> ## 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.

# Ante up: Living wage activists deal new hand
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/ante-up-living-wage-activists-deal-new-hand/
- Published: 2004-01-29T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T03:41:45.000Z
- Author: Carolyn Sackariason
- Tags: Business, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*Living wage costs to City Hall are not yet known*

Despite several failed attempts in the past, the movement to pass a living wage in Santa Monica is once again underway.

Under a proposal unveiled on Tuesday, all city workers and employees employed by private companies on contracts with City Hall of $25,000 or more would get paid a minimum of $11.51 an hour and receive upgraded health benefits.

The proposal was one of the last issues discussed by the City Council at its marathon meeting on Tuesday. The plan was introduced at 12:50 a.m. by Vivian Rothstein, director Santa Monicans Allied for Responsible Tourism, who has been a key player in several other living wage proposals.

For nearly five years, SMART has pushed for a “living wage” — most recently $12.25 an hour without benefits — targeted largely toward workers in the tourism industry. The current proposal isn’t designed to meet that goal, but many feel it’s just the beginning of a larger effort.

Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce officials — who successfully fought against the contentious living wage ballot initiative last year— said they want a commission created that would comprise business, labor, non-profit and other community members to discuss the newest proposal’s financial impacts.

“It would be shortsighted to think there won’t be a proposal by SMART to take this further,” said Tom Larmore, a local attorney who fought against the last proposal. Larmore spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce in front of the City Council on Tuesday, urging that a commission be formed.

“Creation of such a committee, as has been done in other contexts in the past, would provide an opportunity to develop a consensus approach rather than rekindle the divisive environment which resulted from the manner in which the council approached the issue in the past,” chamber officials wrote to the City Council.

Rothstein contends the proposal is long overdue.

Most of the members of the City Council, which spent about five minutes discussing it, appeared receptive to it.

“I agree it’s a shame to be taking this up so late and I don’t mean at 12:50 a.m., I mean in 2004,” said Councilman Kevin McKeown.

> “Workers who work full-time shouldn’t have to rely on public assistance.” — — VIVIAN ROTHSTEIN Santa Monicans Allied for Responsible Tourism

> “I agree it’s a shame to be taking this up so late and I don’t mean at 12:50 a.m., I mean in 2004.” — — KEVIN MCKEOWN City Councilman

Council members directed city staff to study the financial implications the proposal would have on the city budget and create a draft ordinance by the spring. Councilman Mike Feinstein asked that other cities’ living wages, like that in Los Angeles, be analyzed to determine where Santa Monica would compare.

Speaking in favor of the proposal were several workers, most of whom work full-time, make less than $10 an hour and still rely on government subsidies.

“Workers who work full-time should-n’t have to rely on public assistance,” Rothstein told the council.

Each year, the income cap grows, housing costs increase and the public health care system worsens, according to SMART, which labels Southern California as being the capital of poverty of the United States. The organization blames low wages, not mass unemployment, for the area’s widespread poverty.

More than 120 cities in the United States have enacted local living wages, including nearly 25 in California alone, according to SMART. Another 70 cities are currently considering living wage ordinances, including six in California. Now, Rothstein says, it’s Santa Monica’s turn.

Under the proposal, non-profit organizations would be exempt. The $11.51 an hour is the level at which a family of four is no longer eligible for public assistance like food stamps, Rothstein said. The wage level also is in line with recent living wage ordinances throughout the nation, says SMART.

The proposal also includes the health care benefits of State Senate Bill 2, which will mandate health care for most employees in the state beginning in 2006\. As a result of SB 2, the current proposal doesn’t include a second wage for employees who don’t receive health care benefits. But the ordinance must include a provision indicating that if SB 2 is repealed, then the council will amend the ordinance to include a second wage level, SMART officials said.

The battle over the living wage began in 1999, when SMART first recommended to the City Council that tourism workers be paid a higher wage. Hoping to find a different solution, hotel and tourism groups in 2000 put Proposition KK on the ballot. But many argued that measure did too little to promote wages and more to protect businesses against future wage increases. KK was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls, 79 percent to 21 percent. Half a year later, the City Council approved SMART’s living wage, but the issue was forced to the ballot by opponents, who gathered thousands of signatures against it. In November of 2002, Proposition JJ failed at the polls by a mere 1.7 percent. It would have guaranteed workers at businesses near the beach that gross more than $5 million a year a wage of $12.25 an hour without health benefits or $10.50 with benefits. The law didn’t apply to unionized businesses, giving the large companies an incentive to organize their labor.

While Rothstein characterized Tuesday as an historic night — because the chamber and SMART, for the first time, are urging the council to pass a living wage — chamber officials have reservations about the proposal.

“The council should also recognize that Santa Monica is part of a regional economy, and mandating a minimum wage higher than the city of Los Angeles may lead to disincentives and increased costs to the city,” chamber officials wrote to the City Council. “The economic study to be performed needs to include the pressure that will be put on the city budget as contractors seek to pass through the increasing costs.”

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 29, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/012904.pdf?ref=smdp.com)