While the Farragut Drive sideline drama continues to bitterly percolate over whether a parked car damages lives of residents on one block, it is the turn of decision-makers.
The City Council voted overwhelmingly last Monday, 4-1, to temporarily alter restrictions in the 10700 block while a three-month study. The object is to determine what alterations, if any, need to be made to regulations, given the block’s placement between traffic-heavy schools and one of the community’s premier churches.
Perhaps the most intriguing scene after the Council meeting – that mercifully ended at 1:30 a.m. Tuesday – was the bafflement of Council members not named Meghan Sahli-Wells over her lengthy defense of protesting Farragut residents.
There can be no doubt that Ms. Sahli-Wells is a populist-oriented politician, one who believes with maximum passion and huge support that voices from the community should be trumpeted across Council Chambers on all significant matters, which would be close to 100 percent of issues.
It was not surprising when all four of her colleagues favored a traffic study and a fine-tuning of parking restrictions while Ms. Sahli-Wells stood alone.
This has become a common scenario during her four years on the dais.
Virtually every lawn on both sides of the 10700 block of Farragut carries a Re-Elect Meghan sign – so her stout defense of protestors’ position was not a shock.
What was different this time, however, was what Ms. Sahli-Wells was arguing against.
No one else on the dais knew, according to her colleagues who were polled.
They were unable to summarize what she had said and why she took such a cemented stance.
Possibly the most cogent point Ms. Sahli-Wells made during her 15-minute sort-of filibuster was this one:
“What disturbs me most is we (Council members) are being asked to change parking restrictions by an entity, not the residents.”
“Hmm,” said one of her Council colleagues. “I thought that was why we were elected, to make decisions.”
Mr. Noonan still does not get it. We need some fair and balanced reporting. Ms. Sahli-Wells was right—residential rights should be first in this company town. Further, the City Council’s action trampled the rights of all residents. The Council amended the November 2013 parking law, and residents did not even feel the knife go in. That’s because the agenda did not tell residents what the Council planned to do. Now, any non-resident business can petition the politicos on the City Council to change residential parking. The Council was too smart by ½ as it failed to comply with the agenda-notice requirement of the Brown Act. Residents of the 10700 block of Farragut have served their Brown-Act “cure or correct” demand letter, which we expect the Council—in its infinite lack of wisdom—will ignore or reject. Will Culver City ever wake-up to learn that Paradise has been stolen by a bunch politicos and their business-first interests?
https://claudiavizcarrablog.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/sometimes-a-small-decision-raises-big-questions/