I have found your critical assessment of the merits of Prop T to be quite compelling. While I am not a resident of Santa Monica, I do believe in the implementation of sustainable civic planning policies. I find your argument that the methodology used by the Coalition for a Livable City was ineffective and outdated to be very interesting. If this were indeed true, then the foundation for this measure would be based on faulty premises. I ask you though, how did you know that this was the case? You assert that "their tool is the product of a methodology born in the 1960's," but where did you locate this study? After searching through both various websites in support of Prop T and Santa Monica civic websites, I have been unable to locate the subject of your analysis. I agree with your belief that this initiative targets more than just traffic reduction. This being said, I question the motives of its backers. I understand the clear interests of private developers and the frustration this may cause some people. However, as you have intimated, if this is not singularly about traffic, what do voters who do not have an interest in commercial development have against private development? If the answer is that they have no qualms, then it seems to me that a great deal of residents in support of this issue are voting on the shallow supposition that stifled development lessens traffic. Though I am not a professional planner, based on common sense I would agree with the logic of the argument put forth by Prop T advocates that freezing commercial development would consequently facilitate a renewed emphasis on residential housing. If an underlying aim of this initiative is to offset the imbalance between commercial and residential building types, wouldn't removing an option to build more commercial thereby stimulate construction of residential housing by developers? I understand your argument that a policy of this type leaves the potential for "mono-culture" type residential buildings, but if the principle short-term issue is a lack of housing options for commuters, then enacting measures that facilitate expansion of supply seems to be a sound maneuver. Nevertheless, because of its ambiguity concerning what it is attempting to address and my lack of confidence in its degree of effectiveness, I am not in favor of Prop 10.

http://smartersantamonica.blogspot.com/

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/?p=698

http://www.laweekly.com/2008-10-30/news/proposition-t-the-mostdivisive/

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6473601

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-growth24-2008oct24,0,7337680.story

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/?p=793

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/?p=797

There are nine days left. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Email them. I have no idea whether the measure will pass, but don't be discouraged by lawn signs. They are not a good measure, and frankly there a whole lot less of them than I expected to see.

As a non-driving Santa Monica resident who depends on urban density for urban access and an affordable cost-of-living, I urge all other citizens to vote NO on Prop T.