> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Letter: Jeff Segal defends his RIFT statements on daycare exemption and revenue loss
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/082008-story-20080820/
- Published: 2008-08-20T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T20:45:37.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*By Jeff Segal Santa Monica*

In \[letter to the editor published\] in your Aug. 15 paper, I was, by name, falsely accused of deceiving your readers in my statements regarding RIFT.

The \[letter\] accused me of being deceptive by not stating that facilities for children must provide daycare to qualify for an exemption from RIFT; I refer your readers back to Section 2(a) of RIFT where they can read for themselves that it says “child or adult day-care” not “child or adult, daycare.”

The editorial accuses me of deception by not admit-ting that RIFT will cause a $11,000,000/year reduction of the city’s revenue. The $11,000,000/year is a 2023 projection from a presentation by HR&A Advisers to City Council. HR&A, is a company that features on their Web site, that they provide innovative solutions to the complex challenges of economic growth and real estate development (i.e. they are in the business of lobbying for developers). The $11,000,000/year allegation is so “innovative” that the city attorney was forced to ignore it in her report to the state of California on the fiscal impact of RIFT. Santa Monica residents will soon be getting their voting information packages from the state of California. The neutral assessment says that RIFT has no material impact on city revenue.

The editorial also asserts I deceived your readers by not admitting that RIFT will cause a $1,000,000/year property tax loss to Santa Monica’s public schools. The $1,000,000 is another “innovative” 2023 projection from the HR&A presentation. It is based on very high assumption for future commercial development, very low assumptions for future residential development, and completely ignores that the property tax revenue, directed to public schools, is combined into a common fund for all students in the state of California. Students of Santa Monica make up only 1/10 of 1 percent of all students in California. Even if the alleged $1,000,000 in lost revenue was real, the cost to Santa Monica schools would only be $1,000\. And to put $1,000 into prospective, one only needs to look at how much Santa Monica schools lose because funding public schools is not a priority for the city of Santa Monica. The city of Beverly Hills contributes 5.3 percent of its budget to its city’s public schools. This compares to the city of Santa Monica who only contributes 1.4 percent of its budget to its city’s public schools. If Santa Monica had the same commitment to public schools as the city of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica schools would be getting an extra $21,000,000/year.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 20, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/082008.pdf?ref=smdp.com)