> ## 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. # Some say City Hall is trying to confuse voters - URL: https://www.smdp.com/some-say-city-hall-is-trying-to-confuse-voters/ - Published: 2002-12-04T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T01:03:30.000Z - Author: Andrew Fixmer - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Homeowners may get more say in preservation* Any ballot measure regarding historic districts should give residents a stronger say in the future of their homes, the landmarks commission recommended Monday. Santa Monica residents most likely will vote in a March special election on whether homeowners should have a say in their properties being designated as historic, or if government can do it on its own. Right now, homeowners don’t have control over whether their properties are deemed landmarks. The landmarks commission, which routinely designates buildings as historic, has made numerous recommendations to the city council on what changes need to be made to the city’s current preservation law. The city council may write a referendum at its Dec. 12 meeting, when it must decide whether to adopt as law or let voters decide the fate of the “Homeowners Freedom of Choice Initiative,” which proposes making historic preservation voluntary for owners of single-family homes. An historic district is a group of homes that are designated by the government as having some social or historic value. Homes over 40 years old can be deemed a structure of merit, which limits the homeowner from making exterior changes and prevents them from tearing down the building. Many preservation activists are against the homeowners’ initiative. They have encouraged the city council to write a ballot measure to give voters another choice. While they believe the current law needs tweaking, preservationists argue by making the process voluntary, the city risks losing private homes that are important historical and cultural landmarks to demolition and remodeling. “There are ways apparent to us that the current ordinance doesn’t work smoothly or properly,” said landmarks commissioner Barbara Schnitzler. “Now we are trying to create an ordinance that will be more responsive.” Critics say by placing a second measure on the ballot, the council is attempting to siphon off supporters of the homeowners’ initiative and confuse residents. “They are marshaling the city’s resources to combat an initiative sponsored by the people,” said Greg Poirier, a supporter of the homeowners’ initiative. “It’s under-handed, deceptive and I don’t think it’ll work. “I think it represents a desperate attempt to preserve the status quo,” he added. “They are working at the behest of the city council on something that will confuse voters and divert attention. I think what they are doing is legal but it’s sleazy.” Landmarks commissioners met twice — once last week and on Monday — to come up with ways to make the city’s current historic preservation process simpler and to give homeowners an incentive to volunteer their homes for historic designation. The commission recommended 23 possible incentives the city could create for homeowners who enter into the preservation program. They include everything from waiving permit fees and making the approval processes simpler to special parking privileges and economic incentives. One recommendation would clarify that the landmarks commission can only regulate the outside of private properties and the exterior and interiors of public properties that have been designated historic. It also would require 51 percent of residents in a neighborhood to approve whether a historic district could be formed. Currently, no such requirement exists and the homeowner’s initiative calls for 100 percent agreement among neighbors. “We’ve always said we would not create a district against the wishes of property owners and we haven’t, but there was never a number written into the ordinance,” Schnitzler said. “I think some people have an idea the city wants to run around creating districts, which just isn’t true.” The landmarks commission asked to be allowed to meet with residents of neighborhoods that are considered for an historic district before any formal application has been made. That would allow the commission to better communicate with residents about what benefits and advantages exist for designating private homes historic, Schnitzler said. And the commission asked the city council to allow it to act as a zoning administrator for landmark status homes to help expedite the process of getting approval for proposed exterior remodeling projects and obtaining the necessary city permits. Commissioners said they believed it would act as an incentive for homeowners to preserve their homes because it would make the process easier and simpler for property owners. But supporters of the homeowners’ initiative say by making the preservation process completely voluntary, the onus of making sure important properties are not destroyed falls on the city — where it belongs in the first place. They believe if the city and the landmarks commission are forced to actively recruit participants into the preservation program, then homeowners will be more willing to participate. “If you teach homeowners more and offer them more incentives, I’ll guarantee you you’ll have more historic districts,” said Marc Schrobilgen, an initiative supporter. “But if you make it mandatory and you take away the homeowners’ voice, they aren’t going to want to do it.” However, Schnitzler said if the system is voluntary, there would be no guarantee of protection. “We want more outreach to let people know what a historic district really is,” Schnitzler said. “Right now there seems to be a lot of confusion out there.” > “We want more outreach to let people know what a historic district really is. Right now there seems to be a lot of confusion out there.” — — BARBARA SCHNITZLER Landmarks Commissioner *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 4, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/120402.pdf?ref=smdp.com)