temp74
Just Asking: What If This Happened to Steve Rose?
Second of two parts
[Editor’s Note: Businessman Les Surfas, embroiled in an eminent domain case, responds to statements made by City Councilman Steve Rose in a May 29 story, “Rose’s Cryptic Message to Eminent Domain Critics: I Have Proof That Time Heals.” The first installment was “Sanctimonious Rose,” June 12.]
Sanctimonious Rose
First of two parts
In a story in this newspaper on May 29 (“Rose’s Cryptic Message to Eminent Domain Critics: I Have Proof That Time Heals”), City Councilman Steve Rose claimed he had proof that time heals all wounds.
No argument from me on that point.
In fact, that is the only point he makes that I agree on.
A wound from a gunshot heals as well.
A Few Facts Were Left Out of Prop. 90 Argument
[Editor’s Note: On the day before Election Day, Culver City businessman Les Surfas, involved in an eminent domain dispute wuth City Hall, responds to a No on Prop. 90 argument made by his former landlord Bill Feldman.]
I would like to provide some real facts about Prop. 90 (the ballot measure that would severely restrict application of eminent domain) that Bill Feldman did not disclose in his weekend story, “Here Is Why I Am Voting Against Prop. 90 (Nov.3).”
1) Who is behind Prop. 90? Mr. Feldman asks. Yes, a Libertarian put up seed money to help this proposition after Sacramento rejected other propositions pertaining to the eminent domain decision in the U.S. Supreme Court Kelo case in Connecticut which allowed private homes and property to be given to a private developer. The arrangement was that the people, these tax-paying citizens of New London, Conn., were to leave their homes in order for the city to increase tax revenues by giving their homes and land to a developer.
2) As of last Thursday, approximately $3.7 million had been raised by pro-Prop. 90 supporters compared to over $15 million raised to fight against it. Who gave the $3.7 million to get this proposition passed? Well, I was the 23rd highest contributor and I gave the whopping sum of $250. This support for Yes on Prop. 90 is a true grass roots endeavor from small citizens like myself who still believe in the ownership of home, land and business by private individuals. People who still believe that the littlest citizen counts and that government’s role is to protect each and every citizen’s rights and not to remove them from their homes or businesses against their will. The opposition is made up of government agencies, lawyers and the big developers who benefit from the property that has been stolen from these citizens.
Surfas Asserts That Gourleys Critique Missed the Target
[Editor’s Note: In a highly personalized manner, Culver City businessman Les Surfas, on the threshold of losing a key slice of his property through City Hall’s eminent domain, responds to last Friday’s insider critique by Steve Gourley. A former mayor of Culver City, Mr. Gourley served two terms on the City Council in the 1980s and ‘90s. Mr. Gourley’s story is printed below Mr. Surfas’ reaction.]
Steve, I read your comments on the situation with Surfas vs. Culver City, and I found your point of view quite interesting. Dodging (not as in Dodge City) around the real issue with mischaracterizations of the bad guys is a simplistic approach and entertaining reading. But you missed the target. This issue is far greater than Les Surfas and monetary issues. As I explained to you, if this were only about money I would not be fighting the taking, which is the issue and the only issue. As a lawyer, you know that monetary value is a matter that is up to the courts if the city gets possession. There is nothing I can do or say now that will change that. You say to sit down with the city and work it out. How do I sit down with Culver City when they are fighting in court this week, on Thursday, for possession of my land by Jan. 15 even though there is no project approved and no city plan to start a project that will have a bearing on what occupies that land for years? That is like telling the guy facing the firing squad to be reasonable.
Surfas Responds to Agencys Rose
[Editor’s Note: Embattled Culver City businessman Les Surfas is in the process of having four of his commercial properties claimed by the Redevelopment Agency. He has written the following essay for thefrontpageonline.com in response to a news story a week ago (“A Strong Contrary Opinion,” Aug. 11) in which Steve Rose, Chair of the Redevelopment Agency, challenged Mr. Surfas’ motives.]
Steve Rose is correct. Exhaustingly for two and one-half years, I have attempted to work with the city. I have submitted proposal after proposal. I have attended meeting after meeting. I have wasted my time and a considerable amount of my own money trying to keep my business in Culver City by participating in what I still believe to be a very important step in the betterment of the community with the arrival of the Metro Line. I have enthusiastically supported the redevelopment goals for National and Washington boulevards. My failure was in believing that the Redevelopment Agency, of which Mr. Rose is the Chair, wanted the Surfas company to be a part of this new growth phase of Culver City, where we have been a successful company for 25 years.
