HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/2026 Item 7a, Schmidt
Otta, Kaitlin
From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, November
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Agenda item 7a
Nov.8, 2026
Dear Council,
In reading agenda correspondence for your Nov. 10 meeting, I noted a letter “in support of the San Luis Museum of Art’s
request for the remaining $2 million in funding for its expansion.”
My reaction was “say what?” I didn’t recall any agenda item pertaining to gifting yet more taxpayer money to SLOMA. The
letter referenced Item 7a, so I went back to the agenda for a second look.
The funding portion of Item 7a is stated to be about allocating an additional $2 million for winter storm preparation and
protection, which given predictions of a doozy of a winter, seems prudent and appropriate to protect public safety. There is
nothing in the agenda item description to suggest that gifts to SLOMA would have any place in this discussion.
So, what’s going on here? Is the letter writer indicating there are some behind-the-scenes negotiations or planning for
transferring yet more taxpayer money to SLOMA for SLOMA’s private use? If there is money available for that, why is
there not a public discussion of whether that is the best, or even a proper, use for it? Why is there not an open discussion
of how “extra” money should be spent instead of backroom dealing with staff and council the public is shut out of?
The city’s first responsibility is to provide essential services for its people.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, in at least one area — disability access in the public right of way — the city is failing to
provide required essential services. 36 years after passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act the city still has more
than 500 corners lacking sidewalk curb cuts. 500 corners is more than 20% of corners.
Why this failure?
The excuse for not fulfilling this essential service is lack of funds. Yet the city has poured millions into SLOREP and
SLOMA, two elite institutions with affluent constituents perfectly capable of funding their edifices without taxpayer help. To
plead lack of funds for disability access in light of this city largesse to the privileged? Such hypocrisy!
If the city has millions of unexpected dollars, how about spending them on actual city responsibilities, like
disability ramps?
How about this council, which proclaims itself to be “progressive,” act progressive in its monetary allocations instead of
being indistinguishable from its Republican-dominated pro-business establishment predecessors?
Performing your social responsibilities strikes me as far more important than subsidizing your elite supporters’ private
projects.
As for Item 7a, it would be improper for the council even to discuss allocations like $2 million for SLOMA. If that’s under
discussion it needs to be noted on the agenda — a future agenda, not this week’s.
Any SLOMA decision made under 7a would affront the Brown Act, which, let me remind you says everything you do must
be done in full public light, or as the act itself puts it:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating
1
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have
created.”
For the people to “retain control” means actions not clearly delineated on an agenda must be off limits.
Richard Schmidt
2