By Frank Gruber
May 18, 2009 -- The Santa Monica City Council could not make all the decisions that the City's staff wanted it to make at last Tuesday evening's council meeting about how to spend nearly $300 million in redevelopment money, but the council members made a good start.
The fact is that although staff wants the council to make decisions, their own reports to the council illustrate how unclear the factual context is. In the supplemental staff report for the meeting, staff conceded that it was unlikely that several projects they suggested in their staff report for the April 14 meeting would not be ready to bond within the applicable deadlines.
This admission was a gift to those who want the City to use redevelopment money for joint-use projects at Santa Monica High School.
The projects that staff said would not be ready were the expansion of Memorial Park onto the Fisher Lumber site, and street improvements to Lincoln and Pico Boulevards. The redevelopment money estimated for these projects totaled $33 million (although staff continued to recommend that $4 million be allocated for their planning).
The Samohi proponents, focusing on these potentially liberated millions, as well as arguing that other more routine projects could, should and likely would be funded from other sources, argued to the council that the redevelopment authority would have enough money to bring the allocation for the Samohi projects over $100 million.
The proponents had been asking for "full funding" of their $230 million master plan, but when council members, notably Bobby Shriver, asked them if they really expected to get that much, they conceded that something over nine figures was what they (and the School Board) would realistically need to have faith that the projects could move forward.
Although the views of the members varied, overall the council was receptive, and ultimately agreed on a motion from Robert Holbrook that (i) directly increased the allocation to the Samohi projects to fund the first phase (an increase from $46 million to about $58 million), and (ii) put enough other projects in limbo to give the Samohi proponents hope that their projects would ultimately receive the funds they want.
In adopting Mr. Holbrook's motion, council also prioritized $25 million in shared Civic Center parking (likely to be spent as part of the Samohi plan), a new branch library in the Pico Neighborhood, developments in and around the Expo line transit stations, the childcare center at the Civic Center, other park and cultural projects at the Civic Center, and the planning for Memorial Park.
All other projects were put into limbo pending staff's providing of more information. Everything is likely to come before the council again on June 9.
There is one political aspect of this matter than I want to report on. This meeting epitomized one development I would have had a hard time predicting only a few years ago, namely, the convergence of the views of Mayor Ken Genser and with those of Chris Harding, local land use attorney and leader of the business community's "loyal" opposition to Santa Monicans for Renters Rights.
Over the 15 years or so that I have known the two of them, what I have heard from them was a near constant refrain of some combination of disagreement, distrust and disdain of the other -- although tempered always with respect for the other's abilities. Perhaps what explains this is that Messrs. Genser and Harding both consider themselves to be logical thinkers and have high confidence in their decisions -- yet they often took opposing sides on important issues. (Not that they couldn't at times find agreement on, for instance, the downtown Target or the plans for the Civic Center, or more recently to oppose Measure T on the Nov. 2008 ballot.)
|
And so it was remarkable for me to watch last week's council meeting, during which (i) Mr. Harding was the speaker for the Samohi proponents who spoke most authoritatively about what the projects truly needed, and where the money could come from, and (ii) Mayor Genser was the council member who not only carried more of Mr. Harding's water than anyone else, but also exceeded him rhetorically when it came to describing the benefits the city could reap from the Samohi projects.
This is good; it shows that politics need not be a matter of personalities, but can be based on substance.
* * *
I've tried, but there is no avoiding the six state propositions on tomorrow's ballot.
My first response is one word, and it's not an English one: Oy.
What's a good liberal like me to do? My usual guru for all things to do with California politics, former State Senator Sheila Kuehl, says she might vote for 1C, but otherwise will vote no. That sounds all right, but then I get an email from the California League of Conservation Voters, and they say vote yes on all of them.
Everywhere you go, it's like that. Among people you trust -- some for, some against; among people you don't trust -- the same.
What's clear is that no one can in fact predict the future -- what will happen if the propositions pass or fail. In that sense, anyone who tries to approach them logically is on a fool's errand.
So, with that disclaimer, let me disclose that after careful thought this is what I'm going to do: vote yes on all of them (other than the silly 1F).
Why? Because California is ungovernable, yet the five propositions represent what our governor and our representatives (or at the least the Democrats and a few Republicans among them) tried to do, against terrible odds, in the name of governing. For that they deserve our support and encouragement (to do better).
Sure, the propositions don't solve anything forever and will likely have bad impacts. But who should expect perfection? The most rabid anti-government forces in California are against the propositions; don't let them win.
* * *
One more thought that arises from both the question of how to spend the redevelopment money and the California budget crisis: at a time when we have come to understand that our economy has been driven too much by consumerism and not enough by investment, our politics is riven by a divide between those who are suspicious of public investment (and the taxes it requires) and those who are suspicious of private investment (and the profits it requires).
So good luck to us all.
Meeting notice:
Tonight at 7:00 the City's planning department will be holding an important scoping meeting for the environmental review of the update to the land use and circulation elements (LUCE) of the City's general plan. The location is the East Wing of the Civic Auditorium.
|
