Annual meeting results in some changes for city’s ruling party
Long the ruling party in Santa Monica politics, the grassroots Santa Monica for Renters Rights group held its annual meeting earlier this month, positioning itself in anticipation of next year’s election.
With rent control approaching its 25th year, the liberal organization has largely controlled Santa Monica politics mostly through their highly sought-after endorsements of candidates and ballot measures.
SMRR members agreed at the annual meeting to three bylaw changes aimed at keeping those endorsements from the hands of last-minute campaigners who flood the SMRR meetings with their own supporters.
The endorsements are important because of SMRR’s clout as a long-standing political force and its membership base, which fluctuates between 3,000 and 4,000 people a year, treasurer Roger Thornton said.
Before each election, SMRR mails out up to eight “slate” mailers, which list its endorsements for candidates and ballot measures, to targeted groups. The cost of doing that is about $70,000, making it prohibitive for many independent candidates to successfully campaign against their SMRR-backed opponents.
Five of the seven City Council members are SMRR members, as are many officials on the school, college and other local boards.
“What we really need is a cooling off period,” said SMRR co-chair Denny Zane, a force behind rent control since the 1970s.
Also changed at the annual meeting was a bylaw that requires candidates to receive 55 percent of voter support, rather than the previous 50 percent, and another bylaw that limits voting at SMRR conventions to three rounds. If candidates aren’t selected with 55 percent of the vote after three rounds of voting, the 11-member SMRR steering committee can appoint a candidate.
“Obviously, building membership is always good, but when it happens so close to an election it just heightens tension and rivalries unnecessarily.” — – DENNY ZANE SMRR co-chair
“0bviously, building membership is always good, but when it happens so close to an election it just heightens tension and rivalries unnecessarily,” said Zane, adding the bylaw changes will make voting more “natural” and less controlled by last-minute, politically driven membership spikes. “It’s more likely that people that are at the convention (will) reflect ongoing membership.”
About 70 people attended the annual SMRR meeting at Olympic High School in Ocean Park, also pledging support for Sen. Sheila Kuehl and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley. They also voted in a new steering committee to serve for two years.
Since SMRR was formed in the early 1980s from a coalition of pro-renter groups, it has more often than not secured a majority of seats on the City Council for the candidates it endorses. It has thrown a wrench into the “old” Santa Monica, which Zane described as “the Bahamas for businesses.”
“It’s not like the old days where the MGM Plaza, which was 1 million square feet, in 1980 was approved without a public hearing and without an (environmental impact report),” Zane said. “It was over the counter.”
Zane said the group must continue to adapt as Santa Monica gradually becomes wealthier due to vacancy decontrol, which allows landlords to raise the rent on units when tenants move out. He added that he thinks the organization will have a strong presence for years to come because even new renters benefit from rent control after just a short time living in their units, because market rates continue to rise, but rents — under rent control — do not.
3C3,“Santa Monicans are still very liberal,” Zane said. “There’s no evidence, no reason to think that changes. Santa Monica will still be the anchor of liberal, progressive politics in Southern California in the way that San Francisco is the anchor in northern California.”
City Councilman Herb Katz, one of two council members not endorsed by SMRR, said the group will have to adapt in coming years to the changes in Santa Monica and the changes for renters. Katz raised more than $100,000 to get his name on the November 2000 ballot. His term expires next fall.
“I’m not pro-SMRR or anti-SMRR,” he said. “I don’t like to see any one group running anything. We talk about it and mean it, that we are independent. The public is saying, ‘We can’t just have one thing.’
“When you get real healthy debate, we get real healthy solutions,” he added. “When I can walk into a council meeting and be able to tell you how I think they’re going to vote... it’s not healthy.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 29, 2003. Read the original PDF.