> ## 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.

# Clean beaches and ocean parcel tax act
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/clean-beaches-and-ocean-parcel-tax-act-20060921/
- Published: 2006-09-21T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T21:25:20.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Environment, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*Debate swirls over issues*

To continue protecting the bay from harmful urban runoff and other pollutants, the City Council is calling on voters to approve a new parcel tax — Measure V — that is expected to raise $40 million over the next 10 years to fund a watershed management plan.

For each single-family home, the annual maximum tax rate will be set at $84 for the first year, with annual reviews. Other housing and businesses will pay a tax based on the size of the parcel and the amount of runoff found there, which is based off a complicated formula that tracks water flows.

In addition to reducing urban runoff pollution, supporters of the tax claim it will increase water reuse and conservation, recreational opportunities and open space, not to mention wildlife and marine habitat.

“If you care about Santa Monica Bay, if you care about clean water, then do the right thing and vote for Measure B,” said Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay, which supports the measure. “The plan is in place. This provides the needed funding to make it happen.”

Don Gray, an opponent of the measure, said approval would be nothing more than “giving government a blank check to do what they want.”

Gray said the watershed management plan lacks oversight and does not guarantee that water will be safer once it is implemented. He also said Santa Monica residents should not be solely responsible for cleaning up the bay when other municipalities are just as guilty, if not more, of polluting it.

“The plan is dreadful,” Gray said. “It was dropped into our laps right before the deadline. When that happens it’s usually bad public policy or a matter of special interests. I think this is a little bit of both.”

Gold said several public meetings were held and residents played a critical role in drafting the plan.

“This will improve water quality in a financially responsible way,” Gold said.

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2006 In an attempt to simplify and clarify a voter-approved initiative prohibiting kickbacks to elected officials in exchange for votes, the City Council chose to place the Good Government Act of 2006 on the ballot.

If approved, Measure W would replace current restrictions on gift giving or campaign contributions in exchange for a “yes” vote in favor of those giving the gift, with prohibitions against any gift giving of over $50, regardless of the vote. One person could not give gifts totaling more than $250 a year. City officials also would be prohibited from making decisions on issues in which the party directly involved is negotiating, or has any arrangement concerning current, future, or prospective employment with that official.

The act would replace the Oak’s Initiative, or Prop. LL, passed by nearly 60 percent of voters in 2000\. City Hall sued the City Clerk’s Office to have the Oaks Initiative ruled unconstitutional because it believed the law prevents residents and others from participating in the electoral process, discourages public participation on boards and commissions, and is too burdensome and confusing to be complied with correctly, forcing part-time politicians to hire expensive, expert treasurers to make sure they aren’t violating the law.

Those opposed to the act, including the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, claim elected officials are doing away with the law because it limits their ability to raise funds for their re-election campaigns. They say the act proposed would weaken current standards and allow for City Council members and others to receive kickbacks in exchange for their votes.

“This is an insult and a disgrace,” said Harvey Rosenfield, president of the Campaign for Consumer Rights, which opposes the measure.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 21, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/092106.pdf?ref=smdp.com)