Party line
Editor:
In his letter of August 24, Reynold Dacon trots out the aviation lobbyists' party line about the airport, which is beginning to sound very threadbare. The reason we citizens of Santa Monica are against the aviation lobbyists' Measure D (for Deception) is that it pretends to offer us choice about the future of the airport while taking it away. It does this through clever ballot language that would require an impossible majority to do anything about lead pollution from the small planes' fuel or the noise, danger and multiple pollutions of the jets.
The people of our city and their council have made it plain there will be no massive development at the airport. That threat is a bogeyman meant to make us run scared into the arms of the lobbyists. What we want is the chance to do something about the jets that are endangering us and poisoning our children so a few fat cats can get to their golf games early. And the so-called threat to jobs if we do something about the airport?
Give us a break, Mr. Dacon. The real, official figure for airport aviation jobs is 178, not 1,500, and the claim it provides $275 million to the local economy is totally spurious: it's based on imagining every corporate jet flying into SMO is full of tourists eager to spend their dollars, which every knows is absolutely not the case.
If the airport becomes a park and cultural centre, there will be more jobs, not fewer. We want local control of our airport. We want to do something about the jets before there's a disaster. Measure LC (for Local Control) offers that chance. Measure D for Deception takes it away. It's as simple as that.
Gavin Scott
Santa Monica
Put Prop 49, back on the ballot
Editor:
So, four of the California Supremes think that the people of California don't deserve a chance to weigh in on this issue. According to my reading of the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the right of the people [me, in this case] to petition their government for a redress of grievances," and what is prohibited to Congress is thus prohibited to the states. This mechanism has been used several times throughout California history, most recently in 2007, and it was fine then? So why is it not fine now? Methinks the subject matter upsetting to these justices, and their sense of whom they see themselves serving, which from my position is not the people of California. Well, two of them are coming up for re-election: Goodwin Liu and Kathryn Werdegar. Assuming they fail to relent on this undemocratic decision in time for the November ballot, let us make that the poll of the public sentiment on those who see no problem with turning over our democracy to unlimited corporate funding.
Charles Fredricks
Santa Monica
