Our readers know that SM.a.r.t (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) members are an opinionated bunch and are never in consistent issue about any complex issue. The following recommendations are our general consensus but there is wide variation and disagreement in many issues. Please carefully read both the Official Voter Information Guide and the Official Sample Ballot brochure you received in the mail and do your own research. Discussing the issues with your friends can also be very enlightening to hear a side of an issue that perhaps you have not thought of. The recommendations below are a starting point for those discussions:
CITY COUNCIL: Phil Brock, Oscar De La Torre, John Putnam, Vivian Rocknian. This slate has a strong position on public safety and is not peddling the myth that all the skyscrapers we are being inundated with are going to increase housing affordability. They are not going to vote for destroying the single family zone by allowing 10 units per single family lot (or any City lot for that matter) as allowed by SB10 which needs City Council approval for enactment,
SCHOOL BOARD: Vote only for Christine Falaguerra. She is a new candidate and is an experienced teacher, a qualification that is incredibly valuable for a School Board. She will introduce sanity and not increase the fiscal mismanagement of the 3 current incumbents running for re-election.
STATE ASSEMBLY: Rick Zbur
US REPRESENTATIVE: Ted Lieu
MEASURE F (public safety): YES.
MEASURE K (8% Parking cost increase): NO. Parking is already a scarce commodity and will become increasingly scarce and expensive as developers take advantage of the State mandated no parking requirements for new housing and ADUs dump all their displaced parking on the public street.
MEASURE PSK: YES, helpful if K passes
Generally speaking, when considering the myriad of bond choices we face (see below), our citizens are suffering from bond fatigue. We keep being asked to increase the burden on ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren because the fiscal burden of our decisions today will stretch 30 years into the future. We know full well that bonds always burden both renters and property owners and that the cost of these bonds will add billions more of interest to the bond itself, amplifying its negative impact but only benefiting the financiers.
The fact that we are running up huge bond obligations means our cities, counties, school boards and states will all have their credit limits already “tapped out” when we face the inevitable real crisis eg earthquakes, tsunamis, brownouts, water supply collapse, etc. that will certainly appear in the next 30 years and that can only be mitigated in a timely manner by approving bonds. The bond is essentially a credit card being given to the public: which does not have an unlimited credit limit. The problems the current bonds are trying to resolve are all real and worthy but, for the reasons noted above, be very careful about adding to public’s increasing debt obligations and decreasing credit rating. Choose carefully the crises you believe in and vote yes only on those. You can vote no on others, not because, you don’t think they are important, but they have to be viewed in the context of our current and future limited borrowing capacity
MEASURE QS: NO. We don’t like to speak against education, but this is another runaway debt increase on top of the School District’s existing $1+ Billion in bonds for a mismanaged school district whose enrollment is shrinking, has a $100 million unsecured pension obligation and has had a disastrous maintenance record of upkeep of its existing facilities (see SMASH/John Muir closure for reconstruction) not to mention the horrible lack of protection for its historic assets. None of these horrifically high proposed expenses helps teachers, improves student performance, closes achievement gaps, preserves historical assets, or really fosters sustainability. Air-conditioning classrooms is perhaps the only exception to this list of education goals, but there is not half a billion dollars worth of air-conditioning improvements in this bond. Finally, because of the bonds built in escape clause, there is no obligation for this bond to actually be spent on any of its listed projects.
MEASURE MM (Malibu School Bond). NO or ABSTAIN. Santa Monica residents should not be voting on another City’s indebtedness. Malibu citizens should decide this bond.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Nathan Hochman
The following 5 judicial recommendations are from a progressive public service attorney
SUPERIOR COURT #99: George Turner
SUPERIOR COURT #48: Erica Wiley
SUPERIOR COURT #97: Sharon Ransom
SUPERIOR COURT#135: Both are good vote for either Mac or Huerta
SUPERIOR COURT#137: Luz Herera
COUNTY MEASURE G: NO, increases number of County supervisors which is good, but the benefit is canceled by creating an undemocratic all powerful czar.
COUNTY MEASURE A (Housing Funding): NO. While the motive is good, the method, a regressive sales tax increase, is not good since it increases an already high sales tax that makes life less affordable for everyone, particularly the poorer residents. The results of the last expiring 1/4% sales tax dedicated to housing is a 37% increase in homelessness.
STATE MEASURE 2 (School & College Funding): NO. Citizens already face school bond overload ($1/2 billion for SM schools plus $10 billion for State schools etc) while the State’s school enrollment is collapsing.
STATE MEASURE 3 (Right to marriage): YES.
STATE MEASURE 4 (Water safety, nature open lands, etc): YES. Scarce safe water and preserving shrinking open lands are essential to surviving global warming.
STATE MEASURE 5 (55% bond approval for housing) NO. Because of lack of accountability and not clearly shown to increase affordability. Perpetuates state mismanagement of housing issues.
STATE MEASURE 6 (Ends involuntary work for prisoners) NO. Unclear where in the State prison work is involuntary servitude.
STATE MEASURE 32 ($18/hr minimum wage). YES. Minimum wage was originally intended for low skill entry level jobs often for students living at home, start up jobs, etc. Today however they are for paying people who need to stick together several minimum wage jobs, or for whom the minimum wage job is their only job while raising a family, etc. Existing minimum wage is nowhere near a livable wage. This is a very minor but needed step toward an actual living minimum wage.
STATE MEASURE 33 (local rent control): NO. While local rent control is overall beneficial, the sweeping wording of this measure would allow a possibly well meaning but misguided City Council to extend rent control to single family residences and condos. The lack of this safeguard cancels its possible good effects.
STATE MEASURE 36 (crime penalty increase) YES. Reduces mounting “petty” crime
PRESIDENT: Kamala Harris/Tim Walz
US SENATOR (full-term): Adam Schiff
US SENATOR (Unfinished term): Adam Schiff
In making your selection think for yourself and be sure to vote in person or by mail. See the website below on how to vote:
https://www.lavote.gov/home/voting-elections/current-elections/find-my-election-information
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
