To The Editor:

As people have said how much they enjoyed the poetry about palm trees that I sent out over the summer as part of our effort to preserve palm tree streetscapes on several Santa Monica streets, here is more poetry from various authors about palm trees.

•     As the palm-tree standeth so straight and so tall,
The more the hail beats, and the more the rains fall.

•     Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Annie of Tharaw; translation from the German of Simon Dach, line 11.

•     First the high palme-trees, with braunches faire,
Out of the lowly vallies did arise,
And high shoote up their heads into the skyes.
•     Edmund Spenser, Virgil’s Gnat, line 191.

•     Next to thee, O fair gazelle,
O Beddowee girl, beloved so well;

Next to the fearless Nedjidee,
Whose fleetness shall bear me again to thee;

Next to ye both I love the Palm,
With his leaves of beauty, his fruit of balm;

Next to ye both I love the Tree
Whose fluttering shadow wraps us three
With love, and silence, and mystery!
•     Bayard Taylor, The Arab to the Palm.

•     Of threads of palm was the carpet spun
Whereon he kneels when the day is done,
And the foreheads of Islam are bowed as one!

To him the palm is a gift divine,
Wherein all uses of man combine,—
House and raiment and food and wine!

And, in the hour of his great release,
His need of the palms shall only cease
With the shroud wherein he lieth in peace.

“Allah il Allah!” he sings his psalm,
On the Indian Sea, by the isles of balm;
“Thanks to Allah, who gives the palm!”
•     John Greenleaf Whittier, The Palm-Tree.

I know you share my passion for palm trees – their grace, their beauty, and their ability (paraphrasing Melissa Papp-Green’s young son who spoke so eloquently at the task force meeting) “to lift our eyes up to the stars, to lift our spirits above the crowded details of our lives”.

I note on the most recent replacement tree grid from the task force that Marguerita Street from 17th to 22nd now shows that palms are to replace existing palms and camphors are to replace existing broad-leaf trees/camphors as they die off. This plan seems to ignore the fact that most of the street is still lined with palms today, and the replacement broadleaf/camphor trees that have been planted have damaged the beauty and integrity of the Palm Tree allee looking east towards the mountains. Far better to replace those broadleaf/camphor trees, as they die off, with palm trees as well in order to restore the beautiful streetscape.

Regarding the palms in Palisades Park,  I have since learned that the Landmarks Commission, with input from the Recreation and Parks Commission, will require a certificate of appropriateness for any palms that die and need to be replaced with a new palm species in the park. One of the palm tree species planted in recent years to replace dying Indian Date Palms, the Royal Palm (Roystonia regia), did not do well. They since have been replaced with the Woodvetchia Palm (Woodvetchia spp.), see photo.

Woodvetchia Palm

I know many of us would consider the Woodvetchia palm a relatively poor aesthetic substitute for the Canary Island Date Palm – the palm fronds are not nearly as elegant as those of the Canary Island Date Palm.  Thus, I would encourage the city to also consider Jubaea chilensis, the Chilean Wine Palm, as a replacement tree, as that variety is now listed as a replacement for the Canary Island Date Palm in other areas of the city and much more closely resembles the Canary Island Date Palm. (See photo, top.)

Thanks for listening.
Russ and Barbara Whittenburg
Santa Monica

by Ty Wapato

The 2010 City Council election is a vivid example of how big money developers distort the truth to impose their wills on the citizens of Santa Monica. The contemptible slate mailers that misrepresented the endorsements of CEPS and the Santa Monica Police Officers Association, while they may seem like yesterday’s news, are a clear demonstration of how low the developers will stoop. The Police Association issued a statement protesting the misuse of their logo on the mailer, but by then the damage was done.

More troubling is the appearance that the candidates benefiting from their treachery were complicit in the deception. In small print the mailers stated that these candidates had paid to be included. Later they denied any connection with the mailers. It was convenient that they did not have to issue their denials until after the election.

The political axiom is that elections have consequences, and the consequences of this election may well be the loss of our treasured Santa Monica lifestyle. We have started down a slippery slope that will result in Santa Monica becoming the Miami Beach of the West Coast if the citizens do not act quickly to regain their power.

True Santa Monicans that have lived here long enough to cherish the city do not want to demolish the tree lined beauty of San Vicente Boulevard, with its grassy center divide and its collection of garden apartments with generous landscaped setbacks. They do not want to replace a verdant neighborhood that is home to long-time Santa Monicans with skyscraper after skyscraper. Yet that is the tragedy that is in the making. It is happening because the distortions that we saw in the City Council campaign are repeated again and again in developers’ negotiations with the Planning Department. Trammel Crow describes their most recent plans at 301 Ocean Avenue as “a new three and four story, 20-unit condominium complex consisting of three buildings oriented around a central courtyard.” The “central courtyard” is actually little more than a wide walkway between the buildings.

The loss of open space and the increased structural density is clearly seen in the views of the apartment complex at 301 Ocean Avenue and the plans for the complex Trammel Crow wants to build. The 47 affordable family units that have graced the corner since 1952 have been vacant since Trammel Crow evicted the tenants in March 2009. It is not that the existing structure is dilapidated or that is suffers because of poor construction. In fact the building is an example of extremely high grade construction. Architect Robert Jackson stated that it had superior materials and workmanship and incorporated design concepts that were well ahead of its time when it was built in 1952.

Some neighbors have complained that the site has become an eyesore, and although they once favored preserving the building, they now just want something done to restore the beauty of the neighborhood. The complaints are justified because Trammel Crow is not maintaining the appearance of the property. They suspended landscape maintenance while the building was still occupied, allowing the lush foliage in the interior garden and along the front of the site to dry up and perish. When the residents began maintaining the landscaping using their own funds and for fertilizer and other supplies Trammel Crow put locked caps on the water outlets and threatened legal action if the activity was not stopped. After evicting the tenants Trammel Crow boarded the windows with unpainted plywood. At their Planning Commission design review hearing they were asked if they could take the plywood off  the windows or at least put it on the inside of the windows to reduce the shocking impact. Of course that would be counterproductive as it would slow the erosion of neighborhood patience and support for preserving the building.

There is considerable sentiment in Santa Monica to preserve the relatively intact collection of garden apartments that line both sides of San Vicente Boulevard east of Ocean Avenue, and 301 Ocean Avenue is recognized as the gateway to that district. Although its address is on Ocean Avenue, more than 75% of the property frontage is on San Vicente Boulevard. Ideas for preserving the garden apartments include designating it as a Historic District or creating a Conservation Overlay District. The Conservation Overlay District is a creation of the Planning Department that found its way into the Monster LUCE plan. It is a prime example of fuzzy thinking. It is presented as a way to preserve a neighborhood without having to preserve the buildings. It neglects the basic fact that the neighborhood consists of people. And those people are in the neighborhood because of the garden apartments.

Garden apartments are built around a central landscaped area. The main entrances into the individual units face into the garden and encourage interaction between the tenants. This stimulates a sense of community that is lacking in most apartment dwellings. San Vicente Boulevard is a collection of these mini-communities whose citizens are now being bound together as a larger community to save their homes from the developer’s wrecking ball.

The next articles will explore how the events at 301 Ocean Avenue will permanently affect the future lifestyle of all citizens of Santa Monica.

by Peggy Clifford

Anyone from anywhere can come into Santa Monica and set up a fake committee called  “Santa Monicans for Quality Government,”  though he’s not a “Santa Monican” and, as far as we know, is the sole member of the group.

And the aforesaid anyone from anywhere can collect money from developers, property managers and developers’ lawyers, most of whom are not Santa Monica residents and have no interest in “quality government,” but a fervent interest in “friendly government,” as they all have major projects seeking approval from what passes for government in Santa Monica, and he can use the money to feature Council members who are seeking re-election
in bogus mailers.

The candidates who are featured in the bogus mailers can claim that they knew nothing about them. though the man who made them was the campaign consultant for two of the candidates, and a line in the mailers says that the candidates who appear in the mailer have paid for and authorized their appearance in the mailers.

The candidates can take the developers’ money and approve their projects and say –with straight faces — that the developers’ contributions did not influence their votes.

The man who formed the committee can use the official insignia of the Police and Firefighters Associations on his fake mailers and exclude one of their endorsements, and be described by a Police spokesman as merely “disingenuous.”

He can claim that the mailers are “state slate mailers,” though the only people who can vote for the candidates in the mailers live in Santa Monica.

A residents’ group can file a formal complaint with the City Attorney, but she can claim that as her office represents the Council, it can’t investigate complaints in which Council members might be involved, so she’ll have to send the complaint out of town — to the “Public Integrity” division of the District Attorney’s Office.

The “Public Integrity” office can choose what it will investigate, and it chose not to investigate  this complaint and sent it on to the State’s Campaign Fair Practices Commission (CFPC).

And the man from anywhere can file his campaign’s financial disclosure statements after the deadline, when they are too late to be useful, and only receive a “warning” from CFPC,   rather than a fine, for what it  described as “two violations of the state’s Political Reform Act.”

So the man from anywhere, the developers and the Council members can do whatever they like, and the City Attorney and DA can choose to do nothing, and CFPC can do almost nothing.

And, unlike the man from anywhere, the developers and the Council candidates,  we, the people, the voters, the residents can’t do anything about any of it.

City planner Jing Yeo and Carrie Garlett from PBS&J, the firm that’s doing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed Bergamot Transit Village Center, gave a preliminary report on the 960,000 square foot project Wednesday night, and then heard what some of the 50 residents at the meeting thought about the project. Those comments will be included in the DEIR.
The deadline for issues residents want the DEIR to address is December 15, 2010. They should be sent to jing.yeo@smgov.net and copied to Council@smgov.net
The DEIR will be available for comment in Summer 2011.
The meeting demonstrated, as all such meetings in recent years have demonstrated, that there is a significant divide between what residents want Santa Monica to be and City planners’ aspirations for it.
A Pico Neighborhood resident noted that no residents want more large projects, noted that Olympic between Cloverfield and Centinela is already gridlocked, and asked that all the commercial projects that are planned for that immediate area be included in the EIR, which should examine current traffic, water usage and so on, as well as the proposed projects’ impacts.
A West Los Angeles resident said the planners should look at cumulative projects. Bundy Village and Medical Park, a half mile east of Bergamot, as proposed, would generate 21,000 new daily car trips and significantly increase congestion in 19 intersections that could not be mitigated. and added that Santa Monica should provide affordable housing for the work force that currently funnels through West LA every day.
A Santa Monica resident said the current plan has insufficient parking spaces.
Another resident said 1900 parking spaces will draw 1900 cars. The developer should “unbundle” the parking, provide more bicycle parking spaces, and create a true “transit village” in which the residents would walk, cycle, and use public transit.
A 32-year Pico neighborhood resident believes there’s already too much traffic, and the proposed project will make it worse.
35-year 32nd Street (Sunset Park) resident said traffic is impossible now. He works in the creative arts, and questioned the need for hundreds of thousands of square feet of additional
creative arts office space in the Bergamot and Mixed-Use Creative districts.
A Pico neighborhood resident said there were too many parking spaces in the plan, adding that everyone should do as she does and ride bicycles everywhere to reduce the amount
of space devoted to traffic and parking.
A Mid-City resident asked how many car trips 1900 parking spaces would generate.
A Sunset Park resident reported that HUD and the Department of Transportation is awarding the City of Santa Monica a $600,000-plus grant to develop a Master Plan for the area that includes the Bergamot Station, the Bergamot Transit Village, and the Mixed-Use Creative District. The HUD grant notice says that “The Master Plan is a critical component of the citywide vision to integrate land use and transportation to achieve reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduce partial vehicle miles traveled, and create a sustainable local community.” If the City needs this to plan for the environmental impacts of all of the future projects in that area, how can any valid EIR, which has to include all of these projects, proceed before the Master Plan is complete?
Isn’t this piecemeal planning? Residents and decision-makers have a right to understand all of the cumulative impacts on traffic, air quality and infrastructure for all projects that are located in the same area and will share the same roads. Because we don’t yet have a Master Plan, we don’t even know what densities would be allowable from a neutral planning process for which areas, or what the cumulative impacts would be on the environment.
A Mid-City resident said developers should be forced to live near their projects to fully appreciate the impacts on people’s lives. The city has been taken over by developers. They apparently bought the last election. Mid-City Neighbors is re-activating, and all residents should get involved with their neighborhood organizations. Everybody in the city will be affected by these projects. Even the buses get stuck in traffic. We have to say, ‘Enough is enough.’
Another Resident noted that the Los Angeles area has a water shortage and the worst air quality in the country. A large project like this will only make it worse. Quality is more important than quantity. All of these large developments are not “sustainable,” a goal upon which the City of Santa Monica prides itself.
A North of Wilshire resident said that before Mayor Ken Genser died, he warned residents to keep an eye on the LUCE update and on developers. She suggested that the Bergamot project be a “no parking structure” and wondered whether tenants could be required to sign contracts to use only public transportation. She currently feels trapped in her home by traffic congestion that makes it difficult to get anywhere, day or evening.
A Sunset Park resident, who has lived in Santa Monica since 1970 and is saddened by the changes he’s seen reported that, as an attorney, he does CEQA litigation and “sues the City of Los Angeles all the time.” The City of Santa Monica has to say, “We have reached the saturation point,” and enforce limits. It’s a matter of private property rights of developers vs. the rest of the city. An EIR can always be overcome by a “statement of overriding considerations.” These turn into a thousand paper cuts that kill a city. Residents should start talking to Council members now and ask. “What’s the saturation point? When is enough enough?”
A Sunset Park resident, who has lived in her home for 15 years, said the intersection of 20th and Pearl, which is in the middle of a residential neighborhood, already has a Level of Service LOS) rating of “F.” She added that the Bergamot project is too big, and she’s concerned about building height and mass, development density in that area, the thousands
of additional daily car trips the project will generate, including commuter traffic from Venice, Del Mar, Marina del Rey, Playa Vista, Playa del Rey, and Westchester through her neighborhood. She opposes large developments if the traffic impact on residential neighborhoods cannot be mitigated, and wants the Draft EIR to include daily traffic counts, Level of Service ratings for intersections, impacts on air quality, sewers, water, energy, solid waste, public services such as police and fire, the adjacent neighborhoods, parking, shadows created by such tall buildings, and lighting issues such as the effect of nighttime illumination and daytime glare on adjacent land uses.
In the last three decades, the City planners have overseen the design and construction of
9 million square feet of over-sized, undistinguished new commercial development. 10 new equally mediocre projects are now in the works, including the 960,000 sq ft Bergamot project and another million sq ft of new commercial construction nearby. As the residents said again and again at the meeting, the area is already choking on traffic.
The addition of another 2 million sq ft of new commercial developments here and the 1 million-plus sq ft Bundy Village project just across the L.A. line seem bound to lead to terminal gridlock that will effectively shut down Sunset Park and the Pico Neighborhood to the south, the mid-city residential neighborhood to the north and east, and the entire 10 freeway.
The City’s traffic “expert” has already been forced by alert residents to recant his initial
promise that the recently adopted land use and circulation elements (LUCE) would result
in “no new net trips.” He now says there will be “no new net peak PM trips” — probably
because there will be no room for even one more vehicle there and then.
Why, then, are the planners pushing Bergamot Transit Village Center? Because their job
seems to be to push, not plan. And developers, including Hines, the Bergamot project builder, have apparently bought the Council majority, which has the last word on these projects.
But, of course, residents have more planning savvy than the City’s crew, as well as the actual
last word, and it’s time they used both.

Thanks to Zina Josephs for her report on the meeting.

The following letter was sent to Santa Monica City Council members by resident Susan Hartley:

Dear Council members:

Re 12/14 agenda item on the bee ordinance: I urge you to amend Santa Monica’s ordinance, legalize beekeeping on private property and eliminate the city’s extermination policy re bees.

Given the threat of bee extinction globally, it’s criminal that Santa Monica requires bee extermination. How can Santa Monica say it’s green, if it’s outlawed bees?

Many cities are showing the foresight to legalize beekeeping and eliminate bee extermination in favor of relocation. Santa Monica should do the same. Here are two links to pieces about New York City lifting its beekeeping ban. They are even considering setting up beehives at schools for educational and fundraising purposes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=125389428&ft=1&f=1091

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/opinion/07Raffles.html?ref=urban_agriculture

Susan J. Hartley

The five City Council members who won the recent election — four Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights’ (SMRR) members Gleam Davis, Terry O’Day, Pam O’Connor and Kevin McKeown, and independent Bob Holbrook — had a big edge going in.

They were all incumbents (Davis and O’Day by appointment), and better known than the other candidates. SMRR’s campaign machine rolled out a major propaganda blitz for its candidates, crediting them and itself for almost everything good in Santa Monica but sunshine, and wrung endorsements for them from virtually every political and environmental group in the area. Holbrook, a Santa Monica native and lifelong resident, had already been elected
five times.
But four of the five began the new term Tuesday night under a cloud, and their first official act was chiefly notable for its gracelessness.
SMRRs Davis, O’Day and O’Connor and independent Holbrook had all appeared during the campaign in five tricked up mailers that were produced by a bogus entity, Santa Monicans for Quality Government (SMQG), and funded by developers, all of whom have commercial projects that need Council
approval.
The five mailers touted the four as having been endorsed by the Police and Firefighters and the Community for Excellent Public Schools(CEPS), but
Council member McKeown, who was also endorsed by the Police and Firefighters and CEPS, did not appear in the phony mailers, because he was
their target.
SMQG apparently reckoned that McKeown’s absence from the key mailers would cost him votes. It may have, but, this year, as in 2006, McKeown ran well ahead of all the other candidates in the Council contest. It’s impossible to gauge what, if any, impact the mailers had on the Council race as a whole,
but it may have been a factor in Holbrook’s very slim victory over SMRR Ted Winterer.
Though the election is over and the results are in and were certified by the
Council at Tuesday night’s meeting, an investigation is underway. It was triggered by a complaint filed by the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) with the City Attorney before the election, forwarded to the Los Angeles D.A.’s office following the election by the City Attorney, and has been sent on by the DA to the State Fair Campaign Practices Commission.

Fred Huebscher has been identified as president of SMQG. He was also Davis
and O’Connor’s political consultant.

SMQG’s campaign financial statements are under fire on several counts, as is its inclusion of Santa Monica Police and Firefighters Association insignia in the fake mailers.
A couple of the candidates featured in the mailers have denied knowing anything
about them, though a SMQG statement claims that all the featured candidates “paid for and authorized their appearances.”
Two residents appeared Tuesday night and asked the Council to name McKeown
mayor. As they said, he has been on the Council for 12 years and is the only member of the Council — except newcomers Davis and O’Day — who has never served as mayor, and in 2006 and again this year, he got more votes than any of his colleagues. In addition, the two advocates said, he attended more board and commission meetings and community forums and events and responded more often to residents’ concerns than any other Council member.
When City Clerk Maria Stewart called for mayoral nominations, O’Connor immediately nominated SMRR Richard Bloom, who did not run this year.
Mayor Bobby Shriver, an independent, then nominated McKeown, who
refused the nomination. But when votes were cast, he joined Shriver and
Davis to vote for himself, but Holbrook and O’Day joined O’Connor and
Bloom to give Bloom four votes and the mayor’s gavel for the next two
years. He has been mayor at least twice before, and is said to have his sights
set on a run for State Assembly next year.
When Stewart called for nominations for Mayor Pro Tem, Shriver again
nominated McKeown, and he refused again. Holbrook then nominated first term
winners Davis and O’Day to split the two-year term. But, after a series of votes,
Davis was named Mayor Pro Tem for the full two years.
She and O’Day both have to run in two years for full four-year terms, but as
Mayor pro tem, Davis will be more visible than O’Day.
All in all, it was a bad night for the democratic process, Santa Monica and simple civility.

Before the recent election, Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) filed a Complaint with the Santa Monica City Attorney regarding violations of city election law by the developer front group, Santa Monicans for Quality Government (SMQG).  Earlier this week, SMCLC queried the City Attorney about the status of its investigation of SMQG.

Friday, December 3, a month after the election, the City Attorney responded to  the SMCLC’s inquiry. It is referring the matter to the Los Angeles District Attorney for investigation and possible criminal prosecution.  The DA’s Public Integrity Division will conduct the investigation.
The District Attorney has broad powers to investigate whether a crime was committed under Santa Monica’s Municipal Code, to determine all those who were responsible, and, based on its findings, to seek criminal sanctions for the repeated, orchestrated refusal of SMQG to file  timely reports of any of the contributions it received from developers, and those who work for them, to the City of Santa Monica and its voters as required by law.

In a statement Friday, SMCLC said, “The failure to timely report who was funding SMQG affected the outcome of the City Council election as vital information was withheld from voters in this race.  The developers who paid for four deceptive mailers have big development projects which will come before the very City councilmembers they secretly financed through SMQG.  The President of SMQG was the political consultant for two of these City councilmembers.

“The decision by SMQG not to timely report vital funding information to the electorate made a mockery of the election process and cast a cloud over the election. The integrity and transparency of the election process is crucial to a free and democratic society.”

The Dispatch believes that the DA’s office should also investigate the City Attorney’s
failure to act immediately on the SMCLC complaint as well as news reports in the Dispatch and other news sources on the bogus mailers, rather than  waiting until the election was
over. Since the sole purpose of the SMQG mailers was to influence the election outcome,
the City Attorney should have given highest priority to the matter before
the election, in order to alert voters to the presence of the fake mailers before they cast
their  votes.

As it is, we have no idea how much influence the phony mailers had on the election or whether any of  the five newly elected or re-elected Council members owes his or her
victory to the mailers.

Four mailers presented Council candidates Pam O’Connor,  Terry O’Day, Bob Holbrook and Gleam Davis as the Police and Firefighters’ choices.  It’s generally seen as a
plum endorsement, the one every candidate wants. Kevin McKeown won the endorsement this year, as in previous years,  but he was not mentioned in any of the mailers.  He was
also endorsed by Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS), another plum, but SMQG’s bogus CEPS  mailer excluded him, too.

When the Police Officers Association learned of the fake mailers, which featured both the
police and firefighters insignia, a police spokesman said the mailers were “disingenuous.” As
far as we know, “disingenuousness” is not illegal,  but fraud is, and in an apparent attempt
to avoid associating the four candidates in the mailers with fraud, the officer made light of
it. But a line in the mailers states that  “Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate,” and Fred Huebscher, president of SMQG, was O’Connor and Davis’s
campaign consultant. There’s nothing disingenuous about any of it.

According to a story in the Santa Monica Daily Press, “Because the City Attorney’s Office represents the council in legal matters, Moutrie said members of her staff aren’t in a position to investigate complaints that involve council members or groups tied to them.”

In this instance, Council incumbents’ alleged rights took precedence over residents’ rights
to be fully and honestly informed when they cast their votes. But, if the City Attorney represents the Council, who represents the people to ensure that Council members act in the best interests of the community rather than the special interests who finance their campaigns? Apparently nobody in City Hall.

Like the recent election, the 2008 election was rife with false statements, bogus charges and
claims, and driven by developers’ money. We wrote about it.  Everybody knew about it, but the City did nothing. The developers were the big winners. New commercial projects, totaling
two million square feet, are now in the works, with more on the way.  The recent election
used the same playbook. We expect the DA investigation to be exhaustive and definitive,
but irreparable damage has been done, because four of the Council members who will take
their seats Tuesday for the new term were involved in a deception, and four constitutes a majority.

Will they do the honorable thing and recuse themselves on all votes on new commercial
developments, or will they vote, as they have in the past? And will they vote for the
special interests or the residents they were elected to represent?

Stay tuned.

Santa Monica City Council candidate Ted Winterer issued the following statement
Friday, December 3.

Earlier this week the County Registrar certified the election results for the City of Santa Monica. The final tally left me 56 votes behind Councilmember Bob Holbrook in the race for the third and final 4- year seat on the City Council, a mere .08% difference of the total votes cast.

Any elector has until five days after the certification to contest the election results. Given the razor thin margin between Councilmember Holbrook and me, I owed it to my supporters to explore the prospects of a challenge.

We looked long and hard at the County’s report of uncounted vote by mail and provisional ballots to see if a challenge of these ballots might yield a different election result and could not find enough potential new votes to affect the outcome. And we analyzed the error rate of a hand count of the machine-generated tally in five Santa Monica precincts: while I gained a few votes in the recount the trend appeared insufficient to overcome Council member Holbrook’s lead. Given the improbability of a change in the outcome, we have decided not to contest the election results.

I congratulate Councilmember Holbrook on his victory and thank him for his graciousness and good cheer during what has been a difficult month for both of us.

We ran a campaign of which we’re proud: we obtained just about every endorsement we sought, reached our fundraising goals without taking donations from special interests, mailed campaign literature throughout the city and spoke personally with thousands of voters. I hope the City Council will pay heed to the issues I’ve raised and the concerns of my supporters.

I will always be grateful to those who worked on my campaign, to those who donated funds towards my efforts and, of course, to those who showed their support by voting for me. I look forward to continuing to serve our fine city as a Planning Commissioner.

According to the County Registrar’s office, all the absentee and provisional ballots in the November 2 election have been now been counted, and incumbent Councilman Bob Holbrook, with 12,771 votes, defeated challenger Ted Winterer, with 12,715 votes, by 56 votes.
According to the City Clerk, Winterer could request a recount, but he would have to pay the costs. He could not be reached for comment.
Holbrook, an independent, was seeking a sixth term. Winterer, a Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
(SMRR) nominee and Planning Commissioner, was running for his first term.
Mayor Bobby Shriver and Holbrook are the only independent members of the Council. SMRR has held the majority of Council seats since 1988. .

ioThe big winner in the recent election was the status quo.
That’s good news for incumbents, and bad news for the
rest of us, because things weren’t going all that well before
the election.
The City Hall/SMRR/developers axis, and their
consultants, once again swamped voters with lies and deceptions. As a result, a majority of voters backed a tax
we don’t need, re-elected incumbents who should have
been rejected, and rejected worthy candidates who should have been elected.
Though Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR)
managed, by means we can’t imagine, to wring endorsements of its entire slate of candidates by every
conceivable and prestigious liberal organization in the
area, they can’t seem to muster four votes on the Council to protect renters from being abused by landlords and/or developers, as in the 301 Ocean Avenue case (see related stories).
This legendary beach town went off the rails a while ago. The town is very small — eight square miles. Its population has hovered around 87,000 for decades. In recent years, City staff has doubled. And the City budget topped half-a-billion dollars, but our quality of life has deteriorated.
Who are all those people in City Hall? What are they
doing? Why are they making more money than most
residents? And why, in these hard times, did they just
get raises that totaled $26 million?
Since the early 1980s, 9 million square feet of new commercial development has fractured the townscape, ten major new projects are in the hopper right now, traffic congestion ties up our streets daily, and the daily transient population is over 300,000. But the City spends over $3
million annually on promotion.
Over the objections of almost everyone, the City has done
a deal with the Expo light rail to place its maintenance yard
on a serene residential street in the Pico Neighborhood.
There will be more concessions to Expo, and we can look
forward — with fear and loathing — to the unfurling of the Jumbo LUCE sometime soon.
But, for all the boasting, blundering and bullying that the
SMRR Council majority and the mega-City Hall staff
engage in, they don’t own Santa Monica, the increasingly
beset residents do, and they are increasingly angry, and
that’s good news for this iconic beach town and bad news
for City Hall.