As most of you who drive on 4th or Pico Avenue or use the 4th Street freeway on-ramp know, the whole Santa Monica High School campus has been a construction zone for almost a decade. During that time half a dozen structures have been destroyed, including the prized History Building, while a whole new fleet of very expensive buildings have been erected. We are now hopefully reaching the end of this unnecessary demolition derby.
The reason it has been mostly unnecessary is that the City and School District’s student population has been steadily declining. In 2014, the district had about 11,300 students, while today, it has about 8,600. This is a huge drop, almost 1/4 of the enrollment, in 9 years. There are many reasons for this decline, but it is not unique to Santa Monica. Overall, the State of California, the County of Los Angeles, and the City of Santa Monica have all lost significant population over the last few years.
Starting with the excess deaths from Covid, the high cost of land, construction, housing, and living, the relatively new ability to work remotely, the declining immigration, household formation, and birth rates, coupled with crime and homelessness, and finally, the high-interest rates are keeping new families from buying housing. All these trends have taken the real population pressure (except homelessness) off both the State and our City.
Specifically, our school district suffers from all these same adverse enrollment trends but has the additional shrinking problem caused by the district’s upcoming divorce from Malibu, which is a relatively small (10% of Santa Monica) but wealthy city. However, the real problem the District faces, unless your income is over six figures, is that it’s becoming increasingly impossible to raise a family in our City.
The School District (SMMUSD) is not to blame for the declining enrollment; it is still rated as an excellent school district. However, the City and Sacramento are to blame for the lack of 2 and 3-bedroom homes, apartments, or condos in Santa Monica because City Codes and State laws have failed to mandate the kind of housing needed for families. In addition, there has been a complete failure to mandate and fund the affordable version of such family-friendly housing. For example, of the approximately 520 new units approved for the huge Gelson’s project (at Lincoln and Ocean Park), there are only about 160 two-bedroom units, and only a pitiful 12 of those are affordable two-bedroom units. Naturally, there are no three-bedroom apartments in that huge project because it’s much more profitable for owners to rent out three one-bedroom apartments or studios than to rent out one three-bedroom apartment, which occupies about the same footprint.
In fact, where City codes require or encourage 3-bedroom apartments, developers often cleverly design the supposed 3-bedroom unit but with three separate exterior doors so they can be rented out as three one-bedroom or studio apartments. Finally, the housing projects that will be built (9000 are supposed to be built in the next eight years) will continue to be deficient in child-usable open space in our already park deficient City because, again, the City prioritizes profits over families.
The City and State’s failure to mandate more (or subsidize affordably) 2 and 3-bedroom units means the School District will continue to lose enrollment as the built environment is relentlessly overbuilt for the supposed invasion of high-paying gig workers and or rich seniors who allegedly only want to live in studio and one-bedroom micro units. Nonetheless, while multi-bedroom units can equally well serve university students’ multigenerational and melded families, they are absolutely necessary for families with children ages 1-18, who would stabilize our fading school district.
In the meantime, the shrinking School District has been increasing the ratio of out-of-district students to artificially increase its enrollment. These students, whose families do not pay property taxes supporting SMMUSD’s budget, artificially buttress our School District’s enrollment. Meanwhile, Santa Monica residents and businesses pay usurious property taxes and billions of dollars plus in bonds to fund an out-of-control and unnecessary building binge like the one we see at Santa Monica High School, among other campuses.
As bond taxes increase, they are passed on to all, directly or indirectly, to owners and renters alike, making the City less affordable for all. SMMUSD, instead of trying to live within its means, increasingly aspires to amp up its building binge on steroids, even delusionally considering taking over the historic Civic Center Auditorium for a volleyball court and wrestling facility: as if that were the real facility shortage at the high school?
That building binge, which has now demolished and rebuilt virtually every building on the high school campus (except the Barnum Auditorium, which is only protected because it is already landmarked), leaves only the English Building, the last original building left on campus.
If the district wants to pass another bond this year, it will have to be much more credible as to why it wants to continue massively (already over a billion dollars) increasing the public bond debt for a shrinking population of students. It needs to show how each dollar extracted will provide real long-term benefits and sustainability for all residents and not just shiny new buildings to attract out-of-district students.
By Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA
S.M.a.r.t Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
Thane Roberts, Architect, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Robert H. Taylor AIA, Architect, Dan Jansenson, Architect & Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission, Samuel Tolkin Architect & Planning Commissioner, Michael Jolly, AIR-CRE Marie Standing. Jack Hillbrand AIA
For previous articles, see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing
