> ## 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.

# City is full of hot air
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/city-is-full-of-hot-air-editor/
- Published: 2002-07-04T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T00:26:46.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Venice, #archive-import

*By Dave Hughes*

Editor:

Congratulations to the non-smoking zealots in the first step of their crusade to ban smoking anywhere, anyplace, anytime in Santa Monica. Just as Prohibition made America the laughingstock of the civilized world, our anti-smoking Puritans can one day “make the world safe for six-year olds” by just banishing all evil adult residents (to Venice?) as well as establishing strategic checkpoints in the city, manned by wand-waving “sniffers” 24/7, so as to exclude free-thinking tourists who might attempt to bring tobacco (even chewing tobacco “my God, they could exhale.”) products into the city.

Dave Hughes

Bay area

Editor:

In her letter on July 2, Bea Nemlaha makes a number of dubious statements about the intent of the Homeowners for Voluntary Preservation initiative (By the way, I am one of the three signatories of that initiative; Tom Larmore is not).

First, Bea says that under our initiative historic districts would be held up by one or two people who didn’t want their homes included. This is unlikely.

Even in the potential districts that exist now, not every home is listed as a contributor. It is entirely possible, even probable, to have districts which do not include every home in the neighborhood. There would be no harm in letting people opt out.

If you drive through either the 18th Street potential district or the La Mesa potential district, you will see hundreds of “No Historic District” lawn signs. In spite of this, the Landmarks Commission has, as of this writing, taken NO action to remove either area from their list of potential districts. This is the opposite problem than the one Bea seems to be worried about; it is a few people (six, to be exact) continuing to promote districts where 90 percent of the citizens don’t want them. The Landmarks Commission itself is making our initiative necessary.

She also says that a structure could be prevented from being designated if just one owner doesn’t agree, even if all the other owners want it. Since our initiative covers ONLY single family R1 homes, I am confused as to her point. I don’t know how many people own her house, but most single family homes are owned by... pay attention now, Bea... a single family.

She asks whether we really want a city where we are powerless to stop remodels if the “current” owner of a house wants to make them. Well, yes we do. As long as a homeowner conforms to zoning laws, we want him or her to be able to remodel. I guess this is just a philosophical difference.

Near the top of her letter, she states that by designating your home the Landmarks Commission does not “take control” of your property. Well, if they can stop you from remodeling, which seems to be the part of the ordinance Bea likes best, what do you call it?

The root of the problem in Santa Monica is that truly magnificent historical structures get lumped in debate with all the less important structures that are potential structures of merit or parts of potential historic districts. No one on our side wants to see true architectural or historic treasures destroyed, but the Landmarks ordinance lumps them all together.

The easiest way to save my simple house from their grasping reach is to pass an initiative that protects all houses.

Perhaps there is a compromise to be made, but the Landmarks Commission and their bosses at the City Council have been steadfast in their refusal to offer one. In their arrogance, they believe they can make this problem go away by ignoring it. Well, we're not going away, and we will pass this initiative. Maybe it’s time they let their egos drop and actually talked to the people.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 4, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/070402.pdf?ref=smdp.com)