> ## 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. # Living wage supporters vow to fight despite loss - URL: https://www.smdp.com/living-wage-supporters-vow-to-fight-despite-loss/ - Published: 2002-11-11T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T00:53:30.000Z - Author: Andrew Fixmer - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *But any new proposal may have an uphill battle* As polls closed election night, supporters of Santa Monica’s proposed “living wage ordinance” blamed three mysterious mailings for the defeat of their measure. But even before the last ballots were counted, leaders of the movement to enact one of the nation’s most far-reaching “living wage” laws were already vowing their fight was far from over. “Of course it’s a setback, but it’s not an end to the process at all,” said Mayor Pro Tem Kevin McKeown, a supporter of the measure, who won another four-year term last Tuesday. “The underlying economic issue is not going away at all until those workers are paid a better wage.” > “Of course it’s a setback, but it’s not an end to the process at all.The underlying economic issue is not going away at all until those workers are paid a better wage.” — — KEVIN McKEOWN Santa Monica Mayor Pro Tem Opponents of Santa Monica’s “living wage” ordinance said they were not surprised there was already talk of attempting to enact another targeted minimum wage law, and this faction has extended an olive branch and asked if the two sides can meet. “We realize this isn’t going away,” said Seth Jacobsen, a spokesman for opponents of the measure. “And we are trying to reach out and bring both sides to the table so that any new measure can benefit both workers and businesses.” Last year, the Santa Monica City Council adopted an ordinance that would have required businesses near the coast with annual revenues in excess of $5 million to pay their workers between $10.50 and $12.25 an hour, depending on whether workers also received benefits. Unlike other living wage laws across the country, Santa Monica’s was the first to propose covering businesses with no direct financial connection to the city. The measure explicitly targeted high-end hotels, restaurants and retail stores close to Santa Monica’s beaches that largely profit from the tourism trade. City officials and economists said the ordinance would help lift 2,000 low-wage See LIVING WAGE, page 5 employees out of poverty at the expense of 170 to 220 jobs being cut because of the higher wages. Opposition to the ordinance grew steadily from the business community, which attacked the ordinance as discriminatory since it would make employers closer to the beach pay more than those located inland. They also argued the ordinance would create a $3 million bureaucracy that the city could ill afford during the economic downturn, which has resulted in multi-million dollar budget deficits for Santa Monica. The ordinance was appealed by local business interests and placed before voters on the Nov. 5 ballot as Measure JJ. After a multi-million dollar campaign, largely duked out through direct mail pieces sent to residences across the city, the ordinance was narrowly defeated 13,930 to 12,990 — a difference of 940 votes. The loss stunned Santa Monicans Allied for Responsible Tourism, or SMART, the group campaigning in favor of the proposed minimum wage law. That’s partly because a poll of 400 likely Santa Monica voters taken on Oct. 25 showed the measure winning by a 16 percent margin. According to the poll, which was conducted by EMH Research, 51 percent of those who responded said they were either definitely or probably voting yes, while 35 percent said they were definitely or probably voting no. Polls taken by the “No on JJ” campaign had similar results, said Jacobsen, though the margins were narrower. Opponents were so sure of their loss, they didn’t bother to plan an election night celebration. “We did not expect this result,” Jacobsen said. “Everything we had showed we were going to lose.” SO WHAT CHANGED? In the last week of the campaign, the Edward Thomas Company — which owns Shutters on the Beach and Casa Del Mar, two coastal luxury hotels — donated and loaned more than $275,000 to the “No on JJ” campaign, according to campaign disclosure statements. Along with payments from other hotels, restaurants and local businesses, more than $350,000 was donated or loaned to foes of the measure in the campaign’s last week. In contrast, living wage supporters raised less than $200,000 during their entire campaign to persuade voters to pass Measure JJ. The pro-living wage movement sent out seven mailers citywide and had a canvassing operation consisting of hundreds of volunteers — some of whom came from as far away as Boston — and about 25 paid organizers. SMART’s campaign depended heavily on media coverage, and they staged many press events to attract attention. But in all, the “No on JJ” campaign had raised and spent more than one million dollars in the past four months to kill the living wage ordinance. “We ran a fact-based campaign and we took our message directly to the residents,” Jacobsen said. According to campaign disclosures, most of that money paid for a “grassroots” canvassing campaign, a Texas-based phone bank operation and at least 20 mailers sent citywide. A basic mailer sent to every Santa Monica address costs roughly $20,000. “Manpower-wise, they had the advantage,” Jacobsen said of the JJ’s supporters. “They could bring in all these union workers from throughout the region to work on their campaign, and we had to work hard to overcome that disadvantage.” SMART officials, however, say that when the “No on JJ” campaign’s own polls showed they were going to lose, the group resorted to a flurry of deceptive mailers intended to trick living wage supporters into opposing the measure. “The story of the living wage being defeated is a story of money and lies and dirty tricks,” said Feingold, the SMART spokesman. MYSTERIOUS MAILERS JJ’s supporters say three deceptive fliers were mailed to every resident in Santa Monica in the last few days of the campaign that may have swung the election. But Jacobsen denies that the “No on JJ” campaign had anything to do with the fliers, and none of the group’s campaign disclosures directly link them to the mailing. “We were not responsible for the mailers, and we are not affiliated with the groups that sent them,” Jacobsen said. > “We were not responsible for the mailers, and we are not affiliated with the groups that sent them.” — — SETH JACOBSEN Measure JJ opponent spokesman The first was a piece from “The Quality Schools Coalition,” which urged voters to approve education bonds under state Proposition 47, Proposition 49 and vote yes on Measure EE, a local $300 parcel tax measure. The last line reads, “Vote No on Reduced Funding for Schools and Youth Programs: Vote No on Measure JJ.” The second was from the “Pro-Choice Voter’s Committee,” which advocated residents vote a Democratic statewide ticket, yes on the local school parcel tax and no on the living wage ordinance. The flier states voting no on Measure JJ would “… stop discrimination and protect vital city services including women’s health services.” The last of the three fliers was from the “Democratic Voters Ballot Guide,” which urged registered Democrats to vote a straight Democratic ticket, to vote yes on the school parcel tax and no on the living wage. The flier states that Measure JJ would “eliminate jobs for our young people, eliminate jobs for our poorest people (and) eliminate health and other social services for women.” Supporters of the measure say the mailers are clearly deceptive because the state Democratic Party and several local and state educators had endorsed Santa Monica’s proposed living wage ordinance, which had nothing to do with education, youth or women’s services. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 11, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/111102.pdf?ref=smdp.com)