Editor:
In various articles in the SMDP, the anti-airport group seems to be upset at the fact that pro-airport supporters paid signature gathers to get signers for the pro-airport petition. They try to make it into some huge negative as if it were underhanded; it's nothing of the sort. The paid gatherers simply allowed the signatures to be assembled in a shorter time. To be absolutely clear, there was also a group of volunteer signature gathers that worked in their neighborhoods to get signatures. I was one of those.
I took leaflets around my neighborhood and received telephone calls from many of my neighbors who wanted to add their names to what I referred to in my leaflet as a pro-airport, anti-development petition. All of my neighbors who signed the petition thanked me for doing it and said that it was needed. They see the value of the airport.
Two days after I passed out pro-airport leaflets in my neighborhood asking for signatures, I was walking home from getting two signatures when I noticed a group of about six to eight young men with what I think of as newspaper bags on their shoulders. They had just been let out of a panel truck. It turns out that they had been hired to pass out a competing leaflet in my neighborhood that asked people not to sign the current airport petition and, if they had already signed it, asked them to retract their signatures.
Now, it seems to me that the anti-airport people can't have it both ways. They have suggested that paid signature gatherers for the pro-airport petition are horribly underhanded but where does that leave the paid commercial leaflet distributors who passed out the competing leaflet? I would suspect that the anti-airport crowd would say that their leaflet was quite reasonable. Apparently, it's bad if pro-airport supporters pay some signature gatherers but it's not bad if anti-airport people pay commercial distributors to pass out their leaflets. Hmmm; sounds a little one-sided to me.
Reynold Dacon, recently a volunteer pro-airport signature gatherer
Santa Monica
Editor:
Regarding the water conservation article on page 3 in the weekend edition (7/19 - 20/14) of the Santa Monica Daily Press (Community Briefs).
The proposed suggestions to reduce water use are reasonable but will do little to address the problem of drought. Here are some viable suggestions to better address water use that more closely follow the much touted "sustainability" rhetoric frequently promoted in our city. Our city council could spend more time consulting with the scientific community for information to promote water conservation, etc. and less time paving the way for more development to serve tourists.
1) A moratorium, effective immediately, on all current and future development within the city limits until normal rainfall returns and the water table resumes historic levels. All development strains our water resource and only benefits developers.
2) Remove all parkway grass and replace with either artificial grass or California native plants. As a property owner I certainly do not want to see hikes in my water bill caring for city property.
3) Homeowners and businesses (where applicable) have the option of removing their lawns (front and back) and follow the suggestions in #2. If the owner wishes to keep a living lawn, levy a 10 percent tax on their bill for water use. Sprinkler timers should be deactivated until our drought has passed (as in #1 above).
The city council will never do what is right for the residents of Santa Monica and will continue to rubber stamp every developers "get rich quick" proposal. I believe I just wasted my time writing this.
J. L. Moss
Santa Monica
