After sitting through the discussion, I came away with several thoughts. First, I am surprised by the lack of public input on a subject of this importance.

The way the Council meetings are run, the public get to provide its input first. Then the staff provides its description of the subject. I didn’t know enough from reading the description in the handout to formulate a question.

After the staff input, I understood more. I had some questions, but the time for public input was over.

It is then time for the Council to discuss the item. During their discussions, I have more questions and also statements I would like to make in response to their comments.

But again, there is no provision for public input at this time. This is an important issue. It will require the understanding of the public if it is to succeed. The Council’s lack of understanding about what the people want was shown in its discussion of the Community Benefit zones. There was a discussion among the Council members whether the people wanted it in specific areas or city-wide.

Most people I talk to are afraid of the benefit zone concept. They look on it as the loophole zone concept. They believe it provides the city with a loophole where they can allow a developer to exceed the development limits. I know there are people in the city who will create their own vision of the ordinance and try to get it on a ballot if the city’s ordinance is unacceptable to them.

During public comments, Tom Camarella suggested that the city hold workshops where this ordinance could be discussed with the public. This suggestion fell on deaf ears. I know there was one sort of workshop on the issue. I was out of town at the time. But I know people who attended. They told me they felt very controlled, without the ability to freely comment.

If there is large public opposition to the proposed ordinance, the city will be wishing they had paid more attention to Mr. Camarella’s s suggestion.

During the Council’s discussion, they commented about the wonderful job done by staff of notifying the public about the meeting. It was stated that 2,000 postcards were sent out. I have been active on the issue, but I received no postcard. I wonder who did receive these postcards.

The other thought I had during the meeting was from where Culver City’s love affair with mixed-use buildings has come from.

I can see where the idea might work in downtown Los Angeles where there are a lot of people working but few people living. Mixed-use developments would bring housing near jobs.

But that is not the situation here in Culver City. We may have a few who will work near their new residences. But for the most part, I believe the people who live in this housing, if it sells, will be the secretary from Santa Monica and the engineer from Redondo Beach. They will still be driving to and from work. And I question if they will sell.

I have no desire to live above a Starbucks. We may, in fact, be creating affordable housing when the developers discover nobody wants to spend $750,000 to live above a retail establishment.

If the members of the City Council want this ordinance to succeed, they should listen to Mr. Camarella’s suggestion. Hold some community workshops on the issue. Without more input and information, the community won’t buy into the plans.

Tom Supple may be reached at tomjsup@ca.rr.com

­