> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # SMC’s $175M bond proposal narrowly flops - URL: https://www.smdp.com/smcs-175m-bond-proposal-narrowly-flops/ - Published: 2004-08-04T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T04:47:28.000Z - Author: John Wood - Tags: Education, Pier, #archive-import *Santa Monica voters off the hook in deciding this year* SMC — Less than two months after it was presented to skeptical city officials, a $175 million bond for open space and better school buildings died at the hands of its creator on Monday. The Santa Monica College Board of Trustees fell one vote shy of placing the controversial education bond on the November ballot. They voted 4-2 in favor of the proposal, with one trustee abstaining. In order to move forward, the bond required two-thirds approval, or five affirmative votes. Had it been approved, the money would have been used to build and upgrade several buildings at SMC, buy new open space in Santa Monica and Malibu, and develop other properties owned by the city, including the Marion Davies Estate at 415 Pacific Coast Highway and the aquarium on the pier. It also would’ve cost the average homeowner $77 a year and the average renter a little more than $13 a year. But officials said that was just one reason it was shot down. “I had a number of issues and concerns with regards to the size of the bond and the fact that we were going out with a request for additional support... when we had gone out two years earlier for $160 million,” said SMC trustee Graham Pope, adding he was inundated with calls from bond supporters. “I just felt in good conscience, given what we promised the voters previously of not going back in the near future and the fact that some of those issues were not resolved, that it was rather difficult to support this rather extensive shopping list of needs,” Pope added. Pope was joined by Carole Currey in voting against the bond. Trustee Annette Shamey abstained from the vote after also expressing concerns about the sudden nature of the proposal. A total of 17 people spoke to the SMC board, almost all of them urging the trustees to put it on the November ballot. Among the speakers were the college’s physical education chairwoman, women’s tennis coach, chairman of the music department, chairman of the education department, representatives from the emeritus college, a campaign consultant, neighborhood representative, and officials from the cities of Santa Monica and Malibu. Trustee Nancy Greenstein said she had hoped voters would decide the issue. Community members viewed the bond favorably despite the tax burden, according to polling conducted by SMC. “I’m disappointed for the people who had such hopes for the programs,” Greenstein said on Tuesday. “I was on the dais, and I was looking at the faces of the people... and you could see their disappointment, because they were so enthusiastic and the faculty were very enthusiastic.” Greenstein said at least one good thing came out of the bond discussion process — the college was forced to work collaboratively with city officials. City Hall and SMC have had a tumultuous relationship over the years regarding some large projects and the college’s role in its immediate neighborhood — Sunset Park. “There was great interest in people wanting to work together,” she said. “That was exciting to me.” > “There was great interest in people wanting to work together. That was exciting to me.” — – NANCY GREENSTEIN SMC trustee Neither SMC president Piedad F. Robertson nor Don Girard, her newly appointed executive assistant, returned calls seeking comment. Robertson personally spearheaded the ambitious bond. She attended numerous meetings to explain details of the proposal and discuss concerns with community leaders. Officials at the local school district said the move to postpone or drop the college’s bond measure probably wouldn’t have affected budding plans to take out another bond for Santa Monica’s primary and secondary schools. District leaders had contemplated joining SMC’s bond, but decided there wasn’t enough of a benefit to them in the proposal to put their names behind it. Instead, they plan to launch their own venture, perhaps as soon as next year. “I don’t think the decision affects the course of the district in this particular matter,” said John Deasy, superintendent of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. SMC’s controversial bond split elected leaders at City Hall. While some said the college’s ability to spend taxpayer money with only 55 percent approval from voters was too good to pass up, others said the enormous bond needed more careful consideration and community input. College officials waited until June to unveil their proposal. They said the delay was because of ongoing negotiations between City Hall and the local school district, where supporters had threatened to put a separate school-funding issue on the ballot. Mayor Richard Bloom, perhaps the bond’s most vocal critic, said he was heartened by the process and looked forward to seeing the issue discussed in more detail in the coming months. “I think the important thing here, in my view, is the whole process has really been positive for the community,” Bloom said Tuesday. “This is the first time the school district, the city and the college have really seriously thought about the inter-relationships we have in the community. Even though the bond measure isn’t going to be on the November ballot, I think we can’t let the discussion die.” City Councilman Herb Katz agreed, with regrets. “I think it’s a missed opportunity,” Katz said. “I’m sorry they didn’t vote for it. I do understand the concerns of the board... It’s good news, bad news. The bad news is it didn’t pass. But the good news is I think it sets up a working relationship where we come back and do it next election or at a different date.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 4, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/080404.pdf?ref=smdp.com)