The last two second-round Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study (Wilshire and/or Santa Monica Blvd. subway) public meetings are tonight and tomorrow, 6:00-8:00 p.m.
Westwood: Tues., Feb. 5, Westwood Presbyterian Church, 10822 Wilshire Bl.
West Hollywood: Wed., Feb. 6, Plummer Park, 7377 Santa Monica Bl.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Wilshire subway meetings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
yo
get that subway to the sea built asap
am i correct in assuming that this will be the only train to the ocean - so everyone in the entire los angeles area - south , east , and north of downtown who wants to take a train to the beach will have to take this one and will wind up at the santa monica pier
not to sound paranoid i think diversity is wonderful. But will this mean more gangs and violence in the vicinity of the pier ? please explain
anon,
Get over it. All the thugs, gangsters, hoodlums, "colored", etc can easily get to any area of Santa Monica right now. Have you ever heard of buses?...or maybe these thugs even have their own cars!
We need transport so badly. Please god let something like this happen in my lifetime. Without it, the westside will just get more and more congested and smog filled. To make LA a real "city" (and a world class one at that), we need a real mass transit system. Gas is going higher, commutes are getting longer, traffic is getting worse. I see no end to these problems without great mass transit...and without mass transit that means a decrease in quality of life.
Interisting to see how this will play out:
Apollo, Bain LBOs Lose Investors' Money, Bonds Show (Update3)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=funds&sid=aydkFQUBGYyw
Is there a divide on this board
i mean, i would speculate that the people on this board who have young kids and take those young kids to the pier on weekends would rather have no subway to the sea
and the people without kids who never intend to have kids would like to have the subway to the sea
i am not trying to denigrate either group, but we already had a murder at the pier, and multiple stabbings.
Look at it another way, the santa monica pier area is a much much more pleasant place to be a vagrant than skid row is.
Isn't it logical for 100 people on skid row to hop in the train and relocate to the santa monica pier in the summer, since the tourists at the pier are so generous about giving to vagrants, and since there are so many soup kitchens in SM?
Can people with little kids chime in here ?
I don't see how a subway will affect crime rates either way. I think it's a bit ridiculous to assume that all the gang members will now take public transport to their shoot-outs. This kind of argument can probably only come up in a place like LA, where there seems to almost be a phobia towards public transportation.
Experience from other major metropolitan areas shows that good access to public transportation increases property values, around subway stops etc., not the contrary, as has been suggest a few times before in comments on this blog.
Amen, Anon 9:13 am. Amen.
With all due respect,
no one is talking about gang members.
I specifically said that 100 people on skid row can easily relocate to Santa Monica.
By the way, have you ever thought about exactly why there are so many people living on the streets of skid row - have you ever thought about why those folks don't relocate to Santa Monica
please be blunt and let me know - since i certainly see a lot of scenarios in which the population of homeless folks living at the Santa Monica pier grows dramatically
From Wikipedia
Skid Row is an area of Downtown Los Angeles. The area, officially known as Central City East, is home to one of the largest stable populations of homeless persons in the United States.[1] Informal population estimates range from 7,000 to 8,000
I'd like a clear honest blunt answer as to what is preventing the population of skid row from relocating en masse to Santa Monica
I don't get it: can't those "people from Skid Row" already now take an express bus on Wilshire to get to Santa Monica without effort? The improvement for commuters and families making a trip to the beach that the "subway to the sea" would bring doesn't really apply to them: they have all the TIME in the world to get where they want, right?
This kind of argument against public transportation seems bogus: if it applied to a place with decent subways and a large homeless population, say, New York, the whole city would be a single Skid Row. But you know what, it's not- there are "clean" and not so nice areas, and which is which doesn't necessarily depend on whether that neighborhood can be reached by subway.
I think all these arguments are caused by a mindset that sees public transportation as a form of social program, whereas the right way to look at is, IMHO, as the only hope for the future of LA, in view of worsening congestion and raising oil prices. Make public transport plentiful and convenient, and everyone will start taking it. New York, London, Paris, are great examples.
I think a lot of us have had enough of the scare-mongering that has so far prevented a subway from being built in this city. The legions of homeless in Downtown Los Angeles can go to Santa Monica now. Nothing is stopping them. The argument that they would love to take the subway but won't get on the bus is defied by both logic and by fact, as anyone who's been on a Metro bus can tell you. As for gang members, the same argument holds, except that a lot of them actually have cars.
Let's be honest-- what I call scare-mongering is probably racism at its best. People in this city just don't like the idea that the "others" can come visit their neighborhoods. I find that sentiment frankly ridiculous. Ask a white resident of Manhattan's Upper East Side whether the fact that a black man can get on the subway and get off in their neighborhood bothers them, and he'll look at you funny for even asking. In fact, if you share a train ride with someone who looks different than you, you're more likely to realize they're a person riding the train, just like yourself.
Los Angeles has two futures. One is without public transportation. The freeways and surface streets will be even worse than they are now. You will spend more time in your car. It will cost you more. And the quality of life and the environment for everyone will get worse. You think your property value is at risk now?
The second alternative is Los Angeles as a modern city with efficient public transit. All of the sudden, living in North Hollywood and working in Century City doesn't mean spending 2 1/2 hours per day in traffic. You could date a woman who lives in Pasadena and not consider it a long-distance relationship. I could realistically hop over to East L.A. for a good Mexican dinner after work, someone from East L.A. can enjoy drinks by the beach, and we'll all be home for bedtime.
The subway will do wonders for brining us together as one city. We put our fears in the past, and get behind the subway.
Speaking as a Santa Monica resident with kids, I would like a subway to the sea so that I could 1) get to work faster and 2) get home faster at night to see them.
The idea of gang members and homeless people suddenly taking the subway (where they refused to use the bus or drive before) is NIMBY paranoia at its worst. If you really feel that way, you're probably better off in a gated community somewhere.
I foresee potential problems on weekends. But it really shouldn't be a problem as long as SMPD stays on top of things.
But for daily commuters, this new train route will be the best thing ever!
NIMBY at work! I just love the attitudes of some people in Santa Monica.
NO SUBWAY! We don't want the blacks, Mexicans and homeless on OUR BEACH!
What a bunch of pathetic bigots and racists.
FYI, this is America and you aren't allowed to exclude people from entering your town.
BTW, you see this same kind of reasoning at every mass transit project in the USA--the "good" people want to keep out the negroes, Mexicans and homeless.
Oh, I said negroes because what the people who don't want the subway really say about this group of people is "I don't want those N#####s here.
Isn't diversity wonderful?
I agree with all that is said here
however, can you answer my question,
a certain small number of the folks on skid row have relocated from skid row to santa monica. only a small number so far
i am interested in hearing the opinion of the readers here as to why more of them have not relocated to santa monica yet
ignore the subway just answer the question
The first anon said he/she was worried about "more gangs and violence". The rest of you interpreted that as "blacks" and "Mexicans". Who exactly is the racist?
Obviously the first anon was worried about white gangs coming down from Oxnard, not black and Hispanic gangs coming from areas the subway would actually serve. To suggest otherwise would simply be racist.
anyone have an answer
why haven't the thousands of folks on skid row not moved to santa monica yet
As a lawyer who has done some homeless advocacy in Skid Row, I'll chime in with several reasons, utterly unrelated to transportation, why homeless people aren't moving to Santa Monica, in increasing order of importance:
1) It's a lot colder by the beach.
2) Even the homeless are creatures of habit and have friends. Moving somewhere new is disruptive even if you don't own much.
3) A significant portion of the population of Skid Row suffers from some form of diminished capacity--retardation, drug abuse, schizophrenia, etc. These people aren't dreaming of beach living.
4) Homeless services are overwhelmingly centered near skid row. Welfare offices, soup kitchens, non-profits, advocacy groups... they aren't in swanky beachfront offices. Homeless people can receive everything from medicine to cash at many of these places, and on a reliable schedule. Even cheap transportation takes a huge chunk out of cash payments that are usually just a few dollars a day. Could they make more begging by the beach, enough to make up for everything they can get in skid row? Maybe, but it's a pretty big risk...
Thank you
this is a pretty clear answer
with all due respect, if we are talking about the summer, it is pretty warm and comfy by the pier.
And if 200 homeless all came together from skid row to the pier for a few weeks, they would be with all their friends and wouldn't get lonely.
I have tremendous sympathy for the homeless, however i think people in santa monica sort of take for granted the number of homeless we have -
the number COULD rise by a few hundred or it could fall i guess
just need to keep your mind open about all the things that could happen.
As for me, i am strongly in favor of the subway to the sea. STRONGLY
but i think that everyone needs to discuss all the possibilities
"Obviously the first anon was worried about white gangs coming down from Oxnard, not black and Hispanic gangs coming from areas the subway would actually serve. To suggest otherwise would simply be racist."
No, idiot, the point is the anon doesn't want gangbangers around, regardless of color. Somehow you all interpret that as meaning the anon doesn't want blacks or Mexicans around (which, to me, is racist to imply that by gangbangers the anon had to mean blacks and Mexicans. There are for a fact Asian gangs around east LA, and I'm sure there are some white gangs as well).
Man you people are naive--but I guess that's redundant when you're talking about Santa Monica residents.
The vast majority of Gangbangers are blacks and Hispanic. Those gangbangers that white people fear the most are black and Hispanic.
The black and Hispanic gang members and their cohorts are the gangbangers that would be riding the subway.
Asian gangbangers have cars and wouldn't be riding public transit.
And forget about white gangs because they are insignificant in this town. The bad news whites absolutely would not be riding a subway. They would ride their Harleys or whatever--I would guess that they aren't interested in Santa Monica.
This "Well there are white middle class gangs as well" assertion is just so much Political Correctness BULL!
If all the homeless wanted to move to Santa Monica tomorrow there is nothing you can do about it. Of course you could arrest all of them and throw them in jail.
But this is America and civil rights apply to the homeless just like they apply to homosexual couples, transgenders and all of the rest of the fringe groups that liberals and the ACLU defends.
Oh, except we don't want homeless people in Santa Monica nor do we want "underrepresented minorities" who flunked out of high school there as well.
And who said that liberals living in million dollar neighborhoods weren't tolerant?
This blog is not the place for racist opinions.
Let's focus on the possibility of two or three thousand homeless people deciding to settle in to the neighborhood around the pier
what would the reaction of the government of santa monica be to this size influx
i only ask because if i were homeless i would certainly prefer to sleep on the grass by the pier over the summer rather than on skid row. The tourists from Europe are super generous - i saw them giving lots of bills to the homeless last time i was near the pier
"No, idiot, the point is the anon doesn't want gangbangers around, regardless of color. Somehow you all interpret that as meaning the anon doesn't want blacks or Mexicans around (which, to me, is racist to imply that by gangbangers the anon had to mean blacks and Mexicans. There are for a fact Asian gangs around east LA, and I'm sure there are some white gangs as well)."
Right, the person was worrying that transit connecting predominately black and Hispanic areas to Santa Monica would result in an influx of gang violence, and we're all just racist to suggest that maybe he or she is engaging in some ridiculously uniformed stereotyping. And yes I know the subway could connect to Beverly Hills and Weho too but the implication about the dangers of "diversity"--what else does this refer to?--is plenty clear.
Oh, it's taboo to be talking about a person's race in regards to gangbangers, but it's okay to label certains groups of people in a pejorative manner just because they happen to be poor.
Homeless people have just as many rights as the folks living in $3,000,000 mansions in 90402.
If they want to use the subway to panhandle from generous tourists then what's wrong with that?
Oh, I forgot, Santa Monica is only for upper-crust, rich people who don't smell bad.
I wonder why I don't miss living on the Westside anymore.
Pretty interesting discussion...and I'm glad that I wasn't the only one who sees that:
1. Homeless, gangsters, thugs, etc can already easily get here in their own cars or on the buses.
2. Without transport, LA and the westside will likely provide a declining quality of life.
In response to the person asking about what the city of SM would do if there was a mass influx of homeless - I think homelessness is tolerated to a degree here right now. This is because SM is a pretty liberal place and the city has made amenities available to the homeless and doesn't crack down as much as other conservative cities. However, if a mass migration were to occur, I would think and hope that the city and the residents would realize that enough is enough and start cracking down.
I will put myself out here and say that I honestly don't like how overrun the main library is with homeless and vagrants. Ditto for some of the parks. But they have rights too...its hard to strike a balance.
For those who are very worried about homeless, minorities, thugs, etc...maybe San Marino or Pasadena would be more up your alley (not knocking these places...just saying they are much more "conservative").
Let me be very clear and blunt
anon just said:
Homeless people have just as many rights as the folks living in $3,000,000 mansions in 90402.
If they want to use the subway to panhandle from generous tourists then what's wrong with that?
__________
That is a legitimate point of view. I don't dispute his right to express that point of view.
However, There is already a track record of the homeless people in santa monica committing murder.
there are plenty of people in powerful positions in santa monica who agree.
I am strongly in favor of the subway subway has nothing to do with the homeless
however it would be better if we resolved the homeless situation
Has anyone EVER seen a homeless person north of Montana? There must be some unwritten rule that the homeless know about, because I have never seen a homeless person up there. No doubt the same people who support Meals on Wheels and other programs that attract homeless like a magnet also have enough influence with the police in SM.
yes i agree a million percent
many of the liberals north of montana do all they can to turn south santa monica in to a magnet for the homeless while keeping north of montana free of homeless
those liberals north of montana are beneath contempt, no dispute there
however, there is another strain of person in santa monica that you are not talking about - that is the hippee that is getting older, in a rent controlled apartment, scattered all over the parts of santa monica south of wilshire - these folks, god bless them, generally don't have children and their philosophy in life is afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted - these folks invite massive numbers of homeless in to santa monica, in to neighborhoods where they themselves live.
I think members of this group are much more prevalent. Somehow they feel good about themselves for bringing homeless to their neighborhood.
I know they are good hearted people, i think many of them volunteer to help the homeless - their sacrifice is impressive to me and i admire them in some ways.
however, they are responsible for damaging the quality of life of those of us with young children who can't afford to live north of montana
these kind generous hippies that keep pushing for more homeless in santa monica are people that are doing something that i don't like, something that puts me and the safety of my kids at risk, and yet i admire their idealism
"these kind generous hippies that keep pushing for more homeless in santa monica are people that are doing something that i don't like, something that puts me and the safety of my kids at risk, and yet i admire their idealism"
Well then they shouldn't stop at inviting the homeless into their neighborhoods, they should invite them into their apartments and let them live with them.
(and I agree with you, these types are definitely more prevalent in SM than the NOM John Edwards types)
The homeless in Manhattan could hop on a train out to westchester or Greenwich, but they don't. And in fact, many affluent people living in those areas ride the train to work everyday - precisely because it's a faster, more relaxing way to get work than sitting in bumper to bumper traffic (like we do in LA). Good, reliable public transit = higher quality of life. Furthermore, if those areas weren't so directly connected to NYC via the train, property values likely wouldn't be as high because people working in Manhattan wouldn't be competeting to live there as much. LA is fast becoming an unliveable city due to the cost of living and traffic. If you live on the west side you basically can't enjoy anything East of the 405 on a weeknight (restaurants, Staples Center, Disney Hall, etc...). In my humble opinion, no single initiative could affect more positive change in Los Angeles than cheap, fast and readily accessible public transportation. The comments here about the homesless and the gang-bangers invading are too ridiculous to really merit response.
I find elements of this discussion to border upon the incomprehensible. They're transparently motivated by the most repulsive xenophobia imaginable.
When looked at through the lens of violent crime the homeless are dramatically more benign than those of us blessed with housing. Your neighbor is a vastly greater statistical threat than that homeless veteran on your corner.
The attempted back-pedaling and obfuscation in relation to the notion that people coming from the Eastern reaches of the city pose a greater gang-threat than locals is fairly pathetic. Honestly, if you're looking for some sort of firewall between your neighborhood and the harsher realities of urban life then the 405 is not going to be sufficient... and a subway is not going to have an appreciable effect one way or another.
Laying the city's appeal at the feet of wine and cheese liberals, or aging hippies is the basest form of demagoguery. We live in a diverse metropolis with representatives of every culture and social strata imaginable... and frankly, even as a non-hippie long time Santa Monica homeowner and self-identifying conservative, I wouldn't have it any other way.
And, to add an overlooked fact to my above rant... I'm also the father of two children, under seven. So lets to march out the old saw about parents having different values, either.
I'm quite liberal on all kinds of social issues, but the truth is it's kind of gross having the homeless all around your property. Our neighbor put a couch in the alley behind our house and I took the trash out one night to find someone lying on the couch masturbating. With what homes cost in SM, you really shouldn't have to deal with that. It can be seen as hypocritical, but I think there are some social issues one can be concerned about and even take an interested in solving but still not want in your own backyard, so to speak.
The issue of whether Santa Monica as a city and community should continue to be a safe haven (at least south of Montana) for the homeless should be and is a completely separate issue from whether a westside subway should be built.
The hippees do invite homeless people to Santa Monica. Their attitude is, the more the better.
How many other people have had their young children approached at the third street promenade by homeless people?
Most of the homeless are white. Asking for your kids to be sheltered from the homeless is not a racist issue it is a parenting issue
i agree that most of those people responsible for aggressively recruiting homeless to santa monica are either north of montana types that don't have to deal with it or childless hippees. I believe very few parents who live in the homeless impacted neighborhoods are involved
The real issue is, what will the future bring us? No one will stop a few thousand additional homeless form moving to Santa Monica from skid row.
Hence my use of the word xenophbia rather than racism. Two different issues born of a common impulse, both dispicably pernicious.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by sheltering your children from the homeless. What exactly are you afraid is going to happen?
I sincerely doubt there is a single hippie in Santa Monica who would articulate the sentiment, "the more the better." I live in 90405, the homeless are a reality in the day to day life of my children... that really doesn't concern me terribly much. I'm not certain, beyond the aesthetics of the matter, as to why it should.
"Laying the city's appeal at the feet of wine and cheese liberals, or aging hippies is the basest form of demagoguery."
Unfortunately, in a city that is what 75, 80% liberal, all the demagoguery in the world won't get me anywhere.
"The attempted back-pedaling and obfuscation in relation to the notion that people coming from the Eastern reaches of the city pose a greater gang-threat than locals is fairly pathetic."
Are you one of those liberals who brags how they never travel east of the 405? Sure sounds like it based on that insane comment.
"Are you one of those liberals who brags how they never travel east of the 405? Sure sounds like it based on that insane comment."
I think you've misread my post. Go back over it and you'll find that I am first and foremost a conservative, and secondly that I was indicating that the aforementioned attitude was xenophobic.
These comments are so sad and so disgusting and are everything wrong with the state of racial politics in California.
I mean this shit is positively 1942...
Senate Passes Conforming Loan Increase!
http://thegreatloanblog.blogspot.com
well you can be super super liberal, donate your time to all sorts of charities and all and still not like having your children being acosted by homeless people at the pier and the promenade
santa monica is 80% liberal and that is why most of us who live here live here. There is sometimes a fine line between liberal and masochistic. perhaps the policy of inviting the world's homeless crosses that line
This board blames the realtors for everything
it is refreshing that we have found one thing (homeless) that is not being blamed on realtors
This is another reason for the plunge in prices to accelerate -
as the recession deepens look for conditions on the streets to get more threatening.
I am not predicting more murders by the homeless but i am predicting the homeless will get even more aggressive.
Note that the series of murders in Santa Monica are mostly the work of young gangbangers, NOT of the homeless. I do NOT blame the homeless for the murders here.
Just be aware, the masochist / suicidal liberal crew in stanta monica continues to invite the world's homeless to live here - the further south you live the more likely you are to find a camp of homeless on your doorstep
take this in to consideration
The santa monica government has made a decision to protect north santa monica from the homeless and made a decision NOT to protect south santa monica. Know what the government's policy is towards your neighborhood before you buy
"a certain small number of the folks on skid row have relocated from skid row to santa monica. only a small number so far
i am interested in hearing the opinion of the readers here as to why more of them have not relocated to santa monica yet"
Perhaps they are kept their by the familiarity of their social network. They know how the system works and can get the things they need. It takes a certain amount of bravery to up and move, dislocating yourself from your surroundings.
Although to you and me it might seem obvious that Santa Monica is nicer, they would have to change, adapt to the new environment and learn new rules of the street.
No one on this board knows how many homeless will show up this summer.
Let's put this discussion aside and see what happens.
More homeless means some buyers scared away from buying means lower prices
All other issues aside..
The idea of digging a subway on unstable ground near the end of Wilshire is just plain insane.
Last year I signed a petition that was going around to have an above ground, mono rail type system that could go the same route.
This would save a heck of a lot of money, time, and congestion, as well as having yet another reason for tourists to come to our city.
They could at least look out the windows.
Of course, since the contracts for all that digging were probably given out to everyone's buddies, I expect that the ass backwards thinking will prevail.
I'm with WarChestSM on this. The red buses on Wilshire give a direct ride today from skid row to Santa Monica.
For AboveGround here's a good counterpoint on monorails.
Instead of monorails I think it's time to revisit the use of dirigibles. The proposed 45-story condo tower at Century City could serve as the Western port.
dig a canal along wilshire
that way we can take a hydrofoil from the pier to downtown@
If you talk to the teachers at Santa Monica High School, they will tell you that the safety situation is deteriorating - one of them sent me this article and said to look for the following to cause more violence around the High School.
She is looking for another job right now so she might be biased
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=747
The December murder of a 14-year-old African-American girl, the latest apparent victim of Latino gang members' campaign to "ethnically cleanse" many neighborhoods in Los Angeles, has set off a political earthquake, prompting top city officials to acknowledge for the first time a frightening rise in racial killings by Southern California street gangs.
Cheryl Green, playing on her skateboard with a group of friends just south of 206th Street, was shot dead on Dec. 15 by two men who approached the group and began firing without uttering a word. Three others were wounded. Two members of the Latino 204th Street gang were later arrested in the killing.
The slaying prompted Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Chief William Bratton to hold a press conference on Jan. 18 to launch a major campaign against 10 street gangs, six of them Latino. "The 204th Street and Eastside Torrance gangs have contributed to the rise in racially motivated murders and other crimes," the mayor's office said in a press release. "204th Street has a long and violent history. This is especially true regarding crimes committed against African Americans."
Green's murder came just days after the Winter 2006 issue of the Intelligence Report went to press. That issue's cover story, "L.A. Blackout," detailed how the powerful Mexican Mafia, a prison-based gang, had given the "green light" to the many Latino gangs it controls in Southern California to terrorize and murder black people as part of a campaign to drive blacks from Latino neighborhoods.
If you talk to the teachers at Santa Monica High School, they will tell you that the safety situation is deteriorating - one of them sent me this article and said to look for the following to cause more violence around the High School.
She is looking for another job right now so she might be biased
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=747
The December murder of a 14-year-old African-American girl, the latest apparent victim of Latino gang members' campaign to "ethnically cleanse" many neighborhoods in Los Angeles, has set off a political earthquake, prompting top city officials to acknowledge for the first time a frightening rise in racial killings by Southern California street gangs.
Cheryl Green, playing on her skateboard with a group of friends just south of 206th Street, was shot dead on Dec. 15 by two men who approached the group and began firing without uttering a word. Three others were wounded. Two members of the Latino 204th Street gang were later arrested in the killing.
The slaying prompted Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Chief William Bratton to hold a press conference on Jan. 18 to launch a major campaign against 10 street gangs, six of them Latino. "The 204th Street and Eastside Torrance gangs have contributed to the rise in racially motivated murders and other crimes," the mayor's office said in a press release. "204th Street has a long and violent history. This is especially true regarding crimes committed against African Americans."
Green's murder came just days after the Winter 2006 issue of the Intelligence Report went to press. That issue's cover story, "L.A. Blackout," detailed how the powerful Mexican Mafia, a prison-based gang, had given the "green light" to the many Latino gangs it controls in Southern California to terrorize and murder black people as part of a campaign to drive blacks from Latino neighborhoods.
The Cheryl Green murder happened in the Harbor Area (down towards Long Beach) in December, 2006. The race war predicted by that article has not materialized. These issues are very far removed from Santa Monica, both geographically and socioeconomically.
I do talk to teachers at Samohi, and the views of that one teacher you write about don't represent the views of the ones I speak to.
Actually
i encourage you to get in touch with students at Santa Monica High school - the bottom line is that the same gang that has pledged to ethnically cleanse african americans and murdered Cheryl Green has more than 30 members at Santa Monica High School and is gearing up for more.
You must be white and unafraid since this gang has stated that they are only targetting african americans for this treatment not whites.
By the way, info on the ethnic cleansing is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's web site - the SPLC is NOT a racist organization, it has a great track record of standing up for progressive causes
Do some digging on this - there are good people reading this blog deciding where to buy a house. Then deserve to know the facts,
For crying out loud, "Ethnic Cleansing" in Santa Monica!
LOL!!!!
Black and Mexican gangs have been targeting eachother for decades. Just because some politicians have coined a politically correct ad phrase does not mean that there has been any real change in our gang wars.
White people are so naive.
There is about a 10,000 times greater risk that a samohi student gets killed in a car crash than they get killed in ANY gangbanging violence.
There hasn't been an officially declared set of instructions to ethnically cleanse african americans until very recently.
Did you read the SPLC web page? Did you talk to the students you know as the high school? This is real.
you sound like a white person that just doesn't care because you know you are not being targetted
__
LOL indeed
___
the Winter 2006 issue of the Intelligence Report went to press. That issue's cover story, "L.A. Blackout," detailed how the powerful Mexican Mafia, a prison-based gang, had given the "green light" to the many Latino gangs it controls in Southern California to terrorize and murder black people
There are about 1 million blacks in the L.A. area. "Ethnic Cleansing" means killing everyone--that hardly is possible.
This is hyperbole at its worst.
A few gangbanging Mexicans can't cleanse anything, much less rid L.A. of its black population.
This is idiotic. The politicians and you are freakin morons.
Ethnic Cleansing has been demonstrated by Hitler. The Mexican Mafia aren't even pikers in comparison.
I think the naieve new yorkers were trying to figure out where to buy a house.
They are entitled to know whether there will be more gang banging if they buy next to santa monica high school or if they buy in some other hood
let's be honest with them
Honest:
The Los Angeles basin has some gang violence.
There is dramatically less violence in the more afluent areas.
Santa Monica is a more afluent area.
There is therefor much less gang violence.
Santa Monica is not the MOST afluent part of the Los Angeles basin.
Gang violence tracks with poverty in Los Angeles almost excactly.
There is NO WALL around Santa Monica.
There is a fair guarentee of freedom of assembly in this country.
Some gang violence (a miniscule amount by comparison to less afluent areas) does occur in Santa Monica.
End of conversation.
Anybody who has lived or worked in a less afluent part of the world will find the very mention of gang violence in Santa Monica ridiclous.
This entire conversation is ridiculous. I cannot believe that you people allowed yourselves to be baited by the "thousands of homeless are planning to invade Santa Monica" troll. Or the "gangbangers are taking over Santa Monica" troll.
Anon,
With all due respect, you may live in a safer part of Santa Monica than some of the rest of us
Don't forget the clueless east coast people that need to understand what the safest neighborhoods are in order to buy
Don't let them fall in to the clutches of the realtors without some info
Post a Comment