> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Letter: Questioning Save Our Neighborhoods on Santa Monica's character and civic pride
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/031403-story/
- Published: 2003-03-14T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T01:48:42.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import, Homeless

*By Tony Street Santa Monica*

Let me see if I have this right. Bea Nemlaha, spokesperson for Save Our Neighborhoods, states that Santa Monica tenants “care about the character of Santa Monica,” “have civic pride” and that many “will become Santa Monica homeowners.”

Question 1: What is the character of Santa Monica to which Bea is referring? Is it a lazy beach town by the sea, a bastion of socialist/communist-minded hippy leftovers, a haven for the homeless, a playground for the rich and not-so famous? If she is referring specifically to the character in terms of residences, then for the most part all I see are a couple of nice houses surrounded by a sea of unkempt apartments that remind me of my college days.

Question 2: Where was all this civic pride back in the days when the majority of Santa Monica residences were actually houses? You remember, don’t you? You know, before all these crappy, shoebox apartments were constructed at the expense of the “historically significant” houses? It’s so interesting to me that back then Santa Monica was allowing single-family houses and bungalows to be demolished in favor of apartments, but today — no way! Oh yeah, but that was before rent control and the SMRR.

Oh, oh, I see. Now that SMRR has managed to gain total control over everything in this town simply because of the sheer number of renters, it is no longer acceptable to just tear down an existing house (especially if it’s being replaced with, oh, dare I say it — a “monster mansion” or five high-end townhomes which don’t have votes for SMRR). I get it now — historically significant houses are really only significant when they are surrounded by the multitudes of 1960 and 1970 eyesores that pass as residences and house SMRR voters.

Question 3: Just exactly how will “many” Santa Monica renters become Santa Monica homeowners? The least expensive one-bedroom condo in Santa Monica is $325,000\. So a current Santa Monica tenant would have to be making in the neighborhood (no pun intended) of $80,000 per year in order to afford a “home.” Oh, wait a minute. Is Bea saying after living under rent control for 10, 20, or 30 years, that the tenants have saved up enough money (on the backs of the landlords) to purchase a home? Or, is she saying that “many” of the current tenant population can already afford to purchase a house, which would mean that “many” of Santa Monica’s renters are actually NOT low-moderate income? Hummmmm? That doesn’t sound like the old SMRR, et. al motto “to ensure that Santa Monica remains affordable to low and moderate income people.” Sound like Bea knows what I know — that the tenants for whom see professes to speak are actually upper-middle class white folk who are living in rent-controlled apartments. (Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone)

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 14, 2003.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/031403.pdf?ref=smdp.com)