Anti-RIFT group outgains measure in fund raising
CITY HALL When it comes to political campaigns, identifying the supporters could just be about following the money trail.
Such has been a major topic of discussion since the Save Our City committee formed last month in opposition to a proposal that seeks to limit commercial growth in the city, the supporters of the fall ballot measure questioning their new challengers on their source of its financing.
The Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic, recently renamed Proposition T, would restrict commercial growth in the city to 75,000 square feet a year, allowing City Hall to borrow extra space from up to four years in advance. The Coalition for a Livable City authored the measure.
The opposition campaign, which is headed by environmentalist and Planning Commissioner Terry O’Day and Judy Abdo, a rent control advocate and employee of the school district, filed their first campaign disclosure statement in late July, the group at times accused by the pro-RIFT contingent of attempting to hide the trail of money, a claim Save Our City has denied.
The records show that in just a few months, the anti-RIFT campaign was able to raise nearly $3,000 more than their political adversaries had since the beginning of the year, the Save Our City group receiving more than $68,000 as of June 30.
Part of the reason for the financial advantage could be attributed to a number of big donations, including $10,000 from the Edward Thomas Management Company, which owns the Casa del Mar and Shutters on the Beach hotels, and an equal amount from Belle Vue Plaza, a property owner.
“The Save Our City campaign should be called ‘Save Our Developers,’” Diana Gordon, the co-chair of the Coalition for a Livable City, said.
The opposition group has received contributions from a number of architectural firms, commercial brokerage companies, property owners, residents and former city officials, the list demonstrating the broad base of support behind the campaign, O’Day said.
“A lot of folks on there, you’ll find are also members of important organizations that serve our community that are concerned about the impact of RIFT,” O’Day said.
Among the donors was Ocean Avenue Management LLC, which is trying to rebuild the Travelodge and Pacific Sands Motel, a project that could be affected if the proposition passes.
“We’ve been working with city staff for over five years now and we’ve put in a tremendous amount of money and time,” Michael Farzam, the owner of the motels, said. “The RIFT would potentially delay the project for another one to two years based on the 75,000 square foot limit they have.”
Farzam noted there is a community benefit with his project, replacing two outdated non-sustainable motels with an environmentally-sound building that would include more affordable units.
“Generally we feel it is an attack on large development and does not protect small businesses as we are a small family-owned business in Santa Monica for over 30 years,” he said.
One of the biggest supporters of the Save Our City campaign is the architectural community, donors including RTK Architects, whose senior principal is Mayor Herb Katz, and Pugh + Scarpa Architects, whose principal Gwynne Pugh, is the Planning Commission chairman.
Howard Laks, who has designed several projects in the city, including redesigning The Lobster restaurant, said the measure would reduce opportunities for “smart design” in the community, keeping outdated and unsustainable buildings intact. Laks, who donated $250 to the anti-RIFT campaign, said that new buildings offer benefits to the community.
“Overall new buildings and developments become safer, greener, and offer a number of other public benefits that add to a city’s energy, longevity, and vitality,” Laks said. “RIFT will artificially stunt the natural growth of Santa Monica including the opportunity to offer innovative and smart building design.”
O’Day said that despite the amount of money the group has raised, it has much more work to do.
He questioned who the real funders are for the proposition’s backers, adding that some believe there are actually commercial real estate interests involved in the RIFT campaign. By restricting commercial growth, current property owners can continue to demand higher rents, supply and demand coming into play.
Gordon refuted the notion, pointing out that the contributions have all come from residents.
“Save Our City raised more money in a month than we raised in seven,” Gordon said. “That is difference from a resident-funded campaign and a developer-funded campaign.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 20, 2008. Read the original PDF.