Editor:
While I don't expect to be "enlightened" by your paper, I've still held on to the fallacy that maybe one of your 'constant' letter writers would - unfortunately, this is not the case.
Example - Mr. Deveau rails against Ernie Powell for "generalizing"- then does it himself?? lol. "The reality is that half the crime in the city is committed by homeless!" How does he know this?? Because it's my experience that most of the crimes I see committed in Santa Monica are committed by people who have homes - jaywalking, smoking, speeding, drugs, driving drunk...etc.
It's not that half the crime is committed by homeless, but, rather, "all" the homeless crimes are written up in this paper (who knows the real percentage?). So, because this paper is a "anti-homeless" paper, most "sheep" like Mr. Deveau just regurgitate what they read! To buttress my point, Mr. Deveau Intellect doesn't shine when he states the obvious - " another percentage of crime is committed by people that don't live in Santa Monica." Really? lol! Why doesn't Mr. Deveau state the most important fact? How many crimes are committed by people like him?
I'm not sure if Mr. Deveau is a bigot against economically or geographically displaced people, however, it seems that Mr. Deveau is a "duplicitous" person - which is what's really wrong with this country!
To be fair to Mr. Deveau, maybe he is correct about "half" the crime is committed by the "homeless" - if so, then he should be writing Mt. Olympus and asking them, "what happened to the $125,000 that the city paid to an advertising company 6years ago to come up with a 'slogan' to stop people from giving to the homeless (remember the company came up with a ball and chain slogan which even this paper thought was too degrading)? Also, what happened to the additional $75,000 that Mt. Olympus gave to the same company to come up with another slogan?"
Is this another "building #7" situation?
Please - anyone - "enlighten me."
David Poyet
Santa Monica
