HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/15/2022 Item 6a, Schmidt
From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Agenda Correspondence 6a
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Re: Item 6a, SLO Rep Theater
Dear Council,
I am mystified by the item proposing a $4 million gift from the city to the theater.
Some issues:
1. Where did this proposed gift come from? I’m unaware of any announcement surplus city funds were available and that
special interests could apply for them.
2. $4 million is a huge gift of public funds to this elite private organization, especially on top of all the other sweetheart
deals it’s had with the city, and will continue to have if its “new home” is ever reality.
3. What precedent will this gift establish? Don’t you suppose a line will form for similar handouts of public funds to elite
private interests? Hint: do you really think the Art Center, with issues similar to the theater’s rationale for the funds, will not
be along soon for a similar deal?
4. What public purpose is fulfilled with this huge gift of tax dollars? I can think of none.
5. On the other hand, there are tons of real public purposes the city underfunds, and which it should be funding before
handing out this. frivolous $4 million gift. For example:
1
• I have pointed out to you repeatedly the fake promise of the Anholm Greenway to provide ADA ramps throughout the
neighborhood and safe sidewalks, the former only partially funded, the latter funded not at all. A fraction of this $4 million
could fund both fully, showing that the city provides more than lip service to its promises. This is a real public purpose.
• 30+ years after adoption of the ADA the city remains malfeasant with hundreds of sidewalk intersections with no
semblance of a ramp. Even at the inflated price the city pays for these essential federally-required mobility aids, $4 million
would fund at least 160 ramps throughout the city. This expenditure satisfies a real public purpose.
• The city professes to want to solve the homeless problem, but it appears to the public its actual tact is some sort of inept
keep-em-on-the-move game while things are studied to death ad nauseum. You could, with a fraction of the proposed gift
to the theater quickly (and by quickly, I’m talking a few weeks!) develop on city property a safe and sanitary campground
for those who need/want/must live in their tents. This would simultaneously solve what many residents consider a
distasteful situation spilling into the public sphere while being a humane solution and life-improvement for its recipients.
This too would be funding a real public purpose.
\[OK, you ask, where? You’ve got lots of land. One corner of Laguna Park away from developed facilities? A corner of the
corp yard? The empty space on Higuera along the creek between Marsh and High? Or some other. You could quickly
move in portable johns, a water connection, and be done with it in no time at all. Of course, it seems the bigger your staff
the longer it takes to get anything done. Why? I can remember when staff did things the day after the council gave them
direction.\]
Anyway, the $4 million gift to the theater is a bad idea. Don’t do it.
Richard Schmidt
2