This past week, Q-Line asked, “Do you think the city should use its financial resources to build a new harbor? Would it be bad or good for Santa Monica?”
Here are your responses: ■ “Yes, the city should use its financial resources to rebuild its breakwater. It’s been years since it was destroyed. The Pier was rebuilt, yet is has no protection from the same elements that destroyed it. The fact that we have no yacht harbor and we have a historic sign that says there is a yacht harbor is appalling. If this city would get its act together and think of its real residents and those that come to spend money and enjoy the beauty of our city, they would do this. The fact that the federal government has allocated funds for this and the city drags their feet is a slap in the face.” ■ “I think it’s a great idea to rebuild the harbor. At least then the unsuspecting tourists who see the sign at the entrance to the Pier and don’t realize that it’s just a historical marker would find a harbor when they do get out to the end. But really, let’s do it!” ■ “The main function of the breakwater is to protect the Pier during a large storm. Each year that we procrastinate we continue to risk a large storm, substantially damaging or even destroying the Pier.” ■ “I’m all for it. I think it would be a great attribute to the city. I would vote yes on that amendment.” ■ “The reasons we should rebuild the breakwater are revenue. I think we have a perfectly good library. Why can’t they postpone that? What’s wrong with the library?”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 15, 2003. Read the original PDF.