Low Turnout
We regret that the Palisadian-Post did not fact-check last week’s assertion that Pacific Palisades Community Council past area and at-large elections have had “embarrassingly low turnout.”
As publicly reported in 2016: “We had the largest voter turnout in PPCC history, with 1,237 total valid ballots. This is almost twice the number of votes in the 2014 election, and many hundreds of votes more than any other Westside council that held elections in 2016 except for Venice. We commend all the candidates and thank the Palisades community for participating in record numbers.”
Not only that, but turnout for PPCC’s last election was larger than any other neighborhood council in the city other than Venice. This is a stunning result when you also factor into the mix that the city requires certified councils (we are not a certified council) to allow telephonic voting as well as voting by “stakeholders” who are not residents, and the certified council results include votes by more than one person in a household.
We are proud of our efforts and the community’s participation in the successful 2016 election. An even larger turnout should be expected in this summer’s election—with new rules providing for “one vote per resident” to be implemented by the energetic 2018 Election Committee appointed by Chair Maryam Zar.
Chris Spitz, George Wolfberg and Richard Cohen |
2016 Election Committee Chair and Members
(Editor’s note: Attracting a humble eight people to vote for one uncontested area candidate is not a triumph for democracy. Nor is a total of 1200 votes in a town of 27,000 souls. The PPCC needs to urgently promote more civic engagement or face more questions, not just from The Highlands, about its authority.)
Canyon Shock 1
In regards to the recent letter to the editor, “Canyon Construction” in the May 31 edition, I cannot honestly say that I have been ever more shocked or embarrassed than I was to read the veiled bigotry espoused by local Canyon resident Mark Landay.
His comments are an affront to all of us who work tirelessly to make Canyon the amazing and welcoming school that it is, and to the overwhelming majority of the community that values diversity.
Landay complains that that the school committees are “biased” and “heavily weighted with lottery parents and friends of lottery parents.”
Perhaps if he were more willing to contribute anything, be it time, treasure or talent, he might better understand that the parents about whom he is complaining manage to give much more, while at the same time possibly having less.
He also inaccurately states that lottery parents are the primary cause for the traffic around the school. Having worked doing traffic duty at the school, I have observed the exact opposite to be true. With our given geography and streets, the traffic flows fluently around the campus and is over within 20 minutes of the beginning and end of the school day.
Finally, Landay expresses the desire to have Canyon return to “a coastal zone community school.” If that is his wish, then maybe the land should be returned to the Marquez family, heirs to the enormous Mexican land grant known as Rancho Boca de Santa Monica y San Vicente, who so generously donated the property for the school back in 1894.
Steve Butts | Third-Grade Teacher, Canyon Charter Elementary School
Canyon Shock 2
Last week, the Palisadian-Post published a letter about a proposed building project at Canyon Charter Elementary School.
Like many other Canyon parents, I was startled and upset by this misleading letter. The core argument was based on a lie.
Canyon School is not overcrowded and overcrowding has nothing to do with the proposed construction—the writer had, in fact, been told this at a community meeting about the project on May 24.
Despite this, he continued to propagate the lie about overcrowding so that he could then go after his real target: the lottery at Canyon, a public charter.
I want to make clear: This writer does not speak for anyone but himself. His perspective is not representative of majority opinion at the school. The tone of his letter makes it sound like the lottery is a divisive issue at Canyon. It is not.
I’ve been a parent at Canyon for over 10 years, and I do not recognize the distinctions he has introduced or the culture he describes. Out of thin air, he created a narrative of “Us” and “Them” that does not reflect the reality at the school, which is an inclusive community of children and teachers and families.
As for the building project, I support it wholeheartedly. It will contribute to the long-term health of a school that benefits many children and the community at large.
Maya Forbes
Mark Landay Responds
My recent letter was opposing the construction project at Canyon and offered an alternative solution. Maybe not well written, my point was a matter of public policy and trying to improve all schools throughout LAUSD, resulting in what could be a negative for Canyon families and residents.
The best parents, active and interested in education, try to leave their home area school to go to Canyon via the lottery. This robs those other schools of parents that would have made that school better.
The money for this new building could be four libraries at other schools, which has a direct correlation to student achievement.
Traffic would be less throughout the city and kids would have more time to study or play vs. commuting.
I offered an alternative solution to overcrowding that would help children through the area.
It was poorly written on my part and I apologize to anyone I offended.
Mark Landay
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.