Measure S faces minimal opposition
By PAM WIGHT Special to the Daily Press
SMC —Despite overwhelming support from most community groups, a movement is quietly building to defeat a ballot measure that, if passed, would give the local college $135 million.
But how effective the efforts of a small group of residents are remains to be seen. Opponents of “Measure S” don’t have nearly as much money or political clout as those who support it. With little money and political backing, their recourse has been to set up a Web site. They also plan to distribute lawn signs and fliers near election day.
Supporters of Measure S recently sent out a mailer to thousands of voters that lists more than three dozen community leaders and organizations backing the measure. And last week, the local PTA threw its support behind the measure. According to disclosure statements filed earlier this month in City Hall, supporters for Measure S had amassed $160,000 in earnings and spent $60,000, mostly on mailers and campaign consultants.
Fighting the measure has left resident Don Gray frustrated and angry about what he considers insider politicking.
“There’s no way we can compete with their lobbying groups with lots of cash,” he said. “I don’t blame people for saying, ‘Why should I give you $250?’ — which is a drop in the bucket compared to what we’re up against.”
The $135 million bond initiative, if approved by 55 percent of city voters, will provide money to be used to build and upgrade several buildings at Santa Monica College, buy new open space in Santa Monica and Malibu, and develop other properties owned by the city. The bond might also partially fund a 500-seat performing arts theater at SMC’s Madison Campus, located at 11th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard.
Those who oppose the bond proposal are the usual critics of SMC and have fought against other school funding measures in the past.
Opponents of Measure S question if SMC really needs more money because it is still spending the $160 million it received in March of 2002 when voters passed Measure U.
Also, opponents complain that Measure S was passed by the SMC board of trustees four days after rejecting an ear-lier $175 million proposal, which they say left not enough time to allow for substantial public input. Also, the original proposal was introduced only this summer, which city officials said at the time was a surprise, and they felt rushed into making a decision of whether to support it.
City Council candidate Bill Bauer said that SMC officials said the new Madison Theater project would be paid for by private funds. But after falling short of their projected budget, part of Measure S would now fill that gap.
“They broke their promise,” Bauer said. “They promoted the Madison Theater project as a private enterprise and made a lot of claims about it. But then they failed to raise their target $15 million so they’re passing it on to the taxpayers.”
The Madison Theater project is managed by Denny Zane, the current manager of the Measure S campaign. He also is co-chair of Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, one of the supporters of Measure S and a powerful lobbying group in city politics. His salary to manage Measure S campaign is $30,000, Zane said.
Bauer objected to Zane’s involvement in all of the interconnected campaigns.
If approved, Measure S would be the second SMC bond proposal approved in 2 1/2 years, and cost the average Santa Monica homeowner $77 in the first year. The average renter would pay $13 in the first year.
“I’m a senior on a semi-fixed income, and I’m being nickel and dimed to death,” Bauer said.
He also says that past earthquake safety improvements supposed to funded by Measure U were never completed and have now been added to Measure S.
SMC Senior Administrator Don Girard said Measure S was supposed to fund two buildings on campus. The parking structure was on schedule, but the liberal arts building had to be re-bid and is no longer on schedule, Girard said.
Mat Millen, an attorney in Santa Monica, also opposes Measure S because it would raise taxes on senior citizens without an exemption. Like Bauer, he said the SMC trustees should not be asking for more money when there is money left over from the last bond.
“I can’t see giving them more money when they haven’t spent the last $160 million,” said Millen, who created a Web site listing his objections to the measure at notaxhike2004.com.
Some critics say given SMC’s financial troubles — the college last year was put on the state’s fiscal watch list — it isn’t prudent for another multi-million dollar bond measure to be passed for facilities. Instead, money should be directed toward faculty, staff and programs.
But Girard said that by definition, a bond is slated only for such things as new buildings, repairs and land acquisition — not for salaries.
Gray said there is no checks-and-balance system in place to see if the money is spent as promised.
But Girard said all bond measures are held to the same requirements as any proposition in the state — they must be subject to an independent audit, an independent performance audit and a citizens oversight committee.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 18, 2004. Read the original PDF.