Supporters say initiative is strictly about traffic
JAMS They came marching around the corner, game faces on, ready to take on their opponents, clutching their weapon of choice — home-made signs that advocate the passage of a contentious ballot measure.
The two adversarial factions — a group of residents who support the Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic and a coalition that formed in response — faced each other in front of John Adams Middle School, the only divider a strip of sidewalk.
With that the smiles broke out, the handshakes, pats on the back and “how are you doing,” the greetings between neighbors, colleagues and friends, some who have campaigned together for other causes, but just can’t seem to agree on the issue of development in the city.
The rally of pro-RIFT residents on Wednesday, supporting a proposal that would limit commercial growth, was called to stand in during the official unveiling of Save Our City, a campaign formed specifically with the intent to defeat the initiative.
“After November, we’re still going to be neighbors and friends,” Terry O’Day, one of the co-chairs of the anti-RIFT group, said. “But it’s important to get the message out that there are unintended consequences [in a measure] written by well-intended folks who didn’t think it all the way through.”
While the gathering brought together residents who otherwise consider each other friends, some even serving together on neighborhood organization boards, the conference was strictly about an initiative on which they strongly disagree.
Save Our City calls itself a historic coalition, one that represents a diverse spectrum of the community, from teachers to religious leaders, from historic preservationists and homeowners to renters rights advocates.
The supporters include familiar faces in the education, civic, political and non-profit sectors, including Board of Education President Oscar de la Torre, Mayor Herb Katz and Michael Feinstein, a former mayor who co-founded the California Green Party.
The endorsements list also includes leaders from Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, including coalition co-chair Judy Abdo, who serves on SMRR’s steering committee. The political organization, which has held a majority on many of the city’s elected boards the past few decades, has yet to take a position on RIFT but is expected to deliberate the issue during its convention on Sunday.
The reason for the support from the educational community, which includes most of the Board of Education, could be because of the possible impacts on school funding if the initiative passes. The coalition claims that if approved, RIFT would “rob” schools of at least $1 million a year.
A presentation by City Hall-contracted consultants on the measure last month showed a 40 percent reduction in commercial growth under RIFT and a loss of $11 million in general fund revenue annually by 2023. One of the co-authors of RIFT, Diana Gordon, pointed out that the city budget would be well over $1 billion by 2023, making $11 million a small percentage.
“This is one school that has a tremendous amount of need,”de la Torre said, motioning to John Adams Middle School, which serves the majority of the low-income population in Santa Monica. “When we fail to educate the child and provide opportunities to succeed, we create a bigger problem.”
The measure could have consequences for the health care sector as well.
Kathleen Hunt, a long-time resident who is a nurse at a local hospital, said that while hospitals wouldn’t be restricted under the proposition, buildings that house laboratories and clinics would be affected, downgrading the status of the medical institutions, causing Santa Monicans to seek health care centers outside the city.
“It defeats the purpose,” Hunt said. “I would have to get in my car and drive to another location which does nothing for the traffic [issue].”
The RIFT proponents countered, saying that the measure doesn’t have to do with school funding or health care, but rather traffic and just traffic.
“I’m not sure what they’re proposing to do about traffic given LUCE (Land Use and Circulation Element) is two years off,” Ted Winterer, one of the leaders behind the RIFT campaign, said.“RIFT will immediately have an impact on traffic.”
Many on the anti-RIFT side argue that the measure was written to usurp the Land Use and Circulation Element, which is the 20-year-update of the general plan. Those in support argue the initiative is about what residents want, not developers. The campaign was able to gather more than 10,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
“This is all about self-determination,” Don Gray, one of the RIFT supporters, said.
Gray began learning about the measure last year, joining the campaign soon after.
“When people know about what RIFT is all about, there will be more people like me,” he said.
The measure has been criticized for causing a rift in the community, but those in support argue that City Hall planning procedures are to blame.
“Certain people said RIFT is divisive, but … the city’s growth the past two decades is why it’s divisive,” Winterer said. “That’s why people are upset.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 31, 2008. Read the original PDF.