Santa Monicans will vote for three persons out of 10 candidates for Santa Monica City Council on Election Day, Nov. 7.
City Councilman Ken Genser said the reason why there a fewer candidates running this year is, “... more people are speaking out and they feel their voices are being heard and that’s why they’ve chosen not to run.” (SMDP, Aug. 25, page 5). Genser uttered what may well be the most self-serving statement of the campaign and he’s not even up for re-election.
No, Ken. It has nothing to do with being heard, we know you’re not listening. The real reason why is that deals were made behind closed doors. Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR) and the business coalition led by members of the Chamber of Commerce and hotel interests knew who they’re supporting long before candidate petitions were pulled. Without backing by either SMRR or big money business interests, candidates can’t raise enough campaign funds and are wasting their time.
While the 2006 campaign has barely begun, candidate’s positions — or non-positions — on the issues are posted on the city Web site, santa-monica.org, under “Qualified City Council Ballot Statements.” They also are available in news articles.
Incumbents Kevin McKeown, Pam O’Connor and Bob Holbrook, eloquently state how hard they’ve worked to find solutions for community problems, including homelessness and development issues. They claim they’ve been protecting the environment, controlling development and supporting strong police and fire services, better schools, parks and recreational opportunities, and preserving “all that’s good about Santa Monica.”
Two incumbents boast about fostering new approaches to fighting homelessness, including housing the unhoused and working regionally — all while experiencing a 60 percent increase in vagrants on our streets between 1999 and 2005. In all, seven candidates make vague promises to “decrease the numbers of homeless,” however, there’s no clue as to how this will be done beyond the hoariest of cliches:“Give them a hand up not a hand out.”
Traffic and parking were mentioned by a couple candidates but nobody suggested reversing years of traffic “calming” that’s resulted in gridlock and degradation of the environment. They didn’t recommend relieving parking shortages in both residential and commercial areas either.
Nine candidates mentioned public school governance, which is really the purview of the board of education. If schools are your big issue, you’re running for the wrong office. However, despite plugging “strong schools” and “education,” no one acknowledged the school district’s ongoing fiscal perils or offered a strategy for its long-term financial solvency.
Four council hopefuls support “strong police, fire” or “neighborhood law enforcement.” Wow.
Three candidates mention “protecting neighborhoods” or “sustainable neighborhoods,” but stopped short of recommending curtailing overdevelopment in multi-family neighborhoods by downzoning. Not one candidate promises to do something about the many, long-time, lower-income Santa Monicans who are being forced out of their homes.
And nobody is upset that city-sponsored affordable housing isn’t going to Santa Monicans in need or that the city recruits prospective tenants in Watts, East Los Angeles and elsewhere across LA County. Not one candidate supported affordable or middle income housing policies that promote home ownership as opposed to rental.
Nobody mentioned rolling back recent double-digit garbage and water fee increases.
Three candidates are out to unify the community by “bridging the political divide” and “to reach out... and move beyond the polarization that has dominated city discourse.” Political divide? Who cares? It’s a non-issue. In their ballot statements, three hopefuls mentioned working for “clean beaches,” “clean water” or “the environment,” which is just another yawner.
I read a lot of promises that absolutely won’t be kept. One candidate is even going to “Keep young people away from gangs and drugs.” If she can do this, she’ll win a Nobel Prize.
Another candidate presents “unique and compelling solutions to the homeless issue, quality of life and livability concerns.” Putting more police in the parks, enforcing (unconstitutional) vagrancy laws and providing — get ready — “a hand up and not a hand out” is hardly unique and even less compelling.
Statements such as “protecting neediest residents and offering education, employment opportunities, and a place for children to play... in a clean, safe, nurturing community” may sound impressive but also is feel-good fluff.
In the weeks ahead, City Council candidates better go for the meat and potatoes instead of shoveling souffle. (Bill and his pack of hungry wolves)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 28, 2006. Read the original PDF.