By Craig Hamilton Santa Monica
Your Aug. 7 issue contained a letter from Jeff Segal, a proponent of (The Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic), challenging certain statements made by Debbie Mulvaney in her letter in the Aug. 5 issue. In reality, it is Mr. Segal who makes several incorrect and misleading statements.
First, Mr. Segal contends that potential new development by the Boys and Girls Club and the Pico Youth and Family Center would not be affected due to an exemption in RIFT for “child or adult day care facilities.” However, these facilities are not day care facilities, but would most reasonably be considered “offices and meeting rooms for charitable, youth, and welfare organizations,” a non-exempt use under RIFT. Both of these extremely valuable organizations, as well as other important community non-profit uses, such as the Santa Monica Red Cross, would have to compete with commercial development for square footage allocations under RIFT.
Second, he attempts to counter Mulvaney’s assertion that important health care uses will be negatively impacted by RIFT by citing exemptions for hospitals and government facilities and arguing that no “medical building on property owned by UCLA or any other government agency” will be limited. RIFT does not exempt the many necessary hospital related facilities such as medical clinics, laboratories, medical suppliers and outpatient surgery centers that are a critical part of a hospital’s health care delivery system. UCLA hospital supporting facilities that may not be on land owned by UCLA, and any non-hospital facilities owned by St. John’s would have to compete for square footage allocations under RIFT.
In fact, under RIFT, a medical clinic for St. John’s, the Boys and Girls Club, The Red Cross, and a developer considering a commercial use would all compete for the same square footage allocation.
Third, Mr. Segal misstates the economic impact of RIFT on our local public schools. Mr. Segal completely ignores the fact that an independent economic study projects that our schools will lose up to $1 million per year from reductions in direct property tax revenues if RIFT passes, without regard to funding from the city.
He then contends that the negative impact of RIFT to the general fund is only 1/13th of 1 percent of City Hall’s budget, and that because of its $6,000 per resident budget, City Hall can easily continue to fund the public schools. While City Hall is currently fortunate to have a robust economy generating a substantial amount of tax revenue, the economic study demonstrates that under RIFT, revenues will be as much as $11 million per year (in 2008 dollars) lower by year 16. This reduction will result in more competition for the discretionary funding currently provided by City Hall — whether to schools or any of the many other valuable programs in our city.
It is these negative and unintended consequences of RIFT that underscore its weakness. Although these, and other negative consequences of RIFT may not have been intended by its authors, they make RIFT much too risky a proposition for Santa Monica.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 15, 2008. Read the original PDF.