Re “Since You Ignored My First Question, I’ll Try Again”
Re: Ken Smith Performs a Community Service by Exposing the Ugly Underbelly of Culver City Politics
Farragut Analysis:
According to Ken Smith’s recent publication, the total impact of the Farragut Drive Parking Restrictions is that “[m]any of the participants [in Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church’s programs] have to walk several blocks to the church while Farragut Drive sits empty of cars.” That’s it. Now, let’s examine that statement.
Mr. Smith has already informed us that there is wide-open-parking space available on Franklin. If the participant drives a car, he/she could park on Franklin or, if handicapped and in possession of a parking permit, park on Farragut. Or did they “walk several blocks” because they are walking from where they reside? Further, the church has a van that could be used to transport them.
Who are these alleged participants? How many is “many”? Why did none of them sign any petition on behalf of the church? Why did none of them sign-up to speak before the City Council on Sept. 8, 2014?
It appears that the alleged problem and these alleged participants are figments of Mr. Smith’s imagination. It is only he who has a problem.
His problem is that he believes the Farragut Parking Restrictions are “unfair,” however, he defines the term. That is not within the legal criteria for resolving the issue. If he lived on Farragut and not on a cushy cul-de-sac, and had our experience with parking and traffic, he would believe, as we do, that the Farragut Parking Restrictions are very fair and necessary to preserve the residential nature of our neighborhood.
Ken Smith Wants Taxpayers to Pay for His Folly
Someone once said that one of the greatest joys in life is spending other people’s money. Mr. Smith wants Culver City taxpayers to spend $20,000 on an unnecessary “study” of the Farragut Parking Restrictions. There is no reason for any “study.” The Farragut Parking Restrictions have been in effect since 1982 (after a six-month-test period without receipt of any complaint), were enhanced and grandfathered in 2004 and re-grandfathered in 2013. Within the past one year, the city twice denied the church’s requests for a review. After hearing from the church’s attorney and Farragut residents in 2013, this same City Council grandfathered the Farragut Parking Restrictions.
Prior Councils did not “err” or just give us what we wanted. We jumped through many governmental hoops. We prevailed on the merits of our claims.
The church has had multiple bites at the apple, and there is no need for a new “study.”
Further, Farragut residents are united in our fervent belief that our legal rights are being trampled by the City Council. Is Mr. Smith or the church going to pay Culver City’s litigation expenses?
Community Service
Mr. Smith asked what I, personally, have recently done for the community. I answered. It appears that Mr. Smith believes that the City Council’s decision concerning the church’s petition to revoke Farragut Parking Restrictions should be decided on who does more for the community, not on the merits. In essence, he claims that the church does much more, and, therefore, the church should prevail.
Broader Context of Culver City Government
Mr. Smith has done a service to the community by exposing the arrogance of power prevalent on the City Council. The City Council feels that it can do as it pleases with three votes, regardless of how irrationally it acts. Further, the Culver City government has no understanding of conflicts of interest and associated disclosures. City officials feel that, since every insider knows of the incestuous political relations in Culver City, each elected official should decide for him/herself whether he/she has a conflict of interest without any public disclosure. Further, this myopic vision does not look beyond a direct financial interest. For example, it would not be necessary to disclose that one’s favorite cousin is seeking a building variance if a Councilperson has no direct-financial interest in the project.
Mr. Smith also has helped reveal that two-hour parking restrictions offer only an illusion of residential protection, which is wholeheartedly supported by the business community to gain parking space at residents’ expense. This is especially true in Culver City where parking enforcement primarily acts in response to a resident’s complaint. A resident is expected to observe a car’s two-hour-plus presence, and then report the situation to Parking Enforcement. Parking Enforcement might come out to chalk the car’s tire and might return hours later to write a citation. Think about it. This is a system designed to fail by persons who believe Culver City residents are naïve, and, even if we become aware, we are powerless to remedy the situation.
Irony of It All
If, after all the dust settles, if the church wins, it loses. Under current rules, the Farragut residents have the automatic right to obtain permit-only parking restrictions from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. for seven days per week due to the presence of the nearby The Spot restaurant and coffee shop. That is two days more restrictive than that now in place during the evenings. One should be careful about what one prays for.
Suggestion
If Mr. Smith truly believes in community service, he should assist the 15 Farragut families in need of his political clout. He should cancel Councilperson Andy Weissman’s political debts to him and cause the church to start a van pool service. His attempt to exercise raw political power is totally inconsistent with any attempt to seize the moral-high ground.
Thanks to Ken Smith’s and Councilperson Weissman’s efforts to throw the Farragut residents under the big green bus and the resulting revelations, the Culver City government’s “ might makes right” attitude has been exposed, and is about to be ended. Hallelujah!
Mr. Greenberg may be contacted at plgreen@att.net
