A developer wanted to build a megaproject.The only thing standing in
his way were elderly residents. He wanted to evict tenants and destroy
Santa Monica’s historic Village Trailer Park.

Rather than stop him, Pam O’Connor, the Developer’s Mayor, voted to let
him bypass our zoning laws so he could build his megaproject and make
millions. But elderly residents lost their homes.

Reuters reported, “90% of Village Trailer Park residents are elderly
or disabled or both…many have lived there for decades.”

LA Weekly reported, “The developer pushed a plan to replace the trail-
ers with a dense cluster of tiny, high-end condominiums and apartments
for young singles…the residents are the only barrier.”

Village Trailer Park resident Catherine Eldridge said,“Pam O’Connor did-
n’t lift a finger to help us. Now we’re losing a whole neighborhood of
affordable housing.”

Village Trailer Park resident Mary Herring said, “People had lived here
for decades. Then Pam O’Connor voted to reward a developer for throwing us
out. That’s not right.”

Village Trailer Park resident Jack Waddington said, ‘Pam O’Connor didn’t
care about this community. More than 70 people lost their homes so a dev-
eloper could make millions of dollars,



By John Fairweather

Santa Monica College officials have denounced as “FALSE,” (their cap-
itals) an ad by backers of Measure D that claims SMC is in talks to
develop additional land at Santa Monica Airport.

The Measure D ad says, “SMC is already making deals for the (airport)
land for a 4-year campus.” Supporters of Measure LC asked SMC about
the ad’s claim.

The Measure D claim is “a 100 percent fabrication,” according to a stat-
ement issued by SMC’s Senior Director of Government Relations & Institu-
tional Communications, Donald Girard. “SMC has not engaged and is not
engaged with the City of Santa Monica, its staff, or any of its elected
officials, in any discussion regarding additional use of lands at the
Santa Monica Airport,” the statement says.

SMC currently leases a three-acre parcel of non-aviation land at the air-
port; it’s called the Airport Arts Campus. Two years ago, the city and
SMC concluded a land swap involving another three acres of non-aviation
land at the airport. That parcel is adjacent to SMC’s ten-acre Bundy
Campus, which is not on airport land.

“The phony ad by the “D” backers is part of their six-month campaign of
deception,” said John Fairweather, chair of the Committee for Local Con-
trol of Santa Monica Airport Land (Yes on LC, No on D).

The same ad claims that If LC wins, “seven politicians backed by develop-
ment interests will begin immediately to redevelop 40 acres of airport
land without voter approval.” In fact, no one knows what the makeup of
the City Council will be after Election Day, Nov. 4, and the alleged re-
development plan is unspecified in the ad because it’s nonexistent.

“What we do know is that every viable council candidate, incumbent and
challenger, has said “Yes on LC, No on D,” as have the League of Women
Voters of Santa Monica, the Sierra Club, the Residocracy advisory board,
Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City and many others,” Fairweather

Measure LC guarantees that if – IF – flight activities at SMO ever ended,
only low-density development such as parks, playing fields, recreational
areas and cultural/educational facilities such as those already in place
would be allowed on airport land. The City Council could not override
this; only a vote of the people could do it.

“D’s” phony ads are only part of the story. The president of the Santa
Monica/Malibu Classroom Teachers Assn., Sarah Braff, is decrying the
unethical use of her name in Measure D mailers, listing her as a suppor-
ter. In fact, she said, she supports LC and opposes D, calling the ”D”
campaign “full of falsehoods and misrepres-entations.”

Braff is among a number of LC supporters who’ve discovered their names
unethically listed in such ads. The “D” campaign has refused to acknow-
ledge this deceitful practice or apologize for it.

For more information, please go to ItsOurLand.org.


Incumbent School Board member Oscar de la Torre is the only board candi-
date from Santa Monica to win the support of the Malibu Democratic Club
Board of Directors in his campaign for re-election to the Santa Monica
Malibu Unified School District.

The Malibu Democratic Club has a constant membership of more than 80 and
a mailing list of more than 560. It’s also L.A. County’s oldest Democra-
tic organization, with a long history of activism and community involve-

At its monthly meeting earlier this week, the Club Board voted overwhelm-
ingly to support de la Torre In a district in which Democrats outnumber
Republicans by more than 3 to 1.

“I am humbled to have received the support of the Malibu Democratic Club
Board of Directors in my campaign for re-election to the school board.
The Malibu Democratic Club has always supported my candidacy.”

He is also the only candidate in the school board race to have received
the endorsement of the Sierra Club and State Superintendent of Public In-
struction Tom Torlakson..

Maria Loya, de la Torre’s wife, who is running for a seat on the Santa Mon-
ica College Board of Trustees, has also received the support of the Malibu
Democratic Club.

Loya is the only candidate for College Trustee to have received the support
of the Malibu Democratic Club.

“I am honored to have the support of the Malibu Democratic Club in my race
for the Santa Monica Community College Board of Trustees,” said Loya.”Their confidence in me and my candidacy is very humbling.”

The Malibu Democratic Club joins the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and
the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor in endorsing Loya for Santa Monica
College Board of Trustees.


The following email blast was sent to Wilmont members:

Complaint Lodged Against Santa Monica Mayor Pam O’Connor Alleging Il-
legal Campaign Contributions

Dear Wilmont Member:

A group of Santa Monica residents known as the “Transparency Project” (https://www.facebook.com/SMRevealed) is alleging that Santa Monica
Mayor Pam O’Connor has been accepting illegal campaign contributions.
A complaint detailing thirty-one (31) instances – accompanied by over
70 exhibits – has been filed. It alleges and enumerates Mayor O’Con-
nor’s repeated violations of City Charter Amendment XXII, the Taxpa-
yer Protection Amendment of 2000 (a.k.a. ‘the Oakes Initiative’) for
illegally accepting campaign contributions from developers, after vot-
ing to approve their projects.

In the latest move, Santa Monica’s City Attorney has referred the
Transparency Project’s complaint to the Public Integrity Division of
the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. Santa Monica City Attorney
Marsha Moutrie stated that because she “reports directly to the City
Council” (of which the mayor – and subject of the complaint – is a
member) “her office has a conflict of interest, as does the Santa Mon-
ica Police Department.”

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division describes
its responsibility concerning public officials as follows: “Public offi-
cials are elected to positions of public trust. In the event of any bre-
ach of this trust the Public Integrity Division will investigate, and
if appropriate, prosecute criminal misconduct by any elected public off-
icial.” Specifically, concerning election and campaign violations, the
PID explains: “Because the integrity of the election process is crucial
to a free and democratic society, the District Attorney’s Office must be
vigilant in enforcing all laws that regulate the election process. In
this regard, the Public Integrity Division is charged with investigat-
ing and prosecuting allegations of voter fraud, illegal voter registra-
tion practices, illegal campaign practices, illegal campaign contribu-
tions and falsification of candidacy papers.” (See http://da.co.la.ca.

The Transparency Project alleges these serious allegations relate to
serial batched, coordinated contributions that Ms. O’Connor accepted
from owners, principals, or senior officers of three of the biggest
developers in Santa Monica – Hines, Macerich, and Century West – after
she voted to award each developer a substantial public benefit.

The Transparency Project describes itself as an all-volunteer group of
Santa Monica residents concerned about openness and accountability in
Santa Monica city government and politics. The Transparency Project
formed in 2010 after a developer-funded PAC refused to timely disclose
contributor information to Santa Monica voters. Project members track
political contributions to city council candidates and officers to en-
sure that representatives serve the public’s best interest.

The above is reported information. The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood
Coalition expresses no opinion on the validity of the allegations con-
tained in the complaint at this time.

Now we have the email from the City:

Dear Mr. Eubank,

First, I’d like to introduce myself, as we have not had the pleasure of
meeting yet. I am the new Public Affairs Officer for the City of Santa
Monica. One of my responsibilities includes administering the Neighbor-
hood Grants.

We have received an inquiry concerned about the email blast sent from
the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition on Tuesday, October 21, 2014
with the Subject: Complaint Lodged Against Santa Monica Mayor Pam O’Con-
nor Alleging Illegal Campaign Contributions.

The reason for the concern stems from the use of city Neighborhood Match-
ing Grant Funds to distribute information containing political content,
which is a restricted use of the funds. According to the paperwork your
organization submitted at the end of the FY 2013/14 year, the WMNC@wild-
apricot.org email address used to distribute this email was funded by
the matching grant funds (Website/Email Hosting renewal fee 6/28/14-

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and feel free
to follow up with me if there is any information you think we should have.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Warm regards,

Debbie Lee
Communications & Public Affairs Officer
Office of the City Manager

Response From Laurence Eubank
Chair, Wilmont

October 27, 2014

Ms. Lee:

Thank you for your note.

The letter to Wilmont members regarding Transparency allegations re:
Mayor O’Connor was for informational purposes and specifically stated
that the Wilmont Board did not endorse nor vouchsafe for the informa-
tion contained therein.

Transparency’s complaint was sent to newspapers and the Los Angeles DA
office – in that regard it is in the public domain.

If someone alleges that the Complaint contained ‘political content’,
please explain to us how information readily available to the public is
‘political’. For that matter, if we include the name of any city offi-
cial in any of our correspondence, does this make the matter ‘political’?

The Mayor has publically explained she is returning some of the contri-
butions contained in the Complaint, actions which we intend to inform
our members. Is that political content?

For example, at the City Council meeting tomorrow night (10/28) a dis-
cussion will take place that involves water – assuredly a major concern
of Wilmont and all Santa Monica residents. Definitely, we will alert
our members to the public positions espoused by Councilors on the mat-
ter. Does that make it political?

The Wilmont Board are volunteer residents dedicated to informing our
neighbors on the issues before our city. To claim that our communcia-
tions have politic comment when that information is in the public do-
main is spurious and, to my mind, a simple intimdation tactic malevo-
lent to our exercise of open public debate.

If this does not conclude the matter, I invite you to address our mem-
bership in person at your earliest convenience.

Thank you and, on behalf of Wilmont Board members, our very best regards.

Laurence Eubank

To the editor:

This is to notify you that I have made a Public Records request of the
Santa Monica City Attorney regarding communications between Rod Gould,
City Manager, Elaine Polochek, Deputy City Manager, Deborah Lee, Commun-
cations and Public Affairs Officer in the City Manager’s office, and
Mayor Pam O’Connor regarding the email communication copied above, which
I believe can be characterized as an attempt to muzzle the Wilshire Mon-
tana Neighborhood Coalition, a Santa Monica neighborhood group, for pro-
iding information to its members.

As a long-time Santa Monica resident and participant in the Neighborhood
Council, I want to know the chain of command that resulted in this egre-
gious intimidation of a neighborhood group and an attempt to shut down dis-
closure of allegations of illegal campaign contribution behavior by Mayor
O’Connor that are now under investigation by the City Attorney and the
Los Angeles DA’s office.

Ellen Brennan


A rough count of campaign mailers received to date indicates that there
are not only about three times the number we received in 2012, but they
are larger and, by turns, angrier and loonier than they were in ’12.

Our nomination for the lowst mailer thus far is from Mayor Pro Tem Terry
O’Day’s PAC, “Responsible Leadership for A Better Santa Monica.” It’s
funded by Edward Thomas Company, which owns and operates Shutters Hotel
and Casa del Mar, and Ocean Avenue LLC, which owns the Miramar Hotel.

O’Day came to the town’s attention in 2008 when he and Judy Abdo ran
the bogus “Save Our City” campaign, which was funded by $700,000 from
developers, and featured prominent residents telling lies about Prop
T destroying everything we cherished.

Now O’Day urges us to vote for Pam O’Connor and Frank Gruber, “outstand-
ing principled leaders.”

“Principled leader” O’Connor has not only spearheaded the building boom
that has led to a perpetual traffic jam, and oversized hulks of buildings
that insult and diminish this gloriously idiosyncratic beach town, but
she has allegedly profited from it, according to the 31 complaints filed
by the Santa Monica Transparency Group that are now being examined by
the District Attorney.

“Principled leader” Gruber was among the leading and noisiest opponents
of Prop T, a residents’ ballot measure backed by the Santa Monica Coali-
tion for A Livable City (SMCLC) that would have got commercial develop-
ment under control. Gruber reviled SMCLC as selfish “no-growthers” and
urged voters to defeat Prop T, which ultimately they did.

O’Day says, “I’ve worked with Pam O’Connor on the City Council, and she
knows how to make things work, which is why I supported her as our Mayor.
She is a nationally recognized leader in historic preservation…” probably
in the same sense that O’Day is,when he describes himself as “a renowned environmentalist.”

O’Day rattles on. “Ever since, I joined our planning commission over ten
years ago, Frank has been a mentor and confidant to me. He’s a leading
voice for education, housing and parks…” – like virtually everyone on the

Obviously, if what voters want is “responsible leadership, principled lead-
ership,” they had better look beyond O’Connor, Gruber and O’Day, who are,
as the cliche goes, the problem, not the solution.