Re: Published Letters to the Editor, Santa Monica Mirror, December 20-26, 2007
Thanks so much for publishing together the informative letters by Ms. Hattemer against fluoridation and by Mr. Boa on the downtown trees Replacement fiasco. I hope your readers connect some dots about the striking political similarities to these two major “macro” controversies. In my view, here are a few of those worth noting:
No public electoral process for either project.
No Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs ) ordered or conducted despite residents’ advisories for more due diligence and risk assessments.
The same four (of seven) City Councilmembers (H, K, O, & B) were in the deciding majority on both projects.
One Councilmember (McKeown), demonstrably the CC’s ’greenest,’ has dissented (thank you!) on both. (Hmm, if key CC member Genser could reverse on trees, he would be two.)
Residents’ allegations persist about potential ecological and pollution risks, at minimum. These appear mostly denied or dismissed to date by the City’s government.
Residents’ concerns seem NOT the driver for either project. Instead, economic/political interests appear to have been the drivers.
Both plans I think are quintessentially unnecessary and extravagant, especially given less intrusive and less costly viable options.
The Landmarking of our 60s ficus tree ‘neighbors’ by SM’s apolitical (please) Commission could inspire a needed reversal from, I think, a politics-$-centricity to SM’s true ecology grass roots.
Sincerely,
Gene Burke
Director, Santa Monicans for Safe Drinking Water Coalition; and
Environmental Health Projects
Santa Monica
