By Sean Ahaus
When Caroline Torosis became mayor in December 2025, she called for honesty, transparency and accountability in City government. Her record raises serious questions that deserve answers before voters cast ballots by Nov. 3.
Those questions go beyond behavioral-health housing, homelessness, her ties to UNITE HERE Local 11 and the City's declaration of fiscal distress. They extend to vacant storefronts, restaurant closures, departing businesses and City policies Torosis supported that I believe discourage investment here.
While San Diego and Santa Barbara have recovered much of their pre-pandemic tourism, Santa Monica's annual visitation remains more than 50% below 2019 levels.
Airport housing and a soccer stadium
Local 11 and Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights recently endorsed Torosis. Leaders associated with both supported an initiative allowing about 3,000 permanently affordable housing units on Santa Monica Airport land.
Those endorsements don't establish Torosis' position, but voters shouldn't have to guess. Does she support 3,000 income-restricted units at the airport? If so, at what income levels and with what preferences?
Football Club Santa Monica has proposed a 20,000-seat professional soccer stadium there. Torosis has denied attending a presentation, though the club says its representatives met with her. Does she support the stadium? If so, how would she address traffic at a major gateway to our city?
Ocean Avenue: What did Torosis know?
At an October 2025 council meeting, Torosis responded to allegations that she had long known about proposed behavioral-health housing on Ocean Avenue: "It is not true I have known about the project since [November 2024]."
Released emails show she participated in communications about proposed interim behavioral-health housing months before the public learned of it. In December 2024, project representatives sought City support for a grant application identifying 825 and 413 Ocean Ave. Torosis responded by requesting a draft and more information.
Torosis says those communications concerned a preliminary proposal and that she didn't know it had become an actual project until later.
When did she first know facilities were being considered on Ocean Avenue? When did she know the addresses? Why did nearby residents learn later?
AB 1740: Why wasn't the public invited?
Santa Monica co-sponsored AB 1740, legislation affecting the City's relationship with the California Coastal Commission. Officials said staff had authority under existing policies, but the council never publicly debated or voted on it. Councilmember Lana Negrete questioned the process and said she hadn't been included.
Why was she left out? Even if staff had authority, why wasn't legislation specifically affecting Santa Monica discussed publicly first?
California Roadhouse and fair access
Disclosure: I founded California Roadhouse Inc., which negotiated with the City over a proposed California-themed restaurant and live music venue on the Santa Monica Pier.
Roadhouse was selected after more than 100 inquiries, nine proposals and nine months of public review. Before final lease approval, Local 11 met with City Manager Oliver Chi and the City Attorney about terms it wanted in our lease. The City later ended negotiations, saying we failed to agree to council-directed worker protections, even though we offered jobs to all former Rusty's employees, consistent with applicable law, and proposed about 50 new jobs.
Torosis describes herself as a certified mediator. Yet the Pier space has sat vacant for nearly two years, and despite multiple requests to meet, she never contacted us — not once. Why didn't a mayor with professional mediation skills try to bring the parties together?
Did Torosis or other councilmembers communicate with Local 11 about Roadhouse? Why did Local 11 get a meeting with the City Attorney about our lease when we didn't? Access shouldn't depend on political relationships or on whether someone criticizes a councilmember.
Transparency should work both ways
Torosis promised a "more transparent and accountable" City government. She has faced allegations, not independently established, that critical comments were deleted or hidden from her campaign Instagram account. Were they? If so, who decided, and why?
The bigger question
Has Torosis consistently practiced the transparency she advocates?
I don't expect every councilmember to agree with me. I do expect candor. I don't agree with Lana Negrete or Ashley Oelsen on every issue, but my standard is integrity, not agreement. I trust their integrity, intentions and independence from special-interest groups I believe aren't always aligned with our city's best interests.
For my third vote, I'm weighing Doug Trussler, who brings substantial business experience to the City's financial challenges but is endorsed by Local 11, and Phil Brock, an independent alternative opposed by Local 11. I need to see and hear more.
Every Santa Monica official, Torosis included, should be held to the same standard: honesty, full disclosure, fair access and accountability. Santa Monica deserves leaders committed to safety and to prosperity for residents, workers and businesses.
Santa Monica deserves much better than Caroline Torosis.