Letters to the Editor

I'm writing to respond to Patricia Tam's letter of May 1 in which she suggests solving the School District’s budget shortfall by cutting teachers' pay by 2 to 3 percent.

As the president of the Culver City Federation of Teachers, I feel a need to respond. First, we don't have 500 teachers in the District, as Ms. Tam suggests. If you subtract the 40 who received layoff notices on March 15, the School District has just over 300 teachers.

I have lived in Culver City for more than 15 years. I don't have any children in school anymore, but I am still interested in Culver City schools. I rarely attend the School Board meetings, but I do often watch the replay on television.

The School Board still has to cut more than $1 million from the budget, and I imagine that the Board is having a hard time deciding what to cut. I have a suggestion.

[Editor’s Note: The letter writer sent the following message to the City Council last week before it approved the Entrada Office Tower project.]

My husband and I, residents of Culver City for over 20 years, are now disabled.
­
Recently, he had to be hospitalized and required the paramedics to come for him. The traffic on Sepulveda, Overland and Jefferson was so congested it was nearly impossible to get through to the hospital.

Re ‘In a Few Days, Stellar, Which Has Been Stellar, Will Enter Hardware Heaven,’ April, 16

It is with great regret that we learn of the loss of Stellar Hardware, a great institution from the hip place to walk, shop and taste.

But from the bottom of my heart, as the past Chair of the Downtown Business Assn., I want to thank Rob, Jack and all of the staff for their dedication to the Downtown project.

I’m a long term Culver City resident concerned about the impending increase in our traffic if the Entrada Tower were built.

At first glance, the Sepulveda Corridor might be expected to carry the brunt of the increase. But, I believe the problem is more extensive in scope and insidious in its impact on our lives.

I hope the City Council votes against authorizing an exemption to the 56-foot height restriction for the Entrada Tower, which is four times the Culver City height limit.

It is clearly not in the best interest of the city and the community to have this project approved “as planned.”

The Environmental Impact Report is misleading as well as inaccurate in several areas. The Carlyle Group Developers, whom I believe to be representing primarily foreign investors, attempt to dismiss anything and everything potentially negative brought to the public’s attention.

Re Tonight’s City Council vote on whether to approve the proposed 220-foot Entrada Office Tower project

The placing of this 220-foot building at an intersection that is so over-traveled is an affront to the entire Culver City community.

While controlled development was the City Council's demand in and around Downtown, why does it violate its own mandate by allowing such a huge development?

My husband and I are 40-year residents of Westchester.

We move­d to the Riggs Place/ Westchester Bluff area in 2001. This is our third home in the Westchester area of Los Angeles.

We are members of UNOW, and we are in opposition to the proposed Entrada Office Tower.

[Editor’s Note: Mr. Elmont’s misfortune when he first attempted to vote this morning is recounted below in a story headlined “Voting Ain’t Easy in Culver City — Mayor and Loni Just Frustrated, Elm­ont Is Blocked.”]

Returning to my polling place at the Rotary Plaza this noon hour, not only was I able to cast my vote, but I was able to speak directly with the gentleman who caused my dilemma this morning.

As some of you know, I am for Measure W.

I appreciate the newspaper printing Chief Financial Officer Jeff Muir's overview of the proposition (See “On Election Eve, Passing Measure W Looks Like the Cinch of the Year,” April 7) and why Culver City needs to vote regarding Measure W.

I was disappointed the Culver City Web page did not present a similar analysis so that residents could understand why they are voting one way or another regarding the measure.