A Transplant's Perspective on the Beauty of Santa Monica and Proposition A

By Tom Cleys

I grew up in Chicago, one of the great architectural cities of the world, in a regular working class neighborhood built largely in the 1890s. In the 1960s, I saw beautiful, irreplaceable old homes and commercial buildings, many of them in need of repair and updating, being torn down and replaced with bland, non-descript blonde brick buildings built as large as the law allowed. It is a phenomenon comparable to what we see going on in many areas of Santa Monica today.

Demolition in Chicago went on for some time. And then something changed. Slowly but surely, people began to realize the beauty in the old buildings; the craftsmanship, the unique quality of materials, and the more appealing scale and neighborhood-friendly character of the older structures. They also recognized that these older, beautiful buildings provided a sense of permanence for the community, and they became an example of the citizens' respect for their past.

Today, Chicago is filled with historic districts and landmarks. Not only have many new people moved into the city, but many of the long-time residents have come to appreciate what was special about their neighborhoods -- qualities that they had lost sight of. This phenomenon is not unique to Chicago. As our cities age, historic preservation has become a growing trend across the country. And, yes, it has now come to California.

In the case of Santa Monica, it came with the passage of our preservation ordinance 26 years ago when the Santa Monica Pier, a treasure to our citizens and Southern California as a whole, was threatened with demolition.

What California and Santa Monica are known for worldwide is their residential architecture. We have unique Spanish Revival, Craftsman, and mid-century modern homes and buildings. We have some of the most innovative residential architects and builders found anywhere in the world.

Proposition A, however, advocates a backwards step for our city. An irreversible step. If we value our heritage of great residential architecture, we should vote against Proposition A. If we respect our California history, which goes back to the missions of Junipero Serra, we should vote against Proposition A.

Los Angeles has a preservation law that is similar to Santa Monica's, and Los Angeles has 14 historic districts plus 17 more that people are clamoring for. What do the people of Los Angeles see that some in Santa Monica do not?

The people of L.A. have seen that the sense of community is enhanced by historic districts. They have acknowledged that their architectural past is worthy of respect. And they have experienced the increase in property values that, as independent studies have demonstrated time after time, occur as a result of historic preservation. Ask any savvy real estate broker including those who exclusively sell historic and architecturally significant properties.

Historic properties are unique. They carry a cachet and create a sense of community that people value and are willing to pay a premium for. To live in these properties, owners are willing to invest "sweat equity" and the money necessary to repair and restore them. All of this creates value for the individual property owner and for the community.

So when supporters of Proposition A come knocking on my door asking me why should anyone in City Hall tell me what to do with my house, I say:

• What is at stake here is what we, the citizens of Santa Monica, want our city to look like - now and for future generations.
  
  
• Historic preservation is a good thing.
  
  
• It creates community.
  
  
• It gives our neighborhoods a sense of character and permanence.
  
  
• It allows us to save the best of our cultural treasures.
  
  
• And yes, it's money in my pocket as a property owner.

Vote FOR history, FOR your neighborhood and FOR your pocket book.

I will be voting NO on Proposition A.