By Todd Flora
Guest Commentary By Todd Flora
Since moving to Santa Monica several years ago, I’ve exercised my right to vote in local elections. In doing so, I have been able to cast a vote affecting every at-large seat on the city council. We all enjoy a city government where seven council members are accountable to each of us and must listen to our concerns, whether we live in Pico neighborhood or North of Montana. The council elects a mayor to run and manage council meetings and represent the city outside our borders.
For a city our size, it all seems like a pretty workable system. After all, under this governing model Santa Monica has prospered handsomely. We have become an international tourist destination and one of the most desirable places to live in Southern California.
As a renter, I’m particularly appreciative of an at-large council system, where renters and low-to middle-class Santa Monicans have the opportunity to gain a powerful voice on the council.
But there are some, basically representing a well-heeled, vocal minority, that bitterly resent the fact that their conservative, anti-renter agenda is consistently outvoted. In their eyes, the rest of us in the mainstream majority of Santa Monica are the problem.
This well-heeled faction is now scheming to break up our modest sized city of 85,000 into seven city council “districts,” essentially creating seven political fiefdoms. In addition, their plan would create a “strong mayor.” They have nicknamed their plan “VERITAS,” or “truth.” You must be kidding. Their measure, better known as Proposition HH on the Santa Monica ballot, could not be more disingenuous.
There are a number of red flags that should illicit a No vote for Proposition HH on Nov. 5.
Red Flag #1: This disastrous plan is essentially a conservative, anti-renter power grab. Its principle sponsor told the LA Times he wanted to bring “less ideological people” to the city council. Well, given who is there, he isn’t talking about fewer conservatives.
Red Flag #2: The sponsors conveniently went ahead and drew up the city council district lines for their new district council structure. They didn’t bother leaving the development of boundaries to a commission, judge or other credible body to draw up once the concept of a council district system was adopted. In fact, there was really no public process in the development of HH at all. So we’re not just voting on whether we favor the concept of district council elections. We’re voting on whether or not we like the sponsor’s prescribed city council boundaries. Herein lies the not-so-well-hidden agenda. Under the prescribed boundaries, tenant protections will be put to a roll of the dice. How’s that for the truth?
Red Flag #3: The sponsors of this scheme also make provisions for a “strong,” independently elected mayor. Translated, this means they want a shot to get one of their well-funded, conservative friends elected mayor, who will veto any city council efforts to protect renters, workers or anything else that doesn’t share their ideological bent.
Red Flag #4: The sponsors of VERITAS claim at-large city council elections are too expensive. But do they really expect competitive, high-profile battles for mayor to be cheap? More than ever, Santa Monica will be a magnet for special interest money and expensive, negative elections.
Red Flag #5: This plan will cost us as taxpayers and put voter turnout at risk. Those pushing HH have devised a scheme requiring special elections and runoffs outside the November election cycle, when most voters show up to the polls. Well, it costs money to run additional elections. What’s more, elections outside of November draw fewer voters, which will result in fewer people choosing who represents us on the city council.
They call it VERITAS. But if they really want to speak truth to power, they may want to look in the mirror. Most disingenuous is their use of the Pico neighborhood as a pawn in their efforts. It is true. Our city is long overdue for an elected council member from this part of town. But this isn’t the way to do it. Candidate development and recruitment is the answer. A member of the Pico neighborhood is on the Nov. 5 ballot. Voters already have a choice from this underrepresented area. We don’t need to turn our system of governance upside down to do it.
If the city we want to become is one that shuts out renters, workers and other middle class consumers, then by all means vote for the city council “district system” and “strong mayor” proposed in Proposition HH.
But if you believe, like I do, that the last 20 years of strong renter protections and largely progressive policy decisions have made Santa Monica a profitable, forward-looking and wonderful city, then please say No to Proposition HH. Our system of government works for Santa Monica.
Todd Flora is a former Western director of the Concord Coalition, and is currently director of education programs for the California Clean Money Campaign.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 21, 2002. Read the original PDF.