LETTERS

Editor:

Publisher David Ganezer’s column in the November 3 – 9, 2024, edition was unique (I think). I am not a regular reader of the Observer so don’t know if his column is published often and this is his usual style. However, I was puzzled by his extensive quoting of the post-election SMCLC email. Does it mean he agrees with their message? Does he think they are attempting to look successful as a political party in the face of the disappointing election results? He inserted paragraphs about the airport measures and Phil Brock’s 4th-place finish in the midst of the quoted email. I found it a bit disjointed. My main “take away” was that re-electing Pam O’Connor was not a good thing and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The fact that she was re-elected was stunning news to most of the people I know.

One very important point I want to make is the gross error on the inside part of the column regarding Measure HH. No doubt, by now, someone else has pointed out that Measure H, the tax increase measure, was soundly defeated. Measure HH did barely pass but since it was to be an advisory measure only it is now moot. You should be aware, also, that the numbers quoted in the article were wrong. Had Measure H passed the transfer tax would have increased to 9% for Santa Monica real estate sales for properties selling for $1,000,000 or more. The take for Santa Monica would have been $9,000.00 not $6,000.00. It may seem a bit picky for me to be pointing this out, since Measure H happily did not pass, but I believe newspapers have an obligation to get the facts straight and in this case it was completely wrong.

Brenda Anderson

Santa Monica