The 2006 Election: City Council, Part 1

By Frank J. Gruber

Now that my idol Steve Lopez has chimed in on the Santa Monica election in two columns for the L.A. Times, I don't know what I'm going to do.

After all, a reason for writing this column is that big media doesn't care about or understand local politics. That gap in coverage leaves an opening for pundits like me, but readers are stuck with the opinions of those who (to borrow a Calvin Trillin observation about writing for The Nation) get paid in the "mid two figures."

Having Mr. Lopez writing about the election is intimidating. After all, in one of his columns he quoted former City Council member Kelly Olsen. This makes me wonder: if when Mr. Olsen was on the Planning Commission I had spent more time quoting him than I did making fun of him, would I have a column on a metropolitan daily, too?

Oh well, this is no time for regrets.

If you read my Matrix column yesterday, you already know that I don't believe the stakes are big in this year's Santa Monica City Council election. I'll add to that and say that all five candidates who have the money or endorsements to be viable -- incumbents Robert Holbrook, Kevin McKeown and Pam O'Connor, and challengers Gleam Davis and Terry O'Day -- are good candidates.

I don't mean to imply that there haven't been times when there were big political differences in Santa Monica. There was rent control, for instance, and the initial round of confronting the "growth machine" in the 80s. There were big battles over how to treat the homeless issue fifteen years ago before there was compromise and consensus. More recently, the living wage for private workers in the Coastal Zone was a real ideological battle.

But lately -- perhaps because moderates Pam O'Connor and Bobby Shriver usually wield the controlling votes or set the tone on the Council, much as Paul Rosenstein did for a couple of years in the 90s -- the ideological disputes seem muted and differences are small.

Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights, i.e., Santa Monica's political party most anxious to stay in power, may say that Santa Monica is "for sale," and that voting for anyone other than those they endorse, i.e., voting for incumbent Bob Holbrook and Planning Commissioner Terry O'Day, will lead to a Council "that will care more about business than about residents," but it's hard to imagine Messrs. Holbrook and O'Day, along with Council Members Herb Katz and Bobby Shriver, selling out the people who live here.

Santa Monicans for Sensible Priorities, i.e., the anti-union Slatkin brothers, Edward and Thomas, who co-own Shutters and Casa del Mar through their Edward Thomas Company, may say that incumbent Kevin McKeown has a radically more permissive attitude toward the homeless than his colleagues on the council, but his and their votes don't show it.

Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, i.e., self-appointed representatives of the people, may say that incumbent Pam O'Connor defied "widespread community opposition" not to oppose Macerich's plan to replace Santa Monica Place, and instead asked the developer to return with another plan, when "several" other council members went "on record opposing it," but the fact is that the City Council's January 25, 2005 vote to enter into a development agreement with Macerich based on a new process and plan was 6-0, with only Bob Holbrook absent. (If you don't believe me, read the Lookout's story.)

The rules of this column are that I don't make endorsements, and this year I am happy for the rules, because I'm having a hard time choosing among the five candidates -- not that I have agreed or probably would agree with any of them all the time. Here is what I think of them, incumbents first, in alphabetical order, then -- tomorrow -- the challengers:

Robert Holbrook looks to me to be a different council member from the one of say, ten or even five years ago. Then he seemed to epitomize an old-fashioned North of Montana, leafy suburb, disengaged from the real world mentality. Today, in addition to his general support of the schools and Santa Monica College, he seems to care a lot more about issues like transit and making sure Santa Monica is affordable to the next generation.

Although in the past I disagreed with his opposition to the living wage and Target, among other important issues, and he joined the knee-jerk vote in January to derail the LUCE process to appease no-growthers, his concept of public purpose seems to have expanded in recent years. Perhaps it's been the influence of Bobby Shriver, but Mr. Holbrook has shown a more positive attitude toward programs for the homeless and of all the candidates this year, he makes the most mention of the importance of solving the gang violence problem in the Pico Neighborhood.

Kevin McKeown also seems to have grown in political stature even as he has lost -- through diet and exercise -- a lot of his physical presence. On the planning issues that define politics for so many in Santa Monica I have disagreed with Mr. McKeown probably more often than I have disagreed with any other member of the Council, but for his constituents, and in many other respects, he is an admirable representative.

It's reassuring to know that no matter what meeting you go to in Santa Monica, Mr. McKeown will likely be there. He has become "Council Member Pothole" and that's not a bad thing. He's also a council member who reads and pays attention to progressive thinking. Although I suspect Mr. McKeown will always be the darling of no-growthers, in fact his views have "grown" from across the board opposition to development to something more nuanced.

Always a supporter of low-income affordable housing, he has become a supporter of building workforce housing and, in certain circumstances, the market-rate housing that is needed to pay for the affordable. Mr. McKeown took the lead in supporting housing at the Civic Center and at Santa Monica Place, for instance.

Mr. McKeown was also the only council member who understood the issues relating to downtown parking and voted against acquiring land for parking that downtown may never need -- a vote that the Slatkin Brothers are now using against him. Needless to say, I am also happy he's left the Green Party and become a Democrat.

My qualms about Mr. McKeown are that he does not show respect for his opponents. He is too quick to challenge the motives of people he disagrees with or disapproves of. Their views are tainted by self-interest, but Mr. McKeown's supporters and constituents are always altruistic.

This attitude is at best naïve. No one, for instance, from the left or the right, or from the "residents" or the business community, has come up with policies that solve all of Santa Monica's problems.

Pam O'Connor has become the most independent-minded of all the council members. Sometimes this makes me want to cringe -- such as when she berated the supporters of school funding (talk about not respecting your opponents) -- but mostly I admire her.

When she began her tenure on the council twelve years ago, Ms. O'Connor seemed to be overly under the influence of more senior, SMRR colleagues. But now of all the council members, she has the widest breadth of knowledge of urban issues. Perhaps this has come from engagement with the bigger world by way of the M.T.A. Board -- which she will chair next year if reelected to the council.

Ideologically, Ms. O'Connor sits right in the middle of Santa Monica politics. If you review the Matrix, you will find very few times when she has been on the losing side of a vote. Ironically, the Coalition's hit piece tries to make hay that neither the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce nor the Santa Monica Democratic Club endorsed her. If you know much about the political savvy of those organizations, you would take that as a compliment.

Tomorrow -- the challengers.

* * *

One additional note regarding the Matrix. In yesterday's column I forgot to mention, as I had for the 2004 Matrix, that if any reader believes I missed an important vote, please email me and I'll consider including the vote in another column this week.