By Tom Cleys
People generally believe that what they read in a newspaper is factual and fairly presented. That it balances both side of an issue. I am concerned when it comes to the controversial issue in our city about historic preservation and the related proposed ballot initiative that balance is lacking at the Santa Monica Daily Press.
Your paper and initiative supporters continue to portray the historic preservation laws that we have on the books in Santa Monica as tools of city officials. For example, your article in Thursday’s paper on the initiative mentions that “the city can bestow their residences with preservation status …” as if city officials posses some type of magic wand. Maybe it would be informative to your readers if you would point out that the preservation ordinance we have on the books today came about in the 1970s when citizens rose up against the city council when it tried to tear down the Santa Monica Pier. This ordinance exists because the people wanted to preserve the city’s great, older structures. It was crafted to benefit the citizens of Santa Monica, by the citizens and not for the benefit of a city bureaucracy.
So what has changed since the 1970s that makes the situation different today? Well, it seems the biggest change has been the value of real estate. The principles behind the ordinance have not changed, just the stakes.
You state in your recent article and another earlier one that the controversy arose from an inventory that the city and its consultants produced. Once again, not accurate. This controversy started when residents on 18th Street approached the Landmarks Commission because they were concerned about all the demolitions of old homes on their street and they wanted to know if there was something they could do about it. The Landmarks Commission realizing that the historic resources inventory from that neighborhood was dated, waited for an update. One that was being completed so they could properly evaluate the situation. While a potential historic district was considered, demolition permits on the block were not granted.
The historic resources inventory you refer to does not recommend landmarks. People do. The inventory is simply a tool for the citizens and the Landmarks Commission to evaluate what is out there much as your grocery list tells you what you have to buy at the market. The landmarking ordinance and its procedures are not mysterious, as many have inferred. It is a rational process, with standards and extensive public input. Could the ordinance be improved? Sure, but not by gutting the protections that exist in the ordinance.
Last, I find it interesting that other than council members, the only people quoted in your article were supporters of the initiative. There were no quotes from the majority of the speakers at the council meeting who, by the way, were from opponents of the initiative. I myself was interviewed at some length for your article and spoke that night before the council but was never quoted.
As this matter proceeds forward in a public process, I hope this paper can rediscover a balance in its journalism that will justify the trust of the citizens of this city.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 21, 2002. Read the original PDF.