The measure would manage urban runoffand help prevent pollution to protect Santa Monica Bay, as well as the beaches and ocean. The measure is necessary in order for the city to fulfill federal and state pollution and water quality management requirements,according to supporters.
“It was pretty much a foregone conclusion when they [proponents] spent $125,000 to push this measure through,” said Don Gray, who opposed the measure along with BaySmart.org, a grass-roots organization aimed at protecting the bay through “smart legislation,” as stated on its Web site. “That’s [money] what buys elections.”
Those on the other side were more than happy with the news, saying the city has a responsibility to clean its own watersheds and create a safe environment for residents and children.
“The bay is an immense resource,” said Mayor Pro Tem Bobby Shriver.“People want to be able to swim and let their kids swim without getting sick.”
The tax initiative will help implement the most critical portions of the watershed plan, said Mark Gold, who is the executive director of Heal the Bay. The plan will manage flood control and ground water supply, and reduce storm water pollution.
Gold worked closely with the City of Santa Monica to put the measure together. He said the city was pretty limited in what it could do to alleviate the beach pollution problem, especially in the area near the pier, where the water quality is considered one of the worst in the state.
“We now have adequate resources to upgrade the storm drain system and ensure diversion is working properly so we don’t have pollution problem at the beach,” Gold said.
Opponents call the measure a sham, saying that parcel taxes will not increase by $7 a month, as advertised, because of all the hidden fees that property owners will see in their water and trash bills. The parcel tax will come in the form of surcharges, said Peter Tigler, a member of BaySmart.org.
“There is a number of things the city is guilty of,” Tigler said on Monday. “They did not disclose the real cost of this measure.”
Opponents also criticize city officials for campaigning for the measure by using the city’s Web site to promote the issue. The city’s involvement in campaigning was illegal, according to Gray.
The alleged dishonesty on behalf of city officials, and their involvement in campaigning, are some of the reasons why BaySmart.org was against the measure.
Opponents said it was interesting that the same people who criticized the Edward Thomas Management Company, which owns Shutters on the Beach and Casa del Mar hotels, are the same people who worked closely with the hotel group to help Measure V pass. The Edward Thomas Management Company paid about $400,000 to Santa Monicans for Sensible Priorities, which endorsed Mayor Holbrook and Terry O’Day for City Council. The company also funded numerous commercials attacking Councilman Kevin McKeown, who ran for and won reelection last month. McKeown was a candidate running under the Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights slate.
But the company also donated more than $45,000 to the Friends of Safe and Clean Santa Monica Beaches, which included SMRR Co- Chairman Denny Zane among its consultants.
“It’s the same guy [Zane] yelling at hotels for all the money spent against Kevin,”Tigler said. “He and the other people involved in SMRR were outraged over outsider big business money.”
Zane said he and Edward Thomas Management Company officials were able to put their differences aside to help promote a cause to save the beaches and the bay.
“It was a good coalition,” Zane said on Monday.“Edward Thomas played a vital role in the passage of Measure V and I think they deserve a great deal of credit for their effort.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 5, 2006. Read the original PDF.