There’s good news for those who like both horse races and democracy. The first candidate debates for the local fall election took place at the Santa Monica Democratic Club, and no animal cruelty was involved, unless you include the risk to fragile egos. There’s even better news, which is that the debates were surprisingly substantive (and available online).
The Democratic Club is a private political organization, with a history of some unsavory tactics, so I admit I went in expecting more ingratiation than illumination. But to the credit of Jon Katz, the president of the club and moderator of the events, the questions he posed were meticulous, expansive and mostly even-handed, obligating the candidates to do more than show an aptitude for public speaking (which not all of them possess).
The ten candidates for City Council vying for the club’s endorsement were asked to demonstrate their knowledge of the city’s challenges and the potency of their solutions. This gave the two incumbents, Mayor Caroline Torosis and former Mayor Lana Negrete, a clear advantage.
Torosis exuded confidence as she defended the Council’s achievements and described the work still to be done with equal gusto. “We are working towards a city that is clean, safe, affordable, and fun,” she said, before adding a self-deprecating caveat, “I’m not always the most fun.” She rattled off a list of wins, including decreased crime, streamlined permitting, and new revenue sources. “Are we “mission accomplished”? Absolutely not. But let's stay the course.”
Negrete displayed a winning combination of brio and backbone, reminding people of her steady leadership during turbulent times, while also pushing back on party dogma. “We talk about affordable housing, but we haven't really defined it,” she said. “What is affordable housing? Affordable for who?” Summing up her political philosophy, she said, “We can celebrate our successes while being honest about our challenges because that's how we build trust in government.”
But given the extent of those challenges, there would seem to be a lane available for candidates criticizing the status quo. Doug Trussler, a highly successful private equity investor and much-anticipated entrant to the Council race, expressed alarm about the city’s deficit. He said he had a plan to fix it; however, he didn’t say what his plan was. His business acumen would be a welcome asset on the Council, but it remains to be seen if he has an equal understanding of other topics.
Wade Kelley is primarily a one-note candidate, but it’s a potent note. “I am homeless, I am not certifiable, and I don't have any terrible drug abuse problems,” Kelley said, before quoting Democratic icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
It would have been unsurprising if Ashley Oelsen, a passionate environmentalist, had an equally narrow focus. But she didn’t. When asked her number one funding priority, she said the police force, and she conveyed an admirable grasp of the city’s complexity. As did Ericka Lesley, who included code enforcement as an income generator in her answer to the same funding question, reinforcing her willingness to think outside the box.
Brett Morrow showed familiarity with a broad range of subjects, but his comments often sounded like what an AI chatbot would say if programmed to parrot progressive talking points.
Eli Gill offered more personality and eloquence. “I want Santa Monica to be the kind of city that holds on to the people who love it, not one that prices out the next generation before they even get started,” he said.
But he got into verbal fisticuffs with Negrete about development. She questioned using supply and demand theories in a coastal city. (Miami Beach comes to mind.) Gill responded bluntly “we need to get out of developers’ way,” which sounded more like a pitch to deep-pocketed campaign donors than a calibrated response to the city’s competing concerns.
There’s no question that the two incumbents are currently the strongest candidates. So now it’s up to the Democratic Club to show with its endorsements at its July 15 meeting whether its vision for the city is one of unity or pseudo-partisan rancor. I say “pseudo,” because for all the talk about polarization in the city, I don’t come across a lot of Republicans here.
At a time when there has been some discontent and pushback from club members, this is an opportunity for the club to decide if it’s a big tent embracing multiple viewpoints or a narrow bastion of machine politics and cognitive fealty. I’m not holding my breath, but I’m a little hopeful.
There were also debates for Rent Control Board, SMMUSD Board of Education, and the Santa Monica College (SMC) Board of Trustees. The latter was the most cringeworthy. The financial crisis at SMC has resulted in sweeping layoffs and cutbacks, yet the incumbents took no responsibility. Blame was placed on everyone from the governor to the President, but none was apportioned to the people who were actually in charge of the college.
Contrast that behavior with the incumbent at the Rent Control Board debate, Kurt Gonska, who conveyed deep moral commitment to his role. Sue Himmelrich is also an incumbent of sorts, since she brings her depth of experience as a former mayor. Unfortunately, that includes responsibility for the builder’s remedy assaults on our city’s skyline. So the question is whether she’s been forgiven.
The school board debate included two vibrant challengers. One of whom, Robbie Staenberg, is the youngest person running for office. Although that could be a disadvantage, he emphasized that he’s the only candidate who is both a graduate of the SMMUSD schools and an experienced classroom teacher. A compelling argument and a well-crafted political brand.
And they’re off.
Devan Sipher can be reached at Devan@smdp.com.