OpinionCommentary 4
A newspaper with issues
MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
PUBLISHER
My Write
Footing affordable housing bill Editor:
(Re: “Rents just keep on rising in this town,” March 12, page 1) For the sake of argument I will accept all the assumptions made by Mr. Herrera in his article. According to Mr. Herrera, rent control provides the City of Santa Monica with many important benefits. The article states that “rent control is a serious crisis that will dramatically affect life decisions” and “is a big issue because of the loss of economic diversity.” Santa Monica greatly benefits by having a wide range of people with different economic, political and social life styles living in our City. Now since we all agree on the vital importance of diversity, and we all agree that rent control is a positive tool in guarantying this diversity, then why are we the people and why is the City of Santa Monica so willing to put this tremendous responsibility on the backs of a relatively few number of people? It’s time for the City and the people of Santa Monica to step up to the plate and put their tax dollars where their mouths are. It’s time for a City-wide tax to subsidize affordable rental housing. We all benefit and we all should shoulder the burden. This seems like the only practicable, fair and sustainable long-term solution. By the way, I’m paying a lot more for a loaf of bread these days, but thank goodness those who need assistance in purchasing groceries don’t have to rely on the store owners to lower their prices, but have the benefits of food stamps paid for by our tax dollars. Lets do the same for Santa Monica renters.
Jack L. Allen Santa Monica
British monarch soup Editor:
I see much reference lately to Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II in the media recently due to movies about them , I think. The references often do not say which country she was queen of. They were queens of different countries. Firstly of England and secondly of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was formed in 1603 from the Kingdom of Scotland, the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales and Ireland. They were united under a single monarch, King James VI of Scotland. It was agreed that since there had never been a King James of England it would make no sense to call him King James VI of Great Britain and so he became King James I of Great Britain. On the same principle there has never been a queen Elizabeth of Scotland and so the present queen is Queen Elizabeth I of Great Britain. This was a great controversy in 1952 when she became queen. Many Scots were insulted by the arrogant English calling her Queen Elizabeth II when she quite plainly was not. Great fun was had in Scotland blowing up mail boxes with “E II R” on them. From a Scottish point of view, the rightful royal family was the Stuarts (Bonnie Prince Charlie) but the English refused to have him on the throne even though he was most directly in line. But he was a Catholic and the English wanted a Protestant and so they wandered along the family tree till they found a very obscure member in Europe. They took princes from Holland and Saxe-Coburg Gotha in Germany and stuck them on the throne. That gave them a line of German speaking King Georges, the third of whom was mad and lost the American Colonies. The name of the British royal family was Battenberg until WWI when it was an embarrassment to be too German and was changed to Windsor. As a result of the continual use of foreign princes, it was not until Princess Elizabeth (later QEI of G.B.) was born that an heir to the throne in the house of Windsor had as much as 50 percent British blood (because her mother was Scottish). So the present queen of GB is erroneously titled . She is not queen of England since there is no such Kingdom and only a fraction of her blood is English. I don’t suppose they mentioned that in the movies.
Neil Macaulay Santa Monica
Bill Bauer
Ross Furukawa ross@smdp.com
Send comments to editor@smdp.com
Campaign reform for all candidates IN ORDER TO COUNTER INDEPENDENT
“big money” influence on local elections, the City Council recently debated a staff recommendation that would grant council candidates — who meet minimum qualifications — up to $100,-000 in taxpayer money to “level the playing field.” Never mind that this will have no effect on the amount independent Political Action Committees spend — which is made possible by the Constitution. One issue on the table has to do with “equalizing” lavish campaign expenditures by outside interests. For example: Last year, Edward Thomas Management Company, the Beverly Hills based owner of Casa Del Mar and Shutters of the Beach, spent more than $500,000 through a PAC created out of a phony citizen issues group. Their PAC supported two City Council candidates and attacked a third. However, big spending hotels and special interests aren’t the only parties guilty of “shabby tricks” that need reforming. Last Fall, the “Friends of Safe and Clean Santa Monica Beaches -- Yes on Proposition V" hired Santa Monica for Renters’ Rights Co-Chair, Denny Zane, to advise their ballot proposal that would implement a new “property” tax to fund projects to curb stormwater pollution of Santa Monica Bay. According to disclosure statements posted online by the City Clerk’s office, Zane’s political consultancy, Urban Dimensions, was paid $10,000 for services to “V” — not counting any commissions earned on media or referrals. Zane was a former Councilman and mayor during the 1980s and early 1990s. Today, he still wields substantial political clout and makes a living consulting on local campaigns. His clients include Santa Monica College among others. Previous clients included 41st Assembly candidate, Julia Brownley and a variety of local organizations promoting various public school parcel taxes and school and college construction bond proposals. Zane wins campaigns for his clients because, as SMRR co-chair, he can influence the powerful renter organization to endorse his client and/or causes. SMRR’s endorsements carry a lot of weight with voters. Nowhere in campaign mailers is it disclosed that the SMRR co-chair has a vested interest in certain measures or campaigns being endorsed — let alone that SMRR-supported revenue measures (if approved) almost always lead to tax and rent increases. I pay about $25 to $30 in charges added onto my monthly rent because of Zane-backed, SMRRendorsed proposals approved by voters. Parcel taxes and bond expense are passed onto tenants by landlords with the permission of the SMRR-laden Rent Control Board. Behind the scenes politicking often involves getting landlords to “buy into” a measure well before the election. Landlords are “unofficially” informed that the RCB will allow a pass-along of tax expense to tenants if the measure wins — months ahead of an official RCB vote. This may lead some to ask:
“Who influences the RCB?” It is plain to see that SMRR and Zane are pulling the strings. It’s like a restaurateur writing food reviews for the local newspaper and praising his own eatery. It may not be illegal but it’s unethical and it stinks. If Zane wants to make a living pedaling his political prowess to local campaigns, he should resign as SMRR co-chair. I’ll also be watching to see if the water pollution and environmental engineering and construction firms — from as far away as Colorado — who contributed tens of thousands of dollars to “Yes on V" are hired when actual wastewater mitigation work begins. All sorts of outside interests pony up money to promote candidates or measures they can profit from — and we often pay for it. This practice needs to be outlawed or be subject to full disclosure before election day.
EDITOR Michael Tittinger editor@smdp.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Daniel Archuleta daniela@smdp.com
STAFF WRITERS Kevin Herrera kevinh@smdp.com
Melody Hanatani melodyh@smdp.com
PARENTING Nina Furukawa nina@smdp.com
STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER Fabian Lewkowicz fabianl@smdp.com
PHOTOGRAPHY INTERN Christine Chang news@smdp.com
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES Robbie P. Piubeni rob@smdp.com
Rob Schwenker schwenker@smdp.com
ADVERTISING ASSISTANT Cynthia Vazquez advertising@smdp.com
TRAFFIC MANAGER
THIS MAY LEAD SOME TO ASK: ‘WHO INFLUENCES THE RCB?’ IT IS PLAIN TO SEE THAT SMRR AND ZANE ARE PULLING THE STRINGS. IT’S LIKE A RESTAURATEUR WRITING FOOD REVIEWS FOR THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER AND PRAISING HIS OWN EATERY.
Connie Sommerville connies@smdp.com
PRODUCTION MANAGER Tessa Vergara tessav@smdp.com
PRODUCTION ASSISTANT Frances Casareno production@smdp.com
CLASSIFIEDS SALES MANAGER Annie Kotok anniek@smdp.com
CIRCULATION Keith Wyatt Glenn Bolan glennb@smdp.com
NEWS INTERNS Irene Manahan Kristin Mayer
SPECIAL PROJECTS Dave Danforth dave@smdp.com
According to year-end disclosure reports, ETMC “loaned” $45,000 to “Yes on V.” So while “V’s” consultant, Zane made cozy with hotel management supporting his client’s measure, some of these very same hotels were blowing $100,000-plus on a smear campaign targeting SMRR’s council candidate, Kevin McKeown. The only way voters can find out about any of this is by wading through hundreds of pages of disclosures posted online — months after the election! Grand giveaways of money to candidates is a stupid idea and a huge waste of money. Here’s what needs to be done: (1) Require full disclosure of PAC and independent committee memberships — and in a timely manner. (2) Prohibit last minute donations within 48 hours of an election to allow time for reporting. (3) Implement term limits. And last but not least, Santa Monica’s news media must be much more vigilant. What do you think?
EDITOR-AT-LARGE Carolyn Sackariason csackariason@smdp.com
A newspaper with issues 1427 Third Street Promenade, #202 Santa Monica, CA 90401 OFFICE (310) 458-PRESS (7737) FAX (310) 576-9913
Visit us online at smdp.com
The Santa Monica Daily Press is published six days a week, Monday through Saturday. 19,000 daily circulation, 46,450 daily readership. Circulation is audited and verified by Circulation Verification Council, 2006. Serving the City of Santa Monica, and the communities of Venice Beach, Brentwood, West LA. Members of CNPA, AFCP, CVC, Associated Press, IFPA, Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce. Published by Newlon Rouge, LLC
BILL can be reached at mr.bilbau@gmail.com
© 2006 Newlon Rouge, LLC, all rights reserved.
OPINIONS EXPRESSED are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Santa Monica Daily Press staff. Guest editorials from residents are encouraged, as are letters to the editor. Letters will be published on a space-available basis. It is our intention to publish all letters we receive, except those that are libelous or are unsigned. Preference will be given to those that are e-mailed to editor@smdp.com. All letters must include the author’s name and telephone number for purposes of verification. Letters also may be mailed to our offices located at 1427 Third Street Promenade, Suite 202, Santa Monica, 90401, or faxed to (310) 576-9913. All letters and guest editorials are subject to editing for space and content.