By Ed Silverstein
Santa Monica has traditionally offered an excellent quality of life due, in no small part, to the efforts of the City Council. But occasionally the council seems to engage in quixotic crusades that leave us scratching our heads and wondering if they might need to up their meds.
A few cases in point: Taking their lead from the Prohibition - era temperance movement, Santa Monica leaders have expanded their ban on smoking from public buildings to parks, beaches and the pier with even stricter rules on the horizon. All this, much to the relief of the homeless population that can now soil those areas without having to smell nasty cigarette smoke over their own eye-tearing body odor.
Such over-reaching legislation seems less like an effort to protect our health than a chest-thumping competition against other excessively intrusive liberal governments for anti-smoking bragging rights.
Santa Monica, where the approval process for new construction or a business renovation requires going through more hoops than a Siegfried and Roy show (and often leaving the applicant as bloodied); the same city that went to the Supreme Court to force a resident to take down his kid’s playhouse; a town that makes it harder to get a liquor license than it was for Robert Downey Jr. to successfully complete a 12-step program, didn’t blink twice — nor provide any public notice or comment — before approving my neighbors’ fireplace addition that leaves the end of their chimney scant feet and a prevailing breeze away from my open living room window.
Yes, according to the code compliance department of Santa Monica, it is perfectly OK to belch the toxic smoke from a small forest fire into my living room and cause me to inhale more second-hand smoke than a Parisian stripper, but God forbid I light up a cigarette on a beach.
But it’s not so bad. I can always go live in the park.
I recently received a certified letter from the city of Santa Monica. The letter stated our condo building had run afoul of the Anti-Waste Measure 7.16.020 c3. We were accused of excessively watering our lawn, and unless we ceased and desisted immediately, the building would be slapped with a $250 fine. It included a nice photo of our wet sidewalk.
Let’s look at the cost. We have an inspector with a camera. He has to drive around until he finds these heinous violations, then snap a picture and record all the site information. From there, I assume, he hands off the information to a clerk.
The clerk will need to enter the information and the photo into a computer, look up the name of the occupants, address the envelope, fill out a certified mail receipt and a return receipt, enter all of this into the computer, mail the letter, receive the return receipt, file it, enter the new information and provide this information to the inspector so they can follow up. Including coffee and bathroom breaks, this probably takes about 20 man-hours, plus $3 postage per letter.
Add to this the lost productivity, not to mention inconvenience, caused to the “offending” resident that has to drive their polluting vehicle to the main post office and wait in line for the privilege of being threatened by their city.
Now, maybe you’re saying, “he’s an excessive waterer, he deserves anything he gets.” Or maybe you’re progressive and feel I should be forced to enroll in 12-step for water wasters.
Let me go on record that I don’t have an over-watering problem. No, it’s not denial. Our sprinkler valve malfunctioned and became locked in the open position. And, for the record, the leak was discovered the day it occurred. The sprinkler was turned off and the repair was made … all over three weeks before I received the city’s very expensive threat.
This is something they might have learned had they picked up the phone and called. More importantly, had we been unaware of the malfunction, the 19 days it took to cite us could have resulted in well over 100,000 gallons of pristine water making its way to the sea.
So what is the motivation for such a policy? Maybe it is that Santa Monica is no longer satisfied with the tens of millions (extorted) collected as a result of parking (racketeering) enforcement and is using the excuse of water conservation to create additional (taxes) revenue for the city so that they can build more homeless (enabling) shelters and knock down perfectly functional (boondoggle) libraries to build expensive new ones.
Or maybe the city is guilty of violating the Anti-Waste Measures because there is no question that this is an excessive use of city funds.
Much thanks to the Santa Monica City Council for finally acknowledging the danger presented by the Wilshire Boulevard center islands. As previously reported, the islands encroach into the traffic flow, are not easily visible and, as a result, are often struck by cars. This fact had been evidenced by the numerous black tire impact marks that marred the leading edges of each and every island.
But no more. The city, grasping the problem, swung into action and painted the ends of the islands with a highly visible yellow paint. Within a few mere days the success of this operation was evident. Thanks to the high-vis yellow paint, the brand new tire marks are far more easily seen. (Ed Silverstein is a freelance writer living in a Santa Monica park. You can give him your comments at the free lunch line or ).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 28, 2004. Read the original PDF.