"The Proposition T literature loudly proclaims, in bold type, 'Our city's own traffic consultant says we can't fit any more cars or our gridlocked streets.' How is a measure that acknowledges a problem, but then fails to provide anything resembling an adequate solution acceptable? (By the way the City uses a lot of traffic consultants, so I'd like to know which one made such an inane and unprofessional remark.)
In other words, why doesn't this measure attack the root cause of the problem, which is how people get around, to work, to shop or to play? We know that there are cities with far greater density with less traffic burdens. The reason, this measure doesn't attack the root cause, is that by doing so, the Prop-T advocates would acknowledge the value of appropriately designed mixed-use development to the long term health of the city. This measure uses the traffic as a Trojan horse to fight something more at the heart of every development issue in the city, which is what kind of City does Santa Monica want to be? Proposition T backers, would like to put a wall around this city and freeze it as is."