> ## 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. # A living wage (Measure JJ) - URL: https://www.smdp.com/living-wage-measure-jj/ - Published: 2002-11-04T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T00:50:43.000Z - Author: Guest Author - Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import, Homeless We support a living wage. Just not the one proposed. The Daily Press editorial board has enough doubts about this proposal that a consensus can’t be reached. The dissension among the newspaper staff is a microcosm of what is happening in the city. There has to be a proposal that can ease the fears of those who aren’t comfortable with the city being able to make financial and arbitrary judgments based on access to a business’ private financial statements. A hardship exemption will rest on economic criteria not yet set. A law that is applied evenly across the board with no exemptions that requires one standard minimum wage for every business that has a particular income level would be better. We like the idea of doing the right thing and keeping it simple. We could support a flat minimum wage of $11 an hour without health insurance qualifications — and critically, with no exemptions. Asking locally-owned businesses to trust a political process in this city that has proven in the past to be selective or arbitrary is unrealistic. In order to be exempted, a business owner and their attorney(s), would have to go before an appointed board in City Hall and plead his case. The fears on both sides are justified. Without some sort of commitment to pay people a decent wage, Santa Monica would not retain the unique character for which it is well known and appreciated. On the other hand, the fears that the measure as proposed could result in higher costs in goods and services in Santa Monica and higher layoff rates are valid. Proponents might better define which businesses should pay the higher wage. If they think the requirement ought to be applied to resort business, then they should say that. The law that is written does not make that distinction. City Council: It’s clear from talking with a broad base of citizens throughout Santa Monica that residents want a change on the council. They want effective leadership, responsive government and a fresh perspective. Matt Dinalfo, Josefina Santiago Aranda and Kevin McKeown are the best candidates to reach that goal. Matt Dinalfo is a proven leader and will bring a change in city politics. He has helped lead UCLA-Santa Monica Hospital, which not only requires leadership skills but also gives him a strong background in large budgets that require fiscal responsibility. We expect Dinalfo, a moderate, to be the voice of reason on public spending and business representation. Josefina Santiago Aranda provides a fresh perspective in the political arena, and it’s important to at least maintain female representation on the council. The Pico neighborhood, where Aranda lives, has never had representation. It seems scarcely coincidental that the neighborhood doesn’t have council representation and is plagued with gang violence and drug activity. A member of the Green Party, Aranda is about as grassroots as they come. She has a perspective that represents diversity that is not on the council now. Kevin McKeown has proven that he is genuine when he says he cares about Santa Monica. His passion for making Santa Monica better is evident. This is a council member who really does enjoy public service. While some argue that he doesn’t listen to his constituents, his recent vote to ban sleeping in downtown doorways was a direct result of an ear lent to frustrations about the homeless population in the Bayside District. McKeown, a Green Party member and incumbent seeking his second term on the council, has the experience needed to help the city undertake important decisions in challenging economic times. He understands the city’s enormous budget better than most and has a firm grasp on policies within City Hall. We do believe McKeown could be more responsive to his own vow to protect locally-owned stores. We think he deserves a second term to strengthen his track record on that issue. All Daily Press endorsements came after considerable debate at the paper. That is to say two things: We hope we’re right, but we also trust that those candidates who aren’t elected this time around will continue to stay involved. Because the Daily Press generally opposes slates, we couldn’t support Pam O’Connor and Abby Arnold, who have been endorsed along with McKeown, by Santa Monicans For Renters’ Rights. O’Connor and Arnold are strong thinkers and have shown they listen to their constituents. Unfortunately, their campaign platforms have been too vague. Incumbent Bob Holbrook has proven he is a voice of reason on the current council. We wish there was a fourth seat open because he is an asset to city politics. But it’s time for new blood. Candidates Pro Se and Chuck Allord are effective watchdogs of government. They are seen at nearly every public meeting held and ask tough questions of our elected and appointed officials. They are unapologetic about being aggressive. But it is this trait which can mask a difficulty in coming to terms with opposing views and sharing in strong leadership. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Board: Julia Brownley: Brownley’s participation on the school board doesn’t end at the meetings. She is seen at countless public hearings, as well as community events and gatherings that touch on a variety of issues facing the city. For her participation alone, she deserves another term. She understands the issues facing the school district better than anyone, and her commitment to improving local schools is genuine. Brenda Gottfried: Gottfried also has a proven track record. She is deeply concerned about racial bias involved in suspending and expelling minority students. She has taken the lead in helping create a task force to address the disparities in the district. Gottfried also is involved in the district’s financial oversight committee and the district’s strategic plan committee, so she fully understands the issues. Gottfried also was a teacher for 17 years and can offer a perspective on classroom issues. Shane McLoud: McLoud offers a fresh perspective to the school board. He is a third grade teacher in South Central L.A. By electing McLoud, there will be a member on the local board that represents an active K-12 teacher, which is important when discussing classroom and curriculum issues. His mind is on the students, which is where all decisions should start from. McLoud also understands how to write policy and is passionate about it. School parcel tax (Measure EE): YES There are inherent problems when tax increases are proposed by administrators who can spend public money as if it were their own company’s. But because the State of California has done such a poor job managing its money and has failed to give schools badly needed resources, the local district is facing serious financial problems. The parcel tax increase is relatively small when compared to what students wouldn’t get if this measure is not passed. Programs, resources and supplies will disappear if we don’t pass Measure EE. The measure isn’t perfect. It taxes people the same amount despite income level. But taxpayers’ hands are tied because the state refuses to give more money to local schools. We encourage the school district to find more ways to think like private business when it deals with financial hard times. Expenses need to be cut, and we’ll be watching to make sure our public money isn’t being squandered on lunches, travel and other luxury items for administrators. To support the schools the only way many of us can, vote yes. VERITAS (Measure HH): NO As mentioned above, slate candidacies are suspect because they can lead to one group dominating politics. But VERITAS is a bad way to do away with it. It’s true that council representation should come from within all districts in the city, but we should be able to vote for one representative in our respective districts, and elect the six others at large. VERITAS doesn’t allow for that. What it would do, however, is pit one neighborhood against another. It would increase the expense of the electoral process by requiring a primary, which makes it tougher for candidates to raise money. 4F3,VERITAS doesn’t address the ability of candidates to accept money from special interest groups like it says it does. VERITAS also gives far too much power to the mayor, who would be given veto power. This measure was introduced for the wrong reasons. A different version of it should come back to the voters because there are aspects of VERITAS that make sense and could be supported in the future if re-written. But as it is presented today, it should be defeated. Rent control board compensation (Measure GG): YES The rent control board should be no different than any other board in the city. Its board members should be compensated accordingly. Board members haven’t had a raise in more than 20 years. They meet twice a month and should be paid $150 per meeting instead of the current $75\. And if every other board member in City Hall has health insurance coverage, so should the rent control board. We want to be able to attract the best candidates for such a specialized and important issue in the city. The one caveat is that proponents of this measure say there will be no increase in fees within the program but haven’t said where the money will come from. We will be watching to make sure fee increases aren’t passed along to participants in the future. To give our public servants a level playing field, vote yes for a pay raise for the rent control board. Tenant protection (Measure FF): YES We’ve all heard horror stories about landlords harassing tenants who live in rent-controlled apartments. This measure gives added protection to tenants whose spouses, children and domestic partners die or become incapacitated. It gives them assurance that they won’t be evicted if something tragic happens to the person they live with. It also ensures that landlords don’t surprise tenants with rent increases. It also allows tenants and landlords to agree the apartment can be subleased for a certain amount of time. The more protection tenants can have, the better. Vote yes. SMURPH (Measure II): YES There are pitfalls to this measure, but the intended outcome outweighs the negatives. By allowing the majority of tenants the opportunity to buy their apartments in a building if the owner is willing to sell, it will narrow the gap between dream and reality when it comes to owning a piece of the rock in Santa Monica. Those who already pay between $1,500 to $2,000 a month for an apartment would be in a financial position to buy something if Santa Monica’s real estate market wasn’t so expensive. SMURPH makes it financially feasible for the average citizen to be a homeowner and reap the benefits of resulting tax breaks. More importantly, it may encourage residents to stay in Santa Monica, where the average citizen currently lives for only two years. We recognize this measure is backed by the real estate industry, which has a huge financial stake in seeing it approved. But it’s a start in giving a large segment of the population a chance at becoming a homeowner. Vote yes. TORCA funds (Measure KK): NO If you vote “yes” on II, you should vote “no” on KK. It could benefit those wanting to buy their apartments. By voting no, it keeps money in a city fund intended to provide loans for first-time homeowners instead of letting it pay for rental affordable housing projects. It was created to encourage home ownership and it should remain what it was intended for. If SMURPH can provide more opportunities for first-time buyers, then down payment loans should be available to them. Because they are loans, the fund regenerates itself. But if the money was to be spent on building a rental affordable project, it is a one-time cost that will never be recovered. The city has done a poor job letting citizens know about the loan program. It needs to educate the public about it and execute it. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 4, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/110402.pdf?ref=smdp.com)