> ## 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. # Homeowners for Voluntary Preservation raise $100K - URL: https://www.smdp.com/homeowners-for-voluntary-preservation-raise-100k/ - Published: 2002-10-28T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T00:49:11.000Z - Author: Andrew Fixmer - Tags: Government & Politics, Montana, #archive-import *Council members endorse homeowners’ measure* More than $100,000 was spent to collect enough signatures to place an initiative before voters that would make historic preservation in Santa Monica voluntary. Homeowners for Voluntary Preservation raised huge sums of money from donors mostly residing north of Montana Avenue and from special interests, such as real estate brokers, land use attorneys and developers, according to recent campaign disclosures. After submitting its most recent campaign disclosure earlier this month, the group had about $4,000 left over after raising $105,334.60 this year, and it had more than $20,000 in outstanding debts remaining. More than 70 percent of the money the group collected went toward paying Los Angeles-based M. Goldstein & Associates, Inc. to collect the 12,947 signatures submitted to the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office on Sept. 27\. The registrar verified approximately 9,800 of the signatures on Oct. 17, surpassing the 9,135 needed to qualify for a special election. Signature gatherers reportedly received $1.50 for every person they convinced to sign the petition. The majority of the remaining money was spent on professional services from Bell, McAndrews, Hiltanchk & Davidian, a conservative consulting firm that provides accounting and legal services to campaigns. Most of the left over money was spent on campaign literature and food, travel and lodging for campaign staff, according to the reports. “It certainly tends to indicate it wasn’t a volunteer effort,” said city councilman Ken Genser, who has not publicly staked a position on the initiative. “The money may have been raised by the grass roots efforts, but it doesn’t sound to me like a grass roots campaign.” “(That number) sounds very, very high,” he added. The Homeowners Freedom of Choice Initiative proposes giving homeowners final say whether the city can bestow their residences with preservation status or as structures of merit. Under current law, such designations may be made over the owner’s objections. Initiative author Tom Larmore, a local land use attorney and a Santa Monica homeowner, said the high amount raised by the campaign is indicative of the outrage of homeowners in Santa Monica. “It says to me there were a lot of people who were concerned about the issue and were generous in their donations,” he said. “They are very worried what would happen to their ability to remodel their homes and what it could do to their property values.” Opponents of the initiative said the huge sum spent on gathering signatures shows the campaign is lacking in grass roots support and doesn’t resonate with residents. And they contend initiative supporters blatantly pushed residents’ panic buttons on a nonexistent issue. They say the Landmarks Commission had not recently proposed creating any historic districts, and the group rarely designates homes structures of merit. “It just underscores the point that besides a massive disinformation campaign conducted against historic preservation, it has collected a huge amount of money from the real estate industry and developers and residents north of Montana Avenue with developer and real estate ties,” said Roger Genser, a commissioner on the city’s Landmarks Commission. “With that amount of money and disin-formation, you could qualify a tuna fish sandwich for the ballot,” he added The homeowners’ cause was prompted by a recent survey conducted by Hollywood-based Historic Resources Group, which was hired by the city. The study concluded that the north of Montana Avenue area includes some of the oldest and most significant historic resources in Santa Monica. The report said less than 1 percent of the potential historic properties in the area have been designated or preserved. > “With that amount of money and disinformation, you could qualify a tuna fish sandwich for the ballot.” — — ROGER GENSER Santa Monica Landmarks Commissioner Consultants who prepared the report characterized Santa Monica as losing its older historical properties and said city officials need to make important decisions about how they want to preserve the remaining buildings before they are demolished or significantly altered. Overall, the consultants looked at the 3,900 homes north of Montana. They found that about 9 percent, or 358 homes, were of historical merit. The number of homes on the inventory didn’t change very much from 1986, the last time a similar survey was taken, because many of the older homes were taken off the list and replaced with homes that have reached the 50-year-old bench-mark for consideration. The last survey on the subject recommended the city preserve about 158 homes from Palisades Avenue to Georgina Avenue. Because those homes were not preserved 20 years ago, nearly two-thirds of them have either been demolished or altered enough to render them historically insignificant, consultants said. However, many of the initiative’s supporters believe the city’s current ordinance imposes restrictions on private property, which constitutes an unwarranted intrusion on personal freedoms. The initiative’s campaign was not without controversy. On Sept. 12, an undercover investigation by the City Attorney’s Office found a signature gatherer for the campaign did not properly disclose information about the initiative. As a result, the signature gatherer was fined an undisclosed amount. City Clerk Maria Stewart will present the city council with the ballot initiative at its Nov. 12 meeting. The council will have three choices: set an election on a date in February 2003; adopt the initiative as an ordinance, thereby bypassing the need for an election; or request that the initiative be studied by staff for a period of not more than 30 days. If the council chooses the third alternative, it would then decide in December whether to adopt the initiative or set an election for March 2003. Larmore said the homeowners group has been actively advocating the city council adopt the initiative as an ordinance. That way, he said, both sides can avoid a long and costly battle. “We are hopeful we will get the four votes needed to win that,” Larmore said. “It would obviate the need for a special election for an initiative people obviously want to happen.” Already council members Bob Holbrook and Pam O’Connor have reportedly said they would support adopting the initiative, but Mayor Pro Tem Kevin McKeown said he would oppose it. All three individuals are running for re-election this year. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 28, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/102802.pdf?ref=smdp.com)