I read with puzzlement your recent article (Times, Feb. 25) quoting members of the Venice Action Committee who were extremely critical of council member Ruth Galanter for supporting the Rose Avenue storage facility, which includes low-income housing units. True, the storage facility is not gorgeous, but I'll trade that any day for traffic relief--and a project like a storage facility does not generate traffic. I especially applaud the inclusion of low-cost housing units on the site as most of us in Venice give lip service to the concept of retaining low-cost housing but do nothing about it.
I am puzzled because Venice Action Committee spokesmen (Don) Feinstein and (Jack) Hoffman criticized Galanter for not supporting more stores for tourists at the Rose Avenue location, which would have further congested that narrow and already congested street. Yet, just two weeks ago Mr. Feinstein joined many local citizens and Galanter at a public demonstration against the proposed Marina Place shopping project because of the additional traffic it will bring to the area.
Do Feinstein and Hoffman speak for the VAC organization as indicated in The Times article, or do they speak as individuals who selectively support or oppose traffic generating projects at their whim? What is VAC policy and why such sour grapes criticisms of Galanter for intelligent planning on Rose Avenue?
I don't get the inconsistency, but I do give kudos to Galanter for negotiating the best possible solution on Rose Avenue for those of us who live here. If VAC wishes to be constructive, how about asking one of our local artists to design a wonderful mural on the public storage building?