 percent reduction of all proposed heights and densities under the first and second tier development standards. They want an amendment to another planning document (The Land Use and Circulation Element or LUCE) that eliminates third tier developments. They’d like a second amendment to the LUCE that would eliminate all activity centers, which would allow larger scale development. And finally, they want an ordinance requiring that all development agreements be approved by Santa Monica voters."
This is not how representative democracy works. In fact, representative government was established precisely to prevent the highjacking of the political system by highly motivated minorities. Even the heart of Residocracy's complaint -- that the proposed ordinance and LUCE are complex 500 page documents that took seven years to put together -- points to the inadvisability of deciding complex issues by referendum. The other complaint -- that, despite extensive public input in Santa Monica decision-making, the outcomes seem predetermined by city staff -- has some merit, but the solution is to give elected representatives more sway over city employees (council members need their own staffs, for example, or, shy of that, there should be a full-time independent auditor with his or her own staff).
Residocracy presents itself as the voice of Santa Monica residents. but in actuality it is a single-issue interest group with a very specific and very negative agenda. Using intimidation, sloganeering, over-simplification and scare tactics. it attempts to bully its way to its desired outcomes (go to a public meeting where its members have been turned out in numbers and you'll think you're at a cage fight not a civic event). During the lead up to the Hines ballot initiative, out off curiosity I took a walk around town randomly asking people what they thought of the project. Although it is anecdotal not scientific, what I found is nonetheless instructive: of the people I spoke to who'd heard of Hines. not a one was opposed to it as approved and a number expressed the hope that it would be built.
Maybe this time the city council -- charged with looking out for the general welfare, after all, not the interests of one group, however clamorous -- will not let itself be bullied. And before you allow yourself to be bullied into endorsing Residocracy's abstinence appeal ("just say no" to all development it dislikes, whether useful, necessary, desirable or popular), consider this: what do you know about land use; tax law and revenue generation; infrastructure and utilities; zoning; federal and state regulations affecting development; the influence of local bylaws, ordinances and regulations on our environmental, economic and housing goals and whether such rules are prescriptive or proscriptive; the effects on traffic, air quality and other elements of urban life of concentrating development near transportation hubs; the mix and condition of the city's housing stock; public benefits that can be achieved from easements and development agreements; the possible differences, relationships and sound mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses; the need for public facilities; and how your concerns dovetail with others who have an equal claim on what happens here? That's what a city council is for.
By all means, participate! Go to community workshops, express yourself at planning commission and city council meetings, call and write your elected and appointed representatives. And when Residocracy turns up again, as they will, with a plebiscite on a complex development matter, don't play along. Just say no.
Follow: Santa Monica Mirror; Santa Monica Daily Press; City of Santa Monica.
 |
| 26th Street as it might have been |
According to the Santa Monica Daily Press, "Residocracy is asking for a 25 percent reduction of all proposed heights and densities under the first and second tier development standards. They want an amendment to another planning document (The Land Use and Circulation Element or LUCE) that eliminates third tier developments. They’d like a second amendment to the LUCE that would eliminate all activity centers, which would allow larger scale development. And finally, they want an ordinance requiring that all development agreements be approved by Santa Monica voters."
This is not how representative democracy works. In fact, representative government was established precisely to prevent the highjacking of the political system by highly motivated minorities. Even the heart of Residocracy's complaint -- that the proposed ordinance and LUCE are complex 500 page documents that took seven years to put together -- points to the inadvisability of deciding complex issues by referendum. The other complaint -- that, despite extensive public input in Santa Monica decision-making, the outcomes seem predetermined by city staff -- has some merit, but the solution is to give elected representatives more sway over city employees (council members need their own staffs, for example, or, shy of that, there should be a full-time independent auditor with his or her own staff).
Residocracy presents itself as the voice of Santa Monica residents. but in actuality it is a single-issue interest group with a very specific and very negative agenda. Using intimidation, sloganeering, over-simplification and scare tactics. it attempts to bully its way to its desired outcomes (go to a public meeting where its members have been turned out in numbers and you'll think you're at a cage fight not a civic event). During the lead up to the Hines ballot initiative, out off curiosity I took a walk around town randomly asking people what they thought of the project. Although it is anecdotal not scientific, what I found is nonetheless instructive: of the people I spoke to who'd heard of Hines. not a one was opposed to it as approved and a number expressed the hope that it would be built.
Maybe this time the city council -- charged with looking out for the general welfare, after all, not the interests of one group, however clamorous -- will not let itself be bullied. And before you allow yourself to be bullied into endorsing Residocracy's abstinence appeal ("just say no" to all development it dislikes, whether useful, necessary, desirable or popular), consider this: what do you know about land use; tax law and revenue generation; infrastructure and utilities; zoning; federal and state regulations affecting development; the influence of local bylaws, ordinances and regulations on our environmental, economic and housing goals and whether such rules are prescriptive or proscriptive; the effects on traffic, air quality and other elements of urban life of concentrating development near transportation hubs; the mix and condition of the city's housing stock; public benefits that can be achieved from easements and development agreements; the possible differences, relationships and sound mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses; the need for public facilities; and how your concerns dovetail with others who have an equal claim on what happens here? That's what a city council is for.
By all means, participate! Go to community workshops, express yourself at planning commission and city council meetings, call and write your elected and appointed representatives. And when Residocracy turns up again, as they will, with a plebiscite on a complex development matter, don't play along. Just say no.
Follow: Santa Monica Mirror; Santa Monica Daily Press; City of Santa Monica.
The appearance of corruption is as corrosive to public trust as actual corruption.
Or, what is there about a seat on the Santa Monica City Council that makes it worth $173,762.98 to Sue Himmelrich?
Corollary: Is it time for local campaign finance reform?
The rest of the story: More than $1 million spent on council race (Santa Monica Daily Press).
The War: W.Hollywood Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution in Support of the Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney
[While under normal circumstances I agree that the Santa Monica city council should stick to local issues and not spend its time on resolutions to save the redwoods or nuke the whales, these are not normal times. The very active local peace movement should follow up West Hollywood's action and get the Santa Monica council to go on record in support of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their various crimes, although the best reason to get rid of them is to prevent future debacles, like attacking Iran (according to press reports -- see, Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iraq -- the Vice has talked the Little President into war with Iran as soon as a pretext can be manufactured). - jg]
West Hollywood makes history in becoming the first city in Southern California to pass an impeachment resolution (press release)
"The City of West Hollywood was the first City to oppose the war in Iraq, as it was obvious that the United States was being dragged into a war under false pretenses," said West Hollywood Mayor John Duran. "Now the truth is out. Our President and Vice President misled the country and failed the American people, and for those reasons they should be impeached," he continued.
"The time has come to call for impeachment," said West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land. "Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American public on the justifications for the Iraq war, conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens and violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism to hold them accountable. West Hollywood is proud to add its voice to the growing movement across the nation in calling for a full investigation to be undertaken by the U.S. Congress," she continued.
The proposed resolution states that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have repeatedly violated the U.S. Constitution and other laws of the United States. Other impeachable actions cited in the Impeachment Resolution include:
For more information, please contact Hernan Molina, Deputy to West Hollywood Mayor John Duran or Lisa Belsanti, Deputy to West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land at 323-848-6460.
West Hollywood makes history in becoming the first city in Southern California to pass an impeachment resolution (press release)
"The City of West Hollywood was the first City to oppose the war in Iraq, as it was obvious that the United States was being dragged into a war under false pretenses," said West Hollywood Mayor John Duran. "Now the truth is out. Our President and Vice President misled the country and failed the American people, and for those reasons they should be impeached," he continued.
"The time has come to call for impeachment," said West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land. "Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American public on the justifications for the Iraq war, conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens and violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism to hold them accountable. West Hollywood is proud to add its voice to the growing movement across the nation in calling for a full investigation to be undertaken by the U.S. Congress," she continued.
The proposed resolution states that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have repeatedly violated the U.S. Constitution and other laws of the United States. Other impeachable actions cited in the Impeachment Resolution include:
- Stripping Americans of their constitutional rights;
- Ordering and authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to override judicial order for the release of detainees;
- Directing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans; and
- Misguiding Congress and the country on false intelligence in order to lead the United States into war.
For more information, please contact Hernan Molina, Deputy to West Hollywood Mayor John Duran or Lisa Belsanti, Deputy to West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land at 323-848-6460.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
