Fault Lines

In Nicolai Ouroussoff’s article about “inaccuracies” in Mike Davis’ book “Ecology of Fear,” he asks for a broader dialogue about the future of Los Angeles and astutely identifies many of the issues that should be debated (“Time to Move Past the Fault-Finding,” Feb. 28). I hope he continues this dialogue.

However, Ouroussoff claims that Davis’ adversaries--of whom I am the only one named--are attacking Davis because of “his refusal to look at the sunny side of things.” He also claims that Davis’ critics have vilified him as a “city-hating socialist” and have been “making pious references to his personal history.”

While I cannot speak for his other critics, I have never made any references to Davis’ personal life, even though his supporters have made considerable personal attacks on myself. I have also never made any reference to his being a “city-hating socialist.”

As for my motives, since Ouroussoff has never spoken with me, I would like to state that my opposition to Mike Davis has nothing to do with him having a dark view of Los Angeles. My objections to him and his book are based on only one simple fact: Davis distorts the truth.

Davis’ supporters have tried to defend him by saying I only found a few “inaccuracies” in his footnotes. This is not true. In hundreds of cases, his footnotes contradict his statements. In addition, every thesis of his can be proven false by his own reference materials--even if his facts were correct.

Ouroussoff asks at the end of his article for a higher level of civic debate, and I agree. But it is hard to have a debate if one of the main participants has been incapable of telling the truth.

BRADY WESTWATER

Malibu